pantheory

If you have spin, you have rotation around the black hole don't you? And you get spin from the fact that it is hardly likely that particles will cross collide. Or what do you have?

I agree, little cross collisions, just a powerful torquing maelstrom torus.

Show us.

 

So far this thread has been a great example of what happens when the mathematics is left out of physics. We are left with a bunch of people babbling about their non sense pet theories without offering any proof. The fact that you can watch Pincho Paxton's video and are able to take it seriously is indicative of your lack of physics knowledge. MOND, though probably false, would be a drastic improvement to this thread.

This is the summary of the gravity equations: from pantheory.com ; starting from page 57a. , which is my pushing gravity model being discussed.

The mathematical formulation of these pushing currents of gravity would be based upon the Newtonian style equation Ø ≈ G • Mm/ rⁿ where the value of "n" would be determined by two variables that would depend on the masses and their relative positions within the surrounding field, where n = 2^ (1 + ar. / cr.) . ar. is the distance of the active range in a given system where the vector forces of gravity becomes non-linear. cr. is the considered range which is the distance between the beginning of the active range to the particular location being evaluated. Additionally there are "e" factor (base e) equations for redshifts greater than ~.6 that effect what we will observe at these distances. These can be found here on pages 101 - 102A. The null effect condition for the first equation is Newtonian gravity, and the limit of the second equation is equivalent to Milgram's MOND gravity. The use of these equations always would consist of at least two equations for stellar systems and many more for complicated best-fit modeling of galaxy structures or clusters.

Summary: F=G x Mm/r^n where "n" = 2^ (1 + (plus) cr./ar.) for the "inside range" of gravity for stellar sized bodies and for the "outside range;"

where n = 2^ 1 - (minus) cr./ar. for groups of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters structures. These are simple vector division tensor equations. All combined vector forces of this pushing gravity model are both Newtonian centripetal vectors with additional tangent vectors.

Since both ar. and cr. variables require rotational observation to enable calculations, these formulations have the same problems as hypothetical dark matter. Tell me how the galaxy rotates and I will make the predictions of how the galaxy rotates , pure retrodiction. In this model the aether being the source of gravity is based upon its motion rather than its placement or mass, since the aether accordingly is a particulate mass-less ZPF with particles roughly Planck size 10^-35 m.

//

I don't know, I was surprised at the amount of movement in that. I didn't add the negative mass either. I just wanted to see what would happen. I should really do the full test. I tend to move on to other things though. I am currently working on a Neural Network of an ants nest.

The ant network/ colony would seem to be a cool idea to try to model, but since you have already made a good start on your field development model, I think you should stay with it until you think that it has merit or not

//

I watched Hawkings 'Did God Create The Universe' on TV the other day. I wanted to rewatch before asking someone but it is no longer available. He said that since very small sub-atomic particles popped in and out of existence, then the universe could pop into existence. It seemed like a stretch.

Hawking is right; a lot of theorists believe the universe could have come into existence by such a sub-atomic popping-into-existence kind of beginning. I agree with you that such a proposal seems highly unlikely, but Hawking's ideas are highly respected by many. As to the question 'Did God Create The Universe', it is simply a matter of whether the religious explanation of creation is valid or not. Few in science believe that it is.

Pope Pius XII, however, did indicate that Big Bang cosmology seemed to be consistent with the bible. The founder of the Big Bang model was a scientist but also a Raman Catholic Priest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_teachings_of_Pope_Pius_XII

I think of it as a kind of physical trinary code. Where energy is pushed into containers, and when the containers overlap the energy can cross from one place to the next, expanding, and shrinking the containers. We evolved with these eyes, and senses to look through millions of these containers in one go. As we look through them we get results. As the two slit experiment travels through them it alters those containers. When we try to observe those containers we alter those containers by allowing them to overlap, and pass their information along.

This must be the basis of your program that I watched. It was fun to look at, wondering what it's going to evolve into

//

I have a matter gets bigger, and matter gets smaller. I have broken maths down to the simplest form that I could get to work...

 

+1 + -1 = 0

 

+1 is the Aether membrane.

-1 is a negative mass hole inside the membrane.

 

So scaling happens in my theory when the membrane of two Aether particles overlap. The edges overlap, and the area of those edges increases the +1 to say 1.00000000000000000000001. And that is the electron. The electron energy then reduces the +1 down 0.9999999999999999999999. The hole in the middle -1 now raised slightly. To scale the negative mass down there is an internal negative bump, cause by a polarized layer of negative particles... Dark Matter.

You got me beat on the math concerning simplicity; that's for sure. My own math concerning theoretical physics is different but no simpler than the standard model The math in my gravity model is a MOND like formulation that has at least 3 variables. In my overall cosmology model math does not represent reality, it is simply an estimation of it for the purpose of prediction. A mathematical model of gravity with 3 variables is no better than the dark matter hypothesis. All of it is simply a matter of retrodiction and accordingly the degree of accuracy might improve as knowledge improves, but such equations or the use of dark matter accordingly could never be better than a poor step-child concerning a representation of reality.

Unfortunately in math, complexity is often needed. But I think simplicity concerning any explanation of reality or the related math, is infinitely better if you can make it work

//

It is the Speed Of Light.

 

The principle is almost the same as Pancho's

 

 

My principle is that when you have in your left hand something called "matter" and in the right hand an unexisting thing called "nothing", the most evident explanation must reside in the left hand, not in the right hand. Instead of looking into this "nothing" and trying to give some properties to it, like an aether for example, it is more logic to "give" some property at what is existing.

 

This "property" could be scaling.

Why scaling? or as you wrote "for what reason does this reduction take place?'

 

The answer would be an hypothesis on top of an hypothesis.

I support largely Masreliez work which is well based. Masreliez concept is about expansion, not contraction. I have to admit that I change my mind every week about that. I have sometimes a feeling that in the end, it doesn't matter: the observational result might be the same.

IOW, I don't know.

--------------------

I notice there is no wiki page in English for Masreliez

Here is the link in French

In my own model, aether is a simpler thing than matter. It is made up of the same simple strings/ springs of particulates as matter but less complex and shorter strands of it. I have at one time read Masreliez material. In my own model there is a simply "why" answer for every question. Why would matter get bigger seems unanswerable, but why matter/ field material would get smaller is not the same. It gets smaller because it accordingly has internal windings that cause it to unwind which also explains the particle spin of matter. If matter is getting smaller, then it would have been larger in the past. Larger matter would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation, hence the observed redshifts.

Such a simple aether field is still hypothetical but I believe it is a far simpler idea than a pure energy background field (the ZPF) which to me requires reality to be much more complicated. In my model everything in reality is relatively simple, including gravity as a simple mechanical pushing force

//

My concept is different:

each second, matter is reducing 300000 km in radius. Kilometers are measured relatively to the observer. So when 1 second of time have passed, matter can, again reduce 3 10^6 km. It is a scaling operation, there is no end to it.

Michel,

Mine also is a Scaling theory of sorts. The slowly decreasing size of matter relates to larger matter in the past producing longer wavelengths of EM radiation which we accordingly call redshifts .

3 10^6 km per second, per what quantity of matter? On what basis is this calculated? Is this reduction based upon diameters or what dimension? For what reason does this reduction take place?

//

I have entropy as the force. A membrane surrounding the particles is the feedback loop (the bubbles that I have been using) When Aether overlaps it raises the energy at that overlap position. the raise in energy travels to the membrane outside, and bounces back. the bounce back pushes the particles apart again. Entropy.

In my own model the observable universe is generally not expanding. Your model seems both interesting and sophisticated. Mine is not. Accordingly the original black holes of the universe starting as clumpings of field material that eventually got pushed together into very large dense orbs of field material. In the observable universe now, matter accordingly most often is the original seed for the clump which again becomes compressed down to field material only as it becomes very massive and dense.

In this model field particles, which also make up matter, must unwind and in so doing slowly become smaller. By calculations using redshifts, field particles and matter lose back to the field about 1/000 part every 5 million years. That is my separation mechanism of renewal.

//

IMHO you are all wrong. Nothing is pushing or pulling. My pet theory is that matter is expanding/contracting and the attractive effect of gravity is caused by acceleration. Something like inertia.

Michel, in this model matter does not expand or contract but it does slowly get smaller, about 1/1000 part every 5 million years; calculations are based upon the observed redshifts. In time these discarded string-like segments are reformed into new protons and electrons by the torsion forces surrounding galactic black holes. The result is a relatively constant matter density in the observable universe. A surrounding aether-like field would act like atmospheric gases by pushing on us in all directions. This force would act somewhat like gas pressure trying to push itself apart and material within the field together.

Yes, magnetism is also a push force.

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling Pincho. My overall model asserts that only substance by contact or physical connection can create what we presently call a force

//

The pushing gravity thing is fun a fun but old theory...has anyone come up with a physical test yet?

Yes I've designed a test of the speed of light up vs. down. For this I need very precise timing devices which I believe I have found, accurate to a couple billionths of a second, and some extruded fiber optic material that slows down the speed of light be a factor of about a 1000. Instead of the speed of light through it being 186,000 miles per second, it would be about 2000 miles per second. Such materials do exist but maybe not 2 pieces of high quality material, both need to be a mile long. No other model of gravity or test for aether predicts a difference in aether or light speed to such a small extent, up vs. down of about 60 feet per second difference, or ~41 mph.

It will likely be 2 years or longer before I will be able to conduct such an experiment based upon the time and money needed to do it.

,,

If you had two spherical particles, and you were told to make one particle move the other particle, what would you do?To make them pull you have to add some invisible magic. But pushing them is easy. The easy answer is don't add invisible magic to the Universe, if you have a way to do the same thing without any magic.

I certainly agree. The simpler answer is usually the better answer. There are no "a priori" forces of any kind in my over-all cosmology model. Magnetism in all of its facets is also accordingly a pushing force concerning a background field aether in my magnetism model.

Thanks Pincho,

Looked at your Universe generator link. Pretty cool. I watched the whole thing

...........Also... gravity does work differently indoors. For regular "pulling" gravity, the walls of a building pull (negligibly) on each other. In a more extreme example of "indoors", the inside of a spherical shell contributes 0 gravitational force everywhere inside the shell (off topic but integration can show this) while to the outside everywhere it contributes a gravitational attraction towards the shell.

It would seem to work the same way with pushing gravity. When inside a building there is a little bit of pushing toward the walls and a little less pushing on you, not perceptible to any degree, but still there. Inside a spherical shell you would be pushed in all directions equally toward the outer shell so you would not move. Accordingly there could be no space without the ZPF, in this case an aether. As you said, there seems to be little difference concerning pushing and pulling gravity. Pushing gravity is called a mechanical explanation of gravity which it would seem that pulling gravity could never be. I don't believe there are any other known mechanical explanations of gravity.

Also... with GR you can treat gravitational acceleration as a type of inertial motion through curved spacetime (rough interpretation of http://en.wikipedia....wtonian_gravity). You don't need to treat it as a force at all,

The Pushing gravity model is not a "a priori" force. It is simply that this pushes that, which pushes that ... and so on. And acceleration of gravity is extremely simple. The vector toward matter is greater than the force pushing away from matter so a continuous net force is applied to matter in an inward direction, which causes matter to accelerate which we describe as gravity.

I believe, in order to model it. So if it is modeled by a force, whether it's pushing or pulling doesn't matter (I am guessing); either should be workable???. I don't think you would need to invent anything new (like an aether) to model it.

You are correct. I do not need to have an aether to explain the inward pushing of gravity as a force, but "force theory" is always infinitely more complicated than simple mechanical theory. All past pushing gravity models including my own, us particulates like dark matter, for the pushing process. In aether theory the aether along can explain everything, including matter, EM radiation, and all of reality including the laws of physics, all by the simplest of explanations.

I think it would be silly to argue either for or against a "pushing force" model by assuming the existence of an aether and/or to assume that it behaves at all like air pressure.

 

For or against a pushing force, I think it makes more sense to treat gravity behaving like gravity, not like something else that behaves very differently.

As far as I'm concerned, how it is explained must be based solely upon observation and logic, and any other reason for explanations I think should run a distant third Accordingly everything that exists in the whole universe is simple to understand and explain! excepting when trying to make a mathematical estimation of it for prediction purposes

Oh I see. yes I use those fields in my theory, I just don't call them fields, I would more likely call them chains, that's all, because they are linked particles. So I didn't know what you meant.

I use different names for a physical aether field in my model, but usually I call it a Pan Field, because I call the most fundamental particles (like the "god-particle, aka Higg's particle) Pan. A string of these particles I call a Pan Chain. So as a field I call them collectively concerning a particular volume, a Pan Field. But for the purposes of this discussion I think I should call it simply an aether so that I don't need to discuss details of the whole theory, just details of the pushing gravity model

Yeah it's a good theory. I don't know why you have all these Pan fields though. They seem too helpful to your theory, like they have been thrown in to tie up loose ends. There's a simpler solution to get rid of them.

The entire model is a field hypothesis concerning the Zero Point Field, which accordingly is space containing a large number of physical entities like the dark matter hypotheses. So accordingly I can't get rid of them because they are the only thing that exists, period. These particles in the field are accordingly the elementary particulates that when forming looped strings of the same particle, make-up all matter (no quarks or gluons), and they have a mechanical innate motivator that causes them to unwind. Once these strings of particles are forced into loops they spin and we can observe them as atomic particles or otherwise.

There accordingly is nothing else in all of reality. They collectively comprise everything, the whole of the universe. This one particle type forms all matter as well as all of finite space, in their vast numbers. Everything in reality can be explained and/ or defined by this single simple particle alone, including the beginning of time. Accordingly nothing else exists! So to get rid of them I would end up with nothing at all, which accordingly is an impossible state of existence/ reality

Since this is a pushing gravity model, there needs to be something pushing from all sides, right? You can call this an aether hypotheses/ model (a type of dark matter model if you like) involving the physical particulates and mechanics of pushing gravity. It has many similarities to older pushing gravity models which also required particulates to do the pushing

//

Thanks Pincho Paxton,

Of all of my theories this model of pushing gravity is over 50 years old and still I believe one of the best

This being the Labor Day Weekend in the U.S. , more people should be leaving comments in the forum

It would need to be extended. The distinction between "revised" and "extended" here is important.

Velocity is not a field. Velocity is a quantity.

It appears to me that we are not disagreeing. When using a preferred reference frame to measure motion, velocity is the motion whether linear or orbital, that is measured relative to a background field which is considered stationary. In modern physics it is called relative velocity, but in a particulate ZPF (an aether) there was generally only one preferred reference frame which accordingly was gravity centered.

The definition of aether that I'm using is "a hypothetical background field of particulate/ string-like entities including their energies of relative motion," which comprise the ZPF. It may or may not be a luminiferous aether.

You seem to be missing the key word there - it must be identifiably different. That means that it must have some laws of physics different from the other frames. That is why preferred frame means the same thing as absolute frame. You also seem to be missing the fact that the fields, just like the fields in the standard model, would not inherently give any velocity at all. It would create no "reference volume".

As explained by the definition the I provided above from wiki, a preferred reference frame only needs to be a simpler to use reference frame, that's all. In the old aether models which defined preferred reference frames, such a choice of frames was solely based upon the idea that a particular frame of reference could be considered stationary because its constituents could be considered to have no average relative linear motion, hence motion calculations could be considered preferred such as velocity relative to the Earth, for instance, or the velocity of the Earth relative to the sun. Both the Earth and the Sun accordingly would be considered preferred reference frames for calculation purposes. Later in the 1870's, the idea that an aether might have a different relative motion to the Earth, redefined such preferred reference frames as being solely gravity centered. Today because of the perspectives of Special Relativity since no aether-like background field has yet been discovered (such as dark matter), the phrase "preferred reference frame" is no longer used. But the future is just around the corner

I'm not seeing this term anywhere.

 

Does not suggest a particular reference frame in any way.

 

Is a part of the Standard model which is inherently relativistic - it automatically rejects particular reference frames.

 

Please expand this

I believe that if a background particulate field exists, that the standard model will need to be revised.

A preferred reference frame means a reference frame according to which the laws of physics are different than the laws of physics in another frame. None of these would provide that in any way.

 

This is, quite simply, incorrect. None of these hypotheses posit a preferred frame in the least.

=Uncool-

"In theoretical physics, a preferred reference frame or privileged frame, is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames."

(bold added) quote from link below.

http://en.wikipedia....Preferred_frame

Such a frame would be simpler because no transformations would need to be applied. Everything within a defined field such as velocity, would simply be compared to the dominant background gravitational field as a preferred reference frame which would be considered stationary. Any preferred frame would not be absolute since it may have relative motions concerning its particulate ZPF constituents. It would simply be a reference volume concerning relative measurement of motion of matter or radiation such as velocity or rotation within its domain.

//

So, now you're also going to need a preferred reference frame with which to do your calculations? What about all the results that pretty strongly indicate that there are no preferred reference frames? You sure are piling on the need for an awful lot of extraordinary evidence needed to overthrow so much of the evidence that already supports the current ideas. Again, before you get your hackles up about this being too 'religious' let me just point out that this is how science works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How soon until we can see extraordinary evidence?

The idea of a preferred-reference-frames seems to again be surfacing. The strong hypothesis of dark matter, along with other hypotheses such as gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum sand, field strings, and many more, all assert a background field, a particulate ZPF. If any of these hypothesis and there related physical particles are valid then the background field (the ZPF) would be fraught with such particulates. Such a field used to be called an aether (whether luminiferous or not) and it surly provided a preferred reference frame to measure relative motion of matter or anything else within the field. If any of these particulate hypothesis are valid then physics might again assert a preferred reference frame as well as to revisit the merits of Special Relativity as apposed to Lorenz Transforms. They would also probably reconsider the merits and structure of Quantum Theory which as one of its foundation pillars also asserts no preferred reference frames.

//

Has anyone heard of Dr. Joseph M. Brown and his unified theory of physics? I saw this book in my school's bookstore, but I could only find places to purchase it online rather than any actual scientific discussion or commentary. He really thinks that he has it figured out. Here is the description from the website:

 

This book completes the theory of physics as outlined in Principles of Science. The postulates make up an ether gas of identical, perfectly elastic, smooth, spherical particles. Inhomogenieties of this gas exist in volumes with a diameter in the order of the mean free path. These inhomogeneous assemblies are neutrinos. Neutrinos generally have straight paths and travel at the speed of light. Certain mass neutrinos can take circular paths and thus are matter particles. These matter particles interact in various ways to produce gravitation, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. The theory is a true unified field theory since it unites all four force fields.

 

And from amazon:

 

The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force are all derived from one postulated particle, the postulated velocity of the particle, and the postulated collision mechanism of the particles. Thus, the unified field theory so long sought after by Einstein and others has been obtained. In addition, the unified theory presented here also derives the particles of matter, radiation, and even the neutrinos. A truly unified theory of physics is presented.

 

Here is his website http://basicresearchpress.com

 

Apparently he did all of his research in his spare time. He has published a few books on physics including one claiming to provide a structure for the photon.

Of course as all realize the devil is in the details. But as far as the logic of it goes, in my opinion, it is totally plausible. I like his general approach which has similarity to my own model

Is there any reason why this theory did not explode like Lisi's AESTOE? Is it even plausible?

His website generally gives no details that I could find. It seems that the purpose of it is to sell the book.

In my opinion, it's irrelevant how good a theory is, even if it is 100% correct, and it's not how well it is explained, it's how it stacks up against present interpretations of observations. If there are no recognized interpretations of observations to support it, it might take centuries for a "correct theory" to get recognized. Once dark matter of some kind, or some other particulate(s) is recognized as being part of the Zero Point Field, then aether theory seemingly might again become more than just hypothetical like Dr. Brown's model appears to be.

Lisi's model had lots of cool math and as far as I know, had no new foundation particles of reality. It's just the kind of mathematical model theorists like to play with.

It is explained by the many pushing gravity models, as indicated by the link that I provided above.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

If you read this wiki article you will understand the general mechanics. The Moon has less mass than the Earth, about 1/6th as much. The force of the inflowing field is proportional to the mass of the object, just like all other models of gravity. Each pushing gravity model proposes somewhat different mechanics.

The mechanics of my own model can be seen here , starting at page 57a.

For my model aether flows through matter and only a portion of it is stopped carrying the vector of its motion inward, compressing matter. The larger the matter the greater the compression. The inverse square law is based upon the surface area of all the matter involved which has as its basis 4 pi r² . This is why gravity has its limit in the formula based upon 1/r², called the inverse square law of gravity. The aether particulates are accordingly very small, roughly on the Planck scale, 10^-35 m. You might equate them with dark matter except they are much smaller and accordingly are mass-less like photons at rest, and their mechanics are strictly a physical pushing. A better description might be a physical aether with vortex motions and fluid dynamics.

G Anthony

Milgrom's model is much closer to the rotatation curve of the Milky Way than the dark matter profile provides. I think this is an indication that he is onto something. As I said in my posting above #2, that Milgrom's equations cannot solve the problem however, not Newton's or GR. One particular problem with Milgom's model is that there is no theoretical justification for it.

Based upon my own analysis I think there are a number of unidentified variables involved with spiral galaxy rotation, not something that just dark matter can explain. I think the trick will be to come up with a rationale for a new formulation for gravity, and that the formulation used for spiral galaxies will include three or more presently unknown variables which when plugged in (unrelated to the present variables of mass, etc.), the formulas will work every time within a tolerance range, concerning spiral galaxies. The problem for this development other than the justification, I think will be to identify what these presently unidentified variables are. I think these variable are related to several factors one of which you mentioned such as the mass and appearance of the central black hole.

Other factors presently not considered which I think are necessary, first concern the true mechanics of gravity (a mechanical explanation, such as vortex mechanics, fluid dynamics, etc.) which I think is presently needed and missing. Next might be the relative position and orientation of the galaxy in the cluster, the orientation of the adjacent galaxies, the rotation rate and relative orientations of the cluster, an estimate of the unseen physical characteristics of the galaxy, etc. The whole process is an estimation but in time I think we will be able to come closer than the present dark matter idea. If dark matter is an aether of Planck size particles, which I expect it to be, we will never be able to observe individual constituents. My hope is instead they will focus on a better understanding of gravity and that the warped space idea will be replaced by flat space and dark matter currents (an aether). I think that at galactic scales gravity will forever be an estimate with tolerances, something like the quantum world which will always involve statistical tolerances. For this new gravity model I favor a Pushing Gravity model, maybe something like my own model

If pushing gravity exerts pressure to keep us pressed against the planet from space, why isn't it affecting us differently indoors? Traditional gravity is a "force", but pushing gravity is just air pressure, which doesn't really add up to that much.

Pushing Gravity is based on an omni-present aether-like atmosphere of particulates in the ZPF, something like dark matter, gravitons, or smaller Planck size particulates/ strings. The atmosphere would have its own pressure on itself and would push matter together in the field since it could not push back. In some models the aether passes through matter and only some of it is stopped, in other models it may not totally penetrate matter but will leave its inward moving vector force within the matter. This is an old gravity model with a great many versions, some new and some old. One of the most famous is Le Sage's model.

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

You can find many other models by searching "Pushing Gravity."

//

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it).

 

http://www.physorg.c...ssing-mass.html

Pantheory in extreme layman's terms are you suggesting in your model .....

A similar path of the BB except a lot older and the Universe is a lot bigger than BB theorists perceive?

Little or no similarity to the BB model at all other than both models propose a finite beginning of the universe, otherwise they are very different. Not a similar path, a completely different evolution process of galaxies and of the universe.

Unless I'm wrong you are saying matter is multiplying at a much slower rate than the inflation theory suggests?

The Inflation model of the BB relates to how fast the universe supposedly first expanded. In my own model there is no expansion, no Inflation, dark matter, or dark energy. The Inflation model is not a model concerning the creation for new matter, it is the mechanism that supposedly transported mass/ energy to the far corners of the universe according to the BB model.

In the BB model there is no new creation of matter simply stellar nucleosynthesis which is the fusion processes within stars which all cosmological models adhere to. New matter is created in Hoyle's Stead State Model, the Plasma Cosmology model, and my own model. Such a model which proposed the creation of new matter was first proposed by Paul Dirac in the 1920's.

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it).

I think the Bullet Cluster is a good example concerning evidence that suggests that there is something going on the we cannot see, hence they presently call it dark matter. Also in my opinion, another model of gravity is needed based upon pushing gravity and an aether. I believe mathematical formulations alone cannot solve this problem.

I would put this questions in your thread but I've been through it and it is not a debate for amateurs lol.

Thanks Diamond. I expect that you will have learned from this thread since one can learn a lot by asking questions

//

G Anthony,

The overall dark energy data of type 1a supernova data have many error factors within them but through the numerous sources, it should be realized that there was no scam going on. Perlmutter and others were trying to show the validity of type 1a supernova as standard candles as a guide to assist astronomers and to help confirm the cosmological constant.

He also considered the hypothesis that the universe might be slowing down in a Big Crunch scenario. What he finally concluded was the opposite. I have gone over all the data and done the recalculation of it using my own formulas from my own cosmological model, but quite similar to the Hubble formula, but when using my formulas dark energy goes away -- accordingly does not exist.

http://www.pantheory...ical-papers.pdf

Dark matter is a different question. One can find two spiral galaxies that have a similar appearance concerning the age of their stars, their forms, their diameters, their estimated mass, the estimated size of their central black holes, etc. After an extended period of telescopic study one might realize the the rotation velocity of one galaxy rotates much faster relative to the background field of galaxies, than the other. Not only that, you might also observe that the internal rotation velocity of the stars of each have a quite different profile concerning their relative internal rotation curves. Upon observing this you would realize that no gravity formulation could have ever predicted these rotation velocities for these galaxies based upon the standard criteria because their general appearance is very similar. So instead you postulate that there must be unseen matter within and surrounding the galaxy to account for these rotation rates. You also realize that matter alone will not do the trick. You not only need 20 times as much matter that you can observe for one galaxy and 5 times as much as you observe for the other, you also realize that most of this matter must lie outside the observable galaxy. But the worst of it is that you must also provide greater momentum to the unseen matter for your models than the momentum you can observe withing the galaxies, and each galaxy would require different amounts of momentum for this unseen matter. Now once you know the rotation velocities of these galaxies you can throw into the model the supposed missing matter and momentum and presto. Welcome to the world of dark matter and retrodiction (predicting a quantity after it is already known to begin with).

It's not accordingly just a different formulation of gravity that is needed, I believe it is a different model of gravity that is needed that could allow for galactic vortex currents, and fluid dynamics for minuscule Planck-size field particles too small to behave as matter. I expect an aether-like model of pushing gravity like my own model, to eventually replace GR and the present dark matter hypotheses.

Jackson33,

pantheory; It's that beginning that worries me. If BBT, put the age of the U (it has increased over the years), at 1.4 trillion years ago, I'd still have the same problem, that singularity existed and had to come from someplace....But then you have a good deal of thought behind your model and it's not for me to try and change your mind.

Except for theorists, most people usually never fathom or ever realize that no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite concerning times past, according to my explanation in the previous posting, the overall-universe could not logically or possibly have had a cause. No matter what model one chooses there could have been no original cause for its existence.

My own model has a mathematical reason for its age according to the model. In the BB model the redshift interpretation is that the universe is expanding at a calculated rate. When you follow this rate back in time you get an age of 13.7 billion years old. My model has a similar type of calculation inherent in the model. Matter accordingly doubles in quantity while its relative size decreases by 1/2. Like the BB model this is also calculated from observed redshifts. From a single field particle roughly a million of which make up an electron, the whole universe was very slowly created by doubling in numbers every ~5 billion years. It then would take roughly 1.4 trillion years to produce the observable universe, which is probably minuscule compared to the size of the entire universe -- but still accordingly finite in time, quantity, and extension.