The Ultimate Answer to Everything

bookwriter2too

Ding Dong, is the witch dead? WAIT! How about ANOTHER God dies. At least when I tried to explain to two research physicists, on an airplane at 35,000 feet, why their God Einstein MIGHT not have done his math correctly, I don’t have to fear being stuffed out the window for cosmological blasphemy. Doubt I would have fit through it anyway. OK, boys and girls, time to put all the play toys back in the box. Roll up your strings into a big ball. Closed the doors to the 11 dimensional, or has it grown to 13 by now, n-space. And somebody turn on the lights, because the dark DOESN’T matter. The answer is so simple, a hick, hillbilly living in Tennessee could come up with the answer all your questions while he weed-eats.

Einstein wasn’t quiet right. Good, there goes all the die-hard morons that just simply will NEVER even consider another answer. I even saw a Discovery Channel program about some ‘CRAZY’ guy that thinks Einstein wasn’t right. Sorry, got him beat by years, even wrote a sci-fi book saying so years back.

Now, please don’t ask me to throw up countless scribbling, my math sucks bad. Find some grad student to do your math, I just think this stuff up and answer questions using Sir Conan Doyle’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ approach. If the facts fit the answer, don’t add stuff, just accept the answer and get on with your life.

Case in point, everyday, more and more Quasars are discovered. Now the funny thing about a Quasar is, that if it is radiating the energy so we can see it from umpteen billion light years away it has to be throwing out more energy than all the other known stuff in the universe. Hmmm, OH, I know, we are seeing a Quasar rotating and emitting from a polal region and the pole just happens to be pointed exactly at the Earth. Yeah, that would explain it nicely, that has to be the answer. Let’s look at this for a second. OK, two polar regions, twice the chance one is pointing at us. Doesn’t matter that the chances of this occurring happens to be around ½ of ½ of ½ of one percent. But there are 2 poles, so .25%. OK, there goes the need for dark matter, we can detect 1000s of Quasars, but we can’t detect the other 99.75% of them. I hope someone is figuring out right now that that would sort of make Quasars more numerous than all the stars we can currently detect in the universe. And we haven’t found them all yet. WOW! That is a lot of Quasars out there. Doesn’t sound like the right answer does it Mr. Holmes, elementary my dear Watson.

Now, this one I really love, X number of billions of years ago the universe exploded outwards. Yep, pretty much a given there, except to the religious people who believe some magical bunny, space goat or creature conjured us out of the void. But, given the thought we were hacked up by a mutant, space goat, as we look outwards TODAY, it ‘SEEMS’ that things are accelerating faster. YEAH, good word choice huh? SEEMS! OK, if we can throw in a mutant, space goat beginning, then we can surely throw is some ‘Dark Matter’ to explain away this observation. No problem HUH? Oh, I know, it has to be all them dang extra Quasars out there.

I really could go on you know. But let’s just look at these two examples and see if we can come up with an answer that will work for both of them. First, maybe we are NOT seeing the poles of a Quasar but its radiated energy. And the really bright ones we see are the ones with their polar regions pointed at us. Do the math, wait a few years for some more detail observations and get some more data, then redo the math, it will come out close. But then that would mean the have to be radiating more energy than all the known matter in the universe. Let’s sort of set this off to the side for a second.

The rapid expansion factor. Now that is a very hard one to explain away, right? Yeah, so are some of Chris Angels’ magic tricks. It seems he can do some really amazing things. There is that pesky word again, SEEMS. But, ‘Ole Sherlock Holmes’ says if it seems to be the right answer, then there is a good chance that it is the right answer no matter how implausible. It just SEEMS to be accelerating from our unique vantage point. And Einstein said there really was no unique vantage point, so no matter where you stood to look, it would seem to be accelerating. But why you say? Why would it seem, that the farther back you look, the faster things seem to be going. Why elementary my dear Watson, they were going faster. Nah, they couldn’t be! Because, that would mean that the objects at one time had to have exceeded the speed of light, and Einstein says NOTHING can go faster than the speed of light, they just have to be speeding up now to explain away the discrepancy. Hey maybe he was right, hard to argue with his math, well for me it is. BUT! What if, at one time, the speed of light was not the one we currently record. You’re thinking, this writer is insane, the two physicists should have stuffed him out the window at 35 thousand feet and I have wasted my time reading this trash. Seems like about 500 years or so ago people had the same thoughts about the Earth NOT being flat. Seems a 100 plus about man ever flying. Seems like 60 or so years ago they said the same thing about the speed of sound. Seems like it is time to rethink some things.

Well, let’s see what Professor Einstein said about this. Before Hubble brought in the red shift factor, Einstein had done an equation that explained what he seemed to see or know as facts. The universe was static, and unchanging. But he knew this couldn’t be so, even when he submitted his work. The very smallest speck of dust moving around would unsettle the apple cart and everything would come crashing together. The ‘Butterfly Effect’. He got around this by the small subscript k constant. Later after Hubble’s data became available he pulled this and then called it ‘his greatest blunder’. His greatest blunder was not in pulling the cosmological constant, but not putting it in the right place. WHAT!!! Not in the right place?? Where should it have gone??? Let’s try putting it in the right place, OK.

Sorry, the equation did not transfer here It should be E=mc(squared) over k (squared)

Hey, anybody see where this is going now? Let’s say that the c squared is the current constant we observe where we are now and is controlled by OUR smeared out density of matter surrounding us. And, the k squared constant as the speed of light at the ‘Big Bang’. Anybody catching on to the real beauty of His equation yet. Just a simple movement of a variable. I hope you caught that one too. A VARIABLE! Let’s take a closer look at this variable, in time huh. Say we run the clock backwards, oh maybe 13.7 billion years, more really. But by our CURRENT observations, we will use 13.7 billion years. As we move backwards in time, our OBSERVABLE speed of light would increase in speed. All the way to the beginning at which time the c squared constant would equal the k squared constant. Doesn’t matter it they have a billion numbers, they have the same number over the same number, it will equal 1. Now let’s run the clock to the very end of time, all the way to the end, the ‘Big Crunch’, or the ‘Big Chill’, it will NOT matter. If the speed of light depends upon the smeared out density of matter it will either go to the ‘Big Crunch and it will equal 1 again or it will go to zero and become indefinable and can be factored out of the equation all together.

Now that is true beauty, Energy equals mass.

WAIT! Nothing can exceed the speed of light! Well, its not. But nobody said the speed of light has to be a constant. We have just ASSUMED it to be a constant because all of the measurements we made show it is not changing. Hmmm, remember what they say about the word ASSuME. And somebody needs to go and shut down those guys and gals looking for neutrinos for wasting money. And whoops, there goes the inflationary period of the universe that would explain away the KOBE data. But if the neutrinos were created in the core of a star, where the smeared out density would be greater, then they could theoretically go faster than the speed of light outside that locus. Hmmm Doctor Kruth, you know, you would not really need an inflationary period. Seems that as the universe expanded at the moment of origin, as it expanded, the outer edges would slow down the speed of light, but the inner core would be denser and the radiating energy would catch up with the edge and sort of even all the temperatures out and this would explain away background microwave uninformatity. And Dr. Kruth, this would make it so ya don’t need inflation in the first place, things moved faster, safely under the THEN CURRENT speed of light. So Professor Einstein doesn’t have to spin in his grave either.

And if Energy does equal Mass and we haven’t been able to define the mass of a photon, then we haven’t been able to define the available mass of the universe. And there is a lot of photons just zipping out in all directions. Hey this might end up being a hell of a lot of mass. Who needs ‘Dark Energy’ or ‘missing mass’. Heck it is right there in front of us, just not all of it we can detect YET because we have limited out searches to everything slower than light. You neutrino people, ‘get a life’ or hurry up and prove it, HUH?

PROOF! Where is your proof. Where are the lines and lines of math? Gives us proof. Hey told ya my math sucks, no proof, just observations. But there MIGHT be ways that some of ya can prove this. First we got the neutrino people, they know there is an energy loss that is unexplainable without the existence of neutrinos, which they say move faster than the speed of light. Then there is the uninformatity of the background radiation, which can only be explained away if at a period of time early in the Big Bang, it expanded faster than the speed of light. And what about the Quasars? If they are on the edge, and we are just now seeing their energy and it is bunching up as the front part slows down entering our adjusted speed of light area, it is going to appear to be higher in energy than what it really was, faster energy. It is going to appear more radiant, sleigh of hand there folks Dark Matter, well when those silly neutrino people find the mass of a neutrino, adios missing mass, ya have been found. And anybody out there work for the government or have access to the bomb tests that ended up causing my Dad’s cancer during the 50s and 60s? Let me make ANOTHER guess. The yield data will be off by anywhere from 28% to 48%. Sorry bomb boys and girls, ya created the effect, but ya couldn’t create the density of a stellar core, the actual yield has to be off from calculated yield.

Normally I would have just kept my big mouth shut and write my books about aliens or I am into romance now. But I still love to read and I do love astronomy. And I picked up the March 2009, volume 37, issue 3 of Astronomy magazine. Well, one day while on the potty, another wonderful place to think when not weed-eating, I got to page 22. And there is an article called ‘Is there something we don’t know about GRAVITY?’. Wonderful magazine, love to read it. And it would seem that there seems to be a problem with distances in some of our older space probes. They appear to be farther along then what they should be. And it would also seem that Newton and Einstein were wrong about the precession of Mercury’s orbit, by a factor of three. Well, the probes did do a flyby of some pretty massive planets, different smeared out local density. And, the orbit of Mercury is closer to the sun and also resides in a different density. Hey these are small mind you, but they are FACTS. And then there is the matter of some newer, CURRENT probes that are showing abnormalities from doing close Earth gravity assists. But here is a kick in the pants, if you look at the article, of the four probes, the three passing closest seem (gotta love that word) to show abnormalities, while one passing farther hasn’t showed any, YET.

Folks, you are not going to sail off the edge of the world by saying that the speed of light is NOT a constant. It is a constant, for the current location you are in. And I am gonna ‘Star Trek’ it even. We might not be able to go faster than the speed of light, AT the conception of the known current universe, but doesn’t mean we can’t exceed the local speed restriction if we can create the required density field. Let’s just wait a year or so for the data from the Haldron Collider. I am going back to my weed-eating till then. Try and explain their data away.

The Ultimate Answer to Everything

Forum Options