banner graphic

Gravitational Theory

by R. Owen Link

PREFACE

Gravity revealed! The Directional Gravity Theory (DGT) describes gravity down to the building blocks of all matter. The DGT shows that “dark matter” is not the mysterious power that holds spiral galaxies together. The DGT also explains that conclusions drawn from recent supernova research related to the existence of "dark energy" are flawed. There is nothing wrong with the actual research. It is just that they are unaware of the DGT which make those supernovae unequal to start with. Their research assumes deep space to be equal to the closer supernova. They are not!

Another lesser mystery, the unexpected slow down of the space probe PIONEER is cleared up by the DGT. Other experiments that have perplexed the ones performing those experiments are explained by the DGT. More details of all of these will follow.

Please contact me if you have a valid reason why the DGT should not replace Einstein’s “A mass gains mass with increased velocity” (MGMT). I know that this theory of Einstein’s MGMT is considered one of the most proven in all of physics-astronomy, but I believe it is flawed.

Please don’t bother to send such statements as: “Replacing Einstein’s MGMT will put physics-astronomy in a state of confusion. My comment is “Do you think that field isn’t completely confused now?”

Nor the fact that I used more than one hypothesis or “tooth fairy per theory” in developing the DGT. My Comment: That rule of one tooth fairy per theory is strictly a man made rule that has no scientific support. When one looks at that restriction, one might wonder if they really want to clear up all those mysteries?

Most of the proof supporting the DGT will be found in the latter part of this paper.
If the scoring were done as in a prize fight with each proof being awarded a win for the DGT or the MGMT, or declared a draw (neutralized), the final score would look like this. Several proofs DGT wins, several proofs are a draw, and no wins for Einstein’s MGMT.


THE DIRECTIONAL GRAVITY THEORY’S ANCESTRY

The DGT is based on a part of the Super String theory developed by John Schwarz of Caltech and Michael Green of London University. For this paper one of the most important concepts of their theory is: the building blocks of all matter consist of infinitesimally tiny strings of energy. These strings are always swaying, twisting and moving. In their theory a string is so minute that a string is to an atom as an atom is to the solar system.

The performance of the Directional Gravity Theory is in no way dependent on this particular ratio. The actual string may be much, much larger or even smaller.

Using these concepts as a base the DGT was developed.


THE DIRECTIONAL GRAVITY THEORY
1. From one end of a string there is emitted in one direction a narrowly focused gravitational wave. The other end and sides of the string emit only a tiny amount of gravity.
2. As the velocity of a mass increases some of those strings facing in side directions are pulled or forced to re-aim their gravity end to the rear.
3. The “sides” of a moving particle, or mass, means all directions except almost exactly straight in front, or straight in back.
4. A huge number of these strings together form a mass which produces “common gravity.”
5. The electrical charge on the particle is energy so its strings are activated by the DGT in the same way strings are re-aimed within a particle. The number of strings doing this is increased as the velocity of the particle (or mass) is increased. Note: It is the resulting loss of side gravity and side electrical charge that is a factor that has allowed Einstein’s MGMT to survive for so long. That loss gives the appearance of an increase in mass. Both the analyzing magnet experiment and the particle accelerator depend on the magnetic force, or electrical charge emitted from the side of the particle. When some of that force is missing they are sure the particle has gained mass.
6. Black holes are too dense to allow its strings to move. Therefore a black hole emits only “common” gravity. That is: Gravity is emitted equally in all directions.

This item needs to be emphasized: Gravity is incredibly weak compared to the other forces of nature. While most of this paper is about gravity, actually gravity is too weak a force to perform the scientific experiments necessary to study that gravity. To do their experiments an electrical charge is given to the particle (if needed) that is to be used. That electrical charge does respond to magnets because it is such a strong force compared to gravity.

To simplify; the electrical charge force will be understood even though only gravity is referred to in the earth bound experiments.


THE DIRECTIONAL GRAVITY THEORY’S EFFECT WITHIN PARTICLES OR ATOMS

The DGT is in complete agreement with the Lorentz Contraction: i.e. The contraction of mass along its line of motion. This is the DGT’s explanation for that event.

If one considers the internal arrangement of the strings within that moving mass, it will be seen that as more of the strings have been re-aimed to face the rear, the overall strength of gravity, fore to aft, in that mass increased. The strings facing to the front have continued to do so, but they now face the new Directional Gravity (DG) that faces the rear. This causes the contraction. The extreme closeness of the strings to each other greatly multiplies their effective strength. Also the fact that they are operating in unison makes weak gravity much stronger. This contraction occurs even in total isolation from anyone viewing it.

The contraction effect is only a part of what is occurring within that particle, or mass. Just as important is the lateral expansion that is also taking place. There are two factors working to produce this expansion. First, the before mentioned contraction is squeezing the mass. The second is really a negative factor. When some of the strings are re-aimed to the rear, it results in a loss of gravity of those strings facing each other laterally. This loss allows the mass to expand laterally. The expansion of the mass laterally is equal to its contraction, fore and aft.

Time dilation is another effect of the DGT on a moving mass. As the velocity of the mass increases more of the strings facing in side directions are re-aimed to the rear. Those strings re-aimed to the rear, that is the strings that are developing DG, no longer have freedom of movement. This slow down in activity of those strings is transferred to what ever kind of matter those strings are forming. The matter that the slow down is working on may be anything from a muon, to a subparticle, to radioactive matter, to a human being or anything.

If DG is produced then there has been an equal loss of side facing gravity. Since there are many sides to supply the DG a big increase in DG will show up as a smaller loss from any one side.

A MOVING OBSERVER IS NOT EQUAL TO A STATIONARY OBSERVER

When Einstein postulated that the laws of physics are identical in all frames of reference, he erred. This postulate can be rephrased to “Different observers in uniform motion do agree on the laws of physics and experiments such as the conservation of motion.” Einstein should not have assumed that a moving observer is equal to a stationary observer just because in every day ordinary life they do seem equal. Any discussion in this paper concerning stationary bodies (bodies at rest) or moving will consider them in an inertial frame of reference, i.e.:If it’s a moving body it will do so in a straight line and at a constant speed.

The following examples prove that an observer on a moving body can never be considered the equivalent of a stationary observer.
1. Does mathematics support the equality of those observers? Nowhere do I find anyone claiming to prove this mathematically. If they did their mathematics should be checked. (No support of postulate)

2. The only inertial thought problem in which the moving or stationary observer does appear equal is in a particular problem where the constancy of the velocity of light is involved. In that type of problem the moving observer sees the velocity of light as being the same as a stationary observer. This happens only because of the unique property of light. (No support of postulate)

3. It can be stated that the observer on a moving body is almost never right about his own status, that is; that he is moving, while conversely, the stationary observer is always correct in believing his non- movement. Actually, neither one knows his true status. Both only think they are right. It takes a properly placed stationary observer to tell the moving observer that he is wrong in believing his non-movement. At the same time the stationary observer will be told he is correct in believing his non-movement. The important point here is that the moving observer’s thinking is wrong and the stationary observer’s thinking is correct.

These are examples of #3:
a. An observer on each of two bodies that are moving parallel abreast will see their own state as “not moving.” Also each will see the other observer as not moving. Each is wrong on both counts. (score 100 rong for both moving observers)
b. If those moving observers, while on any course meet and pass each other, each will see the other body as passing him, while their own body remains stationary. This time each is right in seeing the other move, but wrong in believing they themselves are stationary. (Score 50ight and 50 rong for each moving observer)
c. If a stationary observer is passed by a moving observer, the moving observer will see the stationary observer as passing him. Again the moving views are wrong, both thinking he himself is not moving and that the stationary observer is moving. But the stationary observer is correct in seeing the moving observer pass him, as well as believing he himself is stationary. (Score 100ight for the stationary observer and 100 rong for the moving observer)
d. If there are two stationary bodies, each with an observer, both will say they themselves are not moving and the other observer is not moving. (Score both stationary observers 100…0D

From the various examples shown I find no support for Einstein’s equality of observers and I consider his postulate void. There will be further discussion of how he presented this to the world.

Let us look at how Einstein defended his “equality of observers.” First he stated a fact (supposedly) that “Everything moves in the universe." Therefore there can be no stationary observer in his type of problems. Also, he said they should be able to perform a thought problem in a lab. I can see no added benefit to say it can be performed in a lab while losing much of a thought problem’s potential by limiting it to lab capabilities. He is imposing an unneeded and undesirable limitation. Now for his restriction on the use of stationary bodies with observers. I wonder if he ever considered that the developer of a given problem is always in a stationary position. If he were not stationary he would not know whether his observers were moving or not. In no thought problem that I can find is the developer of the problem ever moving.

The main reason Einstein’s “no stationary observers” is so questionable occurs when he presented the following problem. This is the thought problem that Einstein used to convince the world that the views of a moving observer were equal to the views of an observer at rest (stationary):

A long moving freight train has an observer on the middle of the train and one at the middle on the ground. At that moment lighting bolts strike each end of the train. The ground observer sees the bolts as simultaneous while the observer on the train moved forward so he sees the front lightning bolt slightly before the rear bolt. Then Einstein says in effect that while each viewer sees the event differently each one sees a true view of the event (in their own sphere) so he concludes that each view is valid and therefore equal.

Einstein made the ground observer stationary in two ways. First, he has everything (the train observer and lightning bolts) moving in relation to the ground observer. He could not have made the ground observer more stationary even if he said “the ground observer is stationary.”

The second way Einstein made the ground observer stationary puzzles me in that he should present something so obviously conflicting with his no stationary observer concept. He states that the lightning bolts were simultaneous and the ground observer saw them as simultaneous. Since the lightning bolt’s light is unrestrained by the Earth and the Earth moves at the same time, one bolt or the other will be seen first, depending on the earth’s movement at that moment. Therefore the ground observer should see them at different times. But the problem states the ground observer saw the bolts at the same time. Therefore Einstein again made the ground observer stationary. So much for “No stationary observers.”

EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL RELATIVITY: SOME VALID AND SOME NOT

One of the products of Special Relativity is the “distance can shrink” concept. It is presented as follows: A space ship traveling at half the velocity of light will find that its miles are shorter. That’s what is claimed: shorter miles! Since they are using moving observer’s views to produce this faulty concept I will void the “distance can shrink” concept.

As weird as the shrinking distance concept, at least it remained an isolated curiosity. It did not retard science as Einstein’s MGMT has.

These are the steps leading to Einstein’s MGMT. Butcher and Kaufmann, several years before Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity, observed that electrons gained mass with increased velocity. Then Lorentz decided that electrically charged bodies are subject to his equation:

M=Mass of moving body
M*=Mass of body at rest
V= Velocity of mass
C=Velocity of Light

M=(M*) divided by sq root 1-(v/c)2


Whether Einstein developed this equation on his own or adopted it from Lorentz is immaterial. This equation appeared in Einstein’s Special Relativity, without much support. Einstein’s main contribution was that any body (not just electrically charged bodies) would increase its mass with increased velocity. So Einstein can’t be blamed entirely for MGMT.

The Einstein MGMT cannot be voided so easily as was the “distance can shrink” concept. To dismantle the MGMT and prove it invalid requires a much greater effort.

OTHER THOUGHT PROBLEMS RELATING TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Others have tried to give Einstein’s MGMT help, but that help ends up being no help when they use a moving observer on which to base their problem. An example of this is taken from “The Realm of The Universe” by Abell, Morrison, and Wolf. It has two astronauts flying parallel courses, but meeting and passing each other. When they were doing this they fired missiles at each other, at the necessary velocity so that the missiles met and rebounded, returning to their original ship. From this set-up they used the observations of one of the astronauts to show that Einstein’s MGMT is valid. The trouble here is both astronauts are moving so their observations are of no value to support the theory.

A second thought problem is from “Einstein’s Mirrors” by Tony Hey and Patrick Walters. In this thought problem they do use the observations of a stationary observer, but a different situation occurs. This problem can be interpreted as supporting MGMT, or, it can support DGT. The problem: There are two basketball players facing each other. One is passing the ball out of a train (at rest) window so that the ball will meet the ball thrown by the player on the ground. The balls rebound so they return to the shooter. Conservation of momentum is accounted for. Then they have each player do the same pass but now the train is moving at a “Relativistic high velocity.” This time the player on the train throws the ball more slowly, due to time dilation that the train player would be experiencing. To account for the conservation of momentum lost due to the slow throw, they concluded that the ball had to have gained mass, thus supporting MGMT.

The Directional Gravity Theory has a different explanation for this problem. The property of the DGT that compensates for the slow throw is the lateral expansion of the train, player and ball, reducing the distance the ball must be thrown. This satisfies the conservation of momentum. Both explanations are possible so their proof is neutralized.

PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE DIRECTIONAL GRAVITY THEORY

The effect that DG has on the development of spiral galaxies is so vital that there would be no spiral galaxies if there were no DG. First, the nucleus would take much more time to develop. Second, there would be no formation of accretion disks. Third, without that central portion of those galaxies to furnish DG there would be no spiral galaxies. If a spiral galaxy were magically put into a universe that did not operate under the Directional Gravity theory, that galaxy would immediately fly apart for lack of DG.

This is the way the DGT explains how spiral galaxies are formed. Spiral galaxies are held together by DG developed within the central portion of that galaxy and not by the elusive dark matter supposedly surrounding that galaxy.

When a collapsing mass increases its rotation due to the contracting effect, some of the strings in the receding side of that mass will be re-aimed to the rear. That mass will then emit increased gravity in a narrow band outward, somewhat like a spinning fireworks wheel sends out sparks. This increased gravity at the receding side will help pull more of the incoming matter to that side. This is a repetitious process. The more matter that is pulled into the receding side, the faster the nucleus spins, the more strings are re-aimed, which pulls in still more matter to that side and so on.

If the matter being drawn into the nucleus is of sufficient quantity and duration and there is no interference from other masses, the matter being drawn in will develop into an accretion disk with velocities approaching that of light. When the accretion disk forms, the central part of that galaxy becomes a gravitational powerhouse. Both the accretion disk and the spinning nucleus now have a large portion of their side pointing strings pointing to their rear in a narrowly focused gravitational band. As stars stray into this plane of intense gravity they are captured unless they have enough momentum to escape.

The process of re-aiming strings that faced the side and re-aiming them to the rear results in greatly reduced gravity at the sides of the accretion disk and the sides of the nucleus. This allows matter and radiation to be ejected or emitted from the weak gravity areas very easily. But that picture changes fast when the nucleus collapses and becomes a black hole. The black hole cannot produce DG because of its extreme density. The black hole then emits gravitational waves in all directions. No more radiation or matter can be emitted from the black hole’s side area. The formation of a black hole will be indicated by a gap in the sheet of radiation emitting from those side areas.

IF THIS EXPERIMENT CAN BE DONE IT SHOULD BE CONCLUSIVE!

This is an experiment that will be a test of both theories. In the final stage of this test the side gravity is not the important factor. Employ a circular particle accelerator to bring a particle up to near the velocity of light, the so called “mass building stage.” Then maintain that velocity long enough to see if there is a large drop in power requirements, as Einstein’s MGMT would require. The reason for this is : The particle is no longer increasing velocity so the particle should not be building new mass. With that mass no longer needing more power to build new mass (as they claim) there should be a huge decrease in power needs. If the power does drop the Einstein MGMT will be supported.

Prediction: The DGT says holding that particle to a steady velocity may increase the power requirements slightly as a few more strings are re-aimed to the rear. Other than that the power needs will remain steady.

HOW DIFFERENT THE ANSWERS ARE!

This is a question that each theory will respond to. How does each theory explain the gravitational effect due to the expanding universe, especially what is happening to those high velocity galaxies?

The Einstein answer: Basically nothing happens. They come to this conclusion because of an Einstein concept: That it isn’t the galaxies that are moving, but it’s space that is expanding due to the space-time concept. From that they conclude that those galaxies, and the stars they contain, did not develop new mass as the Einstein MGMT would expect. My question of their answer: If those galaxies aren’t moving what is causing a different amount of red shift for various galaxies?

The DGT’s answer is: The deep space and very deep space galaxies are moving fast enough to have developed considerable DG. This redirected gravity to the rear is gravity that then passes through the thickest section of the universe, which is also the center. Much of this DG is gravity wasted as far as helping to close the universe.

WHERE WE GOT ON THE WRONG TRACK

About 1900 Hendrik Lorentz developed an equation to show the contraction of a moving body along its line of motion. But he went further and said that the equation could be used to show an increase in mass when its velocity is increased. This is from the book “Genesis of Relativity” by Lloyd Swanson Jr. The author wrote, “Lorentz was deeply impressed by the enormous size of the charge as compared to their subatomic particles….he introduced the idea that their mass ought to vary with their velocity.” Therefore, this theory was based on the electrical charge being larger with higher velocities.

The Einstein explanation is simply that the mass increased so the electrical charge to cover that mass also increased.

The DGT’s explanation for what they are seeing: The charge is so large because the DGT affects both energy and matter. This means with higher velocities the particle’s electrical charge will lose some of its side pointing strings. This results in an increase in electrical charge, as well as gravity, to the rear. The lateral expansion accounts for the particle and charge expanding in width. While the particle does expand laterally as much as it contracts along its line of motion, the really big change is the huge increase in strength of both the gravitational field and the electric charge’s field to the rear of both the gravitational field and the electric charge’s field to the rear of the particle. This large field gives the electric charge a large area to cover. That is why the electric charge looked so big, it was spread out by this huge force field. It was not that the particle gained mass.

Both explanations of the experiment are possible, so the MGMT and DGT are neutralized for this event.

WHY WE STAYED ON THE WRONG TRACK

In the analyzing magnet experiment they used high velocity subatomic particles which they sent past a magnet. The particles did not deflect as much as all the physic’s laws said they should. The greater the velocity the more the deflection was reduced. But at those various velocities the lack of deflection was agreeing perfectly with Einstein’s MGMT. This experiment was considered the first real proof of that theory.

The DGT’s explanation for the analyzing magnet experiment is: The faster the subatomic particles move the more that the side-pointing strings making up the sub particle and its electric charge are re-aimed to the rear. This loss of the side-pointing strings gives the same effect for the magnet as though it has gained mass. In other words the magnet can not tell whether the particle had gained mass or if the particle with the same mass has just given the magnet less to get a grip on.

Both explanations are possible so the proof of MGMT is neutralized by the DGT’s explanation.

When the particle accelerators were developed they seemed to give Einstein’s MGMT positive and almost unneeded proof that his theory was valid. When a particle’s velocity is approaching the velocity of light, the power needs to be so great that the scientists knew that the particle must be in its “mass building stage.” During this period no matter how much energy they put into the accelerator it increased the particle’s velocity only slightly. In other words they believed the large amount of power was building new mass and not helping to increase the particle’s velocity. And again science takes it on the chin because this “mass building” concept agrees perfectly with Einstein’s MGMT.

Looking only at the particle accelerator experiments, the DGT cannot say their interpretation of that event is wrong. But again it can say that the DGT’s explanation is equally valid. Explanation: With the DGT the particle has lost much of its side- pointing strings, as it did in the analyzing magnet experiment. This loss of strings that had been aimed in side directions gives less for the magnets to work on. The particle has maintained the same mass, but the energy developed by momentum of the mass keeps increasing as its velocity increases. Since the particle must make thousands of revolutions of the accelerator, the DGT says that it is the combination of the lost side-pointing strings and the increase in the momentum of the mass that is the reason for such a huge increase in power needs when they think it is in the “mass building stage.”

Either explanation is possible so again the MGMT is neutralized by the DGT explanation.

THE RESEARCH OF PROFESSIONALS THAT PROVES DGT’s VALIDITY

This part of the paper examines the research of physicists and astronomers who, by their various endeavors, are probing for the truths of the universe. The DGT will be applied to their findings to further explain them. I can find no single place in their research that enables me to say, "This experiment proves the validity conclusively.” Rather this group of professionals' work should be considered in total, as well as remembering other weakness in Einstein’s MGMT as previously pointed out.

This would be the deciding ultimate test for Einstein’s MGMT. The experiment uses the Conservation of Mass, and the loss of side pointing strings would have no effect on the outcome of the experiment. The results were a real shocker to them.

The concept of the test is simple. A particle traveling at almost the velocity of light is crashed and all the matter and energy at the crash site is recorded.

Early tests attained a number that indicated the mass had been multiplied only 40,000 times. They readily conceded that this was only energy from the momentum of mass. Somewhat later the energy from a crash site was found to have multiplied 150,000 times. This number is about the amount of energy that the momentum of the mass should produce if the mass is traveling at near the velocity of light. That 150,000 figure is many times less than it should be if Einstein’s MGMT were coming into play, and it should be.

So what was decided when the Einstein MGMT failed the test? It was ruled that his theory passed the test. They explained their ruling by saying that neutrinos must be carrying all that “missing” energy away. They were positive that new mass was being produced, even if the experiment showed no evidence of the MGMT doing anything. Since neutrinos are very difficult to record, they were obviously basing their ruling on all those analyzing magnet and particle accelerator experiments that were etched into their minds. For each of those experiments this paper has shown an equally valid explanation, so those experiments have been neutralized. With those experiments aside, two questions are asked. What do they have to support their elusive neutrino concept? Also, what kind of mass do they think is being produced that can only convert to neutrinos when crashed?

The DGT agrees completely with the outcome of the particle crash test. The test found no new mass as Einstein’s MGMT expected. This experiment is a severe blow to Einstein’s MGMT when previous research is considered. When other professional works to follow are considered this blow will become fatal.

In ASTRONOMY March 1997 there is an article titled, “How to turn a quasar on.” A team of researchers led by John Bahcall reported that about half the quasars they studied were colliding, but the remainder of the quasars were in galaxies that were rather isolated. The conclusion that the team drew was there is some body, or mass, that is so close to the quasars that is influencing those quasars, but we are unable to detect those bodies, or there is something going on that we do not understand (not his exact words but his meaning).

This is the DGT’s explanation for the development of quasars. When an accretion disk develops in very deep space, a condition occurs that really is duplicated nowhere else in the universe. There is a somewhat similar condition that is found in closer galaxies that produce miniature quasars, but since they are moving much slower, those quasars are tiny. It takes the high velocity of the deep space galaxies to develop the real quasars.

When an accretion disk forms in that situation, its strings are torn between trying to align with the circular motion of the disk or the linear motion of the galaxy. As the accretion disk builds up velocity, the strings finally go into a state of frenzy due to being continually forced to re-aim their gravity end to the rear, because the “rear” keeps changing so fast. Eventually the agitation of the strings builds enough energy within each atom of the accretion disk that the quasar erupts into a full grown quasar.

This is from ASTRONOMY November 1995, titled “Was Einstein Wrong?” by Robert Naeye. The article relates how a Villanova University astronomer Edward Guinan has studied the unexplained behavior of a binary star, DI HHERCULIS for 18 years. He worked out six possible explanations for its action. He found all the solutions to be unacceptable.

Daniel Popper, UCLA astronomer, a leading authority on binary stars, says there is an important discrepancy in what DI HERCULIS does and “it’s an important one” and it is “unresolved.”
This is the data that they have developed about DI HERCULIS:
1. It is two stars, one about 4.5 times and the other about 5.2 times the mass of our Sun.
2. The two stars are separated by about 20f the distance between the Earth and our Sun
3. The two stars orbit a common mass point every 10.55 days
4. Their plane of revolution is seen almost exactly edgewise
5. The precession of the orbit of DI HERCULIS cannot be accounted for by Newton’s and Einstein’s gravitational theories.

The DGT’s explanation for this is: The two stars have a very high velocity. They will be developing considerable DG. None of this increased gravity to the rear of the two stars ever gets aimed at the other star. All the DG is radiated outward away from each other. This results in a decrease in the gravity that should be pulling them together. In other words if there were no DGT, the increased gravity would cause the two stars to orbit closer. But the DGT is working so there is less gravity between the two stars than expected. This in turn makes them orbit further apart than their masses would predict. This results in their precession disagreeing with Newton and Einstein.

There is a second binary, AS CAMELOPARDALIS, that is also defying Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity. Again, it is the precession of the orbits that is causing the problem. These two stars orbit even much closer. That means their velocity must be much greater. Edward Guinan, in this case, believes that tidal forces are involved because they are so close. There may be some tidal forces involved as he said, but because of their extremely high velocity, a huge amount of DG will be developing and again this DG is being radiated outward from them. This loss of gravity between them is the main factor in throwing the precession off from Newton’s and Einstein’s gravitational theories. Unlike the space probes where they are on a fairly straight course, the binary is orbiting, so its trailing gravity and DG is continuously being re-aimed to other directions. The factor that is continuous and accumulative is the effect of the weakened side gravity between the two stars.

Two groups of researchers recently reported on an extensive study to compare the intrinsic brightness of “nearby” Ia supernovae with the same type in deep space. Their hopes were that with the comparison of those supernovae, the true distance of the deep space supernovae might be determined. Both teams found that the intrinsic brightness of the deep space supernovae were much dimmer than they expected. These findings led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding faster now than in earlier times.

To explain why the universe is acting so strangely, they decided there must be some force that is strong enough to overcome all the gravitational forces of the universe. So they added a partner for “dark matter” called “dark energy.” Except for the research of these two teams there seems to be no other way of knowing that it is in the universe. Since the galaxies and their nearby areas did not seem to harbor this new found force, its home had to be in the vacuums of space. Dark matter was demoted to a much lesser role in the universe. And dark energy became the dominant force in the universe, at least that is what they believed.

Question: Why didn’t the expansion force of “dark energy” show its presence continuously from the time of the big bang?

The DGT has another explanation for the dimming of the deep space supernovae. The deep space supernovae all have large red shifts, indicating high velocities leaving us. The directional gravity (DG) developed by those high velocity supernovae are aiming that gravity at the center of the universe. The Earth is close enough to that center that the DG aimed at us also. The importance of this is that DG makes an extra strong gravitational field trailing the deep space supernovae. This strong field retards the matter exploding to the rear so much that it keeps the matter from radiating outward and thinning. Therefore, we are viewing those supernovae through the denser area of matter, and out view is dimmed. The greater the distance the supernovae is from us, the more DG so the more the supernova will be dimmed.

Sometime after their supernovae research, Supernova 1997ff was discovered. It has a large red shift indicating high velocity and deep space but it is not dimmed. From this they ruled out dust as possible cause of the dimming. They had been thinking that deep space might produce enough dust to produce dimming. The Directional Gravity Theory’s explanation for 1997ff is: That supernova’s stream of DG misses the Earth by enough that we see a bit of the side of that supernova. The side of 1997ff may be extra bright because there is less gravity emanating from its sides, so the exploding matter will thin out even more than at a slower velocity. This would make 1997ff even brighter.

This is from ASTRONOMY May 1999 by David Graham titled “Clusters in Collision.” Neta Bahcall of Princeton University says, “Something in the environment changes normal spiral galaxies into ellipticals.” She then presented figures showing less spiral galaxies are found with clusters during the time period, “12 billion years after the birth of the universe, than is found in clusters 5 billion years previous…..by contrast , 70f the galaxies not in clusters are spirals.”

The DGT’s explanation: The cluster environment means there are other “nearby” gravitational bodies that can and do interact with those earlier spiral galaxies. If those spiral galaxies were actually being held together by dark matter, as is generally accepted, those spiral galaxies would be fairly stable. But with DG really holding them together, any mass that gets near enough to the nucleus of those spirals, to disrupt the production of DG will result in the total break down of the gravitational structure of those spiral galaxies and their stars will be spun out into space.

Therefore, the disappearance of spiral galaxies within clusters is a combination of two factors. One, they are not isolated. Two, the gravitational structure developed by DG to produce those spiral galaxies can be shattered rather easily.

This is from ASTRONOMY September 1993, title “Dark Matter Isn’t Everywhere.” A study by Robin Clardullo of Pennsylvania State University and Gearge Jocoby of Kitt Peak National Observatory shows by the motion in the stars in the elliptical galaxy M105 that it contains no dark matter.

NEW RESEARCH GIVES FURTHER PROOF OF DGT’s VALIDITY

From ASTRONOMY August 2003 , Michael Merrifield and Aaron Romanowsky, scientists at England’s University of Nottingham discovered three elliptical galaxies that do not have dark matter. Their findings reinforces the work done by Clardullo and Jacoby (discussed earlier), who found the elliptical galaxy M105 has no dark matter. Merrifield said, “Any theory…must explain how ellipticals end up losing any dark matter they may have contained initially.”

From the article I judge that the disks are rotating in a horizontal plane in relation to the Earth. The DGT says they must be in a horizontal plane to show the decrease in gravity or weight that they found. If they were in the vertical position, the disks would have appeared to gain weight. This increase would have been even more than they found was lost in a horizontal plane.

The DGT’s explanation: In both cases the outer part of the disk or fly wheel is attaining enough velocity to make the loss of their side gravity detectable. A small portion of the strings that would normally emit their gravity in side directions: i.e. in a vertical plane, are being re-aimed into the plane of revolution and that means taking some that were aimed at the Earth. Because of that lost gravity the disks will appear to have lost weight. They both were looking at their experiments as possibly producing an anti-gravity force.

These experiments are another win for the DGT and they give Einstein’s MGMT another fatal blow.

Question: If the disks are attaining enough velocity to affect their weight, why aren’t the experiments showing instead an increase in weight as Einstein’s MGMT would require? In Einstein’s theory the disks would have gained weight whether in horizontal or vertical position. Since Einstein’s MGMT can only produce an increase in weight and gravity, the researchers were given no choice but to think they are working with an anti-gravity force.

AN EQUATION FOR THE DIRECTIONAL GRAVITY THEORY?

The basic element for an equation is its different strings. The varying strengths they found for masses moving at different velocities was really the different amount of side gravity or side electrical charge that was coming from those sides. Since it was the effect of the strings that they were actually seeing, I would say that any equation cannot extend into the infinity range, as any mass may have an almost endless number of strings, but that still would be a finite number. Einstein’s equation does allow for the infinity range. His equation was the main reason for believing that nothing can travel faster than light.

There also may be need for a density factor in an equation describing the Directional Gravity Theory. The GDT accepts that a black hole is too dense to produce DG. There may be other dense bodies that restrict completely or partially the production of DG.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is the end product of the work of hundreds and even thousands of physicists, astronomers, and researchers. Without them these pages would be blank. To all of them, I SALUTE YOU! I wish to acknowledge individually the importance of John Schwartz’s and Michael Green’s Super String theory to me. Their theory made me realize that there might be a “world” of activity even within a sub particle. Their concept of an always moving string of energy, being fairly free to move, and having a length was vital in developing the Directional Gravity Theory.

R. Owen Link
C/O 636 Euclid Avenue
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

My Favorite Links

The last update to the page was on Wednesday February 18, 2004.

This page has been accessed times.