Expansion Rate of the Universe revised using Alternate Physics

The following is a draft of my award winning paper, to be published in Science, which is sure to get me a Nobel Physics prize. Credit is due to the multitude of scientists who preceded me, including Pope Paul V, Urbain Le Verrier, Giovanni Schiaparelli, Emmanuel Velikovsky,  Stanley Pons, and Michio Kaku.

Until now, the classical view of the Universe is based on incompatible theories: quantum physics, and Einstein´s general relativity. However, 97 % of scientists agree that quantum theory doesn´t make sense, because “God doesn´t play dice with the universe” (Einstein, 1912). Segments of the scientific community  have speculated when they saw the scientific evidence (Le Verrier 1838).  Some of these models provide a glimpse of reality in a limited sense, and while they do not agree on all of the details, models and equations do predict a few general trends (Maxwell 1883).

Maxwell´s Equations

Maxwell´s Equations were built upon his concept that the vacuum was like an elastic solid. In other words, he didn´t limit himself to scribbling stuff on a piece of paper. This concept was ignored until Henrietta Leavitt figured out the relationship between Cepheid period and luminosity (Wikipedia). Leavitt´s idea (polished a bit by Hertzprung and Hubble) eventually led Emmanuel Velikovsky to figure out that Venus had been responsible for stopping the earth´s spin when Joshua´s raiders blew their horns at Jericho (Velikovsky, 1956).

Velikovsky had a great influence on the evolution of scientific thought in my head. His theories gave me the running room to throw out information I couldn´t fit to my equations, which allowed me to grasp the meaning of Maxwell´s “elastic solid vacuum” concept of the universe (Fernando 1976). My new conceptual discovery of the universal truth incorporates everything. It´s so different that even the great Sabine Hossenfelder has been unable to grasp its multidimensional paraphernalia.

Here I must digress, and explain that in modern physics, nobody agrees on much that matters. First, according to the gossip in MIT hallways, Dr Alan Guth (MIT)  got into a fist fight with Dr Paul Steinhardt (Yale), over the nature of the early universe. Second, Dr Michio Kaku got so tired of the number of conflicting string theories evolving as a result of the lack of googolplexwatt particle collider data, that he got a job on TV (Kaku, personal communication). Third, the Coppenhaguen school of quantum mechanics was discredited when Gell-Mann said: “Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job (interpreting quantum theory) was done 50 years ago” (Motl 2016).

More uncertain outcomes of current thought couldn´t be described (Fernando, 2016). According to a very complex study, the speed of Universal expansion is increasing. This led to a Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 award to Saul Perlmutter,  Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae" (Nobel Committee 2011).

The supernovae project which earned those guys their Nobel Prize turned out to be (maybe) wrong. It may have been the results of insufficient data manipulation, which was used to derive that universal rate of expansion was accelerating real good (Sarkar, Nielsen, Guffanti 2016).

However, paralleling previous work by Perlmutter and others, I  have used my conception of free style conjoining of widespread parameters to mathematically prove what I  did. Thus I show that the speed of expansion of the universe isn´t constant. It changes with time, and it also changes with location (this is the important idea). The speed of stars in the Milky Way and other galaxies  provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that connecting gravity to other factors can yield pretty good results if one happens to be right (Cox, 2005).

In my case I used the density of canali on Mars, as reported by Schiapparelli , as well as the star velocity anomaly data downloaded from Harvard´s servers. Careful analysis and derivation leads me to conclude that universal rates of expansion are driven by the mass density of the local universal sector (what we call the neighborhood).

The data manipulation step involved obtaining the natural speed of pure hydrogen stars found in dwarf galaxies, as seen in recent Hubble photographs (YouTube 2016). The only problem was the lack of sufficient mass to justify the escape speed without resorting to dark matter concepts. This was judged unacceptable, because “dark matter is another crutch used by physicists who can´t figure out what´s going on” (my uncle Arnulfo, personal communication).

Lucky for humanity, everything fell into place once I developed the tremendous idea that dwarf galaxies are loaded with invisible brown dwarves born over 13 billion years ago. The replacement of dark matter by brown dwarves is reasonable (Bannon 2015). This maneuver allows me to explain the visible star population velocities (it´s pretty simple, they are surrounded by lots of brown dwarves).

With this theory, I predict that observation of the luminosity curve of low metallicity white dwarf populations in dwarf galaxies will allow proof that they are surrounded by swarms of brown dwarves which create the appropriate mass ratio to keep whites and browns from going haywire and exiting the galaxy. In other words, the gravitational field induced by browns serves as a wall which keeps whites inside the neighborhood.  However, the wall isn´t enough. In the next section we will see what else has to happen.

"General theory of Relativity tells us that the expansion rate in space-time regions with lower matter density should be higher than in regions with a higher matter density. If we were to live in a large-scale under-density, the local expansion rate around us would be higher than the average expansion rate in the background" (Redlich, Bolejko, et al 2014).  In other words, general relativity allows me to postulate the speed of expansion of the universe changes because spacetime can´t expand as easily when it´s being bent over by mass. 

The implications are tremendous if we consider that expansion of space time involves creation of a gravity potential which has to, somehow,  be accounted for. Thus the walls created by stars (of whichever color) aren´t sufficient, and must be supplemented by an uneven gravity field caused by inhomogeneity in the universal expansion constant, which can be explained using the alternate data I´m sure  we can get using the James Webb telescope. 

 Win!