Welcome to a
completely different way of looking at how our universe works.
I was 18 years old
when I had a fatal disagreement with mainstream science. At that time (1956)
the idea of Dark Matter was already being taken seriously. Dark Energy had not become a
possibliity because Hubble was decades away. My problem then and ever since has
been a fundamental disagreement with Newton and Einstein. I was sure then and
have become surer still that I was right about how the universe
works. Observational revelations since then have made my theories not just more
plausable but have reinforced the plausibility of them.
So who am I...? Well
I am completely unknown and irrelevent as I don't exist in the scientific
community and perhaps never will. This could be an advantage as I have
absolutely nothing to lose. Although it may be very irritating, I can't be
ostracised, I can't lose my precious job, I can't be struck off and my funding
can't be withdrawn from me. So it is good for my sanity that I am
unknown.
O.k. so you might
think that my theory is crackpot. But they are every bit as relevant as all of
the other crackpot theories which solve nothing yet require big leaps of
imagination (magic) for them to work like 'cosmological constant'. Uh.. what
mechanism does the multiverse use to keep pumping energy into our universe and
at the same time magically evenly distribute it like a gas (perhaps our universe
is a gas)?
My theory simplifies,
reveal solutions and make possible the mechanical functioning of the universe.
This it does without resorting to magical emerging of photons or fantastical
hypotheses. The recent Dark Matter discoveries regarding galaxies and Dark
Energy with respect to the accelerating expansion of the universe are explained
by my theory.
There was a time very
recently when scientists confidently asserted that from the moment of the Big
Bang, the amount of mass/energy in the universe is constant. Then came the
notion of the accelerating expanding universe. Those assertions have been
quietly removed from eminent web sites because of the 'Cosmological Constant'.
Now hugely elaborate ideas are postulated for how the universe works but there
was no need to change the original sound logic because there is an answer which
reconciles with the steady state hypothesis.
My laws don't so much
require a constant mass/energy quantity in the universe but have no need of any
additional input of energy or magical quintescence to make the universe
work.
Mainstream
science with hundreds of millions of ££ to spend and virtually unlimited
computing power plus the best brains to dwell on it has failed to unravel the
mysteries of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Big, expensive experiments are well
over 20 years down the line and they are no nearer to solving the
problem. Surely it is time to reflect on the failures and to consider
some other alternatives.
Has anybody
wondered whether dark energy and dark matter are somehow fundamentally
intertwined as they are both found together everywhere. Or are they considered
to be two entirely separate issues to resolve? Wouldn't it be a nice tidy
situation if it ends up that they are fundamentally
linked.
Why does there
appear to be much more gravity on the edges of galaxies than there should
be because the stars are moving faster than they should. I wonder if there is
another reason besides a huge blanket halo of gravitational Dark Matter? Is
there some logic in the fact that some galaxies spiral arms are leading edges
and not trailing edges?
I have derived some fundamental laws based on
my observations which seems to work in the universe which I am suggesting is the
one we live in. They require no magic, caveats or constants other than perhaps
acceptance that the total mass/energy in the universe is constant. I am
proposing that the universe of Newton and Einstein is severely flawed and cannot
be repaired. The problem with both is that they are missing a dimension. Their
theories work within their 2 dimensional universe of momentum and
gravity but evidence has it that there is a 3rd dimension which they ignored as
have everybody else since. And this is because in the main the universe
worked quite well within their theories until now.
Read this
analysis of how Einstein's theories stack up and the explanations that are being
mooted to patch over the crevasses: http://www.eso.org/~bleibund/papers/EPN/epn.html Quote: 'The opinions of cosmologists currently range from visions of ?precision
cosmology? to worries about the fact that we have to add new constituents to the
universe for which we have currently no explanation at all. This is not
necessarily a contradiction (mm.. well yes it is). Observers have been furnished
with tools over the last decade, which allow them to probe many of the
cosmological questions in much more detail and with much higher precision. On
the other hand, these new results have shown that our picture of the universe
was (is) incomplete
(wrong) and will need further scrutiny'
If you get to the end of this treatise and you
find that what I am saying makes sense then you will have to re-think the science
of matter. Perhaps it applies even down to the sub atomic
level
The first question I
wish to tackle is the nature of Dark Energy. So I am starting
with The Accelerating Expanding Universe
This is because it is postulated by mainstream science that somehow
the universe is not only expanding but that the expansion is accelerating.
Neither Newton's nor Einstein's physics can deal with that phenomenon
satisfactorily unless a magical constant is introduced. In a gravity -
propulsion universe, the one we live in, matter does not require that
constant. You can read all about it on my web site DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY EXPLAINED
