Tuesday, July 29, 2025

Eliminating the need for dark matter.

I really need to give my model of the laws of motion a name. The potential energy field is a good description, but not really a catchy name. How about “objective gravity”? Because that’s what it is. There’s really nothing relative about it. The strange effects of relativity are, after all, subjective. Of course, we can’t escape from our own subjective experience to see it from outside, so there’s that. But still, it’s handy to have a model that works well and actually makes sense when you look at it.

Once again, the potential energy field with a couple of particles doing their thing.

Something I noticed this morning was how the model obviates the need for dark matter (in most cases). Dark matter was theorized because neither Newton nor Einstein can account for the rate of rotation near the outer edges of galaxies. The stars are just moving too fast for the amount of matter visible in the galaxy. It’s as if either there were extra, invisible matter, or the force of gravity was stronger than predicted at the weak field limit.

Well, guess what our simple model does? It always predicts a slightly stronger force of attraction than Newton, and usually predicts a force similar to Einstein’s general relativity. The exception being adjacent to or inside the event horizon of a black hole, where objective gravity doesn’t have any infinities or singularities. In other words, it predicts a sensible and sane universe. (Don’t forget the potential energy field has a bottom that you can’t go below, just like it has a top you can’t rise above.) But how does it predict an extra or flattened force at the weak limit?

See those particles? They’re not points. They have a fixed size. Every particle has the same size, no matter what it is, no matter its mass, no matter its speed. It’s the only way the math works, and the only way observations show it can work. We know that gravity effects everything equally.

It’s the physical size of a particle that makes all the difference. Newton and Einstein both base their theories on particle being truly point-like. Einstein adds in a fudge factor that I have previously shown is an approximation. Objective gravity doesn’t use the tangent at a point - it uses the gradient across a volume. This will always give a slightly greater force than the tangent at the center point. Unless there is no force at all, of course, in which case it (unlike general relativity) correctly predicts exactly zero.

But wait, there’s more!

That volume takes time to move. The gradient is being constantly integrated as the particle moves along. That means that the slower you go, the more time the same points in the gradient have to influence your motion. Thus, the force of gravity effectively flattens out at the slow/weak limit, even though there is no change in the inverse-square curve. That’s something a point-like particle could never do.

The predictive power of a simple diagram never ceases to amaze me.

Friday, July 11, 2025

The Schwarzschild metric is an approximation

I can't get LaTex commands to work here today, so you get a link to my Substack post.

Summary:  The Schwarzschild metric, so useful in describing the strange behaviors in the vicinity of a black hole, is clearly an approximation.  It is valid neither in empty space (where it shows c² = c² - 1) nor at the event horizon of a black hole (where it fails with a divide by zero error as time goes to zero and space goes to infinity).  This is not an opinion, it is an easily demonstrated mathematical fact.

The error arises from using the precision of calculus where reality is less precise.  The potential energy gradient across a particle with a finite size is not equivalent to the tangent angle at its center.  The steeper the curvature, the greater the differential between the two methods of calculating the force acting upon the blue particle.




Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Neither Safe Nor Effective

"Safe and effective" my ass.  No flu shot has ever been effective at anything other than making otherwise healthy people sick.  We knew at the time the clot shots hadn't been thoroughly tested.  That takes at least a year of human trials.  Then we learned mRNA shots had never worked in any test animal - normally killing them all.  Then we saw people dropping like flies after getting the shots.

And all the while, the government and their pet media kept chanting, "Safe and effective!"

The FDA and CDC had the data showing the clot shots were deadly, and kept silent.

The big pharma companies cooked the books on their trials, then destroyed most of the evidence against them.

And now there's this study, showing with the government's own data that the shots killed.  And they knew it all along.