Before I say, “everything we thought we knew about physics is wrong” let me qualify that statement.

Modern physics isn’t wrong. It’s irrational. I know what you’re thinking. That’s silly, we have advanced technology. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can make extremely accurate predictions. Those GPS satellites need to be adjusted because of time dilation, those transistors wouldn’t be here without Quantum. Your computer wouldn’t function!

I have to be absolutely clear here — I am not denying whatsoever that Relativity and Quantum can make very accurate predictions. I am not denying that the application of mathematics in engineering can be indispensable to the development of technology. I am not denying the utility or predictive power of a single equation anywhere in physics. So let’s get that off the plate right away.

But technology is largely a process of trial and error which evolved slowly over the ages through the accumulation of practical knowledge. By that I mean countless individuals have tinkered around and figured out how to build things through continued practice and experience. They can share their insights with others and also benefit when innovations are shared with them. And subsequent to breakthroughs like Newton’s laws of motion mankind has realized it’s possible to discover equations which can consistently make predictions and act as principles of engineering thereby hastening the pace of technological advancement.

Yet the equations themselves are verified through empiricism like the technology that was originated through trial and error. The inquirer performs experiments, makes measurements, gathers results, and analyzes the data. He unearths from the data an eloquent equation which relates how the measured quantities vary with respect to one another. These equations can be tested and can make accurate predictions. They can help us design new things.

In all of these examples the method is empirical and based on experience. To put it succinctly: the end attainment of this process is of the form, “if I do X, Y will result.” If I drop the apple and let it fall for three seconds I will observe it to be measured at such and such velocity. If I put magnets into a certain constructed configuration I will have created a magnet powered motor. And so on and so forth.

The key is that practical knowledge, X then Y, in no way necessitates that the individual understand the underlying physical mechanism behind how X brings about Y. Advanced technology does not mean that we have unlocked how nature really operates at the most subtle levels. It just means that for thousands of years our skill and sophistication in knowing how to get things to work have increased exponentially. Even the most sophisticated computer chips in all their spectacular glory are the result of decades upon decades of incremental improvements with respect to their design and the utilization of the equations of electrical engineering which govern the operation of electric circuits.

The problem is that prediction has been confused with explanation. Physicists treat their physical explanations as if they were proven by their predictive equations. Equations relate physical quantities represented by variables, and they are derived and verified through observation. Formulating equations is just an advanced form of pattern recognition. As such they cannot dictate what objects are actually responsible for bringing about what is ultimately observed. At best the equations only provide hints about what might be happening physically. They do not lock you in to any particular scenario concerning what objects are involved. You can do the whole thing empirically without it mattering whether you understand the underlying phenomena occurring in reality.

Explanation however requires that assumptions be made about existence. Surely there is something happening in reality which continuously draws the apple towards the Earth, surely something is happening between magnets that attract them to one another. We can measure and quantify all day long but these invisible mechanisms can only be discovered by making explicit assumptions about the objects involved and their behavior.

Prediction is about observation and pattern recognition, and comes in the form, “given X conditions, Y will result.” Explanation is not contingent upon observation and comes in the form, “let us assume that X exists, and let us assume that it behaves in Y manner, that’s what explains Z.”

And explanation is not contingent upon observation for a reason: because the human mind’s ability to conceive is not limited by its sensory system. Obviously we cannot see the entity responsible for mediating gravity nor magnetism, we cannot see atoms, we cannot delve into the depths of the unfathomably small and say with any confidence that we know what is happening down there, even with the most powerful possible microscope or Large Hadron Collider. All we can do is use our intellects to conceive of the physical architecture of the entities responsible in order to produce a theory which may or may not be true. And the possible theories we could conceive to explain the same body of evidence (observations, experiments, measurements, equations, etc.) are unlimited. This is why it is ridiculous for physicists to act as if their physical interpretations are proven by their equations. If this were the case then why, for example, are there at least a dozen physical interpretations for Quantum Mechanics of which there is broad disagreement among physicists regarding which one is correct? At best the observations only provide us with clues as to how nature operates. It is up to us to imagine the possibilities and see if we can finally grasp what heretofore appeared to us as magic.

“Warped spacetime” is not proven by the equations of General Relativity, “warped spacetime” is an assumption made by physicists in order to interpret and explain the equations. “Time dilation” is not proven because GPS clocks have to be adjusted, “time dilation” is an assumption used to explain GPS discrepancies. “Wave packets” are not proven because physicists cannot understand why various experiments would suggest that light is a wave while others suggest it’s a particle, “wave packets” are an assumption used to try to explain away irreconcilable discrepancies. And insofar as they are assumptions they are irrational ones. The physical explanations put forth by physicists are riddled with contradictions and paradoxes. Why should we take them on faith when neither technology nor predictive equations justify their Alice in Wonderland claims? If they said they’d proven the existence of square circles should we take them on their word? No amount of “evidence” or ability to make predictions can “prove” claims that are contradictory or downright unintelligible. There’s no coherent claim there to even attempt to prove!

The core problem among many others is that the entities of their hypotheses cannot be illustrated, conceived, imagined, or visualized (at least in simplified form). They cannot illustrate for you warped spacetime, black holes, wormholes, big bangs, wave packets, zero dimensional particles, higher dimensions, forces, fields, charges, energy, etc. And therefore it’s impossible to understand any of their “explanations” involving these alleged entities. Luckily I was able to snap some photographs of them as you can see below:

And here we have a stunning realization: after all these centuries our ability to predict has advanced remarkably providing mankind with technologies that our ancestors could never have dreamed of, and yet our ability to explain physical phenomena hasn’t moved an inch. It’s only natural that man would attempt to interpret reality as being comprised of discrete particles or waves. On the bank of a river there are grains of sand and waves in the flowing water. Atomism can be found in ancient Greece and India, for example. Yet after all these thousands of years where are we at? Particles and waves! And we still can’t explain the most basic of phenomena like a falling apple!

That is, until now. Finally we have a theory which only invokes 3D objects that can be visualized. The Grand Unified Theory has not arrived in the form of an inch long equation as physicists said it would. In fact, it is not mathematical in nature at all. It has arrived in the form of a theory involving objects which allow us to at long last visualize what is happening with gravity, light, electricity, and magnetism. The language of physics is objects and visualization, not abstract mathematical concepts. Contrary to what we are led to believe, physics is not the domain of the few geniuses, but is accessible to anyone.



I’ve written about the Rope Hypothesis before but only briefly. Here I would like to elaborate so you can decide for yourself whether you think it could be a paradigm shifter.

Above is a 2D cross section of the Hydrogen Atom, the building block of all the other elements. The Rope Hypothesis begins with the following assumption: every atom in the universe is connected to all others by ropes.

Each of these ropes is comprised of two threads entwined around one another like DNA without the rungs. As each rope approaches the surface of the atom one of these threads breaks off and wraps around the atom to form the electron serpentine. The other penetrates to the center to form the proton dandelion. Thus under the proposal the electron is not a particle or a “probability cloud” but more like a ball of yarn woven with gazillions of threads. Nor is the proton a particle but a sea urchin like structure also comprised of gazillions of threads converging towards its center. Considering that the number of atoms in the universe must be unfathomably vast the number of ropes converging on an atom must be equally vast and incomprehensibly thin. The surface of the atom is immense compared to the ropes.

The picture that emerges is radically different from the age old theories founded on particles and waves. Matter is not comprised of discrete particles, it is interconnected. The universe is interwoven with ropes and atoms are the tiny cosmic knots where they converge.


Look familiar? On the left is a typical depiction of light as a self-propagating series of alternating magnetic and electric “fields.” Of course physicists are not saying that the lines they’ve drawn in order to depict the fields are representations of what really exists. They cannot illustrate a field nor explain what it means physically for a field to exist. According to wiki,

In physics, a field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.

Exactly. Let’s say I take a magnetometer to a magnet. I place it at many various locations around the magnet and take down all of the readings. I can then plot those readings and derive an equation which will spit out the correct magnitude when given a location. As I stated earlier, measured physical quantities and equations do not dictate what objects are involved. The magnetometer is an object and it’s clearly interacting somehow with the magnet, but simply taking readings and plotting the varying quantities does not tell me what the mechanism behind magnetism is. A “field” then is just an abstract concept which refers to varying quantities. Fields do not exist and therefore they cannot influence anything which does! What exists are the objects responsible for mediating magnetism and it requires one to make assumptions about them as a means of producing a theory.

Physicists cannot explain how a “field” might exist in reality, they cannot explain in the case of light how these “fields” would continually propagate themselves outwards and perpendicular to one another around an axis. Under the Rope Hypothesis however we have a clear physical interpretation for the mysterious entity which underlies light. As seen above the rope architecture rationally justifies the the alternating “fields.” But light is not equivalent to the rope.

Under Thread Theory every electron shell of every atom in the universe is constantly expanding and contracting. The countless threads that comprise the shell expand outward and in doing so incorporate more thread from the surrounding ropes in order to compensate for the increased size. As the shell contracts it releases that thread back to the ropes. This activity causes every rope extending outward from the atom to be twisted resulting in torsion signals being sent along the ropes. This is the phenomenon known as light. The rope is the structure which underlies light but light refers to the torsional motion which spreads out radially in all directions from an atom towards every other atom in the universe. Likewise all the other atoms are constantly pumping and torquing. As such all atoms are perpetually relaying signals to one another.

In addition the rope model justifies why the speed of light is so fast. Light isn’t a self-propagating wave or a particle, it’s a torsional motion that fires down a preexisting taught rope binding two atoms. As an added bonus the rope model explains why the speed of light is independent of the source emitting it as is postulated by Einstein’s Special Relativity: the speed of the torsional wave along the rope depends upon the physical properties of the rope, not the emission source.

Note that I have barely even scratched the surface here as to what the rope model explains with respect to light but I don’t intend to go into too great of detail in this article. Next I will touch on gravity.


One of the major failures of Quantum Mechanics is its inability to explain attraction. According to wiki,

In particle physics, force carriers are particles that give rise to forces between other particles. These particles are bundles of energy (quanta) of a particular kind of field. There is one kind of field for every species of elementary particle.

So we have particles that shoot particles at particles, but the particles that get shot outwards are also “bundles” of “energy” (see above for the photograph) of a kind of “field” (see above for why fields do not exist). It’s no wonder that physicists routinely and proudly proclaim that no one understands Quantum Mechanics!

The essential problem with any particle based hypothesis is that you won’t be able to rationally explain gravitational or magnetic attraction. Discrete islands of matter have no way of interacting with one another but by colliding. A collision can only mediate a push, not a pull. Therefore Quantum Mechanics was dead before it was even born a century ago (although I suppose it’s nice to have all these accurate equations sitting around).

Under the Rope Hypothesis mediating pull is no problem, everything is connected by ropes! The rope model holds that not only are atoms constantly pumping torsion signals to one another but also the ropes between all atoms remain under constant tension. Within this framework we can now see what draws the apple towards the Earth as well as what keeps the planets in orbit around the Sun.

Every atom in the apple is permanently bound to every atom in the Earth. At a far distance above the Earth the interconnecting ropes largely overlap one another. There are fewer effective ropes acting between the two objects because many of the ropes are superimposing. As the apple approaches the Earth however the ropes fan out and the number of effective ropes increases. To be clear, the Earth isn’t reeling the apple in like a fish on a line. Rather, gravity is the aggregate tension along the interconnecting ropes. The number of ropes contributing to that aggregate tension increases as the ropes fan out.

Finally we have a physical interpretation for Newton’s Law of Gravitation. If we take mass to be the count of hydrogen atoms in either body then multiplying them will always return the number of interconnecting ropes. It’s not surprising that the number of interconnecting ropes would be a factor in determining the overall gravitational strength. The distance squared term is explained above as the increasing number of effective ropes that occurs as the ropes fan out. The Gravitational Constant is beyond the scope of this article but under the rope model its components have been teased out and its physical significance discovered.


The rope model also explains the Pioneer Anamoly. Wiki states,

Pioneer 10 and 11 were sent on missions to Jupiter and Jupiter/Saturn respectively…although the spacecraft included thrusters, after the planetary encounters they were used only for semiannual conical scanning maneuvers…leaving them on a long ‘cruise’ phase through the outer Solar System…the calculated position of the Pioneers did not agree with measurements based on timing the return of the radio signals being sent back from the spacecraft. These consistently showed that both spacecraft were closer to the inner Solar System than they should be…as the anomaly was growing, it appeared that the spacecraft were moving more slowly than expected…it appeared to cause an approximately constant sunward acceleration

 According to Newton’s law the spacecraft should have been further along than they were. Before the anomaly was allegedly solved (it being due to “thermal recoil”) scientists characterized it as if a mysterious force was pulling the craft back towards the Sun. Being so concerned with mathematics and prediction over explanation physicists more or less assumed that the inverse square relationship would extend to infinity. The rope model however provides an alternative theory and explains the mysterious force pulling the craft back towards the Sun.

As stated above at larger distances the ropes begin to superimpose and there are fewer effective ropes. At large enough distances the ropes superimpose enough to where they act like a single rope. The craft were not as far along as scientists expected because the “force” of gravity had not decreased as quickly as they thought it would given Newton’s inverse square law. Ultimately gravity falls off into a linear regime.


Why is it that a magnetic “field” travels around the flowing current in a wire? According to conventional ideas about electricity it is electrons that flow along a conducting wire. How do the electron beads generate a “field?” And why does the “field” turn in the opposite direction if the electron beads reverse course? Good luck searching the internet to find an intelligible answer to that one.

Under Thread Theory there is a straightforward explanation. Electricity is a phenomenon where the electron shells of atoms in a conducting material are in contact and spinning in the same direction. A potential applied to a wire induces the immediate shells to spin which in turn induces the next consecutive shells to start spinning and so on and so forth along the wire. Electricity is not a flow of particles but more like a drill bit spinning in place.

Now we can finally understand why electricity generates a magnetic “field.” As the electron shells spin the threads which originate in the shells of the spinning atoms and bind them together are swung around the atoms. Magnetism is not a “field,” it’s an aggregate of gazillions of threads being swept around elongated rows of spinning electron shells.

If the shells are spinning clockwise the threads will sweep around clockwise. If the shells reverse and spin counterclockwise then the threads will be swung around in the other direction. The rope model also explains magnetic attraction and repulsion. If you take two live wires with shells spinning in the same direction the wires will attract. If they are spinning in opposite directions the wires will repel.

During attraction the threads become enmeshed and pull the wires together, during repulsion they clash and push the wires apart. The same principle applies to magnets. Magnetic materials have electron shells which are aligned naturally and spinning in the same direction. In the case of a bar magnet the shells are aligned such that the rows on top of the magnet sweep in the opposite direction as the rows on the bottom. The threads get swept out the north end, cascade down either side of the magnet, and swing back through into the south end producing the familiar iron shaving patterns.


Since I touched on it at the beginning I’ll provide a brief alternative explanation. At higher altitudes the gravitational stresses on atoms are different than they are closer to the Earth. The lower aggregate tension for a GPS satellite in space will affect the caesium oscillator in the atomic clock and allow it to operate slightly faster. In other words, it’s not time that speeds up it’s the clock! Yet we’re told the whimsical “time dilation” is a FACT and you must just accept it.


As stated earlier I have barely even scratched the surface as to what the Rope Hypothesis has to offer. That is not at all to say that it has all the answers or is perfect, there’s of course many questions that need to be asked. But I don’t know how it could be regarded as anything other than a huge step in the right direction. A paradigm shift away from particles and waves.

I was always interested in physics as a kid growing up. I read the popular books like Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time.” While the books stimulated my imagination with extraordinary tales of black holes and big bangs and time travel it bothered me that it never made any real sense. I spent a long time looking for answers only to run up against what I’ve seen happen to many others — you ask a question on Physics Forums or Reddit or anywhere else and a qualified professional gives you some giant nonsensical wall of text. It wasn’t until I finally discovered Thread Theory that I could do what I wanted to do all along: visualize the damn objects and what they were doing!

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory are in a lot of trouble if people start catching on to this. They’ve wooed peoples’ imaginations with documentaries and tales of alternate dimensions and the like. But of course no one can really understand what they’re saying. What happens when a theory comes along that provides answers in a way that everyone can imagine and understand? Their only hope is to push the “technology works because of us,” and “we can make predictions” narrative which is why I dealt with that at the beginning.

As I’ve stated before I do believe this has definite ramifications for liberty. Science, at least as it applies to physics or some aspects of astronomy, has been turned on its head. Instead of being a tool for enhancing our understanding it has become a tool for obfuscation and endless complication. A friend of mine the other day compared it to Ptolemy’s epicycles. We are told we can’t understand the universe — it’s too crazy and weird. We must take on faith the Authority of the experts who are the only select few that can speak directly to God through His language, Mathematics. We have no choice but to accept as Gospel their second hand laymen’s interpretations that they give us when we start asking questions. We’re left floating in an ocean of uncertainty without any solid rock to cling to. It leaves us vulnerable to manipulation. It’s an attack on our innate reasoning abilities. The Rope Hypothesis restores the possibility that we CAN understand nature, anyone can. And it makes us reevaluate ourselves and our place in the universe.

We’re told that everything will either fall back into the Big Crunch, or perhaps it will dissipate into nothing. Under the Rope Hypothesis the atoms are permanently interwoven. The “proton ball,” that constitutes all the matter in the universe, or whatever you want to call it, is the only authentic perpetual motion machine. Everything within it assembles and disassembles, is born, grows, dies, and withers, endlessly, forever and ever. There’s no beginning, no end. Just the now. As George Carlin called it — The Big Electron.

For anyone interested in further reading I would highly suggest Bill Gaede’s book. He goes into an inordinate amount of detail. For anyone planning on coming to Anarchapulco I am having a little side conference to discuss alternative theories in science (it will be the very next day after Anarchapulco ends, February 22nd). Bill Gaede will be speaking. I’m also excited to have Stephen Crothers, an independent scientist from Australia, who will  be speaking on black holes and big bangs. In addition Mike Huttner, an independent scientist and proponent of the Rational Scientific Method from the US, will be speaking on the object/concept dichotomy. I am working to get other speakers. If attending at all interests you see here for the Facebook group for updates.

I hope to see you there!