To us, we see our 'universe' accelerating away from us. Current thinking says to explain it as dark energy...
This is nothing more than the natural progression of the universe.
Space is expanding scalarly outward in all directions from all points. Same for time (from all planes) although the geometry is inverted (inside-out, backwards, and upside-down). Simply put, s/t = 1. The ratio of space to time is the "speed of light" or what we call c.
C (little "c" or the speed of light) is
not a limit; it's a
constant.
Space is REAL; Time is IMAGINARY (complex, complex complex makes quaternion, or even complex complex complex in the case of octonions.)
Space and time are reciprocal and any differences are merely due to the inherent bias created by your particular frame of reference.
Dark Energy is nothing more than a kludge explanation for the progression and being in the opposite scalar direction than gravity (inwards, towards unity), would be what we would label as "anti-gravity" motion (outward, away from unity).
We call the outward expansion IN ALL DIRECTIONS AWAY FROM US the
HUBBLE EXPANSION (you guys still like Hubble, right?) And everything is approaching the SPEED OF LIGHT every way we look and even formed what I think was the basis for the documentary
The Principle (right observation, wrong conclusion). This is how we observe scalar motion from the POV of our fixed 3D spacial coordinate reference system.
There was not an initial (Big?) Bang... this is the continuous natural MOTION of the universe. And it will never stop.
The Secret of Light is that light (or any motion that does not have a net effect outside the unit boundary) remains in the same absolute location in the natural reference frame (but not in YOUR reference frame where you consider YOURSELF and everything about you still, and insofar as light remains in the same absolute location in the natural reference frame and free from interaction with matter, this is true).
YOU (and everything around you) are gravitating ("imaginary": rotationally outward in time, real: linearly inward in space).
The outward spacial scalar expansion is arrested and reversed around "mass" creating what we call a gravitational field. This field
has a limit (that being a function of the net outward rotational motion in time) and creates what could be described as a bubble of 3D space. Outside this bubble, i.e. outside the gravitational limit (let that sink in, there is a limit), would be a region of net outward scalar progression (vs. net inward scalar gravitation). This means (being inside a gravitational limit now) you are scalarly condensing inward at the "speed of light" as to allow for the creation of said fixed reference frame.
You imagine that photons are buzzing by at the "speed of light;" not quite, YOU just gravitated into the photon at the "speed of light." This goes for any "light-speed" EM radiation that does not occupy all 3 dimensions of SCALAR space/counterspace (i.e. at least one free dimension to allow for the progression).
For example: uncharged electrons (whaaaa? conventional science says everything is charged) also move at "the speed of light", i.e. what we call electric current (s/t), but not charged electrons, what is often referred to as "static electricity" or electrostatics. The uncharged electron is the "hole" (a rotating unit of space and is really a cosmic quaternion structure, note also we model current flow in the opposite direction of electron/"hole" flow), the charged electron having 3 scalar dimensions of motion (base 2D magnetic bi-rotation in time... that's the electron + 1D electrical rotation in space... that's the "charge") does gravitate and so has a position in our fixed 3D spacial coordinate system... we see it as a point particle. Rotation in space -> structure in space; wave in time. Rotation in time -> structure in time; wave in space.
As an analogy to the scenario discussed wherein the inward and outward scalar motions reached equilibrium: you step on a treadmill and proceed north. The treadmill is energized and promptly proceeds south (opposite your direction of walking). No matter how fast you move, so long as the treadmill is set even, you're going nowhere. This is 1-dimensional (scalar) motion in equilibrium. 1D because I only need a single variable to describe the motion... I'm going x speed, direction non-specified because the treadmill is going x speed in not "that direction."
This is also what we recognize as an "orbit," that being a balance between the inward scalar motion of gravity and the ever-present outward scalar progression of the universe. This is not possible with the conventional explanation: gravity is a positive-feedback system, i.e. if the distance between the two masses increases, the gravitational "attraction" goes down... for stability, an increase in distance would need to be counteracted by an increase in inward pull to restore the mass to the original orbital position. Conversely, bringing the two masses closer together results in an increased pull. There can be no stability.
We see this all the time in the "orbits" (not true orbits) of satellites about the Earth... eventually they all come down... but not the moon! Not the planets! Those orbits aren't decaying. Those orbits do move over clock time as the system ages but they are certainly what we would consider stable. Man cannot achieve a stable orbit, only nature can do this.
This is worth exploring.
Scalar: Push/Pull... no direction... a push plus an equal pull... gravity, being a function of distance (but not in the manner currently taken as accepted) in balance with the progression (not a function of any location) would find an equilibrium position and LOCK INTO POSITION of zero net speed... Houston, we have stability!
The very same mechanism presented above that locks planets/moons into orbits is the mechanism that also provides for all the various types of molecular bonding. Only the scale changes and the "direction" of gravitation/progression reverses as we cross a unit boundary. As above, so below...
Ionic bond: net speed balanced as close to zero (unity motion) as possible (scalar relationship... we call these "positive" and "negative" charge...)
Because the phase of each wave in space or time are locked to the progression, all space waves are in phase and all time waves are in phase, but out of phase with each other 180 degrees, as measured from the natural reference frame.
When two like-charged particles are placed nearby, it is said they repel one another. This can be shown to be the simple result of the motion due the natural progression. Keep in mind we have never measured an EM field outside of a gravitational field and so inside a gravitational field we already have one net unit of motion inward (-1).
When two like waves of LIKE phase (charge) interact this causes
constructive interference:
1 + 1 = 2 - 1 (gravitational motion inward) = +1 (outward away from all points on the Real number line)... REPULSION
When two like waves of UNLIKE (opposite) phase (charge) interact, this causes
destructive interference:
1 - 1 = 0 - 1 (gravitational motion inward) = -1 (inward towards all points on the Real number line)... ATTRACTION
Thus it can be seen that the concept of "positive" and "negative" charge and the
illusion of "attraction" and "repulsion" are really just primary motion of the universe and its animus motion (gravity).
Covalent bond: orientation in space/time (geometry-driven... think lattice/shell in 3D space or 3D time where pieces fit together like a puzzle)
Van Der Waals forces: gravitation
"Dark energy" will *never* be found (i.e. measured) as there is NOTHING to measure as a delta from the natural reference frame.
The progression IS the clock and is the default speed of the universe ("c" or light speed) in all unused dimensions from which all other speeds are measured as displacements, either in space or time. Any unused dimension will progress at the natural speed and so that motion (sub-atomic particle) will be carried at the "speed of light." The natural datum for any measurement is one (1), not zero.
EDIT: Sure cleared out fast in here. Anyone wanna talk science?
Evidence is an important thing. It's how we've made progress and advanced to where we are currently. Feelings and nonsense are why we were stuck in the middle-ages for so long..
No one is asking you to throw out empirical result... none of it.
You are being asked to consider a mode of reality outside of what you have been taught regarding the materialistic (or rather; not) nature of this universe.
I'm not arguing feelings. I am not appealing to your base emotion. I'm not sure where you get this impression from but I am not projecting such.
