View Full Version : NEW UNIVERSE MODEL

sol aisenberg
July 2nd 03, 12:59 AM


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.

For decades (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. Another problem is the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the
universe, and the associated postulated dark energy and repulsive force on

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 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 is that the inverse
square attractive force between masses is augmented at very large distances
by another force that decreases much slower according to A/r, where r is the
distance and "A" is a constant. The constant, A, was evaluated by using the
published observations for the constant velocity outer rotation curves of
spiral galaxies, and was proven 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. 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 exp-14 /sec*sec.

Thus this hypothesis, consistent with published observations, will show that
there is no need to invoke dark matter to explain rotation of spiral

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. Previously the concept of dark matter was
introduced as an explanation, and prior to the 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 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 attractive gravitational
force there was a change of potential energy that becomes 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: Examination of 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 only another unproven ASSUMPTION 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 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 constants are about a factor of five greater than modern values.

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 ten-billionth 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 (Olber's 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 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
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

I have emailed to a number of recognized experts, inviting them to look at
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 the many implications are presented at:

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe.htm. You are free to share this
information with your colleagues.

A short description of my credentials as a physicist is available at:


Sol Aisenberg, Ph.D.