This Mainstream science use as the foundation of all physics anywhere. They put mass and the distance that parts objects in a relevancy, in other words the one is a ratio to the other. The increase in one becomes the reducing of the other. When the distance is large, the influence of mass will be small and when the distance is small, the influence of mass will be overwhelming. Why then when taken into consideration that if it is mass that produces an inclining force of contraction as Newton says then…when the Universe was small it did not implode whereas, instead it did expand. After all, the radius was almost no factor at that point leaving the mass to enjoy an eternal power in relation to the non-existing radius.
When the Universe was at the point where the Big bang started, the radius was incredibly small. That would make the mass inducing gravity by contraction inconceivably large because the mass was completely overpowering all factors with the small radius. It did not bring about an implosion that the overbearing mass contraction was supposed to unleash on such a small Universe in the beginning
The more the radius develops in time, the lesser would the gravity be that the mass factor generates in relation to the advancing radii developing and the larger would the reducing be of all contraction. The effectiveness of force the mass produce will tarnish as the radius that separates the material from each other increases as time moves
Although it is presumed that the Universe was small at the dawn of the Big Bang, such presumption will put validity to another presumption that the gravity the mass charged at the time was enormous because the influence of the small distance in radii and the factor such distance produced promoted the factor, which the mass has to an enormous large factor. If an object is a million kilometres apart the radius is a million times more in value by dividing the mass influence than when objects are one kilometre apart. That is the most basic realisation about mathematics. It puts ratio to order and define coherency. That is what gravity is to the Universe as it puts respect to factors about the Universe in the Universe. It is what derives order in the Universe.
At the very same time we will find in a Universe that was supposedly so small it had a radius of less than only one kilometre, then at such a time when the Universe was still that small it must also be accepted that the gravity the mass charged was one million times greater as it would be when the radius keeping the structures apart is one million kilometres in distance. The extremely small radius that was only the size of one neutron in radii distance and with the factor that such a distance produces, it must promote the mass factor, which will support the mass in having an enormous large factor by relevancy to what the case must be at present. The mass factor that produces the gravity at any given point during the event of the Big Bang, had to be eternally larger at the dawn of the Big Bang while having an infinite radius, which gave gravity all the power it can have and which it will ever have.
If at the Big Bang there was not sufficient mass to destroy the radius and prevent the expanding from coming about, then the expanding won the match and there can be no contracting Universe as Newton had us to believe. If the Universe started a journey of parting objects no amount of dark matter that might lurk in the night sky and is at this moment hiding from detection will produce the gravity required to stop the expanding from continuing. At the start the expanding became evident and as the radii grows the inclination will suspend in influence as a factor. If there was insufficient mass at the start in order to tilt the balance in favour of the reducing factor, no amount of mass can ever accomplish such a goal afterwards. Then Newton’s surmising was one of corruption making that which all physics are based on fools thought and corrupted proof.
If you might be of the opinion that my accusing the greatest intellectual department in the world as being in misconduct and to your view such accusing is outrageous and far-fetched, then be my guest and judge the following with a clear and unbiased mind because when scrutinised with a clear view then the facts cannot fool an idiot. However, that is just what the physics paternity thinks the rest of us forming the general public at large are. They have the opinion that they can feed us in the public arena any senseless rotten garbage they dish up because they see us as being inferior by thought and mind.
With all this in mind did any one ever come to wonder about the all too famous Einstein’s critical density theory and the fact that this idea was conceived to conceal the corruption of Newton in physics? The fact in truth is that the Einstein’s critical density theory was a scheme plotted by those in charge to cover up and conceal corruption in the heart of physics. If Einstein was unable to recognise the most basic of mathematical principles then what type of genius did physics create in him and what slur did physics promote. This idea of the two factors being in opposing relevance is so simple that children will recognise the principle, and yet those fathers of physics wants me to believe that the greatest mathematician that ever lived did not realise this principle…the principle that the radius and the mass stands related and the growth in the one will promote the decline in the other as a dominant factor.
Can any one with this information including the information given on the previous page have any other conclusion? It is obviously clear that having such a total idea that there might be dark unseen mass floating in the Universe which at this time does not generate gravity but will some day because Newton has to be correct at some point in the future. I am to believe that dark undetected mass can be found and such undetectable mass could be found which will bring about contraction after all this expanding? Why would the mass at present then not activate gravity and why would the mass at some point spring to life and start activating gravity? How much can the Physics paternity still hide the fact that Einstein’s critical density is being used as a cover-up to distort the truth to conceal fraud?
The uncovering by the Hubble constant about of the Newton fraud is so simple to see. Hubble found the Universe is expanding and Newton’s said otherwise. Who is lying about what? Hubble’s declaration was on track to blow the cover that was concealing the Newton fraud wide open and uncover the centuries old deception. To see this we have only too look at the comet behaviour when any and all comets again come around on a cycle by repeated visiting the sun. The question is if it is mass pulling mass onto mass, then why do we have comets left in the solar system? The mass of the Sun should by now at least have destroyed every comet going around.
Every indication that we so far received in vivid portraying from astronomy photography studies from outer space disputes a shrinking Universe concept. From the moon increasing the radius distance between the earth and the sun, to the Hubble Constant indicating a space growing any where in space wherever man may conduct studies. Since the end of the middle ages a force called gravity was identified, but more than that science did not take it. What is gravity, besides being a force? What forces the force? I introduce a cosmic theory that turns the missing questions to answers.
Let us for one second return to the science we all know.
There is an undefined phenomenon in the cosmos, never mentioned (in public) because it obscures the basic formula
Lets put the mathematical formula into a practical context.
By reducing r would bring about the same result as enlarging the mass factor of the cosmic objects i.e. the Sun and the planets. It is a very drastic implication that will cause much more than just seasons changing. It must bring about that gravity changes through out the year…yet the radius does constantly change, therefore…
The closer any two cosmic objects come the stronger the force should be, with eventually no force in the Universe being able too keep them apart. This is just not happening!!!
There is no indication of truth about a contracting solar system as Newton proposed and as Newton’s followers promote and or a contracting Universe as seen from the Hubble as he introduced has Hubble Constant…and not from any other evidence seen through the Hubble Telescope.
As explained, there is some discrepancies about calculating the force of gravity, because gravity would apply as nicely as it does if it was the perfect balance, a balance exist in space of equal measure bringing about equal seasonal time.
The biggest discrepancy and a practical denouncing the official version of the comet’s flight around
Sun M1 XGX comet M1
r2
The Sun gets a grip on the comet by mass inflicting gravity and as it gets hold of the comet it drags the comet through the solar system straight ahead to the Sun just as Newton predicted the Sun with all its gravity producing gravity will do. There was no hint of a circle forming at any stage.
Comet M2Sun M1 XGX2r
As Newton had said the gravity that the Sun and the comet mass induce pull the comet to the Sun. As we all know the comet moves to the center of the Sun just as Newton predicted with a slight complication and a change in the venue, the comet no longer aims to the center of the Sun but aims at a target outside the limits of the space that the Sun occupies.
M1 Sun M1comet M2 XGX
r2
One should give Newton the benefit of the doubt and disregard this miss the position that the comet is aiming at. It could be that the gravity was not generated strong enough to locate the center at such a great distance as the comet was at first. It could be that the reducing of the radius comes in installments of a few circles. The comet might just take a cycle or two to wind down as the radius reduce and one should wait and see if it is not that which Newton meant when he said the mass by the mass is dismissing the radius between the objects. The formula Newton suggested did not make any room for a circle of any sort to form the trajectory of a planet or a comet trajectory.
M1 Sun M1comet M2
2
XGX
r
Alas, it is not what the comets intends to do because the comet breaks the strangle hold of the Sun and what ever was pulling the comet at first is doing all the pushing at this point because the comet is surging into the darkness of the abyss. The comet speed away from the Sun and also at the same pace it was heading towards the Sun and there is no altering to the speed in any way. The comet seems very much unaware of the comet behaving in opposition to what the great Newton predicted with his formula.
The comet performs all the other maneuvers as the sketches indicate, which Newton’s formula totally ignores. If the formula forms the basis of all physics used by science, the basics, which are around for hundreds of years, are trash and simply does not perform as it is supposed to. For many hundreds of years every person in physics were aware of this flaw but did nothing about it.
The lot that was filling the Universe was growing apart. In some case he said the lot was racing apart. The Universe was growing by miles and not shrinking into nothing. The Universe was blowing apart! The main discoverer had a name and a position of seniority, which prevented others from pushing his opinion aside. The man was E.P. Hubble. Through his telescope any one could see that the Universe was expanding and the expansion was most rapid.
I am sure at the time all the Newtonian con artists were well aware of Newtonian shortfall in logical proof but this Hubble fellow was going to open a can of worms no one in science was able to face. How would the crooks that pretended to be the wise explain that Newton’s contracting gravity was part of Newton’s wild imagination? What would then happen if those that should know less then became wise and started to ask more questions about what the lot in conspiracy were hiding for (at the time) say about two hundred and fifty years? What is going to happen when the entire world learned that those academics in physics that was pretending to be the most brilliant among men was uncovered as the most stupid crawling the earth. What would happen if every one saw Newton was wrong all along and started demanding answers!
Every one was sharing the Newtonian vision of a contracting Universe where the lot would one day again come together and Creation will end where Creation started some time ago. The Universe has mass that is pulling mass towards one another and we are in the centre of an ever shrinking Universe. That is what the lot of us can see… we are forming the centre of the ever contracting having cosmos where every Newtonian can vividly see with his or her eyes through any telescope that all Newtonians minded scientists are sharing the centre stage of the ever collapsing Universe. The Universe is about to end where all mass contracts into one huge lump of material.
This unleashed a problem the world had no name for. Everything known to science was at that point devastatingly unknown to science. The world was expanding and not contracting which made the Universe quite wrong. It is impossible to have any vision about Newton being wrong. Newton could never be wrong because Newton was never wrong yet…so if the Universe is out of step with science, then science will correct such an abnormality by finding a way to defraud science and postpone the correcting that the Universe had to comply with since the Universe owed the Master Newton some apology. Did the Universe not know that he whom never can be wrong is in name Isaac Newton! Decisive action was needed. At this point I cannot believe that the most brilliant minds were so naïve and therefore I must suspect deliberate deception. Hubble was far too prominent to blow away and Newton was found wanting. At that point they put the onus of proof not on Newton but turned the focus away from Newton to what the presented as the guilty party. When will the Universe confirm its incorrectness by affirming Newton’s obvious correctness? If they had to admit that Newton was wrong, the most intellectual science then had to admit they had nothing to show for all their minds brilliant work.
Science that was defying the likeliness of a living God stood bare and naked for all to see. They put the onus of proof and converting onto the cosmos. They asked not Newton but the cosmos when will the cosmos come clean and prove Newton correct, maintaining their unshakable belief that even the cosmos could be at blame but Newton could never be wrong. . When will the cosmos admit to a mistake and set its crooked ways straight. When will it meet its diverting from Newton and reach a point where the Universe will finally come to comply with what Newton demands. It is the cosmos that is wrong therefore it is time to find out when the cosmos will correct its manner. To deal with such a task they needed a man with a bigger ego than he had an IQ. They needed a person that thought more of his abilities than his ability to grasp any complex situation. They needed a man that was presented as a genius without ever proving his genius. They had a man that filled the centre of the Universe, which then placed the man in a location from where the man could see the entire Universe. They had just such a man. He went by the name of Albert Einstein. For all the genius Einstein had, Einstein failed to see the most simplistic and tiniest mathematical rule. Einstein failed to realise that if there was insufficient mass at the beginning of the expanding Universe, the growth of the Universe will reduce the influence of such mass as a factor because as the radius grows, such growth will restrict the gravity by rendering the mass progressively more incompetent.
If the Universe is expanding as Hubble indicated, the growth of the radius will reduce the influence value of the mass as every second passes. The mass will become more and more wanting for such a task. Yet with this obvious shortsightedness of the genius Einstein, the genius saw him fit enough to calculate and measure something as overwhelming as the Universe. As in the case of Newton, Einstein as an ego driven maniac that saw his abilities fit to measure and master the Universe while his mind was to simple to recognise the most basic principle of mathematics, the principle of relevancies or ratios. What a mathematical genius that turns out to be. While the radius enlarges, at the same proportion does the influence of the mass factor reduce and the mere fact that the radius increase shows that at no stage further into the future can the mass stem the growth of the radius because the radius overpowered the mass factor already. Unless there is new material entering the Universe at a point, which is impossible, the entire concept is fraud.
The idea was never to admit wrongdoing on the part of Newton and Newtonian science but to post pone, delay and divert attention away from the truth. If there was not enough mass to start with, no dark matter can kick in later on and start secondary mass frenzy that at that stage will then be enough to bring about the required mass potential that will turn around the Universe from expanding to contracting. To establish a scenario that would hide all deception they got the man that has a bigger ego than an IQ, they tell the world this man is a genius while the fool does not no the least of mathematical principles because his Master Newton did not no the least of mathematical principles and they got him to measure the Universe. While they did not even have any device (and will never have such a device) through which anyone would be able to see the entire Universe, they set of a scandalous misconception that this Einstein could calculate all the mass in the Universe.
Off course as can be expected, there was not enough mass and there will never be enough mass because there is no such a thing as mass in the entire Universe. When the deceit played out to the full, they fraudsters being the paternity of physics elaborated on the delusion by trying to find dark matter that is hidden. If the dark matter did not develop enough contraction at this time, there is no chance in the future to develop enough gravity because the factor of what mass supposedly should have is tarnishing and tarnishing as the Universe expand. The bigger the radius becomes the less would the mass effect be.
The community of astrophysics are trying to frame a picture where they set the stage in the way that if the Universe were stretched to a point the mass would not tolerate any more expanding. The mass will get frustrated in some way and show resistance to the increasingly elastic expanding. The gravity constant (I suppose) must prevent any further expanding. How they ever got to such an argument I never could tell. They surmise that outer space is consistently overall filed with nothing and when this nothing is stretched to the limit, the nothing would resist in growing more nothing or become further nothing and the nothing would stop other nothing to enter outer space in the community represented by nothing. If ever there is a faculty ruled by absolute inconsistency and rubbish as the motto of logic it has to be astrophysics.
Every measured kilometre represents nothing. Every mm is one of nothing. We on Earth are 149 X 106 kilometres holding nothing away from the Sun. Only they can argue that outer space is nothing with material here and there. If that is the case then which has more nothing between the Sun and Pluto or the Sun and Mercury. The distance between the Sun and Pluto is more, therefore that which outer space is made of is more than in the case of Mercury and the Sun. Therefore Pluto has more nothing between the Sun and the planet than Mercury has between the planet and the Sun. Only astrophysics and all the geniuses guarding the principal of astrophysics can put a calculated value by measure on nothing. In fact Mercury has hundred times less nothing between the planet and the Sun than is the case with Pluto. Since my days at school I was always under the impression that a hundred times the value of outer space being nothing is numerically expressed as (zero = 0 x 100 = 0), but where the genius that is such a prevailing part of astrophysics take the stage we find that Pluto can have 100 times more nothing than the amount or distance measuring nothing than Mercury has. The figure containing nothing that puts Pluto at the edge of the solar system is one hundred times more nothing than what Mercury has where Mercury becomes the first planet in the solar system. That is astrophysics. The brilliant minds of the mathematicians hold no rules apart from what they can calculate. Astrophysics is the only department throughout the Universe where normal rules don’t apply since because with mathematics they can bend all laws as they wish…in fact Newton started the trend with his deceit.
Only the guardians of astrophysics policy can know why the undetected dark matter will start producing gravity to change the expanding to contraction. Would the fact that it is detected, change the influence it established? Or is it merely to extend the cover up and allow the deceit to linger until the following generation. There is no mass and any one that says there is mass, let such a fraudster then explain why all the planets irrespective of size or density, spin around the Sun at the same sped as all the others. Let them prove that the Universe acknowledge big and small and let them show how Jupiter can move at the same pace as does Mercury and Pluto while Jupiter is so many times more massive than the other two mentioned. More condemning evidence is yet to come because the astrophysics tricksters did not leave the corrupting of evidence just at that.
The fatherhood of physics never once diverted from acknowledging that Newton’s contraction is the prevailing thesis on which the cosmos is built because they accepted that Newton used unlawful arguments and to cover up Newton’s fraud which they still use to this day, they then proceeded with further criminality when producing the bluff they established with Einstein just to fool everyone in the normal public. Without ever recalling Newton’s contraction theory that is obviously not working or admitting doubt about Newton’s testimony to the effect, physics accepted the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory opposes what ever Newton might have implied. The physics paternity however finds it wise to still advocate Newton while admitting to the Big Bang event. Newton said the lot is contracting. Go on and marry that with the Big Bang that says everything is expanding. You can’t promote both except is you can define why we would see the two merge.
The Universe comes from a point the size of a Neutron. That makes the radius parting the Universe infinitely small. It just about removes the radius as a factor. At the very same implication it takes the pulling of the mass (if there are pulling forces converted by mass) to a level it will never again have. As soon as the distance between the objects holding mass started to grow, the power and influence of the mass factor started to diminish in the same ratio. If the mass were incapable of contracting the Universe then, it will forever remain contracting the Universe. Then you may ask what is the story? Read on and you will learn how far Mainstream Physics stray from the truth and how big a cover up the paternity is protecting.
According to science the Universe started with singularity. Quoted directly from the Oxford dictionary of Astronomy the following:The definition of singularity is as follows:
Singularity: a mathematical point at which certain physical quantities reach infinite values for example, according to the general relativity the curvature of space-time becomes infinite in a black hole. In the Big Bang theory the Universe was born from singularity in which the density and temperature of matter were infinite. The average daily temperature was “10αβ to 1034 K”.
Then the second “day” the daily average temperature came down to 1034K and 104K. That is fine, but if the temperature was in Kelvin, then what was 00K. In order to make sense of the scale used there must be a minimum to secure a maximum otherwise the maximum can just as well be the minimum and is only advocated to impress humans applying earthly standards.
By using a scale as 10αβ to 1034 K, it places the lower temperature at a modern 00K to make sense of standards. If that was the temperature the standards were lowered, compromising something to gain something, because something had to grow larger for heat to reduce. We know space grew larger bringing heat down to reduce.
Being the onlooker the viewer has to maintain one position. From that position some particles would be circling a centre point, as the particles would be coming towards the onlooker. The other matter would be circling the centre point while rushing away from the onlooker.
At the very end the single dimension may come into the dynamics but where the single dimension comes in the factor of zero is removed.
If there is space, there is a flow of light and a flow of light has to produce lines in relation to angles forming space between them. Something must be present to confirm space because there is an absolute difference between being in space and no space to be found. If there was a line that formed nothing that one line that forms nothing would completely destroy the other lines’ chances of ever forming a triangle, let alone having all lines and they then have a total being zero. As shown in the example no line can form zero and therefore no mathematical equation as far as it extends to cosmology can ever bring about zero as a number. While there is space present there has to be three dimensions relating to each other by time and in three dimensions there has to be three lines in relevancy to each other by angles formed holding space in (at least) six opposing sides. Removing one line must bring about a flat Universe and that then
Cosmology is about light flowing by means of lines indicating space obeying the rules enforced by time in motion and light flowing dictates crossing space and across space light is using lines. The book: An open letter Announcing Gravity’s Recipe is dealing with the subject finding singularity by removing the concept of nothing from outer space. By diminishing nothing one uncover singularity and the effort brings in a new perspective not yet introduced.
For your benefit I will shortly give a summary by which I hope to interest you in reading the manuscript: Compressing space produces heat. Releasing heat will bring expansion bringing about space. We call such a release of heat an explosion. In other words heat translate to space and space concentrates back to heat. The one is a product of the other where space forms expanded heat.
They are quick to show the time that was applying at the time being some thousandth of a second or the heat that was present being numbers we have no name for. The other side of the story they ignore. They ignore the other side of the story because in that respect it puts their promoting of Newton down to madness. If you reduce the radius applying at the present back to what it was at the time of the initiating of the Big Bang, you must also increase the influence gravity and mass had at that moment by the same number you are decreasing the radius. That is pure mathematics and the most basic physics of all concepts.
The shrinking radius will increase the effectiveness of the influence of the gravity that the mass can produce by the margin of the shrinking of the radius. If the Radius was infinite at that point, then that means the gravity was eternal. With the entire Universe being as big as a Neutron, the Universe was the size of an atom. If the Universe were the size of an atom and the mass within that Universal atom could not prevent the Universe exploding into immeasurable atoms, then it would not be able to retract all the atoms into one unit again. If there was not enough mass to start the contraction, there can be no contraction of mass that is producing the gravity at this stage. If the gravity is of such a nature that it allows a continuous growth of the radius, then the radius firstly cannot be zero as Newton suggested and the extending of the radius proves there is no contraction in the way Newton had everyone to believe. If Newton’s mass contracting mass is true, then on the other hand it must have resulted in an implosion as