Hubble's observations of the big bang (above), illustrate an apparent increase in recession speeds with distances. But we're looking back in time with increasing distance.

By the time the light arrives, the stars are not where they were when the light was emitted, so the recession speed only corresponds to a specific time in the past, not to a specific distance now.

Hence, the proper correlation to get a constant is not the quotient 'speeds/distances' but rather 'speeds/time' which is acceleration, and is a = c/(age of universe) = 6 x 10^-10 m/s^2.

This acceleration is real, unlike the fiddled acceleration implied by the naive application of general relativity to the big bang that ignores the mechanism of gravity in the big bang itself.

The latter, fictional, acceleration is an invention to keep general relativity

*minus the gravity mechanism for it*fitting astronomical data. Because the inward force depends on the reaction of gauge bosons to the outward expansion force of the surrounding universe (since gravity is the shielding of a push rather than a pull force), the most distant galaxies have no inward push retarding them, so the naive application of general relativity to the big bang is false.

General relativity is the basis of the mechanism of gravity, but by the physical properties of space, not by the naive and false application of mechanism-less general relativity to the big bang.

The fiddled acceleration is supposed to prove that there is a lot of mysterious 'dark energy'. As we have seen, this is simply due to the lack of the mechanism for gravity in general relativity. When this lack is filled, general relativity works properly.

Similarly, the mysterious 'dark matter' is due to the same problem, the application of general relativity naively to the big bang, which predicts a critical density for the universe which is 0.5e^3 times higher than the correct density, given by heuristically finding and introducing the correct mechanism for gravity into the general relativity framework.

The factor 0.5e^3 is equal to about 10. The 0.5 comes from the geometric shielding effect in the gravitational mechanism (proved identically using two distinct calculations), while the e^3 is a density corection factor derived from a solution to an integral of the visible spacetime divergence with changing time past, which varies the density. The divergence is equivalent to a red-shift effect, so that the extremely high (approaching infinite) densities as we look towards time zero (tremendous spacetime distance or time past) don't introduce an infinity. They don't introduce an infinity because the divegence weakens the contribution from collossal distances, or very early times, toward zero.

On the home page, I show that the density falls with the inverse cube of time, if there is light speed expansion with no gravitational retardation (because with the gravity mechanism, there is no push to slow down the most distant matter/energy in the universe).

The density variation formula is [(1 – r/(ct)]^-3. Setting this equal to density factor e^3 we see that 1 - r/(ct) = 1/e. Hence r = 0.632ct. This means that the effective distance at which the gravity mechanism source lies is at 63.2 % of the radius of the universe, R = ct.

At that distance, the density of the universe is 20 times the local density where we are, at a time of 15,000,000,000 years after the big bang. Therefore, the effective average distance of the gravity source is 9,500,000,000 light years away, or 5,500,000,000 years after the big bang. What is scary is that this, all of it, is very simple, but the 'experts' just want to sneer and say general relativity (describing absolute accelerations like rotation) is wrong because of special relativity (which is a flat earth theory, unable to deal with accelerations at all) doesn't contain absolute motions like accelerations. We now live in not the unscientific age Feynman complained about in the 60s, but a fascist age where it is fashionable to score points by suppressing science.

*Matt Edwards, who makes money from the book 'Pushing Gravity' rejects the scientific method, like Ivor Catt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gravity/Archive_3*

Dear Nigel,

Since you stated above that I endorsed your theory, I have no choice but to reply. I did not endorse it. I merely noted that there were some mathematical similarities between your model and something I was working on (which did not appear in the book). Your model is premised on the Big Bang model. As I made clear in the full text of my letter to you, I do not subscribe to the Big Bang. I support a model featuring a universe in perpetual equilibrium, in the manner of Jaakkola's work. Please be more careful about quoting others.

Best wishes, Matt Edwards

Dear Matt Edwards,

I read your email and you apparently endorsed the mathematical similarities between the mechanism's prediction of my model, and the measured experimental gravity laws of Newton and Einstein, the newtonian law and the general relativity contraction mechanism. Either you want science or not. Ivor Catt has also done this [refusing to back proved fact if someone else has worked it out; preferring to imagine science is a personal business not a matter of hard facts about the universe]. If you understand what science is about you know it rests on facts. If you don't subscribe to the big bang model, you need a replacement model which has at least as much testable evidence for it. It really is sickening that the few people who understand LeSage mechanism chicken out of the science of the big bang. Do you subscribe to evolution, or is it just the big bang which your personal feelings don't tag along with? Please be reasonable here. I'm talking about predictions confirmed by experimental measurements, this is the scientific criterion, not prejudice.

Best wishes,

Nigel Cook

## 2 Comments:

Click HERE to see Brian Josephson exposed as a crackpot

And then click HERE for a sympathetic article about Edward Witten's sad string theory crackpotism (with name changed to avoid legal action)

Error above, the first link was exposing Double Dutch as a crackpot, not Josephson.

Indeed, Professor Josephson's research into weird phenomena probably has more science in it than the abjectly untestable speculation called "string theory".

Post a Comment

<< Home