Why I am so convinced
There is no direct way to prove my theory except its ability to make correct predictions; so, How is it possible to make predictions from a theory for 55 years,and not have a single prediction proven wrong, plus having several proven right, unless the theory is correct? I realize my theory is hard to believe, but look at the facts. I am now beginning to believe that science will not accept this until the public forces them to accept it.
I may be away from the computer until the latter part of June. At that time I will attempt to show the relation between my theory and math. I am back, but on Hospice
To begin with I am convinced because this theory explains everything naturally, and just off the top of my head I can not think of anything it can not explain, including the paradox of light. Not only is it natural, it is the only possible explanation that can be natural. Everything else such as the electron theory lacks an explanation of how it got here. True suction is the only explanation that explains how you can get something from what most people think of as just nothing. The answer is simple: there is no such thing as nothing. Space is space, but with a natural characteristic of being able to create energy because it has this characteristic of true suction, and if you can not see this it is because of how you have been taught. This all by itself can explain all there is to explain. You just need to understand the process of how it does this.
Science expects an explanation that they can understand, when actually it is what they believe that can not be understood.
My theory explains the microwave background noise. It explains why light travels so fast. It explains and shows why there is no paradox of light. It explains the suddenly appearing and disappearing Gamma rays. It explains why the universe seems to be expanding. It explains the fast spinning stars. It explains the fast orbiting stars at the center of galaxies and star clusters. It explains the spiral arms of a galaxy. It explains why light is both waves and particles. It explains dark energy and dark matter, and it explains why everything is here, including a Spiritual universe. I have also proven that gravity can not possibly be a pull. It did not take long for a college student to understand this. I have also proven that the future can never be as long as the past has been.
If you really can understand that the past has been forever, then you can understand that the past is like holding on to one end of a string that has no other end: it just extends forever back into time. A little reasoning will let you understand this. There has to be an understandable explanation or it would never have happened in the first place.
The reason the electron theory works: is because we give it the ability to attract or repel. This eliminates the need of explaining the complex process of why something is pushed together or pushed apart. If you say an electron has the ability to attract or repel: this eliminates what they really need: "an explanation of the mechanics that is actually doing the attracting or repelling. A God in is one explanation, but that is like the electron theory: It gives a way of explaining, but it gives no explanation for the origin of what does the explaining. Go to "items of interest" for a list of predictions.
The validity of any theory is its ability to make true predictions. I have made many predictions, and several have already came true. Not only this, but every time I have ran into problem: I have always found that it was not my theory that was at fault: it was the problem that was wrong. For example, in 1964 I read about the aberration of star light by James Bradley. He discovered a star that seemed to be directly over the center of our solar system, except for the fact that it was off by two seconds of an arc in the direction of the earth's movement around the sun. Six months later when the earth was on the opposite side of the sun he again set his telescope and found that the star was directly over the center of our solar system, with the exception that he still had to set his telescope two seconds of an arch in the direction of the earth's movement around the sun. This is like looking in opposite directions and still seeing the same thing.
James Bradley had a very logical explanation for this. He explained that the earth was moving at close to 20 miles a second in its orbit around the sun, and the reason he had to set the telescope off by two seconds of an arc was because if he pointed the telescope directly at the star, the movement of the telescope would move the eye piece away from the view of the star, so it had to be set two seconds of an arc off to bring the star into view. If this were right my theory would have had to be wrong because this is saying that the presence of the earth has no effect at all on the path of light, or you could say the light from the star was behaving like a bullet and not like a wave.
He is saying that the light from the star is behaving like a bullet, or particle, but a test science made of the speed of light with an interferometer proved that light does not behave like a bullet. Also if his explanation were true: any light source would be off by two seconds of an arc except a light source that we were headed directly at or directly away from. My theory has a very clear and understandable explanation for the paradox of light: Everything is created from space. This means there has to be a relation between matter and space. Like a whirlpool in water: You can not have one without the other. The big difference is that with nature you have energy plus you have particles of energy.
With my theory, if you followed a natural course of thought: the first thing that would be created would be pure energy. Any disturbance within this would be more or less like a whirlpool. Then you would move into more complicated systems made up of particles. To mentally figure out all the possibilities of complicated particles is far beyond my capability. I would guess that the very basics of anything relating to a particle would be a whirlpool of energy, or just fully understand my theory and all the above will become clear, and because space is global: everything is created in a global atmosphere, and could, no doubt, create many different kinds and shapes of particles, but I see the basic stable particle as being the shape of a smoke ring because it has no open ends.
Now if you can see this relation between space and matter, then you can see that it is impossible for matter not to have an aether, or energy field that light could travel in. Light would then behave as follows. If you had two stars moving away from each other at half the speed of light, an instrument on one star would measure a light source moving away from it as being the speed of light. Then when this light was headed into where the two energy fields overlapped it would start showing a shift to the red because the other star's energy field is moving away from this star. It would continue to shift more and more to the red until it was completely through where the two energy fields overlapped, then the frequency would show a frequency shifted one half more to the red than when it was leaving the other star. An instrument on this other star would measure this light coming at the speed of light, but it is now moving away from the first star at one half again the speed of light.
In 1964 I read a book for the layman on Einstein's theory. This convinced me that Einstein used trickery to come up with his theory; however I think he believed he was right. What convinced me that he used trickery was the fact that all problems must be figured in their own time frame. Two times three gets the same answer as three times two, but if you take the problem with the speed of light away from the speed of light and have the light be stationary and have the problem move you get the same answer, but now you only need an explanation for this one problem, and this is simple to do because observation told him how much discrepancy he had to overcome, and by doing a few equations he could come up with an average equation that matched the discrepancy within the allowable limitations and apply this to time dilation.
I suspect that every time something is created: it creates space tension. I also suspect that the amount of space tension is directly related to the amount of matter in space, and by its very nature, space can not be stable. I see tension as creating tiny-like bubbles that have to collapse and reform. I suspect that this is the microwave background noise they hear.
To me, the energy part of matter was easily understood, but creating matter required a package. I told an older brother that I knew there had to be a way to package energy, and that I would find it. When I saw a younger brother smoking and blowing smoke rings I knew that this was what I was looking for: A smoke ring has no open ends. I am not the only person that believed suction was unlimited. Believing suction is unlimited is no worse than believing gravity is a pull. You can visualize how suction works, but no one has a clue as to how gravity pulls. Then later I read in the news that hydrogen gas under certain conditions took the shape of a doughnut. This supported the above. Another thing that convinced me I am right is because I had been told that an atom is like a tiny solar system made up of indivisible particles. I then predicted that science would eventually discover that there were no such thing as a true solid. When I learned that science had already came to that conclusion, I just knew I had to be right. That is when I told an older brother I knew there had to be a way to package energy. All the above is why I know that astronomers have a very wrong concept of the universe and how the universe formed.
Over the years since 1953 astronomers have had to continually make changes in the way they think. I know now, and I knew then that the science way of thinking was very wrong. I regret that I never kept a monthly record of all the times that astronomers have had to change their way of thinking. For example, I think I know exactly why and where the suddenly appearing and disappearing Gamma rays are coming from. Keep coming back because I am continually finding better ways of making this understood.
Why the universe is here has been explained in all the early dictionaries. See Items of interest
If my theory is wrong, why does it give
all the right answers?
Copyright
Copyright