1

Further Comments on Contemporary Cosmological Speculative Theories (circa 2019) This essay constitutes an upgrade or an addendum to the one published above and reflects the author's subsequent thoughts on essentially most of the same positions which are band- ied about by the vast majority of current professional establishment physicists and which purport to explain the properties of the universe to the rest of us. I go into greater detail with respect to my disagreements with these explanations and replace them with what I deem to be more plausible ideas and hopefully with additional lucidity. Let's start with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Einstein's Special Theory of Rela- tivity, according to him, didn't incorporate the force of gravitation into his theory, since it is a force which produces acceleration, not a constant velocity, when it acts on masses. Yet Newton's definition of force always involves acceleration, so Newton's definition of force (F=ma) could not be accounted for in special relativity. Consequently, Einstein considered his theory (published in 1905) incomplete and strove for 11 years (until 1916) to ramify it to include the explanation of the behaviors of masses accelerated by forces (which he called acceleration frames). His special theory of relativity he claimed to be valid only for masses traveling at constant velocities in relation to one another. Another theory was needed to explain the effects of acceleration on bodies (the force of gravitation--or the attractive force between any two masses at any distance from one another--constituting one of these accelerative forces). So as he was trying to explain the physics of acceleration, he wound up coming up with a new notion of the force of gravity (gravitational force being one force which imparted acceleration to masses) which did away with Newton's conception of force entirely and replaced it with a notion that masses in motion follow curvatures of space created them- selves by masses and energies (stress energy momentum tensors) which were originally lo- cated in the same space before them. Before he did this he borrowed a fourth dimension of time from Minkowski (one of his teachers) and incorporated it into the previous notion of the three traditional dimensions of space (height, width, and depth), coming up with a four- dimensional concept of spacetime which he asserted characterized the universe rather than Newton's separation of three-dimensional space from time. Then he asserted in his general theory that this spacetime was curved by the mass and energy which occupied it, and further that the paths followed by masses were dictated by these curvatures rather than by Newton- ian forces (which he denied existed, just as he denied that the force of gravity existed). One little problem with this idea occurs to me however: where do masses acquire their accelerations from if not from Newtonian-conceived forces? How are they propelled through space following spatial curvature without the fact of their motion being explain- ed? There has to be a force causing their various inertias to be overcome so that they can possess a requisite movement to enable them to follow curved space with. If no such phen- omenon as Newtonian force exists, how does matter acquire the motion needed to travel anywhere in space, whether it is curved or not?

2

This is one problem. Einstein is not explaining the movement of masses by his general theory of relativity. He can't just claim that there is no force causing gravitational accelera- tion and that matter follows space curvature without any impetus to make it move. What causes it to follow space curvature (if space curvature really exists... another aspect of his theory which is not proven, as I shall show)? He claimed that light, not just mass, follows space curved by the matter and energy in it. But gravity only has an effect on masses, not anything (like light) possessing no mass. So how could gravity bend light? He got out of this dilemma by claiming that there is no such thing as gravity. Light is curved around masses (like in gravitational lensing) because the space around them is curved and the light is just following the curve. No force of gravity is curving the light... the mass light curves around is curving the space around it and the light is following the curve. This explanation gets Einstein around the criticism that light, being massless, can't be affected by gravity (which only has an affect on masses). But I have another explanation. Masses displace the space around them as they move (all matter is in motion) and it is the increased density of the space displaced around a mass which curves any light which comes into contact with it, just as light is refracted by any change in the medium through which it travels. Light travels at different speeds in different mediums and is refracted differently by different mediums. Light will be bent by water or glass (or even air… as opposed to its trajectory in a complete vacuum), so why would it not bend as it encounters a different density of space surrounding a given mass? It is not following a curvature of space, as Einstein maintains; rather it is being curved by the increase of spatial density surrounding all masses (all masses displace the space they are occupying to their edges) from the density of the space it's been traveling in prior to reaching any mass. This change of spatial density around masses is what causes light to curve around masses, not any curvature of space around them caused by the pre- sence of mass and energy in space. Mass doesn't curve space; it displaces it and increases its density in the form of gravitational waves which emanate from all masses in all directions incess- antly at the speed of light and to an infinite distance, but becoming weaker and weaker the farther a wave travels away from its source of origin. The gravity waves caused by the spatial displacement (and consequent increased spatial density) by matter are what carries the force of gravitation (which is relative to the amount of matter and the density of that matter in a massive object) throughout the universe to have its affect on other masses (pulling them all to itself). So gravity waves are bosonic in nature as force-carriers. There really is a force of gravity; it isn't just a synonym for space curva- ture. As to whether these ripples of space, not in space (because that's what space is: gravity waves) are quantum force-carriers (like the photons which carry the force of electromagnetism), each strength of force possessing its own discreet, massless energy packet, with the waves being made up of them being strung end-to-end, I don't claim to know, although I suspect so (mostly under the assumption of symmetry with all the other known forces of nature, which have been shown to be carried by quantum bosons). Unfortunately these waves are so weak that so far they've only been detected from the collisions of black holes, so it doesn't seem likely that their nature is going to be discovered very soon. Perhaps one day we will know if gravitation is a quantum force, but at least I think we can say with some degree of assurance at present that it is at least a real force and that gravity waves

3

are the carriers of it (whether they be quantum in nature or continuous and indiscrete), con- stantly engaging in a cosmic tug-of-war with one another throughout space with their relative strengths dependent on the amount and density of and proximity to the mass which causes the temporary displacement of the space it occupies as it travels through it.

So we needn't accept the idea that space has to be curved like Reimannian geometry (which describes the outside surfaces of spheres like soccer balls) in order to explain why light curves around masses (like in solar eclipses or gravitational lensing). I think I've provided a more probable explan- ation. And we don't need it to explain the erratic motion at the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury either. When Mercury gets as close to the sun as it can get, more gravitational force from the sun's mass acts on the tiny planet to cause any irregularities in its orbit path, not any curvature of space that Mercury is following. Another major problem with the idea that masses follow spatial curves (besides the one regarding the question of what causes their motion) is that curves in space would not possess the requisite density to overcome the inertia of masses and thus be able to change their trajectories or directions in any way. It seems to me that mass in space is like the proverbial bull in a china shop, where mass is the bull and space is the china shop. I can't conceive how something as fragile as space could have the capacity to tell mass what to do, irrespective of the question as to whether space is actually curved or not, which I believe is another problem with Einstein's theory. He seems to have decided that space must be curved (since gravity can't affect anything possessing no mass) to account for light bending around mass and then employed Reimannian spherical surface geometry (which an old schoolmate suggested to him) to mathematize his idea and come up with his spatial curvature equals mass/energy equation, the one purporting to be the foundation for his General Theory of Relativity, which is really not an equation at all, since the right side of it supposedly describes the cause of the left side, and equations describe equalities, not cause-effect relations. The right side should be on the left side and the left on the right, with an arrow pointing from left to right between them (not an equals sign) to indicate that mass causes spatial curvature and not that they are equal. But is either side of this so-called equation true? For one oddity, the right side purports to be describing the amount of mass and energy at a given point in space, and the left to be describ- ing the amount of spatial curvature at that point. But since when do points possess either mass or energy? And since when do points possess the capacity to be curved at all? And what is Einstein's so-called "cosmological constant" (capital Greek letter lambda) doing on the left side? He threw it in there initially to stop the expansion of the universe implied by his original formula because he didn't want to disagree with the majority of his contemporaries at the time who believed in a "steady state" or static universe (until Hubbell came along in 1929 and proved with his observations that the universe was indeed expanding, and furthermore at an ever-increasing rate of acceleration), so then why was it not removed? If the left side of the equation describes a spatially-curved static universe, how can it be accurate? I suppose it is somehow involved with the explanation of spatial curvature, but if it makes the universe static, it can't be anything but sloppy math because you can't just go around throwing in constants to make equations conform to peer pressure. Equations are supposed to describe reality.

4

And the right side is nothing but a bunch of constants (Newton's gravitational one, the irrational number pi, the natural integer 8 all divided by the velocity of light raised to the 4th power) multiplied by what Einstein called his stress energy-momentum tensor (a tensor is a combination of two or more vectors.. in his case the only variable on the right). It is supposed to be a calculation of all the mass and energy accumulated at a spatial point, as we have seen, which causes spacetime to curve somehow. How it does this I must confess is a mystery to me. It makes much more sense to view light bending around a mass due to its being refracted by an increase of spatial density caused by spatial displacement by a mass around its edges rather than following a curvature of space caused by mass. Especially when you couple with it the idea that not just light, but that all masses as well are following spatial curvatures caused by masses. But how can any right side of a true equation ever possibly be true if it is supposed to be equal to a left side which has been proven false? If one side of any equation is wrong, the other side can't be right, since the whole equation has to represent a statement of equality to be true. I honestly don't believe that there is a baby here to be saved in all this bath water. And yet this idea is still embraced by physicists today (it was published in 1916) in spite of all the trouble I see with it.

Look at the way Einstein's theory is always diagrammed. If his idea regarding space curva- ture made any sense it wouldn't always be diagrammed in such a preposterous way. Space is a trampoline and mass is a bowling ball making a straight downward dent in the so-called "fabric of space," the trampoline. Now the question is, why is the bowling ball only curving space in one direction? Why wouldn't it curve space in all directions, 360 degrees around the ball? These diagrammers are assuming the existence of a gravitational force pulling the ball downwards, like there is another mass under the bowling ball out of view which is exerting a force on the ball. Why else would the ball fall? But there is no additional mass in the diagram. If mass curved space, why would it not affect it in all directions? The bowling ball would make a spatial dent of a sphere around the ball (congruent with my conception of a spherical displacement of space around a massive sphere); it wouldn't just affect space in one direction. Then the diagram shows a marble off to one side of the downward dent just above it and parallel to the ball and explains that the marble would follow the spatial dent made by the ball and fall into the ball at the bottom of the dent. Why? What would overcome the force of the marble's inertia to enable it to move at all, except perhaps the gravitational attractive force of the ball acting on the marble (a force which Einstein claimed doesn't exist), because masses don't move by themselves... they require forces to get them to move? Yet the marble is supposed to roll down the dent made by the ball and this is supposed to explain how masses follow the curvatures of space made by other masses without explaining where these masses get their motions from. Neither the motion of the ball nor the marble is explained. These diagrams in fact presuppose the existence of gravitational force in their very depictions... they don't do away with it as they purport to. Dark Energy. Every time you check into it the ratios of the supposed components of the universe (dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter and energy) keep changing. I've seen dark energy assessed as high as 74% of the stuff of the universe and as low as 68. Why can't physi- cists come to an agreement about the percentages of the constituents of the universe? Could it be

5

because none of them has any idea what either dark matter or dark energy is? Why cannot the constant increase of the acceleration of all the mass in the universe be due to, a) the constant loss of mass to its continuous conversion into and emanation of gravity waves outward in all directions (lesser mass with the same force behind it results in an increased acceleration of that mass), and, b) the constant decrease in the total forces of gravitation acting on masses as the distances between them increase due to the universe's accelerating expansion (that is, gravitational "drag" becoming weaker and weaker and thus causing a greater and greater acceleration to all masses)? Cannot these two factors account for the increased acceleration of masses without resorting to a phantom notion of "repulsive gravity" or "negative pressure" to account for it, especially when its mathematical computa- tion value is so far off of the real measured temperature of the universe (2.7 degrees Kelvin), which would be closely correlated with its pressure (temperature, as a measure of the kinetic energy of movement, is closely related to pressure, since pressure is caused by movement)? And also because nobody can seem to be able to account for where it came from or to have discovered any of it anyplace?

Dark matter. Another bogus idea containing within its own conception properties which are incapable of co-existing with one another. Dark matter is only supposed to interact with other masses (whether dark or ordinary) gravitationally, yet it doesn't interact with any manifestation of electromagnetism. Light goes right through it. So if dark matter is porous to light (which is absorbed, reflected, refracted, diffracted, and scattered by so-called ordinary matter), how can it then possess any density (mass per unit volume) which could possibly cause any gravitational pull on other masses? Gravitational force is a property of mass (as is the property of inertia, although the two aren’t the same thing... inertia might well be more accurately understood as perhaps a fifth force in the universe propagated by its own bosonic wave internal to any given mass, since, unlike the force of gravity, it pushes outward against the edges of mass and doesn't extend any farther, whereas gravity pulls inward yet its force is projected beyond the mass of its origin infinitely) and objects possessing no mass cannot attract or be attracted to (pull on or be pulled upon by) other masses. So if dark matter is porous to electromagnetic radiation, it cannot possess mass (or Coulombian charge either) and as such therefore cannot possess any gravitational force to act on other masses with. So how can it be res- ponsible for the increased velocities possessed by the stars and planets in galaxies than would be expected by the total mass we have so far been able to detect in them? No wonder none of it has ever been found. I think we must rather look to ordinary matter which can't be gravitationally lensed (because it has no starlight behind it on a direct line to our electromagnetic energy-detecting tele- scopes), and so goes undetected, to account for the calculated velocities of galactic matter. Physicists claim there is between five or six times more dark matter than ordinary matter (which possesses mass) in the universe, which (if gravitational... which we have demonstrated it isn't) would explain the mea- sured speeds of galactic mass, but if there were between five or six times more ordinary matter than can be detected by gravitational lensing, the velocity problem could be explained that way. Perhaps the force of magnetism between oppositely-charged ordinary masses could help ex- plain these excessive velocities somewhat also. Opposite Coulomb charges accelerate the masses which possess them to a much greater degree than gravitational forces do. They could increase the

6

velocities of mass found in galaxies (if they could be calculated) just enough so that the amount of undetected ordinary matter could be computed by subtraction. That is, if you know the measured velocities and the amount of that velocity due to magnetism and to gravitationally-lensed ordinary matter, you could deduce the amount of undetected ordinary matter and its velocity due to inter- changes of its magnetic forces (through the discovery of the ratio between the gravitational forces and the magnetic forces responsible for detectable galactic mass velocities) as the remainder. Then the whole self-contradictory nature of the notion of dark matter could be completely dispensed with, which is supposed to consist of anywhere between 22 to 28% (they've really got it narrowed down) of the constituents of the universe, according to contemporary astrophysics. One more thing I think worth mentioning at this point is that if the so-called cosmic micro- wave background radiation represents electromagnetic radiation liberated from the blockage of mass expelled from the Big Bang some 380,000 years after the explosion (when hydrogen atoms were first formed), if there were any dark matter in the contents of the Big Bang it wouldn't have been able to block the cosmic microwave background radiation for those 380,000 years, since dark matter doesn't interact with electromagnetic energy, and there would have been no period of opacity in the early universe. So if you believe in the claimed origin of the CMBR you can't also believe in the reality of dark matter. Yet physicists seem to be able to believe in both at the same time. They ought to get their story straight. Black holes. First of all, they are depicted erroneously in diagrams so you can't understand them very well. The entropy horizon is supposed to be a flat Euclidean circular plane for every black hole which represents the area where any "information" (astrophysicalese for matter) which happens to be floating by will fall into the black hole due to the hole's strong gravitational pull on objects in its vicinity. The trouble with this idea is that this horizon is relative to the gravitational strength of the black hole, and the mass, the velocity, the direction of the velocity, and the distance any given piece of information is to the hole's center. It doesn't have a constant radius from the center of the hole, since smaller objects will fall in at greater distances from the hole than larger ones, faster objects will escape being drawn in to the hole more than slower ones, objects traveling away at oblique angles to the hole will be harder to catch than objects which are traveling obliquely or directly toward the hole, etc. There are various factors at work in determining if a given mass will be drawn into a given black hole or not, and these are not illustrated in any of the diagrams, which depict them as cones rather than spheres (which is what they are). So a black hole's event horizon is the curved surface area of a sphere, since it emits a strong and equal gravitational force in all directions, and varies in its radius (where a given mass will fall in) with the gravitational strength of the black hole and the properties of the various masses which reach its proximity. Electromagnetic radiation won't fall into any black hole, since such radiation is massless, and the force of gravity due to the pressure, density, amount, and temperature of its contents are what cause only masses to fall into black holes. Contrary to popular view, light can escape from black holes, but it is not visible light and is manufactured in the black hole due to its mass to energy transfer (the pressure of its massive contents causes invisible gamma and X-rays to be emitted, but these waves are too energetic to be visible). Eventually all black holes (which are remnants of collapsed stars) will die due to all their mass being converted to energy and radiating

7

away to nothing. But their entropy horizons aren't flat or at a constant distance from their black hole centers (the so-called Schwartzchild radius) either. Their diagrams are very misleading.