Einstein, a pillar of modern physics made of papier mâché *
My Singapore’s speech
“For a new vision of the universe
and of the meaning of life.”
I suppose you all know my name, the International Meetings published it in a leaflet. However, my name is Francis Sgambelluri, a free thinker.
The reason why I was invited to come to Singapore was due to the article I sent to the committee of molecular physics towards the end of 2018. The article talked about Einstein.
I would like to make it clear from the start that I have nothing against him. I just have to correct some of his ideas. That’s all.
I start by saying that my speech is divided in five parts.
First: “Einstein’s space, time, energy and relativity”
Second: “The real beginning of the universe”
Third: “Between nothingness of nothingness and the first proto-element”
Fourth: “Has man a sense in the world in which he lives?”
Ffth: “Space, soap bubble and gnomes” a fairy tale
These 5 titles could be subtitled in this way: the universe as it is and not as we want it to be.
I would like to precise from the beginning that science can demonstrate, one way or another, the event of the Big Bang, but surely not the origin of the universe. This event is out of its domain. Only if it uses the existing universe, the universe we know, and adopts a logical process of induction and deduction, of mental analysis and philosophical verification, only like that can come close to its very origin. This is, however, the method I have adopted in this work that I am going now to present to you.
In this first speech about Einstein’s space, time, energy and relativity, I will not be exhaustive, and even if I wanted, I wouldn’t be able to, I only want to underline some of his thoughts that, in my opinion, have nothing to do with science, but rather with his philosophy or his belief.
Another thing I would like to say is this, since I am not a scientist, therefore my way to talk about the universe and its laws is very simple, and this means that everybody can understand.
Einstein’s work is dominated mainly by these four words: space, time, energy and relativity. I will demonstrate in this chat that the first two, space and time, don’t exist in nature, the third, energy, is incorrectly used, and the fourth, relativity, is too vague to be commented properly. In other words, everything is relative. I’ll leave it out of our discussion.
I start by giving two examples: one has to do with the physical world and the other with the conceptual world or, if you prefer, one is objective and the other subjective.
These three letters,as you see them on the screen, M, I, D: “M” stands for matter, “I”stands for inner properties, and “D”stands for duration. We can see them also in this way: M equals I, I equals D, D equals duration. These 3 words represent the totality of the universe, the totality understood in this way: birth, life, death.
Now let’s take Einstein’s space,time and energyand let’s say thatspace is a concept, an invention if you want, time is also a concept or another invention, and energy another concept.
The Einstein’s “E” belongs to his famous equation: E=mc². Differently said, E stands for energy, M stands for mass, C stands for celerity, or the speed of light, and the number 2 stands for squared. In short, everything is relative, relative in the sense that things can be seen according to the moment, to the place and in various ways by each of us.
Simply put, if we make a comparison between my elementary equation M, I, D and Einstein’s famous equation E=mc², we see that my equation speaks about nature, instead, Einstein’s equation speaks about culture.
Now let’s take these three words one by one: space, time, energy and ask: What is space? What is time? What comes first energy or mass? Can anyone of you show me space? Can show me time? Can you show me that energy comes before mass?
I will explain now,in a very simple way, each of these three words. Let’s take the first: space.
Aristotle, the Greek philosopher,knew space better than Einstein when he said that space was the limit of an object. In fact, space is the space that takes an object in its location. The space, for example, the Milky Way takes in the universe, the space the Earth takes in the solar system, the space a painting occupies on a wall. Einstein’s space is not this. His space is a phenomenon like time, but space is not a phenomenon, space doesn’t exist, space is emptiness, space is devoid of elements. Space, if we see it in a wide perspective, is a gigantic vacuum, an infinite, spaceless, limitless concept where the entire universe, in comparison with space, is only a soap bubble that floats in it.
Now let’s take time. For instance, if I wanted to show you an apple, I would take one from the basket you see on the screen and show it to you. You would see it and you could even touch it and eat it if you wanted. If, instead, I wanted to show you time, how could I do it if it has neither body nor life nor form or spirit or property or substance, it has nothing at all, how could I then show time to you? Time cannot be smelled, felt, touched, eaten, seen, heard. In short, where is time, the time so much glorified by Einstein? Time is a mental product, but not for Einstein. For him time exists like you and me.
Energy. Einstein, in his equation says that energy is mass. This is correct only if we see first mass and after energy, not the other way around. In short, energy doesn’t exist without mass, but mass without energy does. The existence of energy depends on mass. No mass, no energy. Einstein’s equation, in order to give the right meaning to energy, should have been written M=ec² and not E=mc².
Let’s see now the difference between time and duration.
At the beginning of the 1920s, Einstein attacked the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, arguing that science knew it better than philosophy. Now, according to our knowledge, if time doesn’t exist, the “duration” of Bergson does exist. In fact, physical and biological bodies, including the body of Einstein, must not deal with time understood in an Einsteinian way, but with the durée of Bergson. Every phenomenon composed of atoms, molecules, matter, in the entire universe, must deal with Bergson’s duration and not with Einstein’s time. Perhaps, the philosophical intuition of Bergson was lacking in the touchy scientist.
Besides, time is not a verb, time is a noun without the article. We can say time as we say dog, house, car, but time as a verb is wrong. Since we have appeared on this planet, we haven’t done anything else, but only fill it with names of every kind. Names like gods, ghosts and demons are pure invention. It is different for the names like the Moon, the stones and the king, they are real. The Moon, at the beginning, we could have called it Marilyn, the stones roses and the king a thief, and today we would call the Moon Marilyn, the stones roses and the king thief. So we could say:
“Marilyn is having a solar eclipse today”.
For the stones you can go into a flower shop and ask:
“A bouquet of stones for my love, please!”
And for the king the people could say:
“The new thief had a new castle built all for himself!”
The Moon, the stones and the king correspond to real existing things, but not gods, ghosts and demons, they don’t correspond to any existing phenomena, therefore they don’t exist. They are only invented names, like space, time and energy.
I can’t say, for example, “A sequoia is temporalizing two thousand years,”I cannot. Correct is: “A sequoia is a hardwood tree that livestwo thousand years”.And why does it live two thousand years? Because it is composed of physical elements and they allow it to live two thousand years. A seasonal insect lives a season, a star like the Sun lives ten billion years and doesn’t “temporalize” ten billion years.
Diversely stated, the duration of a phenomenon, be it small or big, is relative to its physical composition. There are phenomena in nature whose existence last a moment. A neutron and an antineutron that collide at birth destroy one another, and others that live two thousand years like a sequoia or billions of years like a star. In these examples is not time that decides their duration, but their atomic composition and their structure.
Augustine of Hippo said that he knew what time was, but he was incapable of explaining it; it seems that Galileo weighed the time by making a hole in a basket and letting the water go through the hole; the hourglass, the sand clock, measures the time; even my grandmother’s alarm clock did it. In these examples, it is not the time that is in question, it is the amount of water and of sand and the size of the hole through which water and sand pass that decides the time or their exhaustion. For what concerns the cogs of the crown in my grandmother’s alarm clock, what decides time here is its speed. A day, with this system, can be 24, 12 or 48 hours, depends on the speed of the crown. What is in question in these examples, are the objects and the mind of Augustine, not time itself.
The history of time started in Greece with the presocratic philosophers, and more exactly withParmenides, fifth century BC, he was the first philosopher who attempt to deny the reality of time.
Newton believed that time was a gigantic clock put into operation by God.
Immanuel Kant, philosopher, believed in a psychological time.
For Julian Barbour, British physicist, time doesn’t exist.
For Lee Smolin, an American theoretical physicist, time does exist.
For Etienn Klein, a French physicist and philosopher, time is an illusion.
As you see, there is a lot of confusion about time. It’s like love, everyone can say what he wants. In any case, today, here in Singapore, you, you the audience and me, we are going to give, not only to time, but also to space, to gravity, to energy and to the universe, after so many wrong things and ideas that have been said about them, we are going to give their legitimate nature and beginning.
I’ll stop here for now with Mr Einstein, but I haven’t finished with him yet, we’ll come across his genius all throughout this speech.
In the next post, the second, I will talk about “The real beginning of the universe”.
* Unfortunately, “My Singapore Speech”, which should have taken place on October 16, 2019 in Singapore, was not successful either for me or for the many other lecturers who came from all over the world to talk about their work, that is of “Molecular and applied physics”, “Nephrology Asia”, “Cosmetology & Beauty”, “Medical Dermatology”, “Cosmology”, etc.
Here are some of their names:
Dr SKY DARMOS Germany
Dr ALEXANDER P. YEFREMOV Russia
Dr ALEXANDRA VOROBYEVA Russia
Dr DARMINTO Indonesia
Dr MASAHIKO HADA Japan
Dr JONG HYUN LEE Korea
Dr DELFIN ALEJANO Philippines
Dr DELFIN ALEJANO Philippines
Dr PATIENCE JONSON Nigeria
Dr AVNEET SINGH KALSI India
Dr HAMS DEYSSENROTH Germany.
Arriving at the “Holiday Inn, Singapore Atrium”, where the meetings were supposed to take place, there was no one from the Organizers to welcome us, not even Mrs Suzanne Smith who had advertised the conferences on the Web all the year through, and I expected to find her there. No, no one was there, just us, the cheated and disappointed lecturers.
Chow Kong Weng, the Holiday Inn Assistant Director of Catering, kept saying that he didn’t know anything despite the fact that his Singapore Atrium hotel had organized our meetings; Inspector Zhou PaoPao, from Singapore police, asked us to give him two weeks to find out the person/organization responsible for this fraud. 5 weeks have passed. I have written to him, but I have received no answer from him yet.
My case went like this. One day in October 2018 I saw a post on Facebook that talked about science, about physics and molecules. The thing intrigued me. I wrote an e-mail to this address proposing an essay entitled “Einstein, a pillar of modern physics made of papier-maché”. They answered asking me to send my essay, which I did. A few weeks later, I received an answer: the Reading Committee of the INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS liked my essay and I was invited to go to Singapore to talk about it.
I did some verification. You never know. I found that INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS & SCIENCE was connected to the University of Southampton. In fact, my registration was paid to CONFERENCESERIE.COM SOUTHAMPTON, England. I also found out that one of the scientists, Professor Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri, an Italian, taught at Cambridge University, was a writer, was one of the 100 most prominent scientists in the world and appeared on television. My verification stopped here. I thought I was in good company.
I prepared myself. The Meeting was to take place on 25/26 February 2019. Too early, but there was no choice. Then, fortunately, they moved it to 16/17 October of the same year. Much better like this.
After a year and more of telephone and e-mail contact with Mrs Suzanne Smith, and after applying for a new passport, paying the hotel, the travel and the registration, I finally left. I faced a journey of 10,500 km and a 12-hour flight with Singapore Airlines, joyful and happy.
Arrival in Singapore. Not bad as an Asian city of skyscrapers. I passed the visa control, I changed euros into local currency, I never stopped looking around with interest, it was all new and a real pleasure for me. I took the subway and, while I did all this, almost automatically, I imagined the place for the conferences, I imagined Mrs Suzanne Smith that I was about to meet, I imagined a lively and cheerful audience. I was happy, happy and joyful. The next day, October 16th, at 11 am, after so much work and preparation, I could finally give my lecture on Einstein in front of an international audience!
All this and much more to find out shortly afterwards that, the gentlemen who ran INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS were scammers!
I was cheated, we were cheated and in such a mean way! Clear, we want justice, we want to heap as much shame on this band of swindlers as we can. Theirs was not cultural and scientific meetings at an international level, but dishonour and planetary fraud. We of course also want to be reimbursed for all our expenses!
As for my work, “My Singapore Speech”, I’ll put it on Youtube, on my blog, on Twitter and on Facebook.
© Francis Sgambelluri