One Beilieving Theory
"One Believing Theory"
Physics Synopsis: We (Matter) move at the speed of light but are decelerating which causes changes in time, space, and mass. "Therefore, the universe is expanding at an accelerated velocity."
"Everything (all matters) is moving and rotating.
As long as gravity is present.
There is no stationary matter in space.
Earth orbits the sun, while the solar system orbits in the galaxy.
Groups of galaxies rotate, galaxy clusters rotate, supercluster rotates, sheet of galaxies rotates and the universe rotates."
Nothing is in a suspended state.
Time accelerates, space expands, and mass decreases.
M = E/C^2
Deceleration is the cause of;
Everything must decrease its mass. This clarifies the concept of matter having a half-life and unstable atoms.
Light;
When a particle stops moving, it loses its mass and changes in energy. This happens instantly to the particle, but we see permanent and infinite expansion in space because its time is stopped and its space expands infinitely.
Also, it explains the “Heisenberg uncertainty principle” for particles and waves.
A century of challenges in the field of physics.
We see the change of particles to energy for an infinity of time.
Universe rotates;
In general, science and physics assert that the universe is finite.
If, then, the universe must move.
No matter can stop moving in space.
If it loses its mass to zero.
Every matter in space is spinning and rotating because gravity exists as long as mass exists. It is expected that the finite universe is spinning.
Uniform velocity;
If things move consistently, the mass must remain unchanged. There should be no changes in the universe; it should remain unchanged.
Decelerate velocity;
This is the cause of the living universe.
The past time was slower than the present time.
The past mass was bigger than the present.
The past space was smaller than the present.
It gives the fundamental cause of the living universe.
Rest mess = 0
Double slit paradox
Explanation,
Time applies differently between the observer and the photon.
The time of an observer is slower than that of a photon because the observer is moving at the speed of light.
Nam K kim
CEO,Skytrack Tech inc
CEO, Artificial Consciousness Tech Inc
Note from nam kim
Einstein denied the theory of expanding the universe.
He believed in a static universe.
Despite his theory stating that matter equals energy and mass is linked to movement, he was still incapable of explaining why matter exists in a static condition. (Rest mass)
In general,
Scientists explain that when the universe expends, we (matter) are not moving; only space is moving or expanding.
(Dots on the balloon?)
It is a very awkward and strange phenomenon that is asking us to believe.
Einstein's special theory of relativity can now be used to explain it.
“When speed decreases, time goes faster and space gets bigger.“
The relationships between time, space, and movement.
We cannot observe the slowing down of the speed of light in the present because when matter moves in deceleration, time goes faster.
But we may be able to observe that the speed of light in past times was faster than in present times.
We are present because we are moving!
A One-Believing Theory: A Hypothesis of Universal Motion, Deceleration, and Relativistic Time
Abstract
We propose a conceptual framework in which all matter possesses a fundamental state of motion associated with the speed of light, while gravitational interaction produces a progressive deceleration of matter. We hypothesize that this deceleration provides a common underlying mechanism for changes in time, space, and mass observed in the universe. In this framework, the expansion of space is associated with the continuing evolution of matter as its effective velocity decreases. We further propose that the apparent persistence of electromagnetic propagation and quantum-mechanical wave behavior may arise from a difference between the temporal evolution experienced by matter-based observers and that associated with photons.
The proposed framework is intended as a speculative alternative interpretation of several phenomena normally described separately by relativity and quantum mechanics. In particular, we discuss cosmic expansion, gravitational motion, mass-energy evolution, the double-slit experiment, and the relationship between observer time and photon propagation. The central hypothesis is that deceleration, rather than uniform motion, is a fundamental dynamical property of matter. We identify several predictions that would need to be formulated quantitatively and tested against existing observations before the hypothesis could be considered a physical theory.
Keywords: relativity, gravitation, cosmology, mass-energy, time dilation, photon, quantum mechanics, double-slit experiment, cosmic expansion
1. Introduction
Modern physics describes motion, gravitation, spacetime, and quantum phenomena through several highly successful theoretical frameworks. Nevertheless, the conceptual relationship between these phenomena remains an area of fundamental investigation.
We propose a simple starting assumption:
Matter is fundamentally in motion, and its motion is subject to continual deceleration.
In contrast to the conventional picture in which light propagates through spacetime while matter possesses velocities below the speed of light, this hypothesis begins by asking whether matter can instead be considered to have a fundamental relationship with the limiting velocity c.
The purpose of this Letter is not to reinterpret established experimental results without mathematical justification, but to propose a framework that may provide a common conceptual description of motion, time, space, and mass.
We refer to this proposal as the One-Believing Theory.
2. Fundamental Hypothesis
The central hypothesis can be summarized as follows:
Matter is fundamentally associated with motion at c, while gravitational interaction produces deceleration.
If matter is continuously decelerating, then its physical state is not static. The evolution of its velocity may be associated with corresponding changes in its measured temporal, spatial, and energetic properties.
We therefore propose three interconnected consequences:
Deceleration→change in time Deceleration→change in space Deceleration→change in mass-energy
These relationships constitute the conceptual foundation of the proposed model.
3. Gravity and Universal Motion
Gravity acts on matter throughout the universe. Under the proposed hypothesis, gravitational interaction does not merely change the direction of motion; it contributes fundamentally to the evolution of the velocity state of matter.
Consequently, no macroscopic system is regarded as being perfectly stationary.
For example,
-
Earth orbits the Sun.
-
The Solar System moves within the Milky Way.
-
Galaxies move relative to one another.
-
Galaxies form gravitationally bound groups and clusters.
-
Larger-scale structures exhibit collective motion.
The hypothesis therefore replaces the intuitive concept of a completely stationary object with a hierarchy of continuously evolving motions.
If the universe itself is finite and possesses a global dynamical structure, a further question arises:
Can the universe as a whole possess rotation or another global form of motion?
This question would require a precise relativistic cosmological model and comparison with observational constraints.
4. Deceleration and the Evolution of Mass-Energy
The proposed theory associates continuing deceleration with an evolution of the physical state of matter.
The conventional mass-energy relationship is
E=mc2,
or equivalently,
m=c2E.
The hypothesis proposes that if the energy associated with a physical system changes as a consequence of its fundamental deceleration, its effective mass-energy content may also evolve.
Thus:
dtdm<0
is proposed as a possible fundamental relation for appropriate systems.
In this interpretation, the mass of matter in the past would have been greater than its mass at a later time:
mpast>mpresent.
Similarly, the proposed cosmological evolution is expressed conceptually as
tpast<tpresent, Lpast<Lpresent, mpast>mpresent,
where L represents an appropriate characteristic spatial scale.
These relations are hypotheses rather than established experimental results and require quantitative definitions before they can be tested.
5. Cosmic Expansion
The proposed relationship between deceleration and spatial evolution leads to a possible interpretation of cosmic expansion.
If matter undergoes continuous gravitationally induced deceleration, then the spatial scale associated with the universe may increase with time.
In this framework,
deceleration of matter→evolution of spatial scale.
The resulting increase in cosmic scale could appear observationally as expansion.
The hypothesis further asks whether the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion could emerge from the cumulative evolution of matter rather than requiring cosmic acceleration to be treated as an entirely independent phenomenon.
A complete theory would need to derive an equation for the cosmic scale factor a(t), such as
H(t)=a(t)a˙(t),
and demonstrate whether the proposed dynamics can reproduce the observed expansion history.
6. The Limiting Case of Zero Rest Mass
The hypothesis also considers the limiting case in which the rest mass approaches zero:
mrest→0.
This raises a fundamental question concerning the relationship between matter and electromagnetic radiation.
Rather than regarding light solely as a fundamentally different entity from matter, the proposed framework explores whether matter and radiation can be understood as different physical states associated with motion, energy, and mass.
In this conceptual picture,
matter⟷energy/radiation
represents a possible continuous relationship rather than an absolute separation.
However, this proposal must be reconciled with the experimentally established fact that photons have zero invariant rest mass while carrying energy and momentum.
7. Photon Propagation and Relative Time
A central component of the hypothesis concerns the relationship between photon propagation and observer time.
The proposal is that the temporal evolution associated with electromagnetic propagation may differ fundamentally from the proper time experienced by a massive observer.
In standard special relativity, a photon follows a null worldline and does not possess a conventional rest frame. Therefore, the statement that “photon time is faster than observer time” cannot simply be interpreted using an ordinary inertial reference frame.
Instead, the hypothesis proposes that the observed persistence of light propagation may be understood as a consequence of the different spacetime structure associated with null propagation and massive observers.
This motivates the following question:
If matter-based observers experience proper time differently from the propagation of electromagnetic signals, could this difference provide a deeper explanation of the apparent persistence and spatial propagation of light?
A mathematical formulation in terms of proper time and null intervals would be necessary to establish this proposition.
8. The Double-Slit Experiment
The double-slit experiment provides a particularly important test for the proposed framework.
When individual photons or electrons pass through two slits without which-path detection, an interference pattern can emerge. When which-path information is obtained, the interference pattern is suppressed.
The conventional quantum-mechanical explanation involves superposition, probability amplitudes, and measurement-induced loss of coherence.
The present hypothesis proposes an alternative conceptual question:
Could the apparent transition between particle-like and wave-like behavior be related to different temporal relationships between the propagating quantum system and the observer?
Under this interpretation, the observer and the propagating quantum system may not be described by identical temporal evolution.
The proposed model therefore introduces the possibility of multiple effective temporal fields:
T=T(v,x,t),
where the relevant temporal structure depends on the physical state and motion of the system.
This is intended as a hypothesis for investigation, not as a replacement for the experimentally successful quantum-mechanical formalism without further derivation.
9. Multiple Time Fields
The proposed theory introduces the concept of relative time fields.
Instead of assuming a single universal temporal rate, we consider the possibility that different physical systems experience different effective temporal relationships depending on their state of motion and gravitational environment.
Symbolically,
Ti=Ti(vi,gi,…).
Here Ti represents the effective temporal evolution associated with system i, vi its dynamical state, and gi its gravitational environment.
This concept is motivated by the established relativistic dependence of measured time on motion and gravitational potential, but the present hypothesis proposes that such effects may represent only part of a deeper dynamical relationship between motion, matter, and time.
10. Uniform Motion versus Decelerating Motion
The theory distinguishes two conceptual cases.
10.1 Uniform velocity
If matter maintained an exactly constant physical state,
dtdv=0,
then its associated mass-energy state would remain constant in the simplest version of the hypothesis:
dtdm=0.
In such a universe, there would be no fundamental evolutionary mechanism of the type proposed here.
10.2 Decelerating velocity
The alternative hypothesis is
dtdv<0.
Continuous deceleration would then provide a fundamental mechanism for cosmic evolution.
The proposed qualitative sequence is
deceleration→mass-energy evolution→temporal evolution→spatial evolution.
The universe would therefore be intrinsically dynamic rather than static.
11. Central Prediction
The principal prediction of the One-Believing Theory is that a measurable relationship should exist between the dynamical deceleration of matter and the evolution of its effective mass-energy, temporal rate, and spatial scale.
A successful physical formulation must produce quantitative expressions of the form
dtdm=f(a,g,v,…), dtdτ=F(v,g,…),
and
aa˙=G(ρ,p,v,…),
where the functions f, F, and G must be derived from a consistent theoretical framework.
These equations would allow the theory to be compared directly with observations.
12. Discussion
The One-Believing Theory begins from a deliberately simple conceptual assumption:
Nothing is fundamentally at rest; matter is continuously moving and its motion evolves through gravitational interaction.
From this starting point, the theory proposes connections between phenomena that are conventionally treated within separate conceptual frameworks:
motion→gravity→deceleration→time→space→mass-energy.
The theory further proposes that differences between the temporal evolution of massive observers and electromagnetic propagation may provide a new perspective on the relationship between relativity and quantum phenomena.
The central challenge is therefore mathematical: Can these proposed relationships be expressed as a self-consistent set of equations that reproduces known experimental results while making at least one new, falsifiable prediction?
13. Conclusion
We have presented the One-Believing Theory as a speculative framework based on the hypothesis that matter is fundamentally associated with motion at the limiting velocity c, while gravitational interactions produce continuous deceleration.
The theory proposes that this deceleration may be related to the evolution of mass-energy, time, and spatial scale and may therefore contribute to the dynamical behavior of the universe.
It further proposes that differences between observer time and photon propagation may provide a conceptual connection to quantum phenomena such as the double-slit experiment.
At this stage, the proposal should be regarded as a hypothesis requiring mathematical development and experimental validation, rather than as an established replacement for relativity or quantum mechanics.
The decisive test is whether the theory can produce quantitative predictions that agree with existing measurements and distinguish itself from established theories through experimentally testable consequences.
Author
Nam Koo,Kim
CEO, Skytrack Tech Inc.
CEO, Artificial Consciousness Tech Inc.
One Believing Theory (OBT)
A testable hypothesis of universal dynamical deceleration and the evolution of cosmic scale Nam Koo Kim
Artificial Consciousness Tech; Skytrack Tech
Article type: Hypothesis and Theory | Target section: Frontiers in Physics - Cosmology
Abstract
I present the One Believing Theory (OBT) as a speculative but testable cosmological hypothesis. Its
starting point is that matter participates in motion on many nested scales and that a yet-to-be- defined
universal dynamical variable, V_U, may evolve with cosmic time. The central OBT hypothesis is dV_U/dt < 0. Rather than treating this statement as an explanation by itself, the present paper asks
what quantitative consequences would have to follow if it were true.
A minimal phenomenological relation is introduced to make the proposal falsifiable: H(t) = - kappa d ln
X/dt, where X = V_U/c and kappa is a dimensionless coupling parameter. This relation is not claimed as
a derived law; it is a compact ansatz that states precisely what OBT would need to test. It connects a
decreasing dynamical variable to positive cosmic expansion and gives an explicit condition for accelerated expansion.
OBT distinguishes expansion of space from ordinary motion of matter through pre-existing space. It
also identifies matter-energy evolution and radioactive decay as possible secondary tests, while detailed quantum interpretations are reserved for later work. The proposal does not claim that dark
energy has been disproved. Instead, it asks whether a quantitatively developed OBT model could
reproduce the observed expansion history without a separate dark-energy component. The hypothesis
is falsified if its dynamical variable cannot be defined consistently or if its predictions fail observational
tests.
Keywords
One Believing Theory; cosmology; cosmic expansion; universal dynamics; deceleration; dark energy;
matter-energy evolution; radioactive decay; observer time
1 Introduction
The observed Universe is dynamic. Earth rotates and orbits the Sun, the Solar System moves within the
Milky Way, galaxies move within larger structures, and cosmological observations show that the scale
factor of the Universe changes with time. The discovery of late-time accelerated expansion through
Type Ia supernova observations established a central problem for modern cosmology [1,2]. The standard Lambda-CDM model describes the data successfully over a wide range of scales, while the
physical interpretation of the dark-energy sector remains an active subject of investigation [3,4].
OBT begins from a different question. Instead of introducing a new cosmic component at the outset, I
ask whether a change in the dynamical state in which matter participates could be connected to the
evolution of the cosmic scale factor.
This paper is intentionally narrower than the first formulation of OBT. I do not attempt here to replace
special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and cosmology with one
assertion. I define the central hypothesis, introduce a minimal mathematical parameterization, state
what it would have to reproduce, and identify observations that can reject it.
The proposal is therefore a hypothesis, not a demonstrated theory. Its scientific value depends on
whether V_U can be defined covariantly or cosmologically, whether its evolution can be derived from a
consistent dynamical model, and whether the resulting predictions agree with observation.
Page 2
2 The universal dynamical variable
Matter participates in multiple motions, but ordinary vector addition of those velocities cannot define a
physically meaningful universal speed. Relativistic velocities are frame dependent, and no preferred
inertial frame is assumed in special relativity. OBT therefore does not define V_U as a simple sum of
the rotational and orbital velocities of Earth, the Solar System, galaxies, clusters, and larger structures.
Instead, V_U is introduced provisionally as a scalar descriptor of a proposed cosmological dynamical
state:
V_U = C(V_1, V_2, ..., V_n),
where C denotes a composition rule that remains to be derived. A successful formulation must specify
the reference structure, transformation properties, and operational procedure by which V_U could be
inferred from measurement.
It is useful to define a dimensionless quantity
X(t) = V_U(t) / c,
where c is the invariant speed of light in vacuum. This definition does not assert that ordinary matter
locally travels at c. It provides a normalized variable for the hypothesis. If no physically consistent
definition of V_U or X can be constructed, the central OBT proposal fails at its first step.
3 Central hypothesis: universal dynamical deceleration The central hypothesis of OBT is
dV_U/dt < 0, equivalently dX/dt < 0.
Here t denotes cosmic time in a homogeneous cosmological description. The word deceleration refers
only to the proposed decrease of V_U; it should not be confused with the local proper acceleration of an
object or with the sign of the cosmic scale-factor acceleration.
This distinction is important. A decreasing dynamical variable does not automatically imply an expanding, much less an accelerating, Universe. A mathematical connection must be specified and
tested.
4 Minimal phenomenological connection to cosmic expansion
To turn the qualitative proposal into a falsifiable statement, I introduce the following minimal phenomenological ansatz:
H(t) = -kappa d[ln X(t)]/dt, kappa > 0,
where H = (1/a) da/dt is the Hubble parameter and kappa is a dimensionless coupling parameter. This
equation is not presented as a fundamental law derived from first principles. It is the simplest test
relation I use to express the OBT claim quantitatively. Integrating gives
a(t) / a(t_0) = [ X(t_0) / X(t) ]^kappa.
Thus, within this ansatz, a decrease in X corresponds to an increase in the scale factor. This is a relation between the evolution of a cosmological variable and the scale of space; it is not a statement
that matter is simply flying outward through an otherwise fixed empty space.
The acceleration of the scale factor satisfies
(d^2a/dt^2)/a = dH/dt + H^2.
Using the ansatz above, accelerated expansion requires
-kappa d^2[ln X]/dt^2 + kappa^2 {d[ln X]/dt}^2 > 0.
Page 3
This condition is useful because OBT can no longer claim that deceleration alone explains accelerated
expansion. The time dependence of X must satisfy a specific inequality. A future dynamical theory must
derive X(t), rather than choosing it merely to reproduce the desired expansion history.
5 Relation to standard cosmology and dark energy
In a spatially flat Lambda-CDM cosmology, the late-time expansion history is commonly represented by
a Friedmann equation containing matter, radiation, and a cosmological-constant contribution. OBT does
not dispute that Lambda-CDM provides an excellent empirical fit to major cosmological datasets,
including the cosmic microwave background [3].
The OBT question is narrower: can a self-consistent dynamics for X(t) reproduce the measured H(z)
and distance-redshift relations without introducing a separate dark-energy component?
For comparison with observations, the phenomenological OBT relation can be written as
H_OBT(z) = -kappa d[ln X]/dt.
This expression is not yet predictive because X(t) has not been derived independently. Predictive power
begins only when an evolution equation for X is specified from the underlying OBT dynamics with
parameters fixed independently of the same expansion data being fitted.
At minimum, such a model would need to be confronted with Type Ia supernova distances, baryon
acoustic oscillations, cosmic microwave background constraints, cosmic chronometers, and structure-
growth measurements. Recent high-precision BAO work continues to test whether the late- time
acceleration is adequately described by a cosmological constant or requires dynamical behavior [4].
OBT must compete with those measurements quantitatively, not rhetorically.
6 Matter-energy evolution as a secondary hypothesis
OBT further proposes that the changing universal dynamical state may be related to matter- energy
evolution. The established mass-energy equivalence E = mc^2 is a constraint on any such proposal; it
is not evidence by itself that rest masses change cosmologically.
A testable extension would require a relation such as
d ln m_i/dt = beta_i d ln X/dt,
where beta_i would have to be derived or independently constrained for each relevant physical sector.
Precision spectroscopy, atomic clocks, particle-mass measurements, and limits on variation of fundamental constants would then place strong bounds on beta_i.
This section is therefore a proposed test program. OBT does not presently establish that stable- particle
rest masses decrease with cosmic time.
7 Radioactive half-life and unstable matter
Radioactive decay provides another possible test because unstable systems have measurable lifetimes. For a conventional exponential decay law,
N(t) = N_0 exp(-lambda t),
where lambda is the decay constant and the half-life is T_1/2 = ln(2)/lambda.
The OBT conjecture is that an underlying dynamical evolution might influence unstable systems more
readily than stable ones. To make this scientific, however, the conjecture must be expressed as a
measurable deviation, for example
d ln lambda_i/dt = gamma_i d ln X/dt.
The coefficients gamma_i cannot be assumed from the existence of radioactive decay. They must be
predicted or constrained. Existing observations showing highly stable decay rates under ordinary
Page 4
conditions already impose a demanding test. A null result is informative: sufficiently stringent bounds on
gamma_i would rule out large classes of OBT matter-decay couplings.
Free-neutron beta decay should likewise be treated within the established weak-interaction framework
unless an OBT extension can reproduce the observed decay products, spectrum, conservation laws,
and lifetime. OBT does not replace those results merely by invoking inertia or mass.
8 Observer time and the invariant speed of light
OBT also motivates a future interpretive question about observer time. Relativity establishes that
elapsed proper time depends on the worldline and gravitational environment of a clock, while local
inertial observers measure the same vacuum light speed c.
The observer is part of the physical Universe rather than an external spectator. OBT asks whether this
fact can support a deeper interpretation of why measurements of light and time remain linked under
changes of motion. However, the present paper does not assert that light is stationary, nor does it
replace Lorentz transformations with ordinary velocity addition.
Any future OBT formulation of observer time must reproduce Lorentz invariance and the experimental
tests of relativistic kinematics. The familiar statement that one cannot obtain a measured light speed by
simply writing c + v_observer is already a consequence of relativistic velocity transformation; OBT must
add a distinct, testable result if this interpretation is to have physical content.
9 Quantum interpretation reserved for future work
Earlier OBT notes considered wave-particle duality, the double-slit experiment, uncertainty, superposition, and entanglement in terms of matter-energy transformation and observer time. Those
proposals are intentionally not developed as claims of the present cosmology paper.
A future OBT quantum paper would have to reproduce, at minimum, interference probabilities, the Born
rule or an empirically equivalent probability rule, uncertainty relations, and the experimentally observed
correlations of entangled systems. Descriptive analogies between wave and particle states are not
sufficient. Separating this work prevents the cosmological hypothesis from depending on an untested
quantum interpretation.
10 Falsifiability and research program
The present formulation gives OBT several direct failure conditions.
First, if V_U cannot be defined without an arbitrary preferred frame or without conflict with established
relativistic invariance, the proposed universal variable is not viable in its present form. Second, if an
independently derived X(t) cannot reproduce the observed H(z) and distance data, the cosmological
connection fails. Third, if the theory requires mass or decay-rate variations larger than observational
limits, those extensions are excluded. Fourth, if OBT can reproduce any expansion history only by
freely choosing X(t), it has no explanatory advantage over a reparameterization of the measured scale
factor.
The immediate theoretical task is therefore to derive an evolution equation for X from a specified action,
field equation, conservation principle, or other well-defined dynamical law. Only then can kappa and any
matter-coupling coefficients become predictions rather than fitting parameters.
11 Discussion
The purpose of OBT Version 2 is not to claim that a broad collection of unsolved problems has already
been resolved. It is to convert one underlying intuition into a form that can be criticized quantitatively.
The minimal ansatz H = -kappa d ln X/dt shows both the attraction and the weakness of the idea. It
makes the proposed connection between dynamical deceleration and expansion explicit, but by itself it
Page 5
is only a change of variables. The theory gains independent physical content only if X is defined and its
evolution is derived without using H(t) as the input that determines it.
This requirement also clarifies the status of the dark-energy proposal. OBT does not eliminate dark
energy simply by renaming the expansion. It would have to produce a dynamical model that matches
the same observations, makes additional predictions, and survives tests that distinguish it from Lambda-CDM and other dynamical-dark-energy models.
The matter-energy and radioactive-decay extensions provide possible independent tests, but they are
intentionally secondary. If the central cosmological dynamics cannot be established, adding further
interpretations does not strengthen the theory.
12 Conclusion
I have reformulated OBT as a focused hypothesis of universal dynamical deceleration. The central
assumption is that a physically definable cosmological variable V_U decreases with cosmic time. A
minimal phenomenological ansatz connects this variable to expansion through H = -kappa d ln(V_U/c)/dt.
This formulation explicitly distinguishes expansion of space from ordinary outward motion of matter and
provides a mathematical condition for accelerated expansion. It also makes clear what remains missing:
a first-principles definition and evolution law for V_U.
OBT therefore remains unproven. Its next stage is not another broader interpretation but a narrower
derivation. If an independent dynamical law for V_U can be constructed and shown to reproduce
cosmological observations while generating new testable predictions, the hypothesis merits further
development. If that cannot be done, the central proposal should be rejected or substantially revised.
Data availability statement
No new datasets were generated or analyzed in this theoretical hypothesis article. The observational
datasets discussed are available through the cited publications and collaborations.
Author contributions
Nam Koo Kim conceived the One Believing Theory, developed the physical hypotheses and interpretations presented in this manuscript, selected the final scientific claims, and reviewed and
approved the complete manuscript. The author is solely responsible for the scientific content, conclusions, and submitted version.
Funding
The author declares that no external financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author is affiliated with Artificial Consciousness Tech and Skytrack Tech. No other commercial or
financial relationships are declared that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The author used ChatGPT (GPT-5.6 Sol, OpenAI) during manuscript preparation to assist with English-
language editing, organization, translation, literature-checking support, and mathematical presentation
of the author's OBT concepts. The author conceived OBT and its underlying hypotheses, reviewed and
Page 6
selected the final scientific content, checked the manuscript and references, and accepts full responsibility for the submitted work. ChatGPT is not an author or co-author.
References
1. Riess AG, et al. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. Astron J. 1998;116:1009-1038. doi:10.1086/300499.
2. Perlmutter S, et al. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys J. 1999;517:565-586. doi:10.1086/307221.
3. Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron Astrophys. 2020;641:A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910.
4. Gu G, Wang X, Wang Y, Zhao G-B, Pogosian L, Koyama K. Dynamical dark energy in light of the DESI DR2 baryonic acoustic oscillations measurements. Nat Astron. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41550- 025-
02669-6.
5. Einstein A. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Ann Phys. 1905;17:891-921.
6. Einstein A. The foundation of the general theory of relativity. Ann Phys. 1916;49:769-822.
7. Particle Data Group. Review of Particle Physics. Prog Theor Exp Phys. 2024;2024:083C01.
US Copy Right Oct/23/2000
