Theory of Everything

quantum_wave said:
I must say that your ideas are quite "alternative", and I'm slow to grasp. I am thinking that we are all at the same level then, here on Earth. We would be on the same level if we travel in space, but if we were to encounter a black hole, the black hole would be at a different level, and we would not comfortably be able to go there, which is easy enough to understand. But at our level, there is matter and there is space. If matter fills all space, what kind of matter is in the seemingly airy or empty space between particles and objects?
Click to expand...

Between observable mass is infinitely lower levels of the cascading universe, "dark matter" if you will. These ideas are actually a result of one alone: The Milky Way must orbit something! Once I found evidence, I just followed the breadcrumbs :) Think about it like this, if evidence shows that the Milky Way orbits the Great Attractor, then it is highly likely that the Great Attractor orbits something, based on our observations of all systems in orbit. Gravity demands this, and philosophically the universe must be infinite, so infinite levels upward would exist. Then, removing the observer on Earth, if you were to cascade back down to Earth, you would have trouble finding which level is Earth. This results in the realization that there is no base level; we cannot be "special", on this pale blue dot :) Atoms immediately are recognized, then, as having the same structures because they are made up of "mostly empty space", having a nucleus and electrons in orbit about that nucleus. From there, you can philosophically think about this and arrive at the conclusion that all levels are composed of sublevels, infinitely.
 
Last edited:
sscully said:
Between observable mass is infinitely lower levels of the cascading universe, "dark matter" if you will. These ideas are actually a result of one alone: The Milky Way must orbit something! Once I found evidence, I just followed the breadcrumbs :) Think about it like this, if evidence shows that the Milky Way orbits the Great Attractor, then it is highly likely that the Great Attractor orbits something, based on our observations of all systems in orbit. Gravity demands this, and philosophically the universe must be infinite, so infinite levels upward would exist. Then, removing the observer on Earth, if you were to cascade back down to Earth, you would have trouble finding which level is Earth. This results in the realization that there is no base level; we cannot be "special", on this pale blue dot :) Atoms immediately are recognized, then, as having the same structures because they are made up of "mostly empty space", having a nucleus and electrons in orbit about that nucleus. From there, you can philosophically think about this and arrive at the conclusion that all levels are composed of sublevels, infinitely.
Click to expand...
I think you have accommodated your philosophy, making everything work for you philosophically, at the expense of any fundamental mechanics that might explain the "how" it works. What do you have on the "how" of the mechanics?

I am remined of a concept of cosmology that was said with a straight face, "Its turtles all the way down". It comes from a humoruous story you might enjoy. "Turtles Cosmology" :).
 
The Milky Way is not in orbit around anything. Along with the rest of the galaxies in the local galactic group we are moving in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus, they occupy orbitals according to their energy.
We do not observe 'everything' orbiting.
Photon have no mass.

Have you ever taken any courses in astronomy or cosmology?
Have you graduated high school?
Does this nonsense just 'come to you'?

I could go through your posts line by line pointing out all your errors and incorrect assumptions, but there's really no point in arguing with an ignorant crank.
 
AlexG said:
The Milky Way is not in orbit around anything. Along with the rest of the galaxies in the local galactic group we are moving in the direction of the constellation Virgo.
Electrons do not orbit the nucleus, they occupy orbitals according to their energy.
We do not observe 'everything' orbiting.
Photon have no mass.

Have you ever taken any courses in astronomy or cosmology?
Have you graduated high school?
Does this nonsense just 'come to you'?

I could go through your posts line by line pointing out all your errors and incorrect assumptions, but there's really no point in arguing with an ignorant crank.
Click to expand...

Alright mate, think what you want. In order to understand the universe, you should first understand why we say what we say--what the observations are. Otherwise, you are just regurgitating what someone else told you was their interpretation of the observations. I am not going to argue with you if you don't present me with observations that directly go against my theory. On the plus side, you will get to one day say "I asked him if he graduated high school." That'll be a fun fact for you.
 
All observations go directly against your nonsense.

I take it you've never studied any science.

"Prove me wrong' is the mantra of cranks.
 
sscully said:
Thanks mate, I derped up there and have now explicitly defined why the acceleration of the expansion of space is occurring. I hope you take the time to read through my posts, you will find they are surprisingly accurate using gravity alone.
Click to expand...

I have read most of your OP and I have many problems with your ideas but I am just taking a short break while trying to fix a tractor. I will hopefully have time to go into detail later today.
 
quantum_wave said:
I think you have accommodated your philosophy, making everything work for you philosophically, at the expense of any fundamental mechanics that might explain the "how" it works. What do you have on the "how" of the mechanics?

I am remined of a concept of cosmology that was said with a straight face, "Its turtles all the way down". It comes from a humoruous story you might enjoy. "Turtles Cosmology" :).
Click to expand...

The fundamental mechanics are gravity and its effects on mass alone. The universe is that simple. I use science to develop my understanding of the observations and philosophy to expand on what I think that means, then science once more to determine if that is what is observed. Through this process of back and forth, the true reality can be discovered. That turtle cosmology looks strikingly familiar ;-D
 
So I take it you've never actually studied any science.
 
origin said:
I have read most of your OP and I have many problems with your ideas but I am just taking a short break while trying to fix a tractor. I will hopefully have time to go into detail later today.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just ask that you remember the observations when presenting your arguments. In order to have a sound argument against this, it will have to be an observation that critically does not match the model. I can walk you through the evidence of how the model fits the observations at that point--I have analyzed as many observations as possible and all of them point to the same conclusion.

Also, I posted evidence a few posts down, so I encourage you to look at that as well, remembering that it is the observation that matters and not the interpretation of the observation. We currently interpret these observations using Doppler shift, so the paper disagrees with the conclusion that I reach because their interpretation is fundamentally different than mine. I, instead, am showing how gravity causes these observations. There is no need of dark energy or expansion of space in view of my interpretation. In order to understand fully, you must first separate observation from interpretation.
 
Last edited:
AlexG said:
So I take it you've never actually studied any science.
Click to expand...

I have a bachelor's in Chemical Engineering and spend much of my free time studying observations, using the internet to its full advantage. After graduation, I worked as a patent examiner in the area of fuel cells and batteries for the USPTO from 2007-2014, and I quit to focus all of my time on my manuscript.
 
Rather than saying 'prove me wrong' show us the observation that everything is orbiting something else. Provide some evidence.
 
AlexG said:
Rather than saying 'prove me wrong' show us the observation that everything is orbiting something else. Provide some evidence.
Click to expand...

Ok.

Before looking at the first piece of evidence, envision the system as defined above. IF the Great Attractor is lensing the light to Earth as I claim, how would the flow be? i.e. picture the curves from the Great Attractor to Earth, where along those curves a galaxy can exist. Directly center would be straight on, and as you move away from that line it will bend into an arc that moves more and more outward, dependent on initial angle, in order to arrive at Earth (or else we wouldn't perceive the light). So, just envision that first. I'd even suggest just drawing a bunch of lines yourself of how you intuitively feel the system would necessarily have to look, based on your knowledge of gravity; i.e. many source's positions and the initial angles and the curves necessary for the light to arrive at Earth, dependent on the source's position between the Great Attractor and Earth (the more the source is off of the axis, the more it must be lensed in order to arrive at Earth, the higher the angle must be). I'm repeating the same thing over and over because it's important that you can first envision it before you look at the evidence, as it is absolutely critical to appreciating it. Then take a look at Figures 14 and 17 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0091v4.pdf . The system is much more complex (i.e. shifted seemingly downward a tad and with that messy Virgo cluster), which I can fully elaborate on if you are interested in hearing more, but hopefully you can distinctly see the curves you just envisioned/drew of the gravitational lensing (especially in Figure 14). This currently is assumed as a flow of galaxies towards the Great Attractor because of Doppler shift, but it is actually the lines of gravitational lensing of LIGHT with the galaxies not flowing in that direction but instead just orbiting the Great Attractor.

Then look at Figure 13. Notice the LOCAL dipole of galaxies; galaxies that are close enough to not be substantially lensed by the gravitational lensing because they are only exposed to it for short periods of time. There is a distinct dipole, mostly red towards the Great Attractor and mostly blue away. Also, its highly likely that there are no distant blueshifted galaxies because the ones we see are up to the edge of the disc of the galaxy of galaxies and then we hit the halo (which is the real cause of the CMB) where the next object we may see is a galaxy of galaxies, likely so distant that our current technology cannot see so far. The actual explanation for all distant redshifted galaxies is that the light is trapped by the gravitational lensing of the Great Attractor as I define in my original post and some others above. This is supported by Figure 14 of Courtois et al. Note that Hubble's Law is not a true law; just a best fit curve that happens to apply to our observations because the light is generally trapped by the same source of gravity, but the distance of the orbit (and thereby the degree of redshift) is not truly constant across all possible paths so there is variation in the observations rather substantially, even though it arrives at a best fit curve where all light is generally redshifted.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole This is a redshift map of the CMB dipole. The redshift is highest DIRECTLY towards the Great Attractor, and blueshifted the most directly opposite. We currently say this is due to motion through space, but gravity fully explains this observation simply.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I can walk you through the rest of the evidence in detail once you grasp this.
 
Last edited:
It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation, and it is now known that this reflects the motion of the Local Group of galaxies towards the Great Attractor.

Once the cosmic microwave background dipole is removed, the variation in the temperature of the CMB is astonishingly uniform with variations of only one part in ten thousand.
Click to expand...
The source you cite does not agree with you.
Furthermore, outside the local galactic group, there are no galaxies showing blue shift. They all are redshifted, by the same proportion to distance.
 
AlexG said:
The source you cite does not agree with you.
Click to expand...

Understand once more that that is an interpretation of the redshift. We currently believe DOPPLER SHIFT causes the redshift, but I am showing you that it is gravitational redshift. The interpretation in view of doppler shift causes this disagreement. It is their figures, which are unsullied by interpretation, that matter.
 
We currently believe DOPPLER SHIFT causes the redshift, but I am showing you that it is gravitational redshift.
Click to expand...
You have shown nothing, simply made assertions with no evidence.

This is typical of cranks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top