A NEW THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE
PROVIDING A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE
This is a presentation of my theory that can simplify the model of the universe. In order to prevent this theory from being classified as speculation, supporting information based upon observations by others will be included.
My theory is that many of the beliefs about the universe are wrong and needlessly complicated and with many assumptions. I need only one simple assumption about gravity to simplify the model of the universe and it is consistent with observations. Of course, I take responsibility for my errors.
For over 70 years (starting in about 1930) the scientific community has been concerned about problems and mysteries in the understanding of the universe. One problem is finding dark matter, many times larger than the visible matter. Other problems are the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and the postulated dark energy and repulsive force on galaxies.
According to my new hypothesis, the problems are caused by two fundamental ASSUMPTIONS, which are commonly used without proof. One is that the attractive force of Newton is valid without modification at very large distances. The second ASSUMPTION, again without proof, is that the red shift and the Hubble constant can be used to measure the velocity of remote stars rather than just the distances.
We will provide a number of supporting arguments for the new hypothesis, and they are based upon observations reported by others. Initially, my analysis of the constant velocity rotation curves of spiral galaxies as reported by Vera Rubin has lead to my new hypothesis that Newton's gravitational theory and gravitational constant, G, has an additional attraction term that increases with distance. It provides a simple extension of the gravitational force of Newton and Einstein that is only significant for large distances.
My new hypothesis is that the gravitational constant, G, can be generalized and expanded into a simple power series in terms of distance, r, and in the form G = Gn + A*r where Gn is Newton's gravitational constant and where A can be proven to be non zero when evaluated with observations from spiral galaxies. When asked where the term A*r comes from, the answer is that comes from the same place as Newton's gravitational constant.
SUPPORTING ITEM #1: Thus according to my hypothesis, the inverse square attractive force between masses is augmented at very large distances by another force that decreases much slower according to the term A/r, where r is the distance and "A" is a constant. The constant, A, was evaluated by using the published observations, of Vera Rubin, for the constant velocity outer rotation curves of spiral galaxies. The constant, A, was evaluated to be non zero because it described the observed motion without needing dark matter.
At the transition radius for spiral galaxies, Rs, where the rotation velocity curves become constant, the Newtonian force and the long range force become approximately equal. An estimate of Rs was obtained from the intersection of the rising portion of the rotation curve with the flat portion of the rotation curve. Preliminary analysis of data from spiral galaxies NGC2403 and NGC3198 using a spiral Galaxy transition radius Rs of 2.7 kpc plus the known value of Gn gives a preliminary value for A = Gn/Rs = 1.18 x 10 exp14 /sec*sec.
Thus this hypothesis, based upon published observations, shows that dark matter is not needed to explain flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies.
SUPPORTING ITEM #2: This hypothesis for additional long range gravity will also explain the unusual motion of remote groups of spiral galaxies as earlier described by Fred Zwicky. The concept of dark matter was introduced as an explanation for galaxy motion, and was prior to the concept of dark matter proposed for spiral galaxies.
Because of the elegant simplicity of this assumption compared to the need to invoke massive amounts of dark matter, it provides a beautiful alternative. According to William of Ockham's razor, the simplest explanation is preferred when it is consistent with past observations and with future predictions.
SUPPORTING ITEM #3: As an unexpected result of the enhanced gravitational hypothesis we found that due to the additional long range attractive gravitational force there was a change of potential energy that remains significant for light traveling large distances  and this contributes to the red shift of the light. Integrating the force over distance gives the energy change, and when the integral is expanded in a simple power series, it shows that the energy change and red shift is a linear function of travel distance. This is confirmed by observations showing a linear plot of red shift for remote stars, and where the distance is determined from observations of Supernovas Type 1a.
SUPPORTING ITEM #4: This provides additional SUPPORT by explaining the "TIRED LIGHT" concept of Fred Zwicky, which earlier was presented without acceptable physical reasons for the loss of photon energy with travel. Zwicky was correct in proposing "TIRED LIGHT" and energy loss in connection with the red shift, and there is now a physical explanation. He should have been taken more seriously.
Thus the red shift (and blue shift) has a component due to of travel distance in addition to the velocity component. For large distances, the travel component dominates.
SUPPORTING ITEM #5: When examining the history of the use of the red shift for very remote stars as a way of measuring receding velocity, we found that there was another unproven ASSUMPTION and was made by Hubble and others. We learned that the original papers (Hubble and Humason, 1931) had a footnote that indicated that it is not certain that the large red shifts should be interpreted as a Doppler effect but for convenience can be interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as "apparent velocities". This assumption was later incorrectly converted into evidence of actual velocity and led to serious beliefs about the expanding universe and subsequently the acceleration of the expansion.
SUPPORTING ITEM #6: Another problem is the large decrease in the Hubble constant as measurements are made to include the more remote stars. Our hypotheses and the resulting equations predicts that the Hubble constant relating red shift to distance will be larger for the closer stars and will decrease to an asymptotic value for the more remote stars that can be measured with more modern techniques. Observations show that the early Hubble constant is about a factor of five greater than modern values. Remeasurement of the Hubble constant for the nearer stars should be done using modern equipment to confirm the trend downward for greater distances.
SUPPORTING ITEM #7: The Very high precision measurement within our solar system appears to support our hypothesis. Observations of Pioneer 10 and 11 probes indicated that they were slowing down faster than predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. "Some extra tiny force  equivalent to a tenbillionth of the gravity at Earth's surface  must be acting on the probes, braking their outward motion." Analysis by John D. Anderson and his team at JPL ruled out a number of possible explanations of this extra force. Our hypothesis predicts a very tiny force within solar system distances, and it is too small to significantly influence the motion of planets but can slightly influence space vehicles.
A serious error in the current theory of the universe is the assumption that red shifts of remote stars are only due to velocity rather than including red shifts caused by travel distances. This assumption suggested the current theory of the expanding universe, plus the acceleration of the expansion. It is also related to the model of the Big Bang, the concepts of the cosmological constant and dark energy to power the acceleration of the expansion. Before we speculate too much on the origin of the universe, and the end of the universe, perhaps we should first understand the present observations of the universe.
SUPPORTING ITEM #8: The meaning of the dark sky (Olbers' paradox) and the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB may also be reexamined from the point of view of the new explanation for "tired light". Our hypothesis predicts that when light from very remote stars reach us, their energy loss due to the large travel distance has decreased the energy of the electromagnetic photons below that of the visible range, and where some are in the microwave range (CMB). The slower photons essentially come uniformly from all directions with slight irregularities due to irregularities in the spatial distribution of stars.
If considered seriously, the new hypothesis could result in a new, correct, and simplified view of the universe and could help future work of those in the field. The hypothesis may only be accepted by a new generation of physicists. I have read that progress is "made funeral by funeral" as resistance to new theories decreases.
I have emailed to a number of recognized experts, inviting them to look at the draft of the preprint provided on my web page. I would prefer that my theory is proven wrong rather than just ignored.
A draft of a more detailed preprint including details and equations for the new hypothesis and many more implications are presented at: http://inventingsolutions.com/newuniverse.htm. You are free to share this information with your colleagues.
A short description of my credentials as a physicist and generalist is available at: http://inventingsolutions.com/sashort.htm.
Sol Aisenberg, Ph.D.
itgplus@earthlink.net
508/6510140
.NEW THEORY 063003
