# The Crestroyer Theory now on video presentation.

To get a better grasp of the crestroyer theory, I have made a video, that presents the theory the way I present it in lectures. It is easier to grasp this way, I hope.

Your feedback on it would be immensely valuable.

If you already read my theory on this blog, you will see that there are some revisions. And they are pretty good compared to the version from last summer.

Hope to hear from you.

## 9 thoughts on “The Crestroyer Theory now on video presentation.”

1. Gus says:

Hello again – Thank you for preparing this new video. A very nice review of the physics background or context. Also very much appreciate your enthusiasm. Somewhere you made the comment that a better description than ‘infinite’ – referring to the ‘speed’ of light, would be ‘instantaneous’. The only trouble with this is you continue to insist that there exists a reality called ‘speed’ which of course implies distance – as in distance/time. I don’t know why so many people continue to quote Einstein without actually taking his declarations seriously. When Einstein declared that the ‘speed’ of light was a constant, what he was really declaring was that time and distance are truly and absolutely exchangeable. As much as 4 pints can be exchanged for 1 gallon, 186,000 miles can be exchanged for 1 second. ‘Speed’ of light C (for constant) = 186,000 miles per second. Therefore, anywhere you see a unit for distance, by Einstein’s declaration that the speed of light is a constant, you may substitute that imposture or illusion we call ‘distance’ by time. A simple example: 80 miles X 1 second/186,000 miles = 0.00043 seconds. Who needs a mathematician for that? Einstein made it so simple. In one fell swoop he eliminated the entire ‘spatial’ universe. Of course he never actually went so far as to say this. He knew very well what the scientific establishment did to both Copernicus and Galileo, but effectively he dropped an equivalent ‘bomb shell’. Don’t you think it is time we stopped talking about the ‘speed’ of light? For some reason we love to pay Einstein lip service, but we don’t take his declarations seriously. Einstein was able to separate physical reality from illusion and very clearly the notion of ‘distance’ is illusion.

1. Thankyou for your interest and acknowledgement.

You cannot talk to a scientist in physics today, and say that Einstein should be disregarded. Wrong, that you can do, but the conversation will be very short. I am talking Einstein stuff because the speed of light is considered a constant, as so many other constants. My point is that all natural fundamental constants should vary from minus infinite to zero to infinite. That is what we see in electromagnetism. The result being zero energy in all parallel and combined universes. That makes sense to me, but not so many others. Yet.

1. Gus says:

Hello Otto and thank you for your reply. Of course I am not disregarding Einstein, on the contrary I am saying that he is not taken seriously when people continue to talk about the ‘speed’ of light when he made very clear that what we call distance is in fact time separation. For your theory that consciousness is antimatter and that subatomic particles such as the nucleus of an atom are in fact singularities – you may very well be right. My interest in this is not as all encompassing, I am really more captivated by Einstein’s declaration that the speed of light is constant and the immediate and fascinating implications of this statement.

2. Daniel Z Hinderman says:

Please use your time for constructive ideas.. This is highly nonsense.. Do not explore when you dont know the initial point to start. I think you deserve a good sleep and some mental rest.
Take care and do see a psychatrist.

1. Gus says:

Daniel, what then do you think conscience is? It must somehow be represented in the physical realm, so I think that Otto has something important to contribute. Carl Jung, a man of science and argueably the greatest psychiatrist ever, was not afraid to address the notion or reality of the soul. It is very much time to bridge more of these important, and most valid intellectual disciplines.

3. Thankyou Gus, you’r my man.

4. Otto, I can halfway pretend to have a vague idea of what you are talking about — I have minimal exposure to physics and mathematics, and reject my previous exposure to spiritual matters — but nonetheless, I enjoyed your presentation. You made me think, if only in infinite circles. May I know your background?

1. Since a teenager I was very much into spirituality and new age. 3 years ago I decided to study science as a 54 year old. That was a mistake, because it was way ower my head. Mathematics and physics is not difficult for me, it just takes too much time to get a knack of it. I studied at the University (physics) for less than a year, and gave up. At that time I decided that my ideas are of a philosophical nature more than physics. You are not alone with your pretending to have a vague idea. I like the expression. Nobody really understands what is going on in my head, and I don’t either, at times. But you got the main idea. Infinity.

If I ever get famous and credit for this, it is the continuous lobbying for infinity in physics. Infinity has become a forbidden concept in physics today, and that is the big mistake. All my talk is probably wrong, but maybe not. A mathematician might rule me out, but I will not accept the outruling, unless he proves me wrong by using infinity in his argument. I am glad that you liked my presentation.