Before you grab your torches and pitchforks let me explain. Sometime around 2009 I was a recent college drop out working at a liquor store and indulging in the finer smokes. Naturally I spent my time trying to figure out the universe.

Several years prior the Ron Paul revolution had prompted me to get into libertarianism and Austrian economics, the latter of which I found especially fascinating. Unlike all the other schools of economics, Austrian econz made assumptions and used them to explain rather than attempting to follow the Popperian version of the scientific method which sought to gather quantitative data and formulate mathematical models in order to make falsifiable predictions.

By 2009 I felt I had a fairly solid understanding of the basics, but the idea of having a “methodological dualism” between economics and natural science was bothersome. Why should there be different methods? It was around this time that I googled “a priori physics,” a move that would eventually lead to me travelling to Salzburg, Austria in April of 2014.

Somehow that google search led me to an article critical of a man named Bill Gaede. My interest was piqued. A further search revealed that Gaede had made a website called “you stupid relativist” which looked like some weird piece of shit website made in the 90s. Upon loading the site you are greeted by a loud and annoying “cuckoo” noise (if you are using the wrong browser, that is), and if that’s not enough to put you off the bizarre images of Gaede (I can only assume using Microsoft paint) superimposed with rock star physicists will surely do the trick.

Turns out Gaede used to be a good ole ‘Murican (originally Argentine), that is until he “stole” (as a libertarian I have to put that in quotes) computer chip design blueprints from AMD and Intel and provided them to the Cubans to help with the Revolution. The entire story is actually quite fascinating, they’re just finishing up a documentary about it in Argentina called “El Crazy Che.” Gaede ended up spending three years in US federal prison for his subversion before being cast into exile from the Empire. During that time he discovered the Rope model of light, a discovery which would eventually lead to the development of Thread Theory.

When I first stumbled upon Gaede’s website I was highly skeptical. I had done a great deal of research trying to understand modern physics yet I could never find any satisfying explanations. The internet being the internet I had come across many “alternative” theories and all of them seemed just as nonsensical. The shittyness of Gaede’s website didn’t help either, he clearly was not concerned about marketing.

Nevertheless the more I read the more I couldn’t stop reading. Finally I had discovered something which seemed sensible and straight forward. I’ll attempt to distill the ideas down in this article.


The natural symbiosis between Austrian economics and Gaede’s physics made me believe that the two schools of thought would easily form an alliance. I could not have been more incorrect in that belief.

Over the years I attempted to bring Gaede’s ideas to libertarian circles only to be met with ridicule and derision. On the other side the proponents of Gaede’s physics were not impressed with Austrian economics. Gaede had also developed a theory of extinction which centered around his “natural economics,” and he regards Austrian econz to be just as irrational as the rest of the economic schools of thought.

Despite all of this I am still confident that it is worth spreading Gaede’s ideas in libertarian circles. There’s too many parallels. So here goes nothing.

The first criticism I am always met with when I proclaim that modern physics is horseshit is “technology, stupid.” “You couldn’t even type on your computer without quantum mechanics, you fucking retard.” Relax. In order to deal with this criticism it’s vitally important to distinguish between prediction and explanation, a distinction that the proponents of modern physics will labor tirelessly to blur.

explanation and prediction

I’ll begin with the simple example of the apple. Ole Newt got clunked on the head with one whilst sitting under a tree and it gave him a bright idea: perhaps he could create a mathematical model to predict what the apple would do when he dropped it.

The predictor begins by doing experiments. He drops the apple over and over and over and based upon his empirical observations he can make a prediction about what will happen if he drops the apple again. He can even go so far as to bamboozle the public into getting tax dollars to buy expensive equipment and make super precise measurements of the whole spectacle.

Those measurements can allow for the development of equations which can predict what will be measured given certain initial conditions. In this way, prediction is entirely empirical, i.e., experience based. You predict what will happen in the future based upon your experience of the past. It’s called pattern recognition and humans are particularly adept at it.

All of technology is developed in this way. Humans tinker around and based upon trial and error they can manipulate their environment to produce a desired result. In no way does it require the ape to understand the underlying mechanism behind how something works, they just know how to get it to work.

Every single principle of engineering, every single equation, stems from experience. I spent a few years in college in mechanical engineering so I’ve had the displeasure of navigating the integrals of Newtonian mechanics, fluid dynamics, electric circuitry, optics, magnetism, etc. These equations were born out of endless experiments and measurements, they are experience based.

The variables represent quantities which relate a unit of measurement to that which is being measured. Example: two feet. Two feet is a relation between the foot and that which is being measured. The ape lines his measuring stick end to end with the subject of his measurement and counts how many times he can do it.

Mathematical equations in physics just describe how measured quantities relate to one another. What is crucially important here is that quantities and equations do not dictate the objects involved. Example: velocity. Three feet per second (I refuse to use your communist metric system). 3 ft/s alone doesn’t tell us what the hell is happening. Are we talking the motion of a particle? The propagation of a wave through a medium? The torsional motion along a twisted rope?

This why the term “physical interpretation” is used. For any given measurement, equation, or observation there are a variety of possible physical interpretations which could explain what is happening. As a result equations cannot prove explanations because there are always a variety of possible explanations which can be used to interpret an equation. Explanations are not contingent upon empirical experience, they are based on assumptions and used to understand experience.

Getting back to the apple example…we can use Newtonian mechanics to predict how fast the apple will be falling after three seconds. But making measurements or doing experiments in no way explains the physical mechanism behind what causes the apple to fall. Surely there is some physical mechanism in reality which we cannot see that pulls the apple toward the Earth.

Likewise, there is no need to explain technology in order to get it to work. Thousands of years of accumulated experience and refinement have allowed for the development of advanced technology, but in no way does that mean the apes understand the underlying structure of reality which makes it possible. I can build a motor using magnets but that does not mean I understand the mechanism behind magnetism. My computer does not prove quantum mechanics. The equations of QM may predict with incredible accuracy what will be measured but that does not constitute an explanation for what is physically going on.

Currently there are many conflicting (and irrational) physical interpretations for QM so what exactly has been proven? At best you could assert that the equations have been “proven,” i.e., they have not been falsified by experiment. But my computer doesn’t prove that there are multiple universes or whatever. Equations are descriptive, not explanatory, no matter how accurate they are they don’t prove anything about physical objects. They merely relate quantities which themselves require a theory about objects to even interpret and understand.


For thousands of years philosophers have debated the nature of truth and they have yet to come to any kind of conclusion. The problem is that truth ultimately is an emotionally based concept, no matter how much you fight with it truth always resolves to nothing more than your personal opinion.

Not a single philosopher has ever been able to define it in an unambiguous, non-contradictory, non-circular, non-synonymous manner. The term cannot be used consistently. Truthers, as I like to call them, like to take a statement like “there is no truth,” and say, “Aha! But is that statement true!?” Drop the mic! QED!

The problem is that they still haven’t defined the term “truth.” I could just as easily say, “There is no blarg.” Would anyone respond with, “Aha! But is that statement blarg??” Of course not, they’d say, “What the fuck is blarg?”

The truther is utilizing an implied notion of truth without actually strictly defining it and concluding that they’ve discovered some kind of contradiction. But it’s impossible to find contradiction in a statement whose key terms have been left undefined. The statement isn’t contradictory or false it’s simply unintelligible. The concept of truth always involves comparisons and degrees, it’s inseparable from opinion. If anyone disagrees with me here they are free to define the term truth such that it can be used consistently.


But I don’t want to try to dive too deeply into the truth issue here, I more want to focus on the concept of rationality. After all if there is no truth then does that mean everything is subjective? We are all at the whim of personal opinions? Is there no solid ground for anything? First I’ll define the term rational.

Rational – describes any communication whose key terms have been defined to the point where there is only a single possible interpretation for them, i.e., where everyone understands the same thing

A definition is a limitation on the usage of a term, its purpose is to narrow the usage and distinguish one term from all the rest. Someone might look at my above definition and complain that it can’t be found in a dictionary and therefore it isn’t valid. They like to say you’re “re-defining” or “making things up.”

Anyone who makes these sorts of complaints just needs to explain what the objective criterion for a definition is. Typically they’ll say it has to be in a dictionary (i.e., it’s correct cause Lord Merriam said so), or it has to be used commonly, or we just have to agree on it.

None of these criteria are objective however as dictionaries change, usages change, agreement changes, none of them are consistent. Dictionaries in particular are not designed to be scientific, they simply document the common usages of terms. Almost every term in a dictionary has multiple sometimes conflicting definitions. In rational discourse dictionaries are irrelevant.

The goal is to define the key terms so narrowly that anyone who understands the definition will interpret and apply it in exactly the same manner. Therefore rationality and truth are entirely different concepts which have nothing to do with one another. Rationality is separate from any concept of belief, truth, proof, evidence, or knowledge. Rationality is about clarity and consistencyIf I use a term at point A in my dissertation it had better mean the exact same thing when I use it at points B and C. This is only possible if it has been strictly defined, otherwise it’s possible for the theorist, whether they realize what they are doing or not, to surreptitiously substitute various meanings for the same term throughout a dissertation. This sleight of hand is in fact the fundamental basis of every religion known to man, including modern physics.


A scientific definition must be unambiguous, non-contradictory, non-circular, and non-synonymous. It must be able to be used consistently throughout the dissertation. But if terms are always defined via other terms doesn’t that mean we end up in a big circular loop of synonymy?

The way you break out of circularity is simple: objects. Objects are not defined, they are visualized, and they form the basis of all conceptual thought. When I say, “the man runs down the street” you can visualize what I am talking about. I don’t have to define “man” or “street” because they are objects which can be visualized. I’ll define the key term object.

Object: that with shape

Because objects are visualized they are beyond language, language is just a means of referring to objects, or relations between objects (i.e., concepts).

Illustration is the most objective possible form of communication. When I say “ball” and show you a picture of a ball that is as objective as it gets. This goes right back to the physical interpretation issue discussed above.

The reason there are multiple possible physical interpretations for measurements or equations is because objects lie at the root of all conceptual thought. You cannot reduce any further than objects, and likewise any statement which hasn’t been strictly defined can be interpreted with multiple possible object based understandings. Is the concept of velocity referring to the motion of a particle or a wave or a rope or something else? Until you go to the root you’ll always have multiple possible interpretations because the “finest” possible understanding is rooted in objects.


Since time immemorial man has always attempted to explain things using particles or waves, which is only natural. Particles and waves can be found on the bank of a river: you have sand and flowing water.

The apes imagined that at the root of all this stuff there must be some immutable chunk of shape which cannot be divided any further. Yet neither particles nor waves can explain even the most basic of phenomena. What causes the apple fall? Does the Earth shoot little beads at it with the tenacity of an American black hawk helicopter? And if so why doesn’t the apple shoot off into space? Last time I checked firing a machine gun at someone doesn’t compel them to come towards you.

Currently there are two conflicting “theories”: General Relativity and Quantum Gravity. I shit you not, proponents of GR proclaim that “warped space” “pushes” you into the Earth. It really says something about the state of sanity in the world when you are labeled a “crank” for questioning this line of reasoning. Don’t take my word for it, here is the world renowned Michio Kaku giving us his expert testimony on the truth of warped space:

The problem is that “warped space” cannot be visualized, it is not rooted in objects. The term has no physical corollary, it’s unintelligible. This is why you are endlessly bombarded with “lower dimensional analogies” like those in the video above when you investigate GR. They can’t show you the “real deal” because it’s impossible to conceive. In the lower dimensional analogy they represent space as an object which pushes on the Earth. Of course many of us have seen the coin roll along the donation well.



Why does the coin roll along the well? Because the well is a physical object with shape that pushes on the coin. Relativists have unwittingly taken advantage of this basic understanding and used it to “explain” how warped space pushed on the Earth to keep it in orbit.

Some obvious questions would be…what is the black stuff that contours this “warped space” in the illustration and allows it to have shape? How does the Earth manage to travel uninhibited through all the other warped space walls which must permeate the universe given the pervasiveness of gravity? I mean, if warped space can push on the Earth, shouldn’t the blue dot be crashing through brick walls during its elliptical orbit?

Of course the gravity well is just a layman’s way of explaining GR, yet we aren’t given any physical explanation beyond that. “Warped space” and “pushes” are terms which clearly take advantage of an object based understanding, yet that’s not really what happens, apparently. So what are we left with then? Equations which make predictions (and shitty ones at that, hence dark matter).

GR doesn’t explain gravity, gravitational lensing, GPS discrepancies, or anything else. You can make predictions all day long it doesn’t affect the irrationality of the physical interpretation. If it cannot be imagined then it doesn’t refer to anything.

Many will say, “just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it’s not real.” Fine. But unfortunately we are trapped in our minds and if we cannot imagine any physical corollary for the terms being used then we cannot imagine any physical explanation involving those terms. In other words, without the ability to conceive there is no ability to explain, and without explanation you haven’t gotten anywhere in furthering your understanding. You may as well say  “God did it.”

There isn’t a single rational explanation in all of physics. All this talk of warped space, black holes, big bangs, higher dimensions, zero dimensional particles, particles popping in and out of existence, etc., is physically meaningless no matter how many mathematical symbols you string together. Don’t take my word for it, physicists agree that higher dimensions cannot be conceived:

So what are they talking about? After all this time physicists cannot produce a rational explanation for the simplest of phenomena, like the dropping of an apple. What we are left with is a whole slew of “lower dimensional analogies,” and the like. A bunch of images of electrons and warped space and Higgs bosons and black holes and big bangs which are never the “real deal” because the real deal cannot be illustrated or conceptualized. Every religion operates in this fashion. Traditional religions are filled with stories and illustrations, it’s just that there is never any consistency.

Likewise modern physics pretends as if there’s some physical explanation in there, physicists endlessly refer to objects and existence, yet they refuse to define these key terms.

“That’s just a bunch of word games for philosophers, we have measurements and equations!” But what objects/interaction is responsible for producing the phenomena that they are measuring in their experiments? They’ll never tell. Just in case you’re still ready to stab me with your pitchfork here’s Feynman admitting he can’t explain anything:

Why is Feynman so self-amused at the fact that he can’t explain anything? A lot of these guys have the same attitude…they’re almost proud when they admit no one understands quantum mechanics and none of what they’re saying makes any sense at all. It’s magical!

The electron transition example that Feynman mentions is a great one…where do the photons come from when light is emitted because an electron “jumps” to a different “energy” level? Are they created from nothing by God? Did the atom put the “infinite ammo” cheat code in? Here’s a brief list of nonsense that cannot be illustrated or conceived in modern physics:

1. Black holes

2. Big bangs

3. Warped space

4. Zero dimensional particles

5. Higher dimensions

6. Wave-particle duality

7. Energy

8. Fields

9. Forces

10. Singularities

11. Space-time


The alternative to the Popperian method is called the Rational Scientific Method (RSM). It’s so simple it’ll make you feel like a kid again.

In the Popperian method you tinker around in the lab, do an experiment, make some measurements, and then use that to make predictions. There is no requirement to be rational or to explain anything. For the most part what science has become is all about endlessly drawing correlations. It’s a big numbers game using complex looking math to intimidate the laymen into believing whatever the self-proclaimed experts say.

In the Popperian method what constitutes an hypothesis or theory or fact is a matter of personal opinion. If I’m incorrect in that statement then why do scientists take a vote in order to make such determinations? Science has been reduced to a democratic system because voting is the main way to resolve disagreements about opinion. There is no objective distinction between an hypothesis and a theory in the Popperian method, you have to hold a vote and see which way most of the experts lean. In the RSM these distinctions are objective. You don’t have to appeal to an external authority in order to make such determinations.


In the RSM, science is about one thing and one thing only: proposing possible explanations. The RSM has nothing to do with belief, truth, proof, evidence, or knowledge. At most evidence only enters the picture in the conclusion stage because the evidence (observations, measurements, experiments, etc.) is what we are trying to explain. The RSM thus comes in three stages, the first two of which are the most important:


1. Illustrate the objects of the theory

2. Provide the static definitions for the key terms

3. Paint the initial scene of the theory


1. Illustrate the behavior of the objects

2. Provide any dynamic definitions for the key terms


1. Connect the theory to any evidence

In the RSM an hypothesis never becomes a theory, and a theory certainly never becomes a fact. Hypothesis and theory are always and everywhere eternally separate categories, never the twain shall meet.

The hypothesis is like a freeze frame, a still image of objects. The theory is like a movie which illustrates how those objects behave. The distinction is objective and not dependent upon a vote, you don’t need to appeal to Bill Nye to figure out whether something is an hypothesis or a theory.

Basically the RSM is just a matter of proposing what exists and what it did. It’s simple and objective. Whether or not a theory is to be believed, whether it’s true, is a matter of an individual’s personal opinion. Once the theory has been communicated the presentation is over and science is done.


As stated above, the main ways in which man has always attempted to explain phenomena is by using either particles or waves. The latter is actually just particle theory in disguise whether the wave theorist realizes it or not.

“Wave” is a verb, not a noun, standalone waves cannot be illustrated or conceived. In order to have a wave you need both motion and a physical medium. “Wave” cannot be captured in an hypothesis, it requires a movie. And what is the medium in any wave theory? Particles.

It’s only natural that man would attempt to use particles, or atoms, to explain things. But particles cannot explain the most basic of phenomena, such as gravitational or magnetic attraction. How does one object shooting beads at another make them come toward one another? How does the atom stay in tact? Why don’t electrons go flying away from the nucleus? “Because forces” you will be told. You mean like Star Wars?

What exactly is a “force?” Does it have shape? Can it be illustrated? No? Then what is it, something you measured but cannot explain? Why does the apple fall towards the Earth? “Gravitational force.” Gravity refers to the phenomenon of attraction between objects, everyone sees the apple fall, but what physically causes it to fall?

After thousands of years it should be evident that particles cannot explain attraction. There must be something else happening, but what? Bill Gaede’s solution is not particles or waves but ropes. Under his theory matter is not comprised of discrete chunks. Matter is interconnected.


Under Thread Theory every atom is connected to every other atom via electromagnetic ropes. An atom is a convergence of these ropes from every other atom in the universe.

The ropes are comprised of two threads wrapped around one another like DNA without the rungs (amazing how the basic building block of life modeled itself after the fundamental structure of reality!). At the surface of the atom one thread breaks off and wraps around the nucleus to form the electron serpentine, the other penetrates to the center to form the proton dandelion. Seems insane, doesn’t it?

Once you get over the initial shock though you begin to realize just how many of the “contradictions” of modern physics can finally be explained rationally. At long last we can visualize what is happening with gravity and magnets and light and electricity!

This article is already trying to cover too much territory, I won’t get into Thread Theory, but this gives you a starting point if you’d like to investigate further (and aren’t ready to stab me with your pitchfork still).

Since I mentioned Feynman’s infinite ammo above however it’s worth resolving that little mystery as an example. Light is the torsional motion along a twisted rope. When the electron serpentine expands it takes in thread from every rope extending outward from an atom. When it contracts it releases thread back to every rope. This motion torques every rope and causes the phenomenon we know as light.

There aren’t little photon beads coming from nowhere and shooting out of the atom, light is a radial wave which extends outward in every direction along the ropes. The ammo is “infinite” because there is no ammo, light is just the motion along the ropes.

If you’d like to know more about TT Bill Gaede has made some excellent youtube videos.


The beauty of the RSM is that it completely removes authority from the equation. Whether something is rational or irrational is not contingent upon authority or belief or truth or evidence or proof or knowledge, the key terms can either be used consistently or they cannot. The individual can assess via critical thinking whether the theory is rational.

I’d compare it to something like bitcoin…each node verifies individually that they have the correct block chain. It is not necessary to take on faith second hand layman’s “explanations” which involve entities that cannot be illustrated or conceived.

While physics isn’t exactly something you might think of as being important to the struggle for liberty, the more I’ve thought about it the more important it seems. After all, theoretical physics is mostly a government funded boondoggle. Physicists are regarded as super intelligent experts which are beyond questioning for the most part. They are the ultimate gatekeepers, and when rock star physicists like Neil deGrasse Tyson start talking about issues that are highly political like global warming then suddenly it becomes useful to point out how incredibly irrational they are.

Additionally, I’ve had endless arguments on other subjects which somehow end up at quantum mechanics because the person wants to argue that, well, at the end of the day, reality is quirky and nothing makes sense, so to hell with rationality. Modern physics has robbed us of a great deal of common sense, of solid ground, I think it has had a real impact on the struggle for freedom.

The most important aspect of all of this is the issue of demanding explanations over mere correlations and numbers games. Science today is largely comprised of a network of industry, government, and academia all of which are closely linked. It’s been transformed into the most effective propaganda tool ever conceived, far more effective than the traditional religions could ever dream of. The only way this is possible is because of the Popperian scientific method…the emphasis is placed on statistics and correlations, both of which can be easily manipulated.

On top of all that you have a system of peer review which lends itself to censuring alternative theories and ingraining those theories which support the careers and prestige of the people in the positions of power. It’s a monopolistic enterprise used to diminish free expression of ideas, especially any ideas which would tend towards liberty in society. The RSM has the power to annihilate this monopoly.


You still want to get me with your pitchfork, don’t you? Fair enough. The 3rd Rational Physics Conference is coming up in May in Scotland. The 2nd one which I attended in April of 2014 was an incredible experience. The best part was eating dinner on top of a mountain and arguing physics with interesting people from all over the world.

Depending on circumstances I will likely be in Scotland in May. Hopefully some of the fine folks from the 2nd conference will have beer taps hooked up in the abandoned pub they purchased. If not we’ll be drinking beer anyways so come join us!

And I 100% welcome unbridled criticism and argument in the comment section here, or feel free to PM me. If you’d like to join the Facebook group, click here.