Hi Time

VISION 1.1.'80 _  2020




(a) Taking-apart The Experts' Standard Model consequence of 'believed missing, believed invisible, believed undetectable' Dark Matter & Dark Energy, the 'Emperor's New Clothes' indeed

i.e [(e = mc^2)=(e=5mc^2)]  ?

 (b)  Revealing Newton's fallacy, and Einstein's Confidence Trick consolidating 'universal  gravity'

(c) Hubble Constant's failings showing  Einstein's e=mc^2 setting  universe on fire and to prevent universe's expansion;

(d) The Experts' 'cone-shaped universe error : no possible back-drop because of INERTIA after The Big Bang, thus no bodies to be seen by looking backward, only sideways;  and 

(e) Universe written anew  has galactic rotation driven by an infinite energy source ....

.... are presented below by virtue of  brand-new Universal Constant, UIOAE, which is definitely not  'rocket-science'.

If its content is judged to be worth a £10-read by 65 million concerned persons world-wide, a new industry will be founded

The profits of which will fund build of 10 fully-manoeuvrable spacecraft able to position automatic-self-positioning sun-shields to cool oceans and stabilise to eventually save our planet; and mine Solar System 

-  mining profits to fund 'travel-hubs' at major cities utilising  an unique energy source having a saleable surplus, and putting the cheapest national, international, orbital and off-planet travel on everyones doorstep, and with which fuel-burning travel will be unable to compete, to thus fizzle-out.

The product of nearly 40-years efforts, the drive-unit will take manned craft, complete with 40% Earth-'gravity', anywhere in the Solar System in 4-days, with mining drones able to travel faster - to stop too quickly may damage the human body. 

Knowing what 'gravity' is NOT, is the key.

Knowing what 'gravity' IS is ÀLL.



To advance quality of life for all on our planet by maximising wealth-creation potential of a new physical principle by world-wide mass-manufacture & sales of its most desirable product - no energy source needed - so profits enable build of fully-manoeuvrable spacecraft to realised design; and to be used to stabilise our planet by programmeable self-positioning sun-shields to cool oceans, hurricanes, cool the 'hot-lids' off tornados to halt them; re-freeze ice-caps; eject nuclear-waste into the Sun; and boost planetary resources by mining our solar-system. 


Three innovations linked by confounding the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics, and by 'inventing' energy without diminishing other energy sources, to add peta-watts of energy to the 'human arm' once products are available, energy currently  non-existent being added to the 'not-so-closed-system' of the Solar System, and by showing the Universe for the first time ever bodies able to stop and restart at will.

New-product industry to be funded by concerned persons world-wide who are challenged to do their bit and by 65 million paying £10 only. 

Eventually a £30-billion IPO for Hi Time (ET) Ltd, will be needed for £40/50 billion for ten craft - £1>2 billion for craft itself; £1 billion each for one-sFNR for craft;  one-modular-small-nuclear-reactor for £1>2billion surface lifepod, to mine Solar-system; plus sun-shields' costs also.

[4th generation small-nuclear-reactors are still mainly on the drawing-board being reduced from container-size to car-size, and with development costs yet to be met.

Financially-backed intent to initially buy 20 and with more needed in the not-too-distant future to be funded by off-planet mining returns, would accelerate development to ensure availability in three-years time]

With Hi Time earning just £10 billion pa during a 20-year international production monopoly awarded by IPC patent, the simultaneous build of ten craft will take at least 3-years, and time presses..

...JUNE 2019 


- climate scientists have warned a 2°c increase in Indian Ocean temperature will see Monsoon rains attracted away from Asian rice-growing areas  promising dire straits for the  world...


Month 11+12 of 12-month project will see production earn £1.6 billion, with IPO launch after month 12 

Information ONLY on this site. 

      PAY £10 ONLY TO 


(Keep Paypal transaction ID to buy-into, or auction-off an IPO entry into its perpetual income)




Not many people are aware of our universe being shaped like a CONE.

But only since the mid-1980s, when The Experts agreed to the 'Lambda, Cold Dark Matter Constant' as the basis for The Standard Model of cosmology.

The base point of the Cone is The Big Bang explosion.

And the Matter of the universe  is driven in one direction away from this point, and to diverge sufficiently to prevent Matter being attracted to Matter so as to prevent a one-lump universe.

This 'bespoke-blunderbussing' of the Matter of the universe is, according to The Experts, caused by the Laws of Physics existing prior to The Big Bang wrestling the exploding Matter  to prevent the 'hand-grenade effect' : the 'shrapnel', the Matter of the universe, is prevented from  traveling outward in an ever-increasing sphere.

The problems created by The Experts theory are :

A)  Matter radiates outward from the point of The Big Bang  to create a Ring-universe at the top of the Cone having an inner void at its centre created by 13.82 billion-years of travel, to be 27.64 billion-light-years across due to divergence.

 B)  The Ring of Matter at the top of the Cone has been prevented, by the inertial drive delivered by The Big Bang, from leaving any Matter behind which can thus be viewed in order, for example, to provide information regarding evolution of the universe;

C)  e=mc^2 does not work outside the SolarSystem without 4kgs being added to every one kg of universe's;

D)  The energy deficit shown by 'The Atom Defect' complements (C) to confirm the 'non-equivalence of matter and energy', for both the atomic and galactic scales ;

E))  Einstein's 'equivalence of'gravity' and acceleration' is shown as a 'confidence-trick';

F)  Hubble's Constant is shown to be a mere recognition of  'divergence of  Matter';

G)   Rotating galaxies have the same amount of bodies coming toward an observer as are going away from an observer,  and at variable speeds moving outward from near the hub to the extreme edge of a galaxy, and where e=mc^2 is confounded, so having red-shift dominate over blue-shift is shown to be merely a matter of choice; and

H) A 'fixed observer' is impossible in Solar System,  and its 'ideal' notion is shown to camouflage the '4-continuums'  which combine to create the barely expressible  'quadrupled-point-of-peek'  for viewing in order to calculate distance, and which is further confused by peeking out of concavity-of-bubble into a convexity-of-bubble.

The solution is to present a coherent universe independent of reified ideas and theories which the dud formulae the  'fallacy of concretisation' have created and consolidated.  




Einstein's 'thought experiment' presenting the 'equivalence of gravity and acceleration', that they are 'one and the same', has seduced the World's scientific community out of its critical faculties for over a century.

If I was the person floating at the centre of Einstein's box floating in the vacuum of space, and suddenly found my feet touching the box-'floor', I would know with certainty, as should everyone, that the box had been pulled upward, had suffered 'acceleration'.  

And I would know, also with certainty, as should everyone , that my feet touching the floor could not have been caused by attraction toward a larger body, by 'gravity'.

I would NOT be "uncertain" as Einstein cunningly suggests.

I would be certain the box had been pulled upward thanks to Galileo Galilei's circa-1600 CE experiment  revealing that 'all bodies fall at the same speed'. 

And a well proven fact which makes impossible my feet touching the box-floor being due to 'gravity'

And because box and person will fall toward larger, attracting body at the same rate of travel, and with box making contact with larger body before feet make contact with box, which will have already made contact with larger body.

So no equivalent event of feet touching box-floor due to both acceleration and gravity.

Only accelerating box makes feet touch floor.

Thus there is no equivalence of gravity and acceleration as Einstein would have us believe, and to establish the building-block of his General Theory of Relativity.

Einstein's cunning 'sleight-of-mind' substitution of Aristotle's 'heavier bodies fall faster' (person must be heavier than box in Einstein's mind) for that which displaced it after 1,800-years of unquestioning acceptance, namely, Galileo's 'all bodies fall at an equal speed' certainly questions the basis of Einstein's "happiest thought" that 'acceleration and gravity are one and the same'.

Either Einstein is conducting a confidence-trick, and one wittingly intended to avoid earning the disdain entailed in having to beg the scientific community to please make 'a leap-of-faith' into acceptance of his 'spacetime-continuum', and thus its 'distortion by curvature-of-bodies' and which explains gravity - both of which linked notions are fundamental building blocks upon which Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is built;  OR Einstein believed Aristotle's 'heavier bodies fall faster', rather than Galileo's 'bodies fall at an equal speed', and which the World's scientific community accepts as a fundamental truth of physical science?   

No 'equivalence of gravity and acceleration', means no 'distortion' of  'spacetime-continuum' causing gravity. 

Indeed, without this, a 'spacetime-continuum' has no cause or reason to exist.

Thus there is no reason, no cause whatsoever for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to exist.

The Theory is wittingly built on the entirely false premise of Einstein's Long-Con, that acceleration and gravity are one and the same, but which has been shown to be false

(2/4) reveals an attempt to protect Einstein's spacetime-continuum  (what spacetime-continuum?)  from providing the grounds, via Hubble, for the exceeding of the speed-of-light-constant 'c' by checking-out the integrity of e = mc^2.

But with the 'squaring-of-'c' Einstein invents another 'equivalence' which does not work, on neither the atomic scale nor the galactic scale.

Only a small percentage of the atom's energy is missing, invisible, undetectable and as evidenced in 'the Atom Defect'.

But it is 95% of the universe which is 'believed missing, believed invisible, believed undetectable' : 4-pounds-weight must be added to every pound-weight in the universe to make e=mc^2 work.

It is Einstein's equation e=mc^2 which is regarded therefore as being unfit-for-purpose, and it is not only the atom, but also the universe being forced to comply with the equation which creates the Experts' crackpot universe.

And also the prevention of scientific advance, and which might have previously led to, for example, the discovery of a 6-dof spacecraft propulsion unit making rocketry redundant.

The most famous of equations, e=mc^2, is very much the name of 'the tailor' of 'A New Emperor's New Clothes'.  

If there is indeed no substance to the existence of gravity then there can be no 'gravitational wave' and LIGO may have had  its interferometry disturbed by, for  example, a hit from the new particle which suddenly appeared out of nowhere, and to seriously question the particle-set of The Theory of Everything - not a lot is yet known about this particular particle.

It would be a great international shame indeed if Professor Stephen Hawking was seen to have maybe thrown in the towel on life because his major life-work on Black Holes was rubbished as a consequence of a one-hundred-year-old+ confidence trick.






(one-inch-per-second speed-up every 14-million-miles!?) 


Hubble's  invitation to Einstein to visit his observatory was, in essence, an opportunity for Hubble to show off his new-fangled space-entities called 'galaxies'; their flying away from each other; and at an increasing speed.   

Following his visit Einstein fervently sought a 'variant 'c'' to possibly obtain a 'cosmological constant' eventually termed Lambda and one preventing galaxies from attracting each other and collapse the universe;

And a variant-'c'  he was unable to come-up with and which became a pursuit he gave-up on several times - knowing it is all a con-trick probably took the verve out of realising a variant.

And so there was no catering for the proposition Einstein must have realised runaway-galaxies presented : the supposedly impossible exceeding of the speed-of-light, 'c', 186,262-miles-per-second, and in the spacetime-continuum,  being now a real possibility because of Hubble's seemingly proven unaway galaxies.  

And this was going to happen in Einstein's very own 'spacetime-continuum' and to cast serious doubt on another fundamental building-block of General Theory of Relativity, if anyone stumbled upon it to  bring the Theory into question.

But without the 'variant 'c'' it is only the integrity  of Einstein's e = mc^2 which can be looked-to, to provide a counter to the possibility of an exceeding of 'c' in his spacetime-continuum, it seems.

To explain :  two galaxies flying away from each other needs only one of the two travelling at 50%- 'c', to reach 50.0001% of 'c' for Einstein's spacetime-continuum to be entertaining a contradiction of a fundamental building-block of his General Theory of Relativity : the impossibility of exceeding  'c' in the 'spacetime- continuum'.

In this case neither of the two galaxies speeding away from each other actually reach the 'critical-mass' which automatically causes self-annihilation when arriving at 'c', as the speed is not actual, but only 'relative'.  

Even so, being 'relative' is the fundamental basis of Einstein's theory. 

So if one curvature can distort the 'spacetime-continuum' to cause gravity, the curvatures of both  galaxies would seem to suggest some reaction or other must take place at 'relative' 'c', and the almighty bang of two galaxies self-annihilating would seem to be the appropriate reaction.

Even if Einstein is given the benefit of the doubt and actual 'critical-mass' must be reached before self-annihilation occurs and as his squaring of 'c' would seem to convey, both opposed galaxies will anyway  carry-on increasing in speed until 'c' is actually reached by each, and with self-anihilation assured in accordance with Einstein's fundamental idea regarding 'c'.  

In Einstein's thinking an exceeding of 'c' is prevented by a body's attainment of 'critical-mass' - that which is aimed for to make an atomic bomb go bang - an explosive release of energy contained within the matter of a body. 

The very internal energy, that is, which reacts against/with the spacetime-continuum to cause bodies to be spat around the universe like pips from a squeezed grape, as Einstein would have us believe.

If the speed of 'c' is indeed to be reached by oppositely-traveling-runaway galaxies, what will their self-annihilation mean to the spacetime-continuum?   

Can an annihilation of the spacetime-continuum itself occur by galaxies continuing to self-annihilate?

Or can it  be ruled out? 

And as it must be if Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is to hold together and survive.

So how does the only  'variant-'c' Einstein has ever proposed, the  'squaring-of-'c', manage to protect his spacetime-continuum from annihilation by self-annihilating galaxies?

The combined speed of two oppositely travelling galaxies reaching 'c' in the spacetime-continuum means  attaining a 34,653,532,644 miles-per-second combined speed of separation in the spacetime- continuum. 

And after both had, at some mystical point or other, suddenly taken-off to rush away from each other in the spacetime-continuum at an increasing rate-of-knots.

And for no readily apparent reason or knowable cause.

Einstein must have ruled-out the possibility of any two galaxies travelling away from each other self-annihilating at exactly the same moment in time, and especially given such an incredible speed, and to thus prevent threat to his spacetime- continuum.

And no matter how infinitesimally small the time difference, this he must have taken as serving to protect the spacetime-continuum by giving it recovery time, and to thus prevent two great chunks of spacetime-continuum being removed at exactly the same time by two self-annihilating galaxies to thus threaten his spacetime-continuum's survival by it suffering annihilation by disconnect.

Either this, or 'c'-squared is nothing but 'a big number' which, like Grandma's shawl, can 'cover' to avoid any and every awkward eventuality.

But whether at reaching 50%-of-'c', as Einstein's emphasis on 'relativity' suggests, or at 100%-of-'c' as his 'squaring' suggests, and in this fudge regarding the only means to protect his spacetime-continuum, Hubble's runaway galaxies will eventually be reaching critical-mass and causing visible fireworks-displays by self-annihilating in the heavens, anyway.

According to Einstein, that is.

And to provide an amazing and continuous firework-displays as billions of galaxies continue to rush away from each other.

And backed by the (shown to be questionable) validity of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, of course.

Whole galaxies self-annihilating mere moments apart.

A sight to behold indeed. 

And on a continuing basis as billions of galaxies continue to fly-apart at an ever-increasing speed, until reaching 'c' that is.

According to Hubble, that is.

Where in the heavens might this sight be enjoyed?  

How to find-out?  

Do what cosmologists do, and use Hubble's Constant.

Hubble asserts an incremental increase in the speed of galaxy-separation of 44-miles-per-second for every 2-mega-parsecs of distance from a fixed Earth-bound observer, or a one-inch-per-second-increase-every-14-million-miles.

A mega-parsec is 1-million parsecs, with a parsec equal to 3.26-light-years : 2-Mpc = 6.5-million-light-years.

44-mps divided into 'c's 186,262-mps, gives the amount of increments of 2-Mps needed to be reached to be 4,233 for a galaxy to attain 'c', and thus reach critical-mass in order to go bang.

6.5-million-light-years multiplied by 4,233  equals 27,514,000 bys

27.5-billion-light-years distance from an Earth-bound observer must be reached by  Hubble's runaway galaxies before going bang.

27.5-bly in space-travel takes 27.5-billion-years in time.

The first thought is that in a universe presently 13.82-billion-years-old it means a rather long wait of 13.75-billion-years before fireworks become a permanent feature of the universe - not knowing the age of the universe at the time when galaxies chose to become runaways  makes it difficult to assess when fireworks should begin, or is it  'when they began', past-tense. 

But inertial-travel by 'natural divergence' culminating in a cone-shaped universe, dictates the universe to be 2 x 13.82  bly from the centre-point of matter's radiation, which equals 27.64 bly across, or sideways (so there is 27.5bly available)

And, also, such a thought is not valid in all universes.

The Experts' 'cone-shaped' universe, for example, tells us that the 27.64 bly-across-the-'ring'-of-the-universe at cone-top, has a 'visible-distance' within of 92-billion-light-years - an 'ice-cream-cone', so to speak, entertaining '7-times-too-much ice-cream', given its 13.82 billion-year age. 

Galaxies of a billion-or more stars exploding two-at-a-time should be visible at 27.5bly, at 13.75 radius,  across the Ring of universe, and especially in their being a continuous ring of exploding galaxies.

An internet-search returned  for 'Lambda - CDM, The Experts' 'Standard Model' of the cosmos, will carry a sketch of their cone-shaped universe.

'Lambda - Cold Dark Matter Constant' is The Experts version of our universe, the 'Standard Model' of our cosmos, and agreed to  in the mid-1980s.

Lambda-CDM is based on Einstein's 'relativity' equation being seemingly combined with Hubble's notions, but with both visibly being kept entirely separate by means of the Greek-letter Einstein chose for  pursuit of a variant 'c', Lambda, an upside-down upper-case V.

And this letter is used to carry-forward Hubble's input into the universe as a 'unity'. 

It is that which can in no way be worked-in to affect Einstein's equation.

Such as, for example, considerations related to Lambda - CDM's '95% believed missing, believed invisible, believed undetectable' universe.

As has indeed been done above to arrive at a comic cosmic fireworks-display, and thus reveal the possible oddity of outcomes if attempting to combine Einstein with Hubble, which The Experts seem to want to be avoided at all cost.

The cone-shape having the  universe's galaxies forming a ring around the top and from which they can be seen flying outward, may be viewed in any sketch of the Lambda-CDM available by internet search.

The failure of Einstein's 'e' of e=mc^2 to account for the mass and acceleration of bodies at the edge of galaxies, for example - no 'mass and energy  equivalence'  here - forces a nonsensical [(e=mc^2) = (e = 5mc^2)] onto the whole of the universe, 4kgs of mass needing to be added to every kg of mass in the universe.

4 kgs of matter believed missing, believed invisible, believed undetectable : Dark Matter that is, and which accounts for 23% of  the 95% of the missing universe.

The 'e' of e=mc^2 is also used to account for the energy needed to make the universe's galaxies fly away from each other at an increasing rate, and by the invention of a Dark Energy : the missing 72% of the 95% of the universe which, as with the 23% of Dark Matter, Dark Energy is also believed missing, believed invisible and believed undetectable.

All this to keep-up and sustain the appearance of e = mc^2 having a mathematical and scientific validity.

And also to keep-up the appearance of the validity of Hubble's idea.

Hubble's 72% share in the non-sensical '95%believed missing, invisible and undetectable universe stems from his easy leap of faith onto The Big Bang band-wagon offering 'natural universal divergence'.

The Big Bang may be likened to a hand-grenade exploding to send its shrapnel outward in an ever-increasing sphere of bits.

In the vacuum of space the explosion sends the bits in every direction, at the same speed-of-travel, in a straight-unique-line-of-direction of travel, unalterably so,and forever.

This is the very definition of 'INERTIA' : the FORCE driving the MATTER of the universe since the  almighty kick-up the backside delivered by The Big Bang.

But with galaxies having their Big Bang unalterable inertial drive altered to the rotational drive that we know, must surely be worthy of an explanation.

The Big Bang Theory had been around  long enough for Hubble to have realised that the unalterable divergence of the 'bits' of the universe is an incontrovertible fact, and an especially 'safe' proposition if claimed as a basis for a fame-giving Theory - Hubble was a self-aggrandiser who  thought nothing of awarding himself an existing honour if he believed he deserved it, and without the knowledge of the awarding body.

The Experts were also aware that 'universal natural divergence' existed, but as a problem that needed to be got rid of, explained away, and by conceiving of a realm less-complex than an expanding sphere (like shrapnel of an exploding hand-grenade) for this would obviously result in a seemingly empty universe by now (to anyone on one of the diverged 'bits' that is) 

And Experts came up with their cone-shaped universe.

A shape more amenable to maths and thus dynamic physics.

And to avoid the inertia leading to the 'empty universe' caused by 'bits diverging' from every other 'bit' for 13.82  billion-years, with the unwelcome consequence that no 'bit' would be visible to any other.

The Experts claim is that The Big Bang's totality of powered-mass was wrestled by the pre-existing Laws of Physics to be 'blunderbussed' into a one-directional 'cone-shaped' universe.

Not wrestled-with to be thrown willy-nilly into a one-way universe, a one-way constant-speed route, but wrestled with some finesse and a sophistication of 'throw' made available by an apparent bespoke-blunderbussing

One designed to blast just sufficient 'natural' amount of divergence to prevent the attraction of bits to one another to thus form a one-lump universe.

Prevention of which would thus permit the universe we see above us, all around us today, to come into being (would it indeed?)

According to The Experts, that is.

But The Experts create a major problem with their wrestling and bespoke-blunderbussing.

For, once The Laws of Physics have prevented attraction at source to avoid a one-lump universe, and to thus cause a  'natural divergence', it is somewhat disingenuous - an impossibility, really - to then claim 'natural attraction' as the force responsible for the creation of galaxies.

Certainly unable, on its own terms, to  claim 'natural attraction' as the force behind the initial creation of galaxies, no matter what happens later.

Given the unalterable direction and speed of  'all bits'  from the kick-up-the-backside delivered by The Big Bang, that is.

The explanation for how the transition is made by matter from unalterable inertia to dynamic rotation is basic and fundamental to our understanding in order to be able to explain the universe.

And this cannot be side-stepped or fudged.

Einstein did not even know the universe of galaxies existed when delivering his Theory of Relativity to The Prussian Academy of Sciences in November 1915,  based as it is solely on his knowledge of what goes on in our Solar System. 

And what goes on in the Solar System certainly does not go on in a galaxy.

It has been shown that The Experts later explanation for galactic rotation, 'attraction',  is confounded at source. 

And, also, and tellingly, there is not even a hint as to what might be continually powering the rotation of a galaxy, all the billions of galaxies in the universe. 

And there is no wriggle-room left at all to cater for the loss of e=mc^2  in providing such explanation, it being a dud of an equation.

But Hubble does not stray into the realm of explanation.

He takes divergence as read and utilises a sound-effect caused by the Earth's atmosphere, the Doppler Effect, as a means for explaining a light-effect, and where no atmosphere exists.

The trouble with the Doppler Effect as sound-effect, is that the observer must remain fixed to hear an ambulance-siren coming closer and to then drop in tone as it travels past and goes further away : in travelling further the sound-waves conveyed by atmosphere grow wider apart and thus drop the tone lower.

But ambulance-chasing will not allow any difference at all in the siren's tone to be heard,  as there will be no difference, and because for the ambulance-chaser travelling along with the ambulance the siren's sound-waves remain the same.

And similarly, just as an Earth-bound observer travels at the same 143mps speed as the galaxy the distance of which the observer is attempting to calculate, galaxy travelling with galaxy at the same speed of travel should eliminate any doppler difference.


Also, there is NO 'fixed observer' and cannot ever be one.

Taking one step on our World has the foot landing a quarter-of-a-mile away in one-second from where the foot was raised, given the turning of the World at 1,000 mile-per-hour.

And landing at a spot also 18 miles further into space, given the World travelling at 67,000 mph around our Sun.

Which takes the landing-spot of the foot a further 124 miles as our Solar System travels around'  the SMBH (Super Massive Black Hole)  'Sagittarius 'A' Star, at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy at 124 mps. 

Which takes the foot-landing another 143 miles 'outward' as the Milky Way travels through space with the other galaxies.

Not a single, manageable 'spacetime-continuum', but four barely expressable moves because occurring at the same moment in time, but not in, or at, the same point in space. 

If  the wavelength of sound does not alter, then neither does the wavelength of light

It seems as if Hubble has simply plumped for a choice of seeing red-shift, bodies 'travelling-away-from the observer, over and above seeing blue-shift, bodies 'travelling-toward' an observer.

How on Earth can anyone see ONLY 'red-shift bodies ' flying-away-from', when the same amount of bodies of a rotating galaxy are 'flying toward' an observer in 'blue-shift', as are 'flying away' from an observer in 'red-shift'?

And more especially difficult as all the bodies are at varying speeds as they vary in distance from the centre of the galaxy and outward toward its extreme edge. 

And along the spokes of the  wheel, the conga-line of the  bodies' rotating that is, the extreme end of which conga-line bodies being known to be travelling much too fast for their mass, and to thereby confound e=mc^2.

And to confound Hubble as well, it would seem.

Is it not a nonsense universe being created by e=mc^2, when 4 kilogrammes need to be added to every kilogramme in the universe to make the equation work, anyway? 

Our friend the fixed observer will, from his quadrupled-point-of-moving-peek, look out from his bubble through space into another bubble : a concave quadrupled-point-of-peek looking at and through the convex lens of a bubble at an unquantifiable-point-of -peek. 

The 'local' number of 'movements' applying to this point-of-inward-peek being unknown, if not un-knowable unless by actually going there to assess the sitituation.

The outward-looking quadrupled-point-of-peeks have in the past produced two differing bodies far apart which turned out to be identical-twins, but which were eventually shown to be one-and-the-same body.

So 'fixed observers' have always had to contend with the presence of this error-producing-effect generally termed 'lensing '.

And now added to by  an awareness of simultaneously quadrupled movement.

Hubble was never aware of the phenomenon, certainly not the concave quadrupled-polnt-of-peek.

Just as Einstein was unaware of the existence of the universe when formulating his Theory of Relativity  by November 1915.




 ooE = M1<_x10*3 - >a-M  



MassOneIncreasing toward _ ten-to-the-power-of-three, 



(currently, Equation 3/4)



Based on near-1,000/1 relationship of the mass of any and every galaxy to its central Super-Massive Black Hole.

Given the widely differing distances between and across galaxies, and their vastly differing sizes, from twenty-nine-thousand-or-so to tens-of-billions of solar-masses, the only possible cause of  this indisputable constancy across the Universe necessarily being INSTANT ENTANGLEMENT OF EACH AND EVERY ATOM IN THE UNIVERSE : 

               U I O A E

Universal Instantaneity Of Atom Entanglement 

[See U-tube BBC_Horizon_"Who's afraid of a big Black Hole? " _ go to_ 50 minutes_ Professor Romesh Narayan, Harvard_ on Black Hole  constancy: _go to_20 minutes _ Professor Michio Kaku fails Einstein's maths.] 


To reify is to treat an idea as if it were a solid object in the real world, a 'lump of concrete', or a 'brick', so to speak

This is generally recognised as the 'Concretisation Fallacy'.

And to use such a 'brick' to build on other 'bricks', is to build an inverted pyramid balancing on a single point made by the first 'brick' laid.

And with this point-of-balance lasting only until reification of an 'idea' into 'brick' is noticed, and to consequently bring the precariously balanced inverted pyramid tumbling down.

Noiselessly, of course.

And because the 'bricks' and inverted pyramid do not exist, their being simply figments of the over-active human imagination.

And no matter how 'ideal' 'in the best of philosophical traditions' is the claim being made for  existence of an idea in the real-World, the 'fallacy of concretisation' is at work.

Reification of an 'idea' into a 'brick' is nowhere more clearly visible than in the idea of NOTHING, the SPACE into which the universe exploded, promoted by The Experts version of the universe and related science - it is the 'fabric of spacetime,'  a 'fabric' manipulable by 'mass', for Einstein, like a bowling-ball placed on the 'trampoline' that is 'spacetime' 'rubberised', so to speak

NOTHING, means 'no thing',  no width; no height;  no depth; no tactility, indeed, no real-World quality at all able to be attributed to Nothing, the 'space' that is, into which the universe exploded.

Yet the idea of Nothing science promotes is of Nothing being adulterated with 'fabric', as in 'the fabric of the  universe' , 'the fabric of space'.

And, consequently, (this usually means 'add another brick' to the first 'brick' ) as a 'fabric' it may be 'stretched' (second 'brick')

And with two entirely differing fabrics dictating two entirely differing end-results for the universe, a third 'brick' :

1. The twang-able fabric : this dictates a point-of-stretch which cannot be gone beyond, and which therefore twangs the matter of the universe back the way it came, and probably to cause another Big Bang as all matter eventually collides.

2. The breakable fabric : this dictates a point-of-stretch at which the limit of the fabric's stretchabilty is reached and thus it breaks to let the matter of the universe run off unchecked into the void..

('Inflation' is another 'brick' added to Nothing, Space,  which needs too convoluted a consideration, too turgidly legthy to be included, but would figure in an animation.)

And, it is clear, that both ideas of 'fabric' derive from attributing qualities existing in the real-World to that which has no existence in the real-World, NOTHING, or Space.

The same 'concretising' has happened to TIME :     

an atomic-clock taken up a  mountain shows a nano-second or two increase in the duration of time from that which it showed at sea-level,  and to thus supposedly 'prove' that Time is not simply a measurement, but an object in the real-World, because subject, like all other objects in the real-World, to a real-World force, 'gravity' in this case. 

But even had a  control experiment been conducted  to validate this finding, by taking the same atomic-clock to a point below sea-level in the Dead Sea region equivalent to the height it was taken up the mountain above sea-level, and a comparable reduction in duration was revealed for example, the consideration of it being the vibration of the real-World-existing caesium-atom being used as the basis for the atomic-timekeeping which is being altered by the differing strengths of gravity, should convince of the fact that it is not Time which is being distorted, increased and decreased, but the interval between the caesium-atom's vibrations which offer the measurements, which are being affected by 'gravity'.

And visible here is a similar concretising of Time as was visible in the concretising of Space as fabric.

When these two non-existent 'bricks' of Space and Time are combined to build a 'spacetime -continuum'  it can do nothing else but lead to The Experts crackpot version of the universe which has 95% of the universe believed missing, believed invisible, believed undetectable.

The double-concretising in SpaceTime-continuum  dominates modern science  by means of other 'bricks' being similarly reified to be built on top of this double-reification, and to build a precariously balanced inverted pyramid - The Experts '95% missing' universe for example - and which common sense dictates should be allowed to tumble down.  

The Space into which The Big Bang exploded is currently 81, billion, trillion miles away.

This is the distance traveled by light and other wavelengths which travel at the-speed-of-light, in the 13.82 bys since The Big Bang.

On the other hand, the 'stuff' of the universe, matter, has traveled a mere 62, million, trillion miles at a mere 143 mps in 13.82 bys.

Space can be seen to have one unadulterated state a long, long way away; plus two states of adulteration, one a long way away, and the other not so much of a long way away. 

Space adulterated by matter and all forces within its domain reaches 62, million, trillion miles, and Space adulterated by light etc. reaches outward to 81, billion, trillion miles. 

And by some magic or other, light-adulterated-space has grown 1,300 times greater than matter-adulterated-space - 9,100 times greater for The Experts - without  noticeably draining matter-space of the great amount of energy represented by this continuous outward flow of photons.

If subscribing to The Experts crackpot cone-shaped version of the universe, that is. 

Light's adulteration of Space sets the visible distance in the universe, even in The Experts crackpot version, to 81, billion, trillion miles, or 13.82 bys  of travel at light-speed.

The 93 bly visibility claimed by The Experts, nearly half-a-trillion, trillion miles, has been evidenced as an impossibility, the presence of light etc.being needed for anything to be detected.

The impossibility is evidenced by The Experts  bespoke-blunderbussing of a 'one-inch-per-14-million-miles-NATURAL-divergence  (Hubble Constant re-jigged) and which prevents the one-lump universe  by stopping the 'natural attraction' of matter to matter, and which  needs no energy source to sustain the consequent lengthening of the cone-shaped universe, (certainly not a 'brick' of Dark Energy) and in which matter exists as  inertially-driven  galaxies in a ring at the top of a cone.

So not The Experts 7-times greater visibilty than that which light etc. has created in traveling 13.82 bys, but a mere 81, billion, trillion miles.

Unless, of course, subscribing to the  stretchable/breakable-fabric-universe of The Experts, along with its '95% missing, invisible, undetectable' consequential 'bricks', as well.

Observations seemingly indicating a greater distance, represent that which may be examined  in order to calculate an error-factor in current observational methods, caused by quadrupled-point- of-movement, and especially as a check on the Hubble Constant.

Is not The Experts universe a nonsense due to reifying and consequential fall-out, and doubly so given the missing 4 kg, as well?

But the most ridiculous consequence of reifying space and time and then combining them into a spacetime continuum,  is that of it being impossible  for anything whatsoever to be left behind for the human-eye, or telescopes to see, as is claimed has been possible since the 'grand debate' in the mid-1920s regarding whether or not our Sun was the centre of a universe greater than our visible universe, the Solar Systen that is, the clouds of dust and rubble, the nebulous 'nebulae' external to the Solar System.

And because matter is traveling inertially, and by virtue of  the thrust delivered unstoppably by The Big Bang, and with the universe having no need for the Dark Energy  which is supposed to make up 72% of the missing, invisible undetectable 95% of The Experts universe, in that it is simply Hubble being aware of'natural divergence' The Experts 'one-lump universe stopper, which prevents matter-to-matter attraction at source, and which cannot thus be claimed later on to be the force causing the creation of galaxies. 

So has the universe any need for the other 23% of the 95% of missing, invisible, undetectable, Dark Matter that is?

Dark Matter :  as literal a reification of an idea into a solid-object-in-the-'real'-World as is possible to be presented to exemplify reification itself, and it's also being a process of accretion, and by 'brick' being added to 'brick' being added to 'brick' etc. etc.....

'Natural divergence' dictates that  even an exploding supernova will be travelling inertially inside the bubble of its galaxy also traveling inertially,  so is unable to leave one iota of crisped-matter behind in its wake,  and because every iota of crisped-matter is traveling unstoppably at 143 mps, and at the supernova's every stage  of becoming a supernova within the bubble of its galaxy. 

The supernova certainly cannot be left behind by its containing galaxy, nor can anything else.

And it becomes necessarily obvious that The Experts visible universe is a product of it being at the end of the cone,  of the lengthening-cone-of-divergence, so that which can be seen by telescope, can only be seen insomuch as it exists in the ring at the top of the cone created by the  bespoke-blunderbussing of the pre-existing Laws of Physics, and it is the ring's content which has been  seen by telescopes able to see beyond the Solar System.

A ring-sideways-seat, so to speak.  

It is a consequence of an inertially-driven universe that no evidence of the evolution of the universe can be left behind to be viewed by telescopes, as not a single iota of matter can be left behind for viewing later.

For this fact to be NOT true, an alternative explanation must be provided  to show just how the inertial thrust unstoppably driving the matter of the universe, transitioned into the galactic revolving of matter 

And an explanation enabling the cause, at the same time also, of a galaxy-sustaining power-source for billions of galaxies for billions of years.

And which also allows us to see the heavens above.

The ridiculous consequences of the pre-existing Laws of Physics wrestling an exploding mass of the universe  into a submission permitting a bespoke-blunderbussing  of the universe's matter  into a one-directional cone refusing to allow a backwards look at anything at all, rules out The Experts universe as proposed in The Standard Model, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Constant.

For is it not the case that backward visibility exists?

The  'Lambda -  CDM'  in which the Lambda is a unity, a 'One' , and comprised of the '95%  missing-universe figures, does not permit Einstein's 'space-tme-brick' to be built-on using Hubble's 'distancing-brick', the two 'bricks' being kept apart, and  to prevent the sort of iconoclastic excercise being conducted.   

Both 'bricks' exist within Einstein's fundamental field equation now, Hubble Constant's derivation is contained within the Lambda, but  without both meeting, and to avoid, for example, causing the ring of the universe atop the cone from becoming a fiery-ring of self-anihilating galaxies at 27.5 bly-across of the universe to prevent it becoming the 27.64 bly-across it should be, as has been managed above.

The Experts universe  stops itself growing and at 27.5 bly across as all galaxies reach critical-mass and self-anihilate.

The Experts universe will  never actually become 27.64 bly across the ring atop the cone but stops at 13.75 bly from the centre-point to be visible to the whole, foreshortened universe by now and for a considerable time to date.

Doing that which has always been avoided and to ensure neither 'brick' reflects badly on the other, that is  by mixing it up between Einstein and Hubble, stops the universe's expansion  by setting it on fire, explosively.

A direct contravention, thus confounding of the Hubble Constant consequence, that of a runaway-universe, and made so using The Experts very own terms of reference, argument.

This ridiculous outcomes offers also a third and entirely different ending for the unverse : all its bodies eventually succumbing to self-annihilation.

And all because of the unanswered question of just how the Matter of the universe suffers a change from straight-line travel caused by the unstoppable inertial thrust delivered by The Big Bang, and to change into the rotation  of all matter gathered into galaxies, but where attraction of matter-to-matter has been stopped at source, and which will also permit the seemingly endless powering of galaxies in suffering this change.

Other than by The Experts pre-existing-laws-wrestling proposal, that is.

And because simple common-sense can extrapolate it to setting the universe on fire.

And before 13.82 bys, which it has already supposed to have reached? 

Common sense extrapolation has a circle of exploding galaxies each consisting of billions of bodies, continuously exploding since seventy-million years ago.

But it is obvious that some 'thing' of the real-World had  to have wrestled with the power of the exploding Matter of the universe as it happened at The Big Bang,.

And in a manner allowing it to arrive also at the outcome visible to us all as our starry, starry night sky.

The outcome of whatever wrestling took place must also be capable of creating galaxies and a source of power also, one able to  drive billions of galaxies for billions of years.

And with this real-World partner in this wrestling match being able firstly to stop to cancel out what common sense tells us is the unstoppable power of the exploding totality of matter of the universe.  

The Laws of Physics, Natural Philosophy, are obviously not up to the job, as has been revealed above.

So Natural Philosophy cannot be called on to enlighten us on the seemingly insuperable problem of transition from inertial linear drive into a drive which rotates galaxies.   

What abot the Unnatural ?

Might the Unnatural be able to provide a solution as to how the unstoppable was stopped?

And possibly harnessed?

And to be re-directed?  

And to thus provide the power to endlessly drive galaxies?

Initially, at least? 

But it would have to be a real-world Unnatural phenomenon.

One in and of the real-World.

And one which obviously occurred at same time as The Big Bang.

At the same instant, if advantage was to be taken of the immense power available at that moment.

And so that it might be deflected to the useful purpose of powering galaxies.

Even if only for that moment's initial jump-starting of galactic rotation. 

And there is only one possible Unnatural candidate that could have been present to meet the instantaneous-job-demand.   

That which can be observed in the Unnaturalness of a Black Hole.

NOTHING, that is,  which has been totally ripped apart into an Unnatural condition.

And an unadulterated NOTHING, that is.

Such is the Unnatural, real-World phenomenon which has now to be recognised as indeed  Unnatural in being.

Nothing torn apart by the immense power of the total Matter of the universe exploding into existence, and outwardly so to rip-apart Nothing.

And a ripping apart which births to constitute the nature of all Unnatural Black Holes.

And with the unavoidable and necessary wrestling resulting in matter encircling to contain an equivalent amount of the Unnatural attempting to embrace it.

That which would allow its return  to its natural state of unadulterated Nothing.

Is not this 'desire' to return to being Natural to be considered to be the most powerful force in the Universr, in it being an equivalence in power to the total Matter of the exploding Universe?

Of a power certainly able to tear Nothing to shreds?

The attractive power, that is, which the  Black Hole exerts to attract the total Matter of the universe to its complete and total destruction so the whole of the universe, including Black Holes, can return to a Natural state of  unadulterated Nothing?  

The containing of an Unnatural amount equivalent to the amount of Matter, an equivalence of apparent-'mass' to 'mass' that is, created the Super-massive  Black Hole which exists at and as the centre of every galaxy.

Should the Unnatural gain dominance it will devour the encircling Matter to become a Quasar, a 'lamp of the universe' the brightest of stars. 

At 13.02 bly is a 20/30-billion-solar-'mass' Quasar, which is still devouring the Matter of its galaxy even now, and to make it one of the brightest  'stars' in the universe.       

When Matter dominates energy is created to drive the galaxy, and by its 'mass' compressing the SMBH at its centre as a counter to the incredible attraction being exerted upon the Matter. 

Equivalence of Matter to SMBH has been altered over time and to the point where Matter has currently a 'mass' nearly one-thousand times greater than the apparent-'mass' of its SMBH.

This nearly 10^3  relationship exists throughout the universe.

And to permit its recognition as the Universal Constant determining the powering of  galaxies.

The movement in the changing relationship has been from one of an initial instant equality of 'mass' to apparent-'mass' leading to an increase in dominance by Matter over SMBH.

Hence the need for four equations in UIOAE, and to reflect changing relationships,  three to represent the past and one to predict the future, but only in a general sense. 

There is no other immediately available 'real-World  way for the immense power of the exploding universe to be stopped, a stopping of the otherwise unstoppable that is, and with it being deflected to be harnessed, even if only momentarily, to enable this power to be directed into the useful job of powering the Matter of galaxies.

And in a manner which would permit the survival of Matter and thus the Universe of our very visible starry, starry night sky.

Matter either gets devoured by the Super-Massive Black Hole at the centre of its galaxy, or gains dominance enabling a compression of the SMBH.

How else would the 'spokes', the conga-line of the galaxy, remain intact and prevent the bodies confounding e=mc^2 from flying outward, but by the galaxy's intensity of attraction of Matter by the Unnatural, the SMBH at centre-stage?

This makes crystal clear the unlikelihood of an 'orphan' Black Hole.

Yet LIGO discovered two such 'orphan' Black Holes, one 36 and the other 29 solar masses.

It was LIGO's determination of their merging resulting in 62.5 sm which rubbished Professor Hawking's work on Black Holes, a size greater than their combined 65 sm was needed to validate Professor Hawking's work rather than the lesser 62.5 sm finding by LIGO - the lesser 29 sm would have had the 29,000 sm size of galaxy referred to above.

But Einsteinian explanation of  'gravity' built on equivalence, of 'acceleration and gravity being one and the same', has been shown (1/3) to be non-existent, a confidence trick, and to render a 'gravity-wave' also non-existent, leaving room for the re-instating of  Professor Hawking's work.

What was the  nature of the wave which triggered LIGO's  interferometry? 

I was a shock wave caused by the clattering together of the Matter of two galaxies, the Matter internal to both merging Black Holes, Matter just short of 65,000 sm.

'Orphan' Black Holes do not exist outside a galaxy. 

Black Holes are indeed created inside a galaxy, by the collapse of large stars, but even the largest stars will only create Black Holes of a maximum 10/11 solar masses.

Larger and seemingly 'orphan' Black Holes, have chewed their fill on a galaxy.

What goes on in  a Solar System, all Einstein and Hubble knew and had to go on, does not go on in galaxies.   

And what goes on in galaxies is beyond explanation by the current theory of 'gravity', as has been shown.

It is obvious that there is a factor or factors missing from considerations of 'gravity'

And missing factor/s would explain why even the greatest aeronautical engineers cannot tie-down what it is which keeps an aeroplane flying, to thus explain why it does not fall out of the sky.

Science will be turned  upside down and inside-out by a clear, defining statement  of the unconsidered factor/s. 




Matter is and always has been INERT.

Both proto-Matter before The Big Bang and Matter after The Big Bang, have always been INERT.

The implications for Relativity Theory, for science itself, both being dependent on Matter having 'mass' as inherent in, part of the nature of Matter, are profound.

But beneficial for connecting the 'before and after' of The Big Bang.

Attributing the abstraction 'weight' and its second level of abstraction 'mass' to Matter,  is to perpetute an ignorance of what actually happens to bodies in 'freefall',  to Galileo's differently-weighted twin spheres dropped from The Leaning Tower of Pisa, for example : precisely 'nought'.

When 'freefalling' at 32 feet per-second per-second, for example, regardless of what number of atoms make up each of Galileo's spheres, or make up a snowball thrown at the Moon at 20,000 mph,  Matter remains indifferent to both of these 'impelor' forces.

And in remaining Inert, Matter has to be seen as a 'zero factor', a big fat '0'  in any equation.

This explains why aircraft continue in flight and do not fall out of the sky, given the otherwise balanced forces plus forward thrust, 'impelor' force.

As any astronaut who has been in Earth-orbit, to the Moon, or any ex-passenger of the 'vomit comet', will tell you, Matter's indifference to the 'impellor' force of thrust given the removal of the 'up' and 'down' balancing forces, results in the 'zero factor' expressing itself noticeably as 'weight-less-ness'.

Or 'mass-less-ness', for 'weight's second level abstaction 'mass', that is.

It takes a second force, a 'preventor' force, to reveal the presence of and the difference, if any, in the collection of atoms which make up the Matter of each of  Galileo's twin spheres, for example.

Both 'preventor and 'impelor' forces' being required to come into play for the presence of a collections of atoms to register.

Both 'weight' and its mental extrapolation 'mass' are external to Matter, not 'qualities' able to be attributed to, inherent in the 'nature' of Matter.

Matter is, and always has been Inert.

'Weight' and 'mass' are two reified 'bricks'.

The  'brick' of 'mass' being laid on top of the 'brick' of 'weight'.

'Mass' being the ingredient needing to be invented, with the 'relativity' it owns, and in order to build the non-existent inverted pyramid of 'bricks' which is the  General Theory of Relativity.

Complete, of course, with its 3 types of 'mass' : inertial-mass, active- gravitational mass and passive-gravitational- mass.

'Mass' is not intrinsic, not inherent in the 'nature' of Matter, and certainly not in three different forms. 

The non-existence of 'mass', other than as the product of two opposing forces, 'impelor' and 'preventor', has implications for the 20,000 mph snowball if it misses the Moon.

It will travel on forever as a collection of atoms totally indifferent to the 20,000 mph 'impelor' force. 

Unless it meets a 'preventor' force,  of course.

For 'gravity' to be manifest, noticeable, the opposed 'impelor' force and 'preventor' force actuators and their measurable  actuations arrived at by choosing a valid mode of measurement for each,  must have come into play.

With 'mass' no longer being inherent in Matter, e =mc^2 is reduced to e = (0) c^2, or e=34,693,532,644 mps (?) that is

The current view of 'gravity is of it being a 'duality' consisting of two recognisable distinct factors or considerations of 'acceleration' and 'gravity' being 'one and the same' Einstein's "happiest thought"  

Relativity Theory is totally dependent on 'mass' being intrinsic to Matter, an indivisible part of the nature of Matter itself.

Not the least reason for rejecting this view is that in NOT recognising that 'gravity' as the resultant of two opposed forces has led to confusions that have necessitated the further invention of THREE sorts of 'mass' : inertial-'mass', active-gravitational-'mass' and passive-gravitational-'masss'.  

And in order that Relativity Theory might make sense of itself and to itself.  

But which creates an even greater confusion and  a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs.

That of never ever being able to tell which of the 3 sorts of mass is being referred to by the 'm' in the formula e=mc^2.

Any one of six combinations might be being referred to by 'm'.

Accepting two  recognisable, measurable forces as REPLACEMENT for thus a singularly confusing 'gravity' 'duality' which causes 3 sorts of 'mass', and which remain unidentified and unidentifiable in formulae,    would seem to offer at least a saner clarity to science than is being offered by current versions of Relativity Theory.

Matter's common-sense  recognition as being Inert, allows the application of only a little more common sense to lead to an understanding of the one and only possible Universe by revealing the continuity of connection between the 'before' and 'after' of The Big Bang.

How the Universe began is a question that common sense can quite easily answer if proceeding from  the proposition that Matter is INERT.

And needing only a small amount of reasoning which will in no way overwhelm.     

A couple of simple but certain facts are all that is required  to lead to an understanding of the Universe before The Big Bang.

(3/4) above, outlines what happened after The Big Bang.

One simple but certain fact may be stated as

 "ABSOLUTE is not a description which fits any state that has ever come to pass in the Universe'.

A second simple but certain fact may be stated as

'The fundamental property of Matter, that Matter cannot be destroyed (because refusing to let itself be destroyed as (3/4) shows, and why it is such a shape-shifter refusing to be either wave or particle) is as valid for the pre-Big Bang Universe as it is for the post-Big Bang Universe'

This unequivocal, non-controversial proposition allows the number 10^72, 10 followed by 72-zeros, to count the 'bits' of Matter in the Universe, both before and after The Big Bang. 

'A proto-Matter wafts as a 'wave'  which separates without force into 10^72  'bits of string'  or 'wavelets' of minimal  peak and trough causing minimal temperature from minimal movement...'  is as simple and non-controversial a view of the pre-Bang Universe as is possible to present.   

And not forgetting of course that these barely substantial  'wavelets' will have to be capable of giving rise to The Big Bang.

But without 'weight/mass' what is there for a force to get hold of to make 'wavelets'  causative? 

And where would a force come from anyway?

How would any force arise?

But the 'first mover' and its 'first moved' must of course arise if The Big Bang Universe is ever to come into being.

The only possible source of the  'force-less force' which seems to be required, must necessarily lie in the only  idea apart from 'quantity'' which existed in the pre-Big Bang Universe, must lie in Matter's  'refusal to be destroyed'.

That which has prevented 'absolute' from ever becoming a valid description of a state or condition of the Universe., that is.  

An EVENT arising from  the prevention  of  'absolute' coming to pass, and not at all  dependent on inventing an impossible-to-exist force but on an identifiable Event , and one that has to arise as a  Reaction to something, this being the only possibility remaining.

And which can only be a Reaction to that which is indeed the avoidance of the state or condition of the Universe aptly described as 'absolute'.

And such an 'absolute' will necessarily threaten the existence, threaten Matter's total destruction.

After The Big Bang, Matter has been shown (3/4) refusing to allow itself to be destroyed.

And the same refusal must be applicable before The Big Bang, as well.  

Thus the only Event  which might have occurred to give Matter an impetus toward The Big Bang, is that of Matter withdrawing from taking a 'step too far', withdrawing from taking a next step which would take it into the realm of the threat of total destruction.

And a step which would cause the destruction of ALL Matter which would ALL be taking the same step at the exact same moment in time. 

A communal flight  of the 10^72 'bits' of Matter from what would have been an accidental step into the total destruction of matter, must have followed  the withdrawal away from what would have been a fatal step. 

Whatever distance had come to exist between the 10^72 'wavelets', an over-reaching into the fatal step must very nearly have come to pass.

And from which a vast communal escape was made as a Reaction against whatever new expansion of distance was being chanced at the time. 

10^72  'wavelets'  took a step backwards instead of forwards, at the same time.


And after extinction was 'known' to be the result of the next step to be taken.

And as Matter had also 'known' at the arising of the Unnatural (3/4).

A trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion proto-particles, 72-zeros worth, could not be destroyed, and to thus reveal that the only 'impetus' inherent in, intrinsic to Matter,  is one of a withdrawing from Nothing-ness, destruction.  

The communal withdrawal  in order to survive this first threat to existence, the total destruction of Matter, may be seen to approximate to a force, but a 'force-less' 'force', so to speak. 

A flight both to escape and survive.

And a flight sufficient to bring proto-Matter together in a manner which created The Big Bang.

The first and only 'force'

And one which was not a 'force', but a 'force-less force' , and to thus give support to  the proposition that Matter is INERT.

The Big Bang being simply  a Reaction against the seemingly 'force-ful' coming together of the 10^72 'bits', 'wavelets' or 'particles' of Matter. 

The configuration best suiting the organisation of step-connected 'wavelets' would seem to be that of the sphere,  and to allow the distance between each 'bit' of matter to be and remain an equal distance .

All 10^72 'particles' of Matter suspended in a matrix of equidistant positions.

As this would seem the fashion : all Matter in the Universe seeming to have evolution into a sphere as its overriding ambition. 

So The Big Bang itself may be seen as mere Reaction to the coming together of 10^72-zeros woth of 'particles', 'wavelets' or 'bits' of Matter. 

And each needing to take only a single step backwards.

But a 'single step' which would be a composite of what must have been the  many steps taken to reach the critical point of near-toppling-over into an event of which the valid description would be 'absolute'. 

And thus into a withdrawal which is a collapse, a collapse towards a centre, a cetripetal collapse similar to that seen in the collapse of stars, for example.

Some of which collapses result in a Black Hole.

But only of the biggest stars. 

And there has never been anything bigger than a collapsing Universe. 

And no bigger Black Hole than that created at its shredded heart.

And which threatened Matter with destruction for a second time, immediately after the first.

In no time at all.

But the linear force-fulness of the outwardly, centrifugally exploding Matter  (changed certainly, and by a journey begun at 0.01Kelvin to finish at 10^6+ Kelvin,  but not destroyed) in its first Reaction to threat of destruction of all 10^72 'particles', bits' or 'wavelets'  was the second Reaction Event, The Big Bang.     

And which deflected the linear-traveling Matter into gatherings recognisable as rotating galaxies. 

Causing a third Reaction Event.

One in which  Matter's resistance to the ferocious attraction of the Unnatural in its attempt to totally destroy by reclaiming the 10^72 'particles' of Matter, kick-started the whirlygig which powers galaxies.

And continues to power galaxies.

Seemingly endlessly.

One 'force-less force' and three Reactions caused the Universe we see.

Ensuring that Matter will always posses 'weight' when trapped, at the surface of a planet for example, continually  by the centripetal and  opposing centrifugal force, but not in 'freefall' as has been shown.

Facts having implications for the nature and shape of the Universe.



'The Moon is free-falling around the Earth, because the curvature of the Earth does not allow the Moon to connect, as it would indeed connect if the Earth was flat for a lot longer distance  and did not drop away too soon into a curve'.

This is the reasoning which prevented Newton from considering why his inverse law of attraction did not end in the collision of two attracted bodies.

The Moon is trying all the time to fall onto the Earth, but  keeps missing, because where the Moon should land has been replaced by  empty space, the curve-away, and to prevent any landing at all.

Had Newton realised that spherical bodies, created out of a collection of atoms, Matter, act in accordance with 'learned behaviour', that of the 'centripetal preservation' and 'centrifugal protection' of Matter, he might well have concluded that bodies have a protective 'push force' to stop the collision of mature, established collections of atoms, spherical bodies.

And might also have gone on to realise that this was attributable to the centrifugal force required to oppose the centripetal force which actually formed  the body of Matter in it's own sweet time, and in their being the two opposed forces necessary to allow Matter to obtain and register a presence at all.

And, possibly, even further, by his being able to answer the question as to why  7% of the precession of Mercury is unable to be accounted for.

It would not thus have needed a wait of some 200 years for Einstein's answer, that the loss was caused by the distortion of 'space and time' (reified 'bricks') with this caused by the 'gravity' and 'mass' (more 'bricks') of the Sun on Mercury as it passed. 

But allows the answer that a big 'push' from a much bigger Sun  is aided by a smaller 'push-against-push' and to cause Mercury to slow at first, only to then be pushed back up to speed as two opposed forces transition into one force, the Sun's much bigger 'push' now an 'impellor' force aiding centrifugal force in the case of a planet-sized body.

Similarly with Voyager 1 & 2's 'sling-shot-ing' off Saturn and Jupiter, it is NOT non-existent 'gravity' speeding them on their way, but a centrifugal fling, caused by the two met forces registering to grab the previously Inert Matter, to then immediately become one force, following on from the doubled force, to 'impel' the Inert collections of atoms, termed Voyagers, onward.

The nature or dynamic shape of the one and only possible Universe is dictated by these two facets  of the atom's 'learned behaviour', the 'pull' and 'push' factors.

All Matter moves, and if it is deemed to exist in the Universe, moves by invariably  traveling around a centre : atoms, planets, solar systems and galaxies all.

The Unnatural Centre caused by The Big Bang is to where all SMBHs, now imprisoned at the centres of galaxies, must return eventually, if return of the the Unnatural to the Natural is ever to be achieved.

The most powerful force in the Universe dictates that galaxies revolve  around the Unnatural Centre of the Universe, and to where all Black Holes aspire to be, to arrive eventually. 

A Universe of galaxies, turning around a centre, is the only way evidence of the Universe's evolution which is dependent on a backward look, might exist.

The oddest one of the triad of 'Dark' phenomena, 'Dark Flow', can easily be explained by a  turning Universe.

'Dark Flow', the observed disappearance of 'swathes of galaxies' and 'in an instant'.  

What unimaginable and monumental force  might be able to reach across billions upon billions of miles and wipe out millions upon millions of  galaxies?

And in an instant? 

Scary stuff!

Not the 'Einstein/Hubble Annihilation'  surely?

Of course not!

Because nothing more than an illusion of annihilation had been observed and recorded.

Galaxies moving, eventually to be lost from sight, are doing nothing more than move over the curvature of the turning Universe.  

A 'fleet of ships'' on barely a differing course from the Observer are passing out of sight over the horizon of the Universe 

A course caused by the 'pin-ball effect' on bodies unexpectedly coming together in the Universe. 

Evidence exists of at least one galaxy having merged with The Milky Way in the distant past. 

(c) Ian T Hinchey BA (hons)


  Intelectual Property of

Ian T Hinchey   Hi Time Ltd         Selby YO8 5AY  N. YORKS

 healplanet.mineuniverse @gmail.com


    TELLING INNOVATION                     MAINSPRINGING                               ECONOMIES