Relativity and Cosmology


General Relativity Deletes Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Universal Expansion

Authors: Rodney Bartlett

This article is suggesting that dark energy, dark matter and universal expansion are intimately related. However, they aren't viewed as revolutions in cosmology which are essential to a complete understanding of the modern universe. They are instead viewed as properties which need to be added to the cosmos when Einstein's theory of gravity (General Relativity) is apparently still not thoroughly comprehended a little over a century after it was published. If General Relativity truly does eliminate Dark Energy and Dark Matter plus Universal Expansion, then its treatment of gravitation as a push must necessarily be reflected in every encounter with gravity. The author has developed possible solutions (hypotheses) about this in the second section - which has topics ranging from M-sigma through geysers on Saturn's moon Enceladus and the Law of Falling Bodies to planetary magnetism and tides. The first part proposes that acceptance of gravity as a push could delete the ideas of cosmic expansion, dark energy and dark matter. Science admires General Relativity. However, respect for tradition seems to prevent science from embracing Einstein's theory completely. General Relativity says gravity is a push exerted by the curvature of space-time. But the world still holds to the Newtonian view that gravity is a pull. Since Isaac Newton's mathematics works so well, it's understandable that his gravitational pull is accepted. It's time to explore ways in which gravitation as a push could produce identical physical results. The second part of this article proposes hypotheses – not formal theories – to this end. The first part proposes that acceptance of gravity as a push could delete the ideas of cosmic expansion, dark energy and dark matter.

Comments: 18 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2018-01-31 23:50:32
[v2] 2018-02-09 23:29:16
[v3] 2018-02-14 01:01:40

Unique-IP document downloads: 44 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus