Dear Friends

DF 56 - Wormholes & Cat Flaps

Link to: 'General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate
by Stephen J Crothers, April 2014'

September 2014

Dear Friends,

A couple of days after the most recent Deep Purple concert in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, which took place at The Entertainment Centre on Tuesday 26th February 2013, I received a letter by Email from the astrophysicist Stephen J. Crothers, saying how much he enjoyed the show.

Fascinated to be in touch with someone who might respond with some authority to my theories on Infinity, Dark Matter/Energy, Wormholes and Cat Flaps, I replied and we have been in touch ever since.

As a result I have been introduced to a world of scientific intrigue, where Stephen's views on black hole theory, big bang cosmology and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in particular, together with 'The Establishment' in general, have invoked ridicule, rage and threats of violence (murder even; from a member of the Max Planck Institute). Amongst all the hissy diatribes and personal insults - to which I have been privy - it becomes clear and obvious that none of Stephen's proofs have been answered in kind. By that I mean that his arithmetic and logic go pointedly unchallenged, but, and bizarrely, his work has been occasionally and clumsily endorsed by his most venomous critics, who - it seems - would still see a sphere as a circle (as in Edwin Abbott's 'Flatland' A Romance of Many Dimensions).

After reading a considerable amount of correspondence between Stephen and his Goliaths, I can't escape the conclusion that this department of science, in the hands of its officers, has become a belief system - have faith my son.

In the first 39 pages of the 80, Stephen's 'Reply' (below), to Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics and captain of Liverpool, reads like a gripping novel; a real page turner. If you are up to it then do have a go at the figures - the equations - and see if you can be the first to fault them. But if, as to me, they resemble hieroglyphs, then skip over them, or do as I do and colour them in with crayons. I am having a turquoise equation framed for my studio wall.

Then absorb the written plot and judge for yourself. All the correspondence and primary sources of reference are there for support. I recommend that you make a hard copy of the first 39 pages, as I did; makes it easier than scrolling back and forth on your screen when making notes for the questions you will inevitably send to us for a joint Q & A with Stephen and myself. I feel an intriguing new competition in the air; once we've cleared the decks of the team identity competition - do hurry up.

And after reading Stephen's 'Reply' I got to thinking…What is an equation?

According to my dictionary - it's a mathematical statement that two expressions are equal.

You know, it's this-plus-this-over-that-times-whatever = so-and-so.

A nice easy one would be (2 + 2) = 4

But our numbers (as well as our words) have only the value or meaning that we give them.

Recently I was in Dali, the capital of Weirdistan, visiting Professor Frank Einstein, and they have a different numerical system to us. So there, in that phantasmagorical country, (2 + 2) = 5

How can that be?

I checked the numbers in their Early Learners' text book and there it was…

...1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

So, their 5 equals our 4 (5 = 4) and therefore the simple equation (2 + 2) = 5 in Weirdistan is as accurate as our (2 + 2) = 4. Just as, on a car, Hood (USA) = Bonnet (UK).

These are just words.

Of course, in more complex equations the 5/4 irregularity becomes increasingly annoying to us and that's why we don't trade much with Weirdistan these days; in fact most people have forgotten where it is. Look on any map and you'll struggle to see the country at all - it shrinks instinctively when peered at - but there it is; land-locked between Fornicopia, The Republic of Zealots and Terra Thomas. Easiest way in is by a Mag-Lev canister in the Hounslow to Java tunnel, the last bit is quite exciting as there's a sharp 12G turn into the branch line that runs directly into Dali centre. Take sandwiches; you won't like the food, it's all joined together…but I digress…

FYI…and to my delight, Weirdistanis have adopted 'Metric Time' (which I invented way back in DF 36).
If you remember, the basics are:
100 seconds = 1 minute
100 minutes = 1 hour
10 hours = I day
10 days = 1 week
(Days of the week are named as follows:
Minky, Wurzel, Flicker, Bra, Terrry, Hipster, Fraulein, Wasp, Saturday and Sunday)
3.652 weeks = 1 month
10 months = 1 year

This system is uncorrupted by solar/lunar influences but does coincide once a year, in random orbit, with the Gregorian calendar (which is useless outside our galaxy).

Decimals are all well and good for some things but you wouldn't walk a country kilometre would you…No, it's a country mile. The goal and penalty areas on a football pitch are 12 and 18 yards not the ridiculously clumsy 5.5 and 16.5 metric approximations, plus the centre circle (or event horizon, as we are in the presence of Mr. Crothers) has a radius of 10 yards not 9.15 bloodless metres.

And another thing…horses have not been decimalised, have they. I've just checked: The average height of a Dartmoor pony is 12.2 hands (oh give me a break, you can't mix hands and decimals…that would be 12 hands and one finger to Frankie Dettori, although he does have ten of them, yet two are thumbs…you see the problem with mixed systems).

But where decimals quite often fall down on the job is when you want to share an oddity. How would you divide say a hundred cakes, between three greedy people? You have to use fractions; give them one third each, because you'd never reach a satisfactory division with decimals. A single share of 33.33 recurring means they'd be sub-dividing crumbs into photons, up-quarks and beyond until well after tea time.

Now if you want to measure something really big, like from here to eternity, the old fashioned way was to use light years because that gets rid of a squillion zeros (by using feet and inches for example) and fits on to a two-dimensional page much more easily.

The trouble with light is that it actually becomes relatively sluggish in our environment. It travels colossal distances, taking many thousands of years to reach us from the far corners (sic) of the universe. Can a universe really have corners, all those asymptotic curves and so on? Nah! No cubes or straight lines or anything Euclidean can exist in nature, and - in fact - they don't exist on earth either; near enough to hold up buildings maybe, but there are no such things as parallel lines, further, there is no such thing as a straight line; not even a laser beam. We can only observe bright things from far away that may be - by all accounts - long dead or dimming by the time the image reaches us here on our speck of space dust.

Hubble has spotted an early forming galaxy 13.2 billion light years away. Maybe it's not so far if you are riding the image; at warp 7 (that's as near as dammit to the speed of light) it will actually take less than 12 of your years to get here or hereabouts, although your twin on earth (sic) has to wait the full wretched 13.2 billion years to see you arrive. That's a rough guess, but you can be sure that we'll have found something quicker than light by then. To account for the above, as everyone knows, the speed of light must be a lot faster as it goes along, than the speed of light as we perceive it. So something does travel faster than light after all, and that would be light itself. As with all things in the observable universe, light is subject to the parallax effect; it depends upon where you are standing. Having said all that, I should tell you that the professor rarely emerges from his tank; he uses his imagination.

Which explains why the scientists will have to wait in the dark for a bit; according to Albert Einstein, light is as fast as it gets and yet it can't escape from a black hole because it isn't fast enough. But according to my dear friend and collaborator Professor Frank Einstein at the University of Weirdistan (Cosmology) - he loves the frequent name checks - we are moving on towards our comprehension of how a small misunderstanding (like giving a value to infinity (as in, ?-10=something or other) at the early stages of anything can lead to big problems in time as an abstract belief becomes concrete. He calls it The Parallax Effect on God. But I will spare you that thesis in this DF.

It is enough to say that in the last few weeks we have uncovered the secrets of the universe.

Our universe is finite, although expanding just like everything else including our knowledge; the best definition for 'universe' still being 'all known things'. The only real questions are 'how many contiguous, malleable universes are there in an infinite space'? (which I have named The Abbottsphere). And - given the multi-dimensional enormity of that scenario - what lies before and beyond our bit?

Big Bang adherents would have it 'finite' at the beginning (Hawking for example asserted that 'before the big bang there was nothing') and 'infinite' everywhere else. But, if you remember, words and measurements merely have the value for which they were designed and become redundant when travelling without a map and a tape measure.

My imagination takes me, infinitely faster than the speed of light, to a metaphysical space where new measurements are needed, as they are also at the other (quantum) end of the scale where little green men (or Homo Spiritus Papilio, as I have named them) have yet to see the light from one of my personal electrons. F. Einstein has calculated - using Avoirdupois - it will take 60 billion light years to reach them (way before the 'Big Bang'). But they (our ancestors - HSP) are already beyond physics of any kind so it is pointless. Though barely nascent, they can see right through us into the strange, dynamic universe of space and matter, where we reside, and much, much further; whilst also looking over their shoulders for signs of their creation…and so on.

And HSP does it instantly, just like the dear professor. It makes you think doesn't it.

Watch Stephen Crothers at work, delivering a speech entitled 'The parallax effect on short hair' (yes we know) at

And - to explore the amazing world of Stephen J. Crothers - go to his website.


Ian Gillan

Copyright © Ian Gillan 2014

Link to: 'General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate
by Stephen J Crothers, April 2014'

Return to:
return to DF index