"The 'Speedup' of the Universe's Expansion at Extreme Distances"
- From: "Alomor" <alomor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 12:31:21 -0500
"The 'Speedup' of the Universe's Expansion at Extreme Distances"
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
Cosmologists seem to be concerned about the fact that, at extreme
distances, the observable universe is expanding at a greater rate than the
nearer portions of the universe. The current explanation seems to be that,
at extreme distances, a repulsive "gravitational" force acts. In a previous
postings the writer assumed that the apparent speedup of the expansion rate
at extreme distances occurred because those distances represented
observations of an early period of time in the formation of the universe
when the velocity of light was greater in absolute terms, causing the
absolute velocity of expansion to be higher. Needless to say, the writer was
not completely happy with that explanation.
The real cause of the expansion anomaly follows from the effects
described by the CORRECTED version of General Relativity. (General
Relativity, as currently accepted, is based upon a sophomoric mathematical
error. Dr. Einstein attempted to develop a tensor solution using the
Principle of Equivalence based upon the following equation:
(dx)^2 + (dy)^2 + (dz)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2 = (ds)^2
As any student of integral calculus will recognized, to be mathematically
rigorous the equation used should be:
(Ks*dx)^2 + (Ks*dy)^2 + (Ks*dz)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2 = (ds)^2
While it may not be obvious, the first equation does not eliminate the
presence of Ks, it makes the a priori assertion (without supportive
evidence) that, while Ks is there, its value is unity. The second equation
allows Ks to have any value between +/- infinity, including unity. (Using
the same coefficient for each spatial term insures that the result will
always lead to a spatially isotropic solution.)
As a result of the above lack of rigor, Dr. Einstein was tried
unsuccessfully for 18 months to solve the mathematics of General Relativity.
Instead of fixing his error, he finally resorted to the fakery of "Curved
Space" to provide the extra degree of freedom mature requires instead of
providing that freedom by allowing Ks to be other than unity. The excuse
given was "why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one can prove it
isn't". (Some scientists!) The table below provides all that is needed to
deal with both the relativistic effects of velocity and of gravity:
Parallel General Revised General
Quantity Velocity Relativity Relativity
Force (F) 1 1 1
Length (L) 1/Bv 1 1/Bg
Time (T) Bv Bg Bg
Space (S) 1 Bg 1
Where Bv is the Lorentz Transformation, (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5, and Bg is the
gravitational equivalent, (1-$). ($ represents the gravitational potential
between an upper and lower elevation.) Unlike the situation with velocity,
the gravitational field DOES have an absolute reference frame. That
reference frame exists at an infinite distance from the central mass.
It will be noted that under General Relativity the transformation for
length is unity and an extra transformation is required to account for the
alleged curvature of space. Under the revised version of General Relativity,
a length transformation analogous to that of Special Relativity is found to
exist, the Principle of Equivalence now WORKS, and space is seen to be FLAT!
The fakery of "curved space" is not required to make the mathematics work!
When one tests the conclusions of General Relativity against the
conclusions of the Revised General Relativity one finds that the difference
in their conclusions is only observable at distances closer than 100 times
the horizon radius of the source of the gravitational field. In other words,
the observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity in 1920
would have to be made in proximity to a neutron star. Short of having access
to Star Trek's Warp Drive, a direct observational distinction between the
two conclusions is not feasible.
Contrary to popular belief, the velocity of light DOES change as one
changes reference frames. This change is hidden from LOCAL observation
because matter uses the LOCAL velocity of light to control the size of its
units of measurement. Their LOCALLY observed, but not necessarily their
EXTERNALLY observed values remains unchanged. (For example, the locally
observed velocity of light is the same in all reference frames. In order for
this to be true, the velocity of light must change in ABSOLUTE terms between
reference frames in proportion to (1-V^2/C^2) since velocity is length
divided by time.
The change in the absolute size of the units of measurement for length
and time required by the relativity concepts requires a corresponding change
in other units of measurement for the Principle of Relativity to be valid.
The relativistic transformations for many physical parameters are provided
in Table 8.13.1 of http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm. If one examines the
implications of this table it becomes apparent that at a lower elevation the
permeability of space is lower. In other words, the proximity of energy, as
represented by a central gravitational mass, reduces the permeability of
space! In turn, the ABSOLUTE velocity of light in the gravitational field is
reduced. The reduction in the ABSOLUTE velocity of light requires the
parameters of matter to change. Part of this change is a reduction of the
ABSOLUTE energy represented by matter. Since energy is a conserved quantity,
in moving to a lower elevation, matter must divest itself of the excess
energy. That divested energy appears as the energy of fall (the force of
gravity times the change in elevation). If one is foolish enough to reject
the idea of the Aether, then the Newtonian requirement that all forces
appear in equal and opposite force components, one must accept that the
mainstream view that Newtonian reaction force for both gravity and
acceleration are "fictitious". If one accepts the concept of the Aether, the
force of gravity exists as a downward "push" acting against the Aether!
There is another effect which occurs and, in conjunction with the
gravitational mass of photons, which must exist if the Law of Conservation
of energy is to be valid, the so-called "dark energy" and the apparent
speedup of cosmological expansion at extreme distances is easily explained.
The mass of a central gravitational object, in terms of the units of
measurement existing at a distance from that object mass, is less than that
represented by the matter content of the central mass. When applied to
cosmology the effect would appear as a speedup of cosmological expansion as
if there was a reverse gravitational force working. The same conclusion
apples to observations of galaxies, hence the concept of "dark matter".
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einsteinhoax2@xxxxxxxxxxxx If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.