Q6. RMT: In most articles these days concerning dark matter and dark energy, I noticed that they fail to state why it is thought such concept-ideas should exist. When considering Atomic Expansion Theory, such concepts are superfluous. Could you tell us why exactly we are searching for dark matter and dark energy, and why you believe we won't find them?
MM: Once Expansion Theory is considered, replacing both Newton's and Einstein's closely related mass/energy gravitational theories and mathematics, you can consider the expansion dynamics of matter, rather than a force or energy effect emanating from mass. Orbits can then be understood as geometry of expanding objects instead - whether it's objects orbiting planets, planets orbiting stars, or solar systems swirling within galaxies. This frees us from the tenfold discrepancies in mass vs. observed orbital motion in today's theories that have scientists filling in these huge gaps with claims of mysterious "dark matter" that does not reflect, absorb or emit any known form of energy or radiation. In other words, 'dark matter' is completely made up, with no evidence or physical explanation, rather than taking a second look at current unquestioned theories. This is the exact opposite of the proper Scientific Method - if experiment and observation clearly disagrees with a theory, the theory must be in error; we aren't supposed to instead invent inexplicable justifications to retain the theory.
The same applies to the idea of 'dark energy', which violates one of the current fundamental laws of physics - the Law of Conservation of Energy. The interpretation of observations is claimed to show the universe flying apart with ever-greater acceleration but no explanation for the source of this supposed ever-increasing energy. Plus, every known attracting or repelling force weakens with distance, of course, but this mysterious 'dark energy' is claimed to strengthen even as matter presumably accelerates further and further apart. All of this arises from an interpretation of distant shifted light frequencies as indicating accelerating velocities, when far simpler explanations exist, such as the known fact that similar shifts should be expected simply due to light passing through space filled with gas and plasmas for billions of years. Such light shifting occurs even just passing light through gas or mere millimeters of plastic in lab environments. There is a concept of Occam's razor, which says the simplest answer is probably the correct one. Why invent physically unexplainable, law-violating 'dark energy' when there are far simpler and more viable answers?
Q7. RMT: Would you say that science is closed to new theories and ideas, and that it is difficult to get any new idea, which lays outside Standard Theory, to be considered? What would you change in science today that could prevent this serious impediment to identifying a new Theory of Everything worth considering?
MM: I think the issue is largely one of human psychology. We would all like to think of science as an idealistic machine of pure objective logic and reason - basically the embodiment of the Scientific Method. But the reality, of course, is that this idealistic machine is operated by humans, who are susceptible to personal agendas, cognitive biases, vested interests, logical-fallacies, funding influences and pressures, competition, preconceived ideas, emotion-based decisions, etc.
Given this reality, although there is much well-intentioned rhetoric around searching for better understanding, and possibly even a true Theory of Everything that rewrites the textbooks, for the most part this seems true only to the extent that it doesn't upset the human element too much.
When it comes down to it, most expert individuals and institutions aren't truly willing to potentially risk their authority, reputation, status and funding - to consider that much of what they have studied and professed may be in question. And the assumption is that the sought-after understanding will be in line with all of these human concerns; but what if it is not? That appears to be the real roadblock.
Q8. RMT: What do you think of people like me, and others out there, who have picked up your theories and are developing them further? Are you encouraging everyone to do the same?
MM: Absolutely. This is not my pet theory. If correct, as it appears to be, it is humanity's birth-right of understanding. It belongs to each and every one of us, allowing us to truly understand our world and universe, and make the most of it in whatever ways possible.
Q9. RMT: Any last thought you would like to share with us?
MM: Just to take note of the growing global realization that the 'Internet Trolls' do not have the interests of others at heart. They have their own personal agendas, and are neither sincere nor knowledgeable in their efforts, doing a great disservice to others who allow them undue influence. A revolutionary new understanding awaits!
Standard Theory and Expansion Theory Maps
Click here for better image resolution
Click here for better image resolution
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
