Please contact me at mlsmith55@gmail.com ? You might also list the journals where I can read about your models?

Kind regards,

Mike

I agree with you. The time is right for your book. And the best sales will probably be in Europe.

Thanks for all the great tips. Think most of your advise and observations also would apply to my book. Will study your posting above (copy it for my files) and glean as much as I can from it.

My own cosmological equations somewhat follow the Dirac, Narlikar-Hoyle variable mass models (a diminution of matter by maintaining all-relative-proportions model) but gravity vectors would become asymptotic (perpendicular) to the line of sight at gravitational boundaries between stars. These vectors would be evoked by a dark matter vortex which would be the cause of the pushing forces of gravity. The idea and equations would attempt to explain why galaxy rotation promotes the maintenance of a spiral galaxy’s form, as well as how the galactic red-shift can be explained by variable mass cosmology.

talk to you soon, your friend forrest

I have been thinking along these same lines but with collaboration including Ahmet Oztas, with whom I have written daily these past several years. What I was thinking about is a paperback that would go on sale at airport paper shoppes, Dalton Books, Borders books, etc. the title would be “Dark Energy Revealed” or something to this effect. Dark Energy is susceptible to criticism which the common person can easily understand given some instruction. Once explained, this person could well grasp the first law of thermodynamics. My feeling is that a paperback on the level of the first Hawking book is the target. Big hit that book! There would be one difference in that the Hawking book really presented nothing new. New to the airline traveler but not to you or me. Our book would be a distillation of all information debunking dark energy but after first building up dark energy via several chapters. In the introduction we would write something like”…this is a detective story please follow along…”

Don’t mean to insult you but have you read our papers in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics? vol 45 pages 925 thru 952 and the follow-up presently online at the IJTP? (This one about 15 pages I believe.) While we can borrow some of the arguments from these presentations the common reader will quickly get lost with the math. A few simple equations might be alright - like Einstein’s “Relativity”. The more drawings the better. I would want to stay away from the BB and from Dark Matter for the moment and simply concentrate on DE. (Ahmet and I are developing a new very complicated equation set for the BB, so I like the BB. He and I will get together in Sweden with Jan Paul for three weeks this summer.) After all - those people claim this DE is 75% of everything important in the Universe. A larger topic cannot be found. The punchline would be something like Dark Energy is results, presented slightly too early using data which are very noisy…and we can be very pleasant with our point of view and still make the reader a disbeliever.

Some practical points, Forrest.

1. Do you have access to the program language LaTeX ? This is used by many of the publishing houses and even publishers of paperback science would tend to like a manuscript delivered using LaTeX rather than WORD. If you don’t have it, you should purchase PCTeX on-line and practice a bit. PCTeX allows insertion of drawings and diagrams - preferrably those generated with a program displaying these in eps format. But it is not cheap.

2. I get the distinct feeling that such a paperback would be well received in the EU but not at all in the US, therefore an EU printing/publisher should be our first target. Australia/NZ are OK, too.

3. I will present the chapter(s) outline in a few days so you can have a look.

Kind regards,

Mike

I wrote a book on cosmology and theoretical physics to be published in English in the fall of 2010. Its current title is The Pan Theory, a General Unified Model of cosmology, the forces of physics, classical mechanics, and quantum theory.

I would like you to review my equations which are in a simplified format for publication. You can see the concept is different from all others.
With your recent analysis concerning dark matter related equations maybe we might collaborate on a technical paper concerning gravity mechanics related to cosmology equations. First I could send you my related formulations and drawings, for your analysis along with the text which explains it. We would then discuss the details. If we are in agreement I would pay for publication, if we can’t find a gratis publisher. I have some connections which may be of interest to you.

what do you think? your friend forrest
forrest_forrest@netzero.net

I think you might be referring to Einstein’s 1920 lecture at Leiden.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm

According to this website Einstein seems to say there may well be an aether but not much one can really do with it. Other than offer a medium for light propagation the aether really has no properties one can measure. (If one cannot test a “thing” in the lab it becomes much more difficult to convince other people of this existence.) He also seems to say that aether is consistent with Maxwell’s electromagnetism so the aether has some value.

On the other hand, the Planck-Einstein photonic equations for light do not need the aether and are 100% consistent with experiments (as are the Maxwell equations). I have measured single photons with a photomultiplier myself and imagining light as little photons traveling thru empty spacetime is often a useful mental tool.

On the predictions coming from the Big Bang physicists, you might check out this website.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

While NASA advertises some questionable theories, such as dark matter and dark energy, I think the supporting data on this website is a Universe ahead of claims for the dark side.

Kind regards,

Mike

“It turns out that Dark Energy is sort of an “add-on” by Einstein to his mathematics”. I agree but more than than recent interpretations in cosmology have brought the idea back to life. Prior to this assertion, the accelerated expansion model would have been contrary to the BB model.

Google Big Bang Predictions. You will never see, as I haven’t a single prediction ever made beforehand. Only those claiming a prediction after observations have been made. Dark Energy was a surprise, but like every other part of the BB theory, I believe it is based on misinterpreted observations.

Einstein’s General relativity theory is an Aether based model. Einstein said “According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristics of matter, as consisting of parts (’particles’) which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture).

The warped space-time model would accordingly be a difference in aether density model. Which is certainly no problem, since under high-gravitational influences it produces more accurate predictions than Newton’s model. It makes no prediction of aether drag however, that other aether models predicted and has been observed in regard to the decelerating velocities of the two voyagers. These first aether drag theories surfaced in the mid-1800’s. Some more modern aether drag theories have come close to the observations of the voyagers but lack the horizontal vector forces observed. These, accordingly, are also non- linear solar system aether vector forces, similar to those predicted by Einstein close to the sun.

I believe the correct theory of gravity is that of a pushing force which is a combination of warped space/ aether of general relativity, aether drag, and non-linear vector forces that become asymptotic at gravitational boundaries between stars. These additional forces, which collectively are still Newtonian, would be somewhat non-linear relative to the source initiating these gravitational field forces. These non-linear forces can explain stellar motions within a galaxy and how these galaxies can maintain their form with little change for maybe billions of years.

your friend forrest

Dark Energy I believe, is a misinterpretation of data and is the result of a condition of Relativity related to the diminution of matter which is compensated by an increased matter count.

your friend forrest

It turns out that Dark Energy is sort of an “add-on” by Einstein to his mathematics, which is the real reason why Dark Energy math has it’s own difficulties. Without DE his math model works perfectly well looking back say 14.5 billion years and forever into the future. The reason why astronomers thought 10 years ago the Universe expansion was slowing down was that they really had very little data and what was available was only good for the past 1 billion years - perhaps less than this. This is called the dynamic range problem (one portion of the dynamic range problem) and is very common for all sciences.

After launch of the Hubble satellite for 1.5 B $ or so, and with an upkeep bill of many millions $, astronomers were expected to find something wonderful for all that money. While most of us think the absolutely thrilling photos are reward enough, the oneupmanship plaguing all science demanded those responsible for much of the telescope time report something quite spectacular. And that they did. Here is where many convince themselves that the data and analyses are good enough for Dark Energy, but not for me. Dark Energy sells books and puts peoples faces on TV, good for them and their institutions for the next few decades.

W/r to our recent title that spacetime curvature is of paramount importance, I stick by this. Mathematically all one needs is just a trace of curvature, just a sprinkle of a curved line-of-sight here and there, and all of the spacetime between galaxies becomes important. So spacetime cannot be ignored in a quantitative explanation of the Universe. If one decides to ignore spacetime one is left with Dark Energy - this is how the math plays out.

W/r to the Big Bang this is true whether one likes Dark Energy or not. It is an unavoidable consequence of General Relativity which continues to pass all expeimental and theoretical tests. Personally, I think many of these tests are simply wastes of time and money and do not lead to a better understanding of anything. Einstein’s model is there as a first and second order solution to problems of spacetime and gravity. We might add on some small corrections, but these will always be just tiny adjustments for those who are quite particular. I suppose these tests give many very bright people something to do.

I do not see the Big Bang event as being counter to most any modern religion but something which is compatible with Christian, Muslim, etc. faiths. Likewise, most astronomers and physicists see the Big Bang as something very unusual, interesting, true and really impossible to fully explain. Though many people are attempting to understand the Big Bang via string theory, brane theory, etc. it really is impossible at this moment because we have so little data to compare the various models. I do mean nearly zero data about the event itself; we have plenty of data pointing to the Big Bang, that it really did occur, but nothing pointing to why this occurred.

Kind regards,

Mike Smith