Summary of the academic significance of these blog posts

The articles on this blog are excerpts and summaries of some of the academically original content published in the books ‘Relativistic Universe and Forces'(ISBN 979-8865126171) or ‘상대론적 우주와 힘'(ISBN 9791172187644). These documents can also be read here and at

Calculation files and source code can be downloaded from GitHub.

This article was written in English and set to be automatically translated, so if the meaning of the translation is unclear, it may be helpful to view the part in English.

This article aims to provide a clearer explanation of the academic value of these documents. I have deemed the discoveries to be highly significant and have authored books and articles on the subject. However, it appears that people do not grasp the full significance only by reading the articles. They may not be prompt in acknowledging the importance. Therefore, it seems necessary for me to personally elucidate this aspect. I believe that stumbling upon these truths was more a matter of serendipity bestowed by the sky rather than a result of my own will or ability. Consequently, despite the challenges involved, it is my responsibility to undertake the task of disseminating and promoting the truths I have uncovered. This entails rectifying misconceptions about the universe, which forms the foundation of every individual’s life, and providing opportunities for acquiring accurate knowledge. The articles featured on this blog are condensed versions of excerpts from the previously mentioned books. This particular article serves as a summary of those summaries but may seem redundant. Nevertheless, I will briefly recapitulate the key points. Additionally, this blog includes a forum where readers can engage in discussions if my explanations are unclear or ambiguous. Any feedback regarding errors or typos in my writing is also appreciated. I will proceed to describe the articles on this blog in the chronological order of their discovery.

My first findings are summarized in ‘Cosmological Principle Explanation with the Special Relativity’. This is a summary of the ‘Special relativistic cosmology’ or ‘특수상대론적 우주론’ section of the books, and it explains the fact that among the various contents about special relativistic cosmology, the ‘cosmological principle’ is explained by special relativity. My academically original achievements in this area are as follows.

I began from the basic formula that is \( \frac{1}{(1 – \beta^2)^2}\). And I proved in three dimensions that the cosmological principle is satisfied in all inertial systems in this universe started from the Big Bang at one point in the beginning. If the material density distribution observed in this universe is \( \frac{1}{8} \left( \frac{r}{1 – r} \right)^2\) in r expression based on polar coordinates, \( \frac{1}{4 \text{zn}} \left( \frac{\text{zn}^2 – 1}{\text{zn}} \right)^2\) in zn(z+1) expression, and \( \left( \frac{\beta p}{1 – \beta p^2} \right)^2\) on βp.

It is the first mathematical explanation of cosmological principles, and it predicts that we will observe the universe as a slight ellipsoid rather than a perfect sphere. In addition, it predicts a large structure larger than the observable range (1000<<z), which makes it possible to explain several things, such as the matter-antimatter imbalance in this universe.

Next, I saw that the inevitability of the existence of general relativity was undermined by the fact that the universe could be explained by special relativity. This led me to be suspicious about general relativity. Therefore, I decided to verify whether, based on the physics knowledge predating the advent of general relativity, namely special relativity and Maxwellian gravity, I could explain three initial evidences of general relativity. To my surprise, I was able to succeed not so difficultly.

My second significant discovery, summarized in ‘Mercury’s Perihelion Advancement Due to Special Relativistic Effects’, is among them. I found that I could address the perihelion advancement issue of Mercury’s orbit without resorting to any additional mathematical tricks, simply through simulation alone by utilizing basic motion equations \( \vec{r}_{\text{next}} = \vec{r}_{\text{now}} + \vec{v} t + \frac{1}{2}
\vec{a} t^2\)
, just with several special relativistic corrections added for ‘\( a\)’.

There are a total of five corrections applied to ‘\( a\)’: the effect of observed mass variation due to gravitational field fluctuations \( \left( 1 + \frac{GM}{rc^2} \right)\), the effect due to time delay due to the gravitational field \( \left( 1 + \frac{GM}{rc^2} \right)^2\), the effect due to the Wigner rotation \( \frac{1}{2} \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \times \vec{a} \times \frac{\vec{v}}{c}\), the induced acceleration component based on the special relativistic force expression \( – \frac{\vec{v}}{c^2} (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{a})\), and the effect of the relativistic increase in inertial mass, which denies the equivalence principle of general relativity. The method of applying all these is through the processes of \( \vec{a}_0 = – \frac{GM}{r^2} \hat{r}\), \( \vec{a}_1 = \vec{a}_0 \left( 1 + \frac{GM}{rc^2} \right)^3\), \( \vec{a}_2 = \vec{a}_1 + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \times \vec{a}_1
\times \frac{\vec{v}}{c} – \frac{\vec{v}}{c^2} (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{a}_1)\)
and \( \vec{a} = \frac{\vec{a}_2}{\gamma}\). This process is incompatible with general relativity and therefore shows that general relativity is wrong. If the results of special relativity and general relativity conflict with each other, it should be natural to choose the results of special relativity.

My third and fourth discoveries are outlined in ‘Answering Laplace’s Problem’. The force transmitted at a finite speed, specifically at the speed of light, impacts the orbit of planets and moons. Laplace’s 1805 problem pointed out that for the moon to maintain its current stability without falling to Earth by gravitational pull, the speed of gravity transmission must exceed the speed of light by 7 million times. However, as the theory of relativity prohibits the transmission of information faster than light, explaining the stability of planetary orbits must rely solely on forces transmitted at light speed. While some speculation about this issue became feasible after Edward M. Purcell(\( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 r_p^2} \frac{1 – \beta^2}{(1 – \beta^2 \sin^2 \theta)^{3 / 2}} \hat{r}_p \)), a comprehensive explanation necessitated the practical form of Feynman’s formula, which I had discovered. Thus, such an explanation was not possible before my discovery.

I completely solved this problem using Maxwellian gravity. Additionally, during the preparation process, I discovered a more practical form, \( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 r^2 \left( 1 + \frac{\dot{r}}{c} \right)^3} \left( \left( 1 – \frac{v^2}{c^2} + \frac{\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}}{c^2} \right) \left( \hat{r} – \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right) – \left( 1 + \frac{\dot{r}}{c} \right) \frac{r \vec{a}}{c^2} \right)\), by reinterpreting Feynman’s formula \( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0} \left[ \frac{e_r’}{r^{‘ 2}} + \frac{r^{‘}}{c} \frac{d}{\text{dt}} \left( \frac{e_r’}{{r’}^2} \right) + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{d^2}{\text{dt}^2} e_r’ \right]\) or Griffith’s formula \( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0} \frac{r}{(\vec{r} \cdot \vec{u})^3} ((c^2 – v^2) \vec{u} + \vec{r} \times (\vec{u} \times \vec{a}))\). According to Maxwellian gravity, which employs this electromagnetic formula directly, the effects of the finite force transmission speed consume orbital energy. However, the magnitude of these effects always remains smaller than the loss of orbital energy caused by gravitational wave emission, thus explaining why it remains hidden by the phenomenon. This serves as evidence against general relativity, as the orbital energy loss calculated by general relativity due to gravitational wave emission is significantly smaller than the value predicted by Maxwellian gravity. Therefore, such an explanation cannot be used. Even if entertaining the unreasonable assumption that different mathematics are applied to each force, it would necessitate a highly ludicrous prediction: the origin felt by gravity and electromagnetic forces would differ. General relativity is not a valid extension of special relativity.

My additional discoveries are summarized in the document ‘Relativistic Consistency of Electromagnetic Force’. Following the discovery of the theory of relativity and the realization that physical laws operate uniformly across all inertial frames, a problem arose in electromagnetism. When observing the phenomenon of one charged particle causing another to undergo accelerated motion due to the electromagnetic field it generates while in motion, it had to be concluded in electromagnetism that the electric and magnetic fields differ in different inertial frames because the motion of the source charge differs. Consequently, in different inertial frames, the acceleration of a charge is observed to be different due to the varying electric and magnetic fields. According to special relativity, a conjecture arises that when transforming these accelerations into those of each respective inertial frame, they would be equivalent to the accelerations experienced due to the electromagnetic field according to the motion of the source charge in each inertial frame. It was verified that this conjecture is true for charges moving parallel to the source charge(Percell’s book ‘Electricity and Magnetism’ 5.9 Interaction between a moving charge and other moving charges. Griffiths’ book ‘Introduction to Electrodynamics’ Chapter 12 Electrodynamics and Relativity, Problem 12.46.), as they experience the effects of electric and magnetic fields according to Purcell’s formula \( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 r_p^2} \frac{1 – \beta^2}{(1 – \beta^2 \sin^2 \theta)^{3 / 2}} \hat{r}_p\). However, it was not known whether this holds true for charges in arbitrary motion at arbitrary positions relative to the source charge.

I derived the \( \vec{E} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0 r^2 \left( 1 + \frac{\dot{r}}{c} \right)^3} \left( \left( 1 – \frac{v^2}{c^2} + \frac{\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r}}{c^2} \right) \left( \hat{r} – \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right) – \left( 1 + \frac{\dot{r}}{c} \right) \frac{r \vec{a}}{c^2} \right)\) formula (the magnetic field is \( \vec{B} = \frac{1}{c^2} \vec{E} \times \vec{v}\)), which reveals the electric field due to arbitrary motion involving both the velocity and acceleration of the source charge. I expected that this formula could be applied to calculate the interaction between two charges undergoing arbitrary motion. This calculation serves to verify the assumptions of special relativity mentioned earlier, while also confirming the correctness of the practical electric field formula I derived. As a result, I was able to confirm that the motion of charges observed in three inertial frames—the observer’s inertial frame, the source charge’s inertial frame, and the inertial frame of the charge being influenced—is exactly as predicted by the electromagnetic fields observed in each frame. The source charge underwent arbitrary motion, including acceleration. Through this calculation, I became the first to demonstrate the relativistic consistency of forces due to electromagnetic interactions, resolving one piece of incompleteness in relativity and electromagnetism.

My achievements in these four areas all demonstrate a consistent coherence, and since incorrect theories cannot exhibit such natural coherence, these four results form reinforcing evidence for each other. Particularly, the latter two achievements regarding electromagnetism align well with and extend previous conclusions in electromagnetism, leaving no room for error. The sections on cosmology and Maxwellian gravity mentioned earlier, however, conflict with the results of general relativity, so there is room for controversy. Nevertheless, the subsequent research results inspired by the former two findings are beyond doubt. So it would be ridiculous if the very inspirations behind those subsequent findings turned out to be wrong. My four discoveries, though in different fields, prove each other correct under the consistent theme of the space-time structure of the universe.

Leave a Reply