FANDOM


Lefteris Kaliambos

August 8, 2018

With technology advancing, astronomers today have the ability to study galaxies from far too long distances with respect to our galaxy and according to the Big Bang model, (WRONG AND CORRECT BIG BANG), all the elements of their removal should give us a slowdown motion as is the case with an object that we launch vertically and due to the law of global pulling is slowed down until it reaches the maximum point of vertical movement. However after 1998, it was surprising that the relative removal of galaxies took place at an accelerated rate. This fact, because at first glance does not seem to be compatible with the natural laws , many astrophysicists have resorted to the antigravity proposition proposed by Einstein in 1917 and are trying to interpret the phenomenon by believing that the antigravity hypothesis still applies today in the form of an unknown energy called dark energy, although Einstein himself rejected it.

Today it is well-known that all experiments of atomic and nuclear physics reject Einstein. (Experiments reject relativity). Nevertheless many astronomers today continue to use the so-called cosmological constant Λ of the fallacious fields of Einstein which violate Newton’s third law of instantaneous action and reaction. The "cosmological constant" is a constant term that can be added to Einstein's field equation of General Relativity. If considered as a "source term" in the field equation, it can be viewed as equivalent to the mass of empty space (which conceptually could be either positive or negative), or "vacuum energy".

Such a cosmological constant was proposed as a mechanism to obtain a solution of the gravitational field equation that would lead to a static universe to balance gravity.   

Moreover under the influence of the invalid relativity cosmologists  continue to use the wrong hypothesis of conversion of energy to mass. (Invalid mass energy conservation ). So they believe in a hypothetical "matter-energy" summation of the universe, which appears to contain 31.7% mass and 68.3% energy. That is, 31.7 + 68.3 = 100. They also influenced by Einstein’s invalid fields  believe that in physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

In the article “Dark energy-WIKIPEDIA” we read the following hypothetical ideas:  “Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68.3% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contribute 26.8% and 4.9%, respectively, and other components such as neutrinos and photons contribute a very small amount.”

However the standard model (wrong standard model) is based on the fallacious fields of the invalid relativity which violate not only Newton’s third law but also the laws of Coulomb and Ampere including the vectors of electric and magnetic intensities. (Intensity and false field).  Einstein in 1917 believed incorrectly in a static universe without taking into account the inertial forces (centrifugal forces) of Newton’s first law. So for explaining the static universe he introduced a hypothetical vacuum action as a hypothetical antigravity force that he called cosmological constant Λ, although in his theory of general relativity he recognized that Newton's inertial force (centrifugal force) is what makes the astronaut feel like a weightless body.

Later, such a strange hypothesis of antigravity was canceled by the American astronomer Hubble, who observed in 1929 that our universe seems not to be static but to expand. Therefore, Einstein abandoned his strange hypothesis of antigravity by saying that he did the "biggest blunder" of his life. Nevertheless, his friend Kurt Godel tried to justify Einstein's antigravity by using Newton's inertia law. In 1949 Godel assumed that our universe could behave like a revolving cylinder. Actually today in the article " Was the universe born spinning? -Physicsworld.com " we read: “The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies. While most cosmological theories have suggested that – on a large scale – the universe is the same in every direction, these recent findings suggest that the early universe was born spinning about a specific axis.”

So if the spin value is found it is interesting to note that for a very high angular velocity ω we would observe an inertial force (centrifugal force) which could be greater than gravity. (Hubble and Newton reject Einstein).

Moreover, with regard to the wrong hypothesis of matter-energy that has its roots in the mistaken case of converting mass into energy, we also have the recent theory that the so-called dark energy could come from a mass shortage. In the article  “Is dark energy eating dark matter?-Physics world" we read:  “A tantalizing hint that dark matter could be slowly changing into dark energy has been uncovered by a team of cosmologists in the UK and Italy. While the specific nature of the interaction driving the conversion is not known, the process could be responsible for slowing the growth of galaxies and other large-scale structure in the universe across the past eight billion years. If the conversion continues at the current rate, the universe’s ultimate fate as a cold, dark and empty place could come sooner than expected.”

However such fallacious ideas of the conversion of mass to energy are based on the mistaken hypothesis of the mass deficiency that turns into energy. Here I emphasize that in the Bohr model (1913) the experiments of the ionization of the hydrogen showed that the energy of photon hν = 13.6 eV is due not to the hypothesis of the conversion of the mass defect to energy but to the electric energy Δw = 13.6 of the electron-proton interaction, in accordance with the conservation law of energy. Although such experiments rejected Einstein’s hypothesis of invalid rest energy many physicists under the influence of fields and of relativity continue to believe that the experiments of nuclear binding energy confirmed Einstein’s quanta of fields without mass and his hypothesis of rest energy. In fact, after my published paper “Nuclear structure is governed by the fundamental laws of electromagnetism” (2003) I showed that the energy of photons is due to the electromagnetic energy Δw of the strong proton-neutron interaction,(correct nuclear binding), while the nuclear mass defect Δm = Δw/c2 turns to the photon mass in accordance with my discovery of the law of energy and mass given by

Δw/Δm = hν/m = c2

For example in the deuteron the binding energy Δw = 2.2246 MeV turns to the energy of photon hν = 2.2246 MeV, while the mass defect Δm = 2.2246 MeV/c2 = mass of 4.3534 electrons turns to the photon mass m = hν/c2

   Note that in 1938 Einstein changed his hypotheses about the rest energy and of his quanta of fields without mass. For example in his book “The evolution of physics” and especially in chapter “RELATIVITY AND MECHANICS” he avoided to write about the conversion of the nuclear mass defect to the energy of photons. Moreover on page 234 for the abandonment of his quanta of fields without mass and of his strange hypothesis of the curvature of space he wrote that photons because of their energy do have mass which is responsible for the bending of light near the sun. That is, he abandoned his quanta of fields without mass and accepted Newton’s predictions of the bending of light. In the Compton effect ( Correct Compton effect ) the photon mass gives the increase of the electron mass ΔΜ and the energy of photon hν gives the increase of the electron energy ΔΕ in accordance with my discovery of the PHOTON-MATTER_INTERACTION

Consequently, if we consider the laws of nature in the event that such an accelerated expansion actually occurs, the real forces of such an acceleration could be related not to Einstein's illusory antigravity but to the applications of the well- established laws of Newton.

For example, most researches on the proposed revolving universe should explain the so-called dark flow from Newton's inertial forces. It is interesting to note that cosmic microwave background radiation from the Big Bang had some anomalies as proof of the rotation of the universe as part of the infinite world.

In 2011, Michael Longo of the Michigan Physics Department and his team used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to study the direction of rotation of spiral galaxies, and his research published it in Physics Letters B with the suggestion that our universe has a spin. Especially his team analyzed data from 15,000 galaxies that led to the idea that our universe has a pivot axis. Such an analysis could also describe indirect evidence that what we are seeing is just part of a much larger and more homogeneous universe that extends far beyond the visible horizon of our universe that we have the ability to study.

If our universe was born with rotation then by applying Newton's inertial forces we could be able to explain the so-called dark flow and accelerated dilation as an illusion of the relative movements depending on the spin value. For example, our Earth with a radius R has one rotation every 24 hours. However, for one revolution per 1.41 hour (great angular velocity ω) an object of mass M at the surface on the equator should be a weightless body, since in this case the pulling gravity Fg is equal to the inertial force (centrifugal force) Fc.= Mω2R. That is, in this case we will observe Fc = Fg. However, for molecules in the atmosphere above the equator we will observe  Fc > Fg, because in this region the radius R1  with the same ω is greater than the radius R of the Earth. 

Under these conditions all molecules in the atmosphere would move in the opposite direction of gravitational force, while the ocean molecules would have a weight parallel to the direction of gravity, because Fg > Fc . This simple example is able to convince us that real inertial forces (centrifugal forces) could appear to explain the so-called "dark flow" and the hypothetical dark energy under a great spin of our universe existing as a part of an infinite world. Thus, the dark flow must be a centrifugal flow phenomenon with centrifugal and Coriolis forces for an area where Fc > Fg. This also suggests that our universe rotated from the beginning to maintain a strong spin. This could also mean that the so-called Big Bang should have wide-ranging rotation for explaining the so-called dark energy under the applications of natural laws.