The following paragraphs describe a theory I have evolved over the past several decades. The reader will note that it has only one fundamental assumption, while all of its remaining constituent
parts are based on facts considered proven or demonstrated to be highly probable. It totally shoots down the standard model
based on BigBang cosmology and explains everything down to the formation of stars and planets.
How did it all begin?
How did what begin? The universe consists of four principles…time,
space, matter and energy, and has two properties…gravity and charge. These
entities are so fundamental that we can’t even define them any more than we can define life. Yet we grasp them as concepts
and do not hesitate to base our activities on the assumption that they are real and have constant properties.
I do not attempt to define these entities, like other theoreticians I merely accept them and proceed from there. I
also do not attempt to ascertain whether the universe is finite or infinite. It is a topic that may be wrangled over endlessly
but never decided to everyone’s satisfaction.
Since the physical universe is/appears to be in a constant state of change and motion, we must devise a basic assumption
of what its earlier state could have been that could result in its present appearance.
To our senses the universe appears to be endless nearly empty space populated by galaxies more or less arranged in
clusters with gigantic empty gaps between the clusters. The galaxies appear to
be populated by entities we call stars, whose shape, size and luminosity display nearly infinite variety, which we have attempted
to classify. We have also noted through our more sophisticated instruments that
most galaxies have the typical spiral shape and are composed of stars of the same varieties, although perhaps in different
proportions. We also have assumed that any galaxy must have a fairly large number of nonluminous bodies (meaning we can’t
see them), which may exist as nonluminous stars, black dwarfs, neutron stars,
Our assumption must therefore provide a plausible explanation for the
shape and distribution of galaxies and what they contain.
What galaxies contain is matter. The only matter we can detect in stars through our modern instruments are hydrogen
and helium, with traces of other elements that have the misfortune to be heated to the point where they emit their characteristic
The basic problem is that we don’t know what matter is or how it was formed or created. The BigBang theoreticians
have an elaborate graph of the creation of different subatomic forms of matter with time and distance from the BigBang, but
they too have no idea what matter is or why it should be formed at all.
Particle physicists are of no help. They collide protons and “antiprotons”
with increasing velocities and get increasingly more tracks in their cloud chambers as a result of the collisions, but the
hierarchy of particles they have identified do not confirm their ideas on the nature of matter or how it was created. Just because you postulate the existence of hadrons and bosons, quarks, leptons and
gluons and get tracks in your cloud chamber when you collide atoms at relativistic velocities, this does not in any way confirm
your theory on the structure of matter.
To obtain our fundamental assumption, therefore, we must start from scratch, or rather from Einstein and his simplistic
notion E=mc2. In other words energy is matter! Therefore we can simplify the universe by saying that it consists of spacetime and contains matterenergy.
Our primordial assumption therefore reads: somehow spacetime was created and an input of energy created matter in it.
The two events were probably concurrent or interdependent, so our problem is to decide how (the mechanism) and when this occurred.
My assumption will be that empty space (totally empty) existed first and that God/Brahm or the Universal Mind introduced
matterenergy into it at an infinite (almost infinite) number of points. By so doing he introduced the laws of nature which
came into play directly. The points of matter-energy began expanding as energy
until they became large enough to contact each other. Following the law of nature,
the interfaces (zones of collision between expanding matterenergy points) became zones of contraction (call it spacetime warpage
if you like) which precipitated as a disk (thinner at the edges, thicker toward the center) of matter in the form of densely
packed cold (0.01K) neutrons. The neutrons in order to precipitate had all their energy converted to matter but the energy
was still inherent in them awaiting release when the right conditions existed.
This is my fundamental assumption of the creation of the universe… granted it has no more basis in reality or
actual observation than the BigBang or any alternative theories (and there are many such), but its elegance lies in the fact
that it explains everything about the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. It
does not explain the terraforming of planets or the existence of life, but, after all, it’s just a cosmogonic theory.
It does what it has to do and that’s all.
Gravity and Charge
Although the material world could not exist without
these phenomena, which must by their nature be related to spacetime and matterenergy, their nature and origin are totally
unknown, they are too fundamental. Newton was the first to attempt to theorize
the nature of gravity, and although he failed utterly, his theory has been codified as law, which is said to break down only
on a cosmological/universal scale, but is generally accepted as valid on a small scale, say of the solar system. Newton postulated that gravity was the result of a force of attraction existing between all particles of
a view obviously accepted by modern cosmologists, especially those accepting the BigBang
theory along with the cosmological constant. Einstein, on the other hand, viewed
gravity as a manifestation of the warpage/ contraction of spacetime in the vicinity of massive bodies. Although the theories are totally incompatible, this does not seem to bother establishment (meaning BigBang-defending)
cosmological theoreticians who can blithely speak of dark matter and dark energy and simultaneously compute orbital mechanics
on the basis of Newton’s other law
based originally on Kepler’s “discovery” that the square of the period
(time of rotation, “year”) of a planetary body was proportional to the radius (distance from the primary body)
cubed. Most astrophysicists are aware that this formula is a tautology so blatant that it could be called cheating, but for
some reason it is still taught as valid!
I say blithely because it is obvious when you compare Einstein’s notion with Newton’s, you immediately
notice that for Einstein the “force” is independent of the mass of the smaller body and is only generated by the
larger body (its warp in spacetime).
Now don’t get me wrong, Newton’s idea was brilliant for his time because it worked -- at the time. Now, it is still accepted even though the phenomena it describes do not exist. It was based on the assumption that the primary body was stationary, a fact which
has long been known not to be true. The sun is moving in its own path and the
galaxy of which it is a part is also moving and the earth and other planets share the sun’s motion through space while
maintaining an essentially constant distance from it.
Therefore, the path of the earth relative to the sun (ignoring galactic motion which they both share equally) must
plot out as a squiggly line...a helix.
This means that not only do orbits not exist but that the earth (for example) must at times be ahead of the sun as
it moves in a straight line through space and at other times behind it. It also
means that the earth’s mean velocity is identical to the velocity of the sun.
Its computed orbital velocity is nonexistent …there is no orbit.
This has led me to postulate the existence of a phenomenon that I have dubbed “mig”. An acronym for mass+inertia+gravity as a more apt and quantifiable description of the main property of
what we call matter, its ability to warp spacetime or expressed inversely the fact that matter IS warped spacetime. After postulating its existence I was able to deduce its properties.
Essentially it is the same thing as inertia but with a much broader definition.
Mig is accelerated mass manifested as a symmetrical field of acceleration around the body generating it and directed
at the center of the body. It is an intrinsic property of a body at relative rest and varies with the speed of a moving body
as a function of the force required to cause the acceleration of the body to uniform velocity.
The mig of any body, being a measure of its mass, is intrinsically equivalent to the number of nucleons (protons and
neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei) composing it. Yet below a certain size limit there is no warpage of spacetime
hence no external manifestation of mig. Certain aggregates of nucleons however are capable of warping space, thereby producing
an external mig field. Such bodies are held together by their mig while other bodies are held together by chemical or structural
forces of a different nature. Two bodies may have identical numbers of nucleons and yet one will not warp space and the other
will; one has passive inertia (identical to the newtonian definition of mass), the other active inertia (mig). It is therefore
apparent that the mig of the particles (nucleons) constituting the active inertial mass are acting in combination while
in the other case they act separately. This is due to the addition of the mig of the individual particles in the “active”
case, because they are situated at distances less than the sum of their radii, a greater distance in the “passive”
case so the net effect is zero. But for our present purpose, we will define the amount of matter (number of nucleons aggregated
together) sufficient to produce a mig field extending beyond the surface with an acceleration of 1 cm/sec2
as one migon. Any body held together by mig,
that is a mig-integral body, will be referred to as a migibody, a mass capable of warping spacetime in Einsteinian
Mig is a symmetrical field, therefore in nature it must be spherical. It abhors asymmetry like nature a vacuum.
When its symmetry is disturbed it will act to restore it. This follows from a consideration of all known migibodies in the
universe, which are spherical, and from Einstein’s space warp which must be symmetrical.
There are three types or aspects of mig, classified by proximity to source migibody, relative motion, and relationship
to other bodies. These are the intrinsic mig which is ultimately determined by the number of nucleons
and which is the force holding the migibody together and which forms a spherical field (of warped space=introverted acceleration)
around said migibody, the relative mig which is the mig of the body plus the force exerted to
produce external (linear as opposed to introverted) acceleration of the body. A body of one migon accelerated at 1 cm/sec2
has a relative mig of 2 migons. The external mig
of the migibody is the force it is capable of
exerting on other migibodies and non-migibodies
outside the range of the intrinsic mig field. In this article ‘mig’ will ordinarily be used only in reference
to migibodies (the terms mass and inertia being adequate for non-migibodies) although it will sometimes be more convenient
to refer to the increase in mass/inertia due to external acceleration as ‘mig.’
Due to its symmetrical nature, mig is extremely directional. The same mig cannot be exerted in two even very similar
directions at once. Moreover, it cannot be diffused, deflected, focused, blocked, or retarded. It is instantaneous in speed
of propagation and rectilinear in nature.
d. The intrinsic mig of a migibody
is a spherical field of acceleration, each line of which is directed, independently of the other lines, at the center of the
spherical migibody. It (the mig field or the individual force line) has maximum intensity at the surface of the migibody
and diminishes to zero at the center (the deeper one goes the less mig there is between one and the center of mig). With specular
symmetry, it also diminishes to zero at the distance of one radius above the surface (i.e. away from, since any direction
is “up” with respect to the center of mig).
These statements follow from a consideration
of the spherical symmetry of all migibodies in nature and from the fact that the direction of “gravity” changes
180 degrees at the center of a body such as the earth. And consider also a relatively small body approaching the earth on
a collision course; as it approaches it will initially be “falling” at the center of the disk of the earth, but
at some point it will be influenced by the earth’s inertial field so that its point of impact will not lie on a straight
line with the course of its approach but will be the end of a progressive curve, i.e. the body will have come to share in
the earth’s rotation due to the earth’s rotating inertial (mig) field. The point where this curve begins is the
point where the intrinsic mig field of the earth ends. In other words, when one is inside the earth’s intrinsic mig
field, the earth appears to stand still and the rest of the universe appears to revolve around it. Outside the intrinsic mig
field, the opposite holds. The universe appears to be at relative rest and the earth’s rotation is apparent. The radius
was chosen for obvious considerations of symmetry.
e. The external mig field of any migibody (e.g., the earth) is spherical
only in the sense that it is
present with respect to any body (migibody or nonmigibody) outside of the intrinsic mig field of the migibody involved. However,
it is not propagated radially outward (and thus diminished with the square of the distance) because of its directionality
and because it represents the entire mig of the body with respect to another body. It is therefore instantly existent in the
form of a cylinder whose diameter is identical with and coextensive with the diameter of the source migibody,
and within which any smaller body is always located precisely at the dead center.
If the body moves even a fraction of a millimeter at right angles to the external mig cylinder, it automatically enters another
such cylinder whose directionality differs by the same fraction from the first.
This fact is deduced from the behavior of falling bodies which always fall toward the center of the object representing
“down”, and if they are linearly displaced at a right angle to the direction of fall, they will now have to fall
at a different angle in order to “hit” the center of the disk, i.e. perpendicularity is defined by position, the
shortest distance between a falling object and the center of mig.
f. The external mig field reaches its maximum strength at the distance
of 1.5 diameters from the migibody generating it and thereafter diminishes harmonically as the number of diameters.
This follows from consideration of the facts
that the only characteristic dimension of a sphere is its diameter and that the mass of material generating the mig field
is confined precisely within said diameter and from consideration of the fact that one diameter plus one radius is the first
distance at which all the intrinsic mig of the body could symmetrically be manifested outside it.
Therefore the area between one radius and 1.5 diameters can be considered a transition zone where the external mig
is “building” up in force and where the lines of force have not yet achieved parallelism. Thereafter the mig decreases
as follows: at the distance of one radius plus 2 diameters (2.5 diameters), it has half of its maximal value at one radius
plus one diameter (1.5 diameters), at 3.5 diameters, one third, one radius plus
four (4.5D) — one fourth, etc. In other words, starting at one radius from the migibody, the external mig field diminishes
in intensity harmonically with diameters of distance. (at 2 D, it is halved, at 3 D reduced to one-third, at 4 D to one-fourth, etc. etc., obviously with a gradual transition phase extending from one diameter
distance to the next.
g. The force of 'attraction' between
a migibody (say, the earth) and any body located within its intrinsic mig field equal
to the sum of their mig, varies with the linear distance above the surface (from
zero at 4000 miles to 980 migons plus the mig of the smaller body— usually negligible) at the surface.
Fearth =(migearth+migsm.body)·(r-h)/r (1)
This is an empirical formula and will work excellently despite
the fact that the manner of variation of mig intensity with distance is not known with certainty. Here (r-h)/r is a number
between 0 and 1 whose value is zero above 4000 miles (one earth radius, r) and increases to 1 at the earth’s surface.
Since in most cases we are dealing with a body falling only a few feet to a few miles from the surface, in first (and even
much higher) approximation, (r-h)/r = 1, and the formula becomes merely
which in first (or higher) approximation is just migearth
= 980 migons (a force equivalent to 6.6x1018 tons times 980 centimeters per second per second) distributed uniformly over the
surface area of the earth (earth’s surface area is represented by Aearth and assigned a value of 1) and no
mass could effectively display any resistance to such a force so the acceleration is
migons/massearth ·Aearth= 980 cm/sec2
h. The interaction between a migibody and another body outside its intrinsic
mig field is a slightly more complicated function. As stated above, the external
mig field is manifested as a cylinder or tube of force wherein any body within range is located at the exact center. Obviously,
therefore, the entire mig of the migibody is not manifested on the other body if its disk area is smaller, and this force
is manifested only on the central part of the disk of the other body if it is larger. It is also assumed (but this fact awaits
empirical testing) that mig diminishes harmonically with distance as a function of the number of diameters of the migibody
that generates it (point f. above). Moreover its mig is obviously also resisted by the mig (inertial mass) of the body on
which it is exerted. The formula (2)
Fsmall=A·miglarge – migsmall (2)
expresses the relationships described above: here, Fsmall
the force (actually more like a push than a pull) exerted on the smaller body is product of the ratio of the areas of
the disks of the two bodies (for simplicity the ratio of their radii squared rs2/rL2)
denoted here by A and the mig of the larger body diminished (i.e. divided) by
the distance between them expressed as the number of diameters of the larger body nDL, minus the mig of
the smaller body migS. In other words in external mig fields, the
mig of the smaller body does not contribute to the force causing it to move but resists that force so the result is a difference…in direct opposition to Newton’s formula which uses the sum
of the masses of the bodies. In intrinsic mig fields, the mig of the
smaller body is made part of, i.e. added to, the mig of the larger and thus contributes insignificantly to increasing the
force pushing on it, and in no case is any motion manifested by the larger body, which is the source of the force acting on
the smaller body. In the external mig field, the quantity (Amiglarge/nDL ) must be larger than migsmall if the smaller body is to move at all, since there is always
a distance at which they will balance one another for a given area factor A and/or
i. For "orbiting" bodies, we can thus state that the mig of the larger body or
primary diminished by the area factor A (which is always less than 1, unless the primary is smaller than the satellite,
in which case A=1) and divided by the number of its diameters from the secondary is equal to the mig of the smaller
(secondary or satellite) plus its relative mig (defined as its inertial mass, the passive equivalent of its mig, numerically
identical) times the acceleration required to account for the difference in velocity with respect to the primary, i.e.
Amiglarge/nDL = migsmall+migsmall.rel
and since for any two migibodies,
one "orbiting" the other, the value of Amiglarge is a constant, it is evident that if nDL
is decreased (distance shortened) then since migsmall is also a constant, migsmall.rel
must increase appropriately in order for the "orbit" to be maintained, i.e. to keep the small body from crashing into the
On the other hand, if the smaller body is a migibody,
then the force it exerts on the larger is confined to a cylinder passing through and concentric with the disk of the larger
and exactly equal in diameter to the diameter of the smaller body, thus
FL = migs/nDs
exerted through a tube with
a cross-sectional area of πr2small through the center of the disk of the larger body.
The points a new theory should possess in order to be considered an acceptable replacement for an existing theory are.
a. consistency with empirically observed
b. nonconflict with proven aspects of Einstein’s
c. no unexplained mysterious constants or
d. ability to explain Kepler’s laws
(or show their invalidity) i.e. to solve the two-body problem of celestial mechanics, falling rates of bodies
near the earth, tidal phenomena, orbital planes of the planets, means for calculating masses and surface gravities
of celestial bodies, explain or refute Bode’s law and Roche’s limit, astroblemes and binary stars (anticollision
mechanism), and a plausible consistent theory of the origin of the solar system and universe,
e. a prediction.
All of these points are fully elaborated in my book Paradigm Shift and tend to confirm the validity of my theory.
I did not make a prediction in the book but will now make a trivial one: No traces of non-terrestrial life will be found
on any body of the solar system. We shall now apply it to the more esoteric speculative areas of cosmology.
Origin of the Universe
The many and various theories that were proposed earlier for the origin of the universe can be classified as 1) expanding
universe, 2) contracting universe, 3) steady state, and 4) pulsating universe theories. Without going into their specifics
now, I merely note that all of them shared the belief that the primal form of matter is the proton or hydrogen ion or nucleus,
a positively charged particle, created by an unknown mechanism out of various subatomic particles, and through the agency
of gravity (as defined by Newton) and infinite time, the coalescence of protons to form dust clouds, dust balls or gas balls,
and out of these, stars, when sufficient mass has gathered so that the pressure is sufficient to initiate the nuclear fusion
reaction, thus building up heavier elements. More recently all of these concepts
have been forcibly replaced in all academic research by the so-called BigBang cosmology and those who disagree are called
heretics and blacklisted from access to funding and research grants. In order to teach in a high school or college or do research
in America you now have to claim you believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, and Global Warming, even if you secretly don’t,
and your publications must support these beliefs on pain of blacklisting.
For our discussions to follow we can safely disregard the BigBang as hysterical nonsense, and there is no need to discuss
its many fatal flaws and the tweaks and fudges that have been added to it in the hope of maintaining its viability.. Our basic
assumption postulates a creator of supreme intelligence who engineered the cosmos for the purpose of creating life out of
its substance. Therefore, whether or not some people believe that the BigBang
theory is correct is immaterial as far as my theory is concerned. My theory does not require anyone to “believe”
anything except demonstrated facts. It is a hypothesis that has been tested and, in part, proven (by two undisputed and well
known but commonly disregarded facts: the fact that orbits do not exist and the paths of the planets are helical and the fact
that neutrons decompose into protons and electrons but not vice versa, meaning neutrons came first).
We have thus far accounted for gravity and shown how it behaves on the scale of stars and planets. We have postulated
that the primordial form of matter is the cold neutron (or material which decomposed into cold neutrons) as a result of the
total contraction of spacetime in zones where two expanding spheres meet. The original form of the spacetime contraction zone
(total warp zone) was in most cases a disk resembling the Greek discus, i.e. a round flat object thicker toward the center
and thinner toward the edges. The question then arises of why it would not continue existing in that form but transform itself
into ultimately what we call “atomic” matter.
My answer would be that the disk was not symmetrical, i.e. not spherical, therefore the mass of cold neutrons (presumably
densely packed) are not drawn together by their mig and therefore are easily detached from the mass and float apart in the
vacuum of space. As the originally compact disk expanded and broke apart certain agglomerations of neutrons could form symmetrical
(spherical) clusters whose mig would then be additive, therefore “attractive” to the mig of smaller clusters and
individual loose neutrons in the vicinity. Obviously this would happen more readily in the outer zones of the disk but eventually
most of the mass of the disk would break up into spheres of densely agglomerated neutrons constantly absorbing each other
and growing larger due to an enlarging mig field (mig is additive if the particles
are within the distance of the sum of their radii). As the process continued and the spheres grew larger, the increasing mig
would start to apply pressure to the interior neutrons but being the ultimately dense form of matter, this could not change
their shape or size. Apparently, at some time after the breakup and “globularization” of the original disk, it
would be composed of many different cold neutron globules of different size and mig (mass-inertia-gravitation). Beyond a certain
critical size the speed of the collisions with smaller bodies and individual neutrons would increase resulting in an increase
The increased temperature and increasing mig (weight of surface matter) and resultant increase in pressure could and
presumably did cause some of the neutrons somewhere in the the intermediate layers of the body to fuse (form deuterons and
alpha particles) or merely cause decay of individual neutrons into protons and electrons (a fact “known” to occur
in contemporary atomic theory).
This means that what we know as charge was manifested for the first time. As is known, deuterons, alphas and protons
are ions, i.e. charged particles whose charge is said to be “positive.”
They are composed of 1 ,2 or 4 nucleons, a proton, a deuteron consisting of a proton and neutron, or an alpha of two each. To form atoms they must attract
and hold electrons, the unit of negative charge. The charge of an electron is equal to the charge of one proton. But what is charge? Why should charge-neutral bodies separate into two particles with opposite and hence
attractive charges? How can mig theory account for this?
One plausible explanation is that mig is quantum in nature, i.e. the mig of a neutron is the smallest unit of mig that
can exist. If a neutron decays into a proton by emitting an electron, its symmetry is violated. What we call charge may be
“merely” the components of a decayed neutron resisting asymmetry with all the power they can exert. By coming
together with an electron to form an atom, they achieve a state of balance but the energy required to “re-fuse”
them is not available.
Obviously then, as the aggregates of neutrons grew larger, very dense (solid neutron) bodies would form at regular
intervals, but the variation in size would be strictly random, depending on where the center of mig increase began. Eventually,
a given neutron body could become large enough so the pressure of the outer neutrons on the inner ones would produce heat,
spin, electron decay (into protons), and finally (apparently) the synthesis of deuterons somewhere below the surface, and
when a sufficient number of deuterons existed, the pressure and heat could start fusing some of them into alpha particles
and a “star is born”, a so-called "nova" possibly representing the initiation of this process.
The strongest defense of this theory is that one could never bring protons close enough together by “gravity”
alone to cause them to “fuse” into deuterons (one proton emitting a “positron” to cement the relationship),
yet the surface layers of every star consist chiefly of deuterons and alpha particles, their fusion product.
Continuing this line of speculation, and in view of the known fact that the surface layers of stars (at least our sun)
consist chiefly of deuterons and alpha particles together with protons and free electrons, and with only the assumptions that
the raw material for the formation of suns is cold neutrons and that all the known elements are synthesized between the core
and surface of such a body, we are forced to conclude the following:
1. Deuterons are probably formed by the extreme
pressure of a few inches to several hundred or thousand miles of neutrons by first joining as a pair of cold neutrons (by
mig) and then fusing (by pressure), one member emitting an electron, the other transforming an equivalent amount of matter
into what was once called "binding energy" (whose action mechanism is still highly speculative even to nuclear physicists,
my guess would be that when 2 neutrons are squeezed together with sufficient force, the symmetry of the 2-part body is violated
until it gets rid of an electron so binding energy is also explained by the asymmetry abhorrence of mig), this process is
endothermic or at least endoergic, i.e. it requires that additional energy be fed in to produce the fusion and pressure could
well be the source of that energy. The deuterons thus formed migrate to the surface by ionic repulsion (from the continuous
production of new deuterons below them) where their concentration is increased to the point where they are brought into close
contact with one another, and since a deuteron is a high energy “compound”, they will readily fuse with one another
under the conditions a few inches to a few hundred miles below the sun’s surface into more stable alpha particles, releasing
the energy difference between deuteron fusion and alpha fusion, acquired as pressure, in the form of heat. Naturally, the
neutrons above them (in the deuteron-enriched “soup” of protons, deuterons. neutrons and alphas) are rendered
highly unstable by this heat and transform easily into protons by emitting electrons, and as fast as they form they are sent
flying into space as cosmic rays pursued by their electrons due to their high energy and charge. The surface neutrons are
constantly being replenished by colder neutrons migrating up from the. interior where they are under extreme pressure but
are immobilized as a result of being surrounded by other neutrons except at the neutron/deuteron interface layer.
The other heavier elements are formed either later in the process when the deuteron supplies are exhausted or at lower
levels in the star’s interior, but the process is an analogous one, i.e. neutrons are forced together in large aggregates
and many of them lose electrons in the process thus binding the aggregates into nuclei (whose nucleon number and hence atomic
number and atomic weight must be functions either of the pressure or heat conditions of their existence or both).
The inner shell (surrounding the core) of a fusion-type star such as our sun must therefore be composed of fluid akin
to postulated “degenerate” matter containing nuclei of all the known elements plus much heavier elements which
cannot exist as atoms but only in degenerate or plasma form, but plasma, being charged, must migrate away from the site of
its production and reach zones where it can rearrange itself as atoms. but since all nuclei with more than 92 or so protons
fission immediately when emerging from the degenerate state, certain other elements are formed in greater amounts than the
obvious steady (geometric) increase in pressure toward the interior would indicate, for instance, an unstable element, perhaps
No. 116, might split in half to produce two nuclei of No. 58, etc. (This conjecture
is supported by the fact that all elements beyond Atomic No. 20 or so (Atomic No. = number of protons in nucleus) have increasingly
more neutrons than protons in their nuclei as they get “heavier.” The lighter elements are formed by proton-deuteron-alpha
fusion, the heavier by “degenerate” matter at a high neutron concentration. The quotation marks are used, because
the astrotheoreticians who first coined the term believed that such a state represented advanced degeneration of atomic matter
in the core of aging stars, in my theory, of course, it is a form of
The inner core of such a sun, whatever its size, must still be composed of cold neutrons; therefore its temperature
must be near absolute zero. Since heat is defined as molecular motion, and since no molecules or even atoms can exist in a
core of neutrons actually in contact with one another, there can actually be no temperature there, incredible as this may
seem (particularly since many astrophysicists have boldly speculated that the core temperature of our sun runs in the millions
5. The lifetime of such a star as a luminous body would obviously
be a function of the initial number of neutrons of which it was composed. It is analogous to one huge unstable heavy-element
nucleus which is constantly losing nucleons, transforming neutrons into protons and electrons, and emitting large amounts
of energy (both fission and fusion) which originally stemmed from its internal pressure which in turn was produced by mig
which was derived from the contraction of the ether/spacetime. There is, however, apparently no upper size limit on stars
which can be much smaller than our sun or thousands or even millions of times as large.
But consider how much longer the “fuel”
of a large star would last and how much more quickly a small star would use up its deuterium and become externally cold, although
the degenerate matter of its interior would continue to produce heat through fission until it had all been transformed into
stable elements. Of course such a body would not be visible to us on earth unless it was illuminated by a sun, but the outer
planets of our solar system may very well be such “burnt out” small stars. They (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune) are all similar to one another in that they appear gaseous, they are of tremendous size compared to the earth and
inner planets, they are believed to have dense cores, and the elements constituting their atmosphere are chiefly hydrogen
(from the ubiquitous proton), carbon, nitrogen, perhaps some helium (alpha particles) and a little oxygen. We note that carbon
can be produced by the fusion of 3 alpha particles or by the decay of nitrogen, that oxygen
can he produced by the fusion of 4 alpha particles, that nitrogen can be produced by the fusion of 3 alphas and one deuteron.
These are the elements we might well expect to be formed near the surface of a fusion star when its neutron core ceased to
emit deuterons or neutrons to fuel the process. The alpha particles would become concentrated near the surface with only a
relatively few deuterons interspersed among them, i.e. with a greatly reduced deuteron concentration, and the fusion process
producing alpha particles would give way eventually to the endothermic process of the fusion of alphas and deuterons to form
carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen
plus other light elements that do not exist
in gaseous form at low temperatures and which are thus spectroscopically undetectable in the atmospheres of the jovian planets.
Since these elements are produced near the surface, it is anticipated they would remain on or near the surface and become
the planet’s atmosphere or gaseous envelope. The heavier elements would be formed further down in the planet’s
interior, increasing in atomic number with increasing depth, but not arranged in perfect concentric layers because of the
instability and displacement caused by ionic migration and the fissioning of the “ultraheavy” elements. Such a
body could retain a high internal temperature for many thousands of years after its fusion had ceased on the surface because
of the heat produced by fission in its interior. Moreover, as the body cooled by this process, it would necessarily grow larger,
because atoms take up much more space than nuclei in the degenerate state, and until every last bit of this so-called degenerate
matter had stabilized as a normal atom, the core of the planet would remain in an ultradense state, increasing in density
to a maximum at the center.
This theory has numerous implications. First of all, it is obvious that if the theory is correct, then neutron stars
are the first, not the last, stage of astrogenesis, and “black holes” arc nonexistent. A black hole is a hypothetical extreme case of “gravity contraction”
of a star or even a galaxy which has shrunk due to its own gravity to such a degree that no light can escape its gravitational
field. My theory states that no matter what the initial size of a star, i.e.
the initial number of neutrons of which it is composed, it radiates most of its initial mass outward at a velocity too great
for that lost mass ever to return, and eventually it becomes a small gaseous dark body with a dense core but with far less
mig than it possessed originally. Jupiter may indeed have been a small star which didn’t get very far or it may have
once been much larger than our sun. But having converted most of its surface neutrons to protons and electrons and lost them
as cosmic rays. and the remainder to degenerate matter, it no longer has even a fraction of its original density as a neutron
body and is not likely to contract but to expand, becoming less dense in the process.
We can now restate the nature of the universe by saying that it consists of spacetime and contains matter-energy. Matter-energy in nucleonic form has the property of mig (as defined above). In atomic
form it has the property of charge which is an extreme manifestation of the symmetry property of mig. These simple facts can account for any phenomena observable in the present universe, except, of course,
the anomalous redshift of distant quasars, the interpretation of quasar information in general, and the dark matter and dark
energy supposedly detected by the WMAP, which may be merely misinterpretations of data based on erroneous assumptions (the
BigBang cosmology). There is no need for a gravitation constant or a cosmological constant, which are merely gigantic correction
factors dreamed up to make anomalous data fit predictions based on wrong assumptions.
Solar Systems, Planets and Moons
It is also my belief and the logical consequence of the mig theory that solar systems, moons, and terrestrial or earth
type planets are formed as a result of mig from the material of the larger bodies, and the mig theory provides an unbelievably
neat and plausible mechanism for their origination.
Suppose, as a first possibility, that as the
sun travels through space, at certain intervals it encounters or crosses paths with dead stars of the Jupiter type, either
singly or in groups, perhaps it overtakes them as they are drifting away from the hub of the galaxy (outward) while the sun
is skirting its periphery. Even more plausibly, suppose that the sun was formed with a smaller, i.e., less massive companion,
i.e. that originally a “binary” star existed. The companion star, originally a luminous body, would run out of
nuclear fuel earlier than the sun, i.e. it would lose mig due to the conversion its initial supply of neutrons to protons,
alphas, deuterons and degenerate matter. Due to its decreased mig it would be
drawn closer to the sun (large area factor, low mass) and be forced to enter into an “orbit” around it, necessarily
passing through points A, B, C, and D. (see Paradigm shift, Chapter 10) We can readily understand that on its first
pass through point A, its heavy degenerate matter core would resist the change in direction and after being greatly elongated, split into 2 or more bodies in order to maintain symmetry. These bodies would then complete
the process leading through the other critical points and gradually stabilize their distances in accordance with their mig
and disk area. It is impossible to say whether the process of splitting occurred once into four bodies or whether it split
once into two bodies, each of which underwent another split upon reaching another critical point.
After stabilizing in a size compatible with the sun’s mig, the four newly formed migibodies would continue to
lose mass at the critical points until their distance stabilized. Hence the many moons of the so-called “outer planets”
or gas giants. I therefore contend that
Venus, Mars. Mercury, and perhaps the earth itself were born “out of the head of Jupiter” at various periods after
it had joined the sun on its path through space and that Jupiter (as well as Saturn, perhaps Uranus and Neptune) is still
periodically forced to lose part of its core, although now the lost cores arc so small that they do not fully escape the maternal
mig field and become its moons. The “great red spot” of Jupiter, for example, may be the ‘birth canal’
not only of Mars, Venus, and Mercury, but of all 58 of Jupiter's moons not to mention the earth itself (which if a child of
Jupiter. is its oldest and most favored) and our moon may have a similar origin.(The probability that the moon was originally expelled by a jovian planet is quite high —
it resembles a small planet like Mars and Mercury in many respects. However, there are many things about the moon suggesting
a less "natural" origin, see Chapter 8. of Paradigm Shift: Why didn't we return to the moon?)
I do not believe the satellites of Mars could
have been produced from Mars itself but consider it much more probable they are a couple of asteroids which Mars picked up
when settling into its present path
History of the Earth
I do not assert that plate tectonics is nonexistent or totally wrong as a means of accounting for the present state
of the earth's crust. However, I hope to show that it does not have nearly the
importance current geological thought ascribes to it and that the proposed mechanisms and cause of plate tectonics may be
totally in error.
One of the earliest proponents of plate tectonics, at the time when it was still a "discredited" theory called Wegener's
Continental Drift theory, was a professor at the University of Tasmania, the late S. Warren Carey, who forcefully defended the position he arrived at after having been a convinced "plate tectonicist" when
it was unpopular to do so. His view was that the known features of the earth
can best be explained by assuming that the earth has expanded in the course of geological time, its radius increasing by 33%
from the time when Wegener's Pangaea existed, and that the present continental shelves represent "old" crust, while the ocean
floors represent "new" crust. In Carey's view the observed phenomena of so-called
plate tectonics as well as its driving force is nothing but the motion of the crust striving for isostatic equilibrium under
the force of expansion. In Carey's model, the earth, however it was formed (he
does not dispute the accretion concept), had originally stabilized and cooled with a radius of less than 3000 miles (as opposed
to 4000 miles at present). Whatever triggered the expansion, the result was the
separation of the originally monolithic crust into several (twelve or so) "plates" which moved apart as they rested on the
surface of an expanding sphere. In other words "Pangaea" once covered the entire
The real geological evidence supporting this view and overturning the now popular and academically entrenched (excuse
the pun) notion of plate tectonics is abundant and, to me at least, overwhelming. Especially
when you consider that I arrived at the notion of an expanding earth in 1974 as a logical extension of my theory and had never
heard of Carey at that time. According to the website "The Expanding Earth",
the results of Atlantic ocean basin core drilling testify that new crust is forming from the mid-ocean ridges at a rate far
too great to be compensated by "subduction" elsewhere, notably the Pacific rim.
(Subduction in the sense of plate tectonics means that one slab of the lithosphere
or earth's crust is diving under another.) Moreover, the evidence that subduction is actually occurring is both scanty and
ambiguous. And indeed the idea that mantle convection currents are the lateral
driving force of huge slabs of lithosphere is essentially refuted when one attempts to calculate the energy required for this
compared to the energy that convection could actually provide. In other words,
there is firm evidence that the crust is expanding but weak evidence that the "extra" crust is being disposed of by recycling.
And there is no evidence of any energy source sufficient to drive the resultant movement of the crust as indicated
by faulting and rifting (such as the theoretical/hypothetical mantle convection currents), but the expansion itself could
well provide the required energy.
When this view is combined with the belief (which may or may not be correct but seems very plausible and logical) that
the megafauna of the Mesozoic era (i.e. dinosaurs) would not have been able to move, let alone thrive, if the earth's "gravitational
field" were as strong as it is today (a belief, incidentally, which neatly explains the absence of megafauna today), then
it becomes apparent that the expansion of the earth was linked to an increase in its mass, perhaps by a factor of 25% or more.
Tentatively accepting this line of reasoning, we must ask how this could have happened.
When we examine the geological column, we note that the various strata designating the past geological epochs and eras
range from a few inches to several feet in thickness. Then if we postulate that
each "extinction" event ending those epochs and eras represented a sudden and drastic cosmic catastrophe which involved the
dumping of large quantities of extraterrestrial matter on the earth's surface, killing, burying and compressing the fauna
and flora of that epoch (thereby creating fossils), we would certainly account for some of the increase in mass with its concomitant
increase in "gravity" (mig as I define it in chapter 9).
This would mean that at the time of Pangaea (whenever that was) the gravitational field of the earth was weaker (and
shallower because the earth's radius was shorter and its mass apparently lower). Whatever
event triggered the expansion also increased the mass of the earth. The relative
time of this event was probably what is known as the K-T boundary, since no megafauna have appeared in the fossil record above
that level. The only problem is that the amount of extraterrestrial matter dumped
on the earth by the various extinction event catastrophes is not sufficient to account for such a tremendous increase in "gravity."
According to my theory, planets are not formed through the accretion of matter left over from the formation of stars
as postulated and essentially accepted as unquestionably true by modern astro-theoreticians.
Rather, the so-called terrestrial planets (i.e. the earth, Venus, Mars, and Mercury) are formed in the cores of the
so-called jovian planets otherwise known as gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn etc.). The
cores of the gas giants (in my model) are composed of degenerate matter, which is a plasmoid "fluid" composed of nuclei (meaning
protons and neutrons, no electrons) of all or any of the known elements and possibly also of much heavier elements (no upper
size limit). The plasma is compressed to a state where it occupies only an infinitesimal
fraction of the volume occupied by an equivalent mass of normal or atomic matter.
As the gas giant is flung about in its circuit about the sun's path (orbits, as I have shown [see Paradigm shift,
Chapter 10] are a fiction) it occasionally loses its degenerate core (or part of it) which then moves freely in space until
it is captured by its parent body or the sun as it expands, on the surface at least, into atomic matter.
First let us assume that the earth was born at some time in the distant past from Jupiter or Saturn and was steered
into its present path and terraformed. Later it served as the habitat for various kinds of fauna and flora when it was but
half of its present size (judging from the area of the continental shelves relative to that of the total earth's surface). Then this phase of the earth's existence was abruptly terminated. The fauna and flora were exterminated and the mass/gravity augmented. This process has obviously happened
many times. And each time the fauna and flora were replaced by somewhat similar
but still different kinds.
We need only speculate what kind of catastrophe could not only cause the K-T mass extinction but also add a relatively
large amount of mass to the earth and simultaneously cause it to expand to its present size.
My answer is: a lump of degenerate matter, possibly from Jupiter, shortly after its ejection, having failed to become
one of Jupiter's moons, headed straight for a collision with the earth during the age of dinosaurs. This was not a meteor but a relatively tiny lump of degenerate matter surrounded by a "skin" of atomic
(i.e. normal) matter and not in the least influenced by the gravitational field of the earth.
It struck the earth roughly in the location of present day Iceland, leaving its atomic skin at the surface, while the
degenerate-matter core plowed into the earth's (also degenerate) core where it was finally arrested. If its mass was a significant fraction of that of the early earth then the mass of the earth would be increased
by that amount. In addition the extra amount of degenerate matter now present
in the core would provide an impetus for further transformation into atomic matter, resulting in further expansion of the
earth from the inside, causing the original crust to break apart and spread out on the expanding surface.
Obviously, few if any life forms would have survived such an event, which means that the terraformers returned at some
later time and re-engineered the ecosystem in keeping the with the new mig field (size of the earth and its surface acceleration).
I feel no compelling need to defend this view
further since it is pure speculation. I only ask that the reader study my theories with an open mind and ask himself whether
this could be correct, and if not, why not. What, if any are the objections or
insurmountable problems with this theory?
 If my theory is right, then the initial premise of the ‘black hole” hypothesis is wrong. If
mig is a function of mass, then mere contraction in volume will not change (enlarge) it, only the gradient (steepness of the
slope of the spacetime warp) will increase, not the depth of the warp, a function of mass. There is also no basis for assuming
that the contraction can proceed infinitely: it may well have an inherent limit.