Geometric Spacetime, or Why I Wish I Had More Mathematics

A Schlocker emailed me a link to this PDF which describes a "solution" to some of the underlying cosmological puzzles of our day -- puzzles which we've fudged solutions for using Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and singularities. I think I can follow about 20% of it. Some of you can follow more. A few of you might be able to wrap your heads around the whole thing. (Yes, this got slashdotted -- I suppose you could wade through the comments over there to try and make more sense of it, but that's as hard on my brain as any mathematics ever were.) The conclusions suggested by the geometric spacetime model are pretty stunning: 1) the Universe is not between 12 and 14 billion years old. It's pretty much eternal. 2) There was no "Big Bang." 3) There is no "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy." 4) Red shift of distant galaxies is not caused by movement, but by a difference between their time vector and ours. 5) From our point of view, there is a "cosmological horizon" (see page 28 of the PDF), beyond which we cannot see. Any objects on time vectors offset from ours by 90 degrees or more are invisible from here 6) Black holes are not singularities, and do not locally conserve energy. They feed white holes (the cores of active galaxies) that are 180 degrees removed from the black hole's local time vector. 7) We need more data (MUCH more data) in order to confirm the validity of the new model. If all of this sounds like science fiction, well, that's because I'm a science-fiction writer. Good. It's working. Go check out the PDF -- it reads more like real science, and the math will give you a good scare. But there are pictures, so we all ought to be okay. This piece raises two very germane questions for Schlockers: 1) Will I remove Dark Matter from the Schlockiverse? (No. It's too much fun.) 2) Do I believe in the NEW model or the OLD model? (Neither. I believe in the process, not the current output.)
Next Post » « Previous Post
blog comments powered by Disqus