268 Last modified November 15, 2015

Where We Stand
in 2015

by
Vernon Brown

After decades of following the work of true physicists with advanced doctorate degrees around the world I found that only a dozen or so have a good understanding of how the universe works. They are not widely known because they know the reality of nature and word of this is forbidden. These physicists know the true cause of gravity, relativity, mass, quantum, unification of the forces, and many other things academia deems unknown. Only a few are brave enough to convey the knowledge they have gained.

Certain conditions are necessary for the workings of the universe to be as it is observed to be. It is necessary, for example, that the universe exists in classic flat space-time. It is necessary that time plods on at a constant rate and does not vary as academia suggests. Given these constants, we can explain all observations as we will do below.

Flat space-time and a non-expanding universe are necessary in order to understand the true cause of relativity phenomena. Physicists of the past did understand this but those of them who embraced Einstein's special relativity gave up that understanding. Lorentz and the group of physicists that developed the Lorentz transformations knew the true cause of relativity phenomena and kept the knowledge current. As we will elaborate below, relativity phenomena results from the constant light-speed of the most elemental constituents of matter.

The concept that the universe has existed for a longer time than anyone can imagine and is not expanding has been termed a static universe. But this universe is very dynamic. Energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy in a never ending cycle. We can see this happening as galaxies churn matter into energy and squirt it out into huge bubble-like halos that exist around galaxies. All stars contribute with constant streams of positive ions that accelerate away from positively charged stars. Positive ions accelerate away in the charge field of their parent stars. Moving charged particles create electromagnetic fields that exist throughout space. Once thought to have little affect, these fields now seem to be the dominate force in the universe.

Gravity is an electromagnetic process as was explained by Sir Author Eddington in a paper he published in nineteen twenty. Doctor Albrecht Giese arrived at this notion independently and explains the process at his web site. Albrecht Giese explains gravity. Basically, the presence of matter increases the value of the so called constants of space. Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are said to be constants. However, they are only constant in a perfect vacuum. Since there does not exist such a vacuum, the constants are never constant.

These constants of space determine the impedance of space and the impedance of space determines the speed of light. The greater the impedance, the slower the speed of light. The presence of electromagnetic activity increases the impedance of space. Matter has an equivalent electromagnetic activity. So the presence of matter increases the impedance of space accordingly. The impedance of space translates directly to gravity. Impedance governs the rate at which electromagnetic amplitude can change and so slows the speed of light. The path of light bends toward the direction where the speed of light is slower. Comprised of light, massive objects must migrate toward the direction of greater impedance.

We have known for at least a hundred years now that gravity slows the speed of light. The impedance of space directly determines the speed of light. So, gravity must increase the impedance of space. Gravity thus provides negative feedback for gravity. This fact is not accounted for in either Newton's gravity or in Einstein's general relativity. However it is there as explained above and so must be accounted for. The absence of this property may produce errors in calculations of galactic spin rate and elliptical orbits of planets. When spin rates and orbits are adjusted for this gravitational negative feedback, dark matter is not needed.

Photons create gravity and respond to gravity. We can call this kind of gravity, photon gravity. We know that this kind of gravity exists. However, we do not know that any other kind of gravity exists. Matter creates gravity but matter consists of photons. So photons in matter may be the source of the gravity created by matter.

Physicists recently discovered that the wavelength of light shifts toward the red when light encounters electron and ion clouds in space. The mechanism of that red shift may be a gravitational interaction between photons of light and particles in space. Gravity created by photons causes a change in momentum of space debris. Photons thus give up energy to change the momentum of space debris. This shows up as a red shift that increases with time. The amount of red shift is directly related to the amount of debris fields through which the light must travel on the way to the observer. Most of the debris fields are hydrogen clouds and these tend to be close to the same size. Each cloud imparts a quantity of red shift according to its size.

We should expect the amount of red shift of some distant galaxies to change with time as the path of light to them changes. This would be rare and slow to form due to the great distances involved. This would be most likely to happen with the most distant galaxies and should occur in steps as some debris fields are omitted from the path and others added. This would be evidence against the standard model and so would not be published by any peer reviewed journal. Peer reviewed journals seem to only publish papers in line with current thinking. This prevents investigation into radically new concepts because no matter the validity of discovery everyone knows that the discoverer will be destroyed by their peers. Maybe, long after their death, those who added to the knowledge base can be recognized.

Sub atomic particle size has been measured and well documented. However, the method of measurement could not possibly detect correct size. The assumption is that there is something solid from which electrons will bounce. But a proton construct that consists of multiple single-photon shells can not be detected by that method. High energy electrons punch right through the outer shells of protons and bounce off the more energetic inner shells. So particle structure of protons and neutrons can not be detected by present methods of measurement. Classic calculations of particle size based upon the wavelength of constituent photons produce a much more likely correct size. Careful control of electron energy could measure particle size and structure. Doctor Robert Hofstadter working with the particle accelerator at Stanford University detected particle structure this way. He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1961 for his efforts.

Current accepted notions of quantum electrodynamics have the electron as a point charge with no actual size. Classically, electron size was based upon the wave length of its equivalent energy. Atomic structure and electron scattering are better understood using the classic electron size. For example, it is not possible to construct an electron orbit of atomic nuclei using the point charge concept. However, it is possible to use the classic electron size and construct a stable atom. With this method, the electron becomes the largest of the particles. It would completely engulf atomic nuclei and be stable without violating the electrostatic principles that would cause an orbiting point charge to crash into the nuclei.

When particle size is based upon the wave length of the equivalent energy of elementary particles the more massive particles have shorter wave length and so must be smaller. When we consider that the electron would comprise one complete wave cycle, there would be a positive half cycle and a negative half cycle. This provides two maximum charge half cycles, one negative and one positive, that would be observed to have a spin state of one half.

Throughout history academia has clung to wrong notions about the construct of the universe. They are very slow to adjust as new facts are discovered and tend to work the new factual discoveries into their wrong ideas. In the past it was Aristotle who advocated an earth centered solar system. Before Aristotle the Greek Aristarchus of Samos proposed a sun centered system similar to the Copernicus model we accept today. However, over a thousand years would pass before academia grudgingly accepted the Copernicus model.

Today, several similar notions are at conflict in physics. The Big Bang creation theory is only now being questioned after about a hundred years of embrace by academia. Quantum electrodynamics and indeed the entire notion that all the forces are transferred by particle exchange also must be questioned. Physicists who understand the true nature of the universe must whisper among themselves lest they be destroyed by academia. Most new hypothesis are wrong to some extent but among the thousands of wrong ideas those that depict the true nature of the universe grows stronger as they are nurtured by those few physicists willing to think for themselves and whisper their thoughts to each other.