## History of Foos Research And Solution To Gravity

**The Whole Truth**

I hit an unexpected road block. There was no way to pay for a haircut let alone food, rent or university tuition. When after a few years I finally had a place to live, I felt obligated to study a minimum of sixteen hours a day. I could solve the most difficult math problems in a fraction of the time other students could, but pushed myself too hard. My health and income gave out and I nearly died, more from quack doctors than what turned out 30 years later to be Lyme disease. It took five years to recover, but afterward it was impossible to get a decent job.

After leaving the USA in 2005 life was finally good, but the education seemed wasted. In 1972 I had recognized Einstein's relativity as a fraud plundered from the simple effects of velocity on meter length and clock speed, so did a website on it in 2007. Nobody saw what looked obvious to me or cared. If the little Einsteins here cared enough to cover up the Pound-Rebka fraud I explained a few weeks ago, then they must know in their hearts I'm right, so let me walk you through it as simply as I can. I hope you will come to agree that there is a cosmological (gravitational) redshift as confirmed by numerous experiments and finally understand it correctly as I do and NOT the current field of cosmology.

The key is understanding the natural definition of a meter, x number of wavelengths of a specific spectral line. If you move the measuring apparatus 22.5 meters, nothing changes. The meter is the same, the frequency of light unchanged, and the time it takes to get from end to end the same, so this not only defines a meter but the fundamental unit of time. However, a "remote" observer in Einstein's dialect sees that light shifts towards the red when leaving a body of mass. If the mass is twice as much, the degree of redshift is twice as much; hence, the fractional change in length of a meter twice as much and the clock has to run faster to keep up. But these effects are observed only "remotely." Where the meter is concerned (local observers), there has been no change at all in length, frequency or clock speed.

These are the simple fundamental facts of space and time, not Einstein's twisted versions used to construct his relativity hoax based on time and space dilation. If you fix this in your head, flush relativity out of it and make a few correct inferences, you end up finding the Holy Grail of physics which is what I'm trying to convey to others in the few short years between here and my impending grave. The 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment tells us nothing that wasn't known about redshift fifty years earlier. The original wiki article was just a handy place to show how relativity was fake and underscore how gravitational blueshift and redshift affect the length of meters and rate of time even though there no changes are observed on the local level. It helps to split your thinking into two halves, the local level (inside the box) and the remote observer who alone is able to observe and measure these changes that result from frequency change. You can't in fairness call me wrong without denying the natural definition of a meter in which case our entire system of units collapses. I am sorry for being stubborn, yet not open to argument.

Hang on for a bit. We know, no thanks to Einstein, that light velocity is fixed at c, but light leaving the Earth at rate c will in fact accelerate, not as a result of Einstein's relativity as claimed, but simply due to the expansion of meters with redshift. The bottom line is that light accelerates as redshift away from Earth at the exact rate bodies fall in the opposite direction, and the increase in distance traveled by falling bodies coincides with the opposing rate of expansion of space measured only indirectly in terms of redshift. Acceleration is a force; hence Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applies: every action (expansion) creates an equal and opposite reaction (gravity). Distant celestial bodies do not exhibit progressive changes in redshift because they are outside the range of gravitational influence; hence, the redshift observed is due to uniform expansion of space as not just gravitational energy but of real Doppler origin. Our measurements regard distant stars as fixed in distance, but in fact they are receding away due to uniform expansion in proportion to mass by the Doppler equivalent of observed redshift.

Therefore, it is without question that Earth is expanding at a far greater rate than we are, but since everything expands simultaneously in proportion to its mass, we do not perceive this expansion as such. Hence, we are not falling to be precise. Instead, being of smaller mass, we are being forced into space by the accelerating expansion of Earth at 9.8 m/s^2. Don't try to deny it because the very nature of redshift demands this inference is correct. So, if Earth is expanding at rate g, which it must be, the universe as a whole must expand at the accelerating rate c/s where the potential energy at its surface is mc^2. This is simple arithmetic. Since light must accelerate away from mass just as it does on Earth, the universal speed of light is fixed internally at c for all observers inside the box and the kinetic energy holding particles together in an atom is E=mc^2. Light consists of waves, not photons or corpuscles or mass; hence, photons are not expelled by little atomic cannons, but light is propagated outward from atoms at the fixed rate of c in all directions. This and only this explains the results of Michelson-Morley.

I apologize for not being open to argument on these facts, though I well expect many people can't follow them either because they lack sufficient scientific background or have been too brainwashed by Einstein's ideas. I accept that to the extent I'm ignored I'll probably be despised, but I'm almost 75 now and want to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and not get sucked into a black hole by the cult of Einstein before my time runs out. That's why I wrote The Big Bang Boozle book.

One other thing. If the universe expands outwardly at rate c/s as does Earth at rate g, then Newton's G, a fixed geometric construction and not a theory, must be equal to R^2/M (c/s) where R is the radius of the universe, M the mass of the universe, and c/s the rate of expansion. Check me for accuracy by pretending the mass of the sun is the entire universe. Then M is mass of the sun, R the radius of the sun. Check me out and see if c/s is not 274 meters per second per second; hence, speed of light in a sun universe would be 274 meters per second. This means that there could have been no Big Bang. The internal dimensions of the universe are eternally fixed; however, for observers billions of light years away, the progressively greater expansion of the universe as a whole would be surface as accelerating redshift at rate c/s just as cosmologists presently confirm, but their understanding is upside down. Neither the dough or the raisins are expanding in the universe of our experience; instead, all points in space expand simultaneously into an infinite void possibly filled with the CMB, and this alone is responsible for the progressive intergalactic redshift. I hope I've given light to your day. Thanks for listening. Al Foos

After leaving the USA in 2005 life was finally good, but the education seemed wasted. In 1972 I had recognized Einstein's relativity as a fraud plundered from the simple effects of velocity on meter length and clock speed, so did a website on it in 2007. Nobody saw what looked obvious to me or cared. If the little Einsteins here cared enough to cover up the Pound-Rebka fraud I explained a few weeks ago, then they must know in their hearts I'm right, so let me walk you through it as simply as I can. I hope you will come to agree that there is a cosmological (gravitational) redshift as confirmed by numerous experiments and finally understand it correctly as I do and NOT the current field of cosmology.

The key is understanding the natural definition of a meter, x number of wavelengths of a specific spectral line. If you move the measuring apparatus 22.5 meters, nothing changes. The meter is the same, the frequency of light unchanged, and the time it takes to get from end to end the same, so this not only defines a meter but the fundamental unit of time. However, a "remote" observer in Einstein's dialect sees that light shifts towards the red when leaving a body of mass. If the mass is twice as much, the degree of redshift is twice as much; hence, the fractional change in length of a meter twice as much and the clock has to run faster to keep up. But these effects are observed only "remotely." Where the meter is concerned (local observers), there has been no change at all in length, frequency or clock speed.

These are the simple fundamental facts of space and time, not Einstein's twisted versions used to construct his relativity hoax based on time and space dilation. If you fix this in your head, flush relativity out of it and make a few correct inferences, you end up finding the Holy Grail of physics which is what I'm trying to convey to others in the few short years between here and my impending grave. The 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment tells us nothing that wasn't known about redshift fifty years earlier. The original wiki article was just a handy place to show how relativity was fake and underscore how gravitational blueshift and redshift affect the length of meters and rate of time even though there no changes are observed on the local level. It helps to split your thinking into two halves, the local level (inside the box) and the remote observer who alone is able to observe and measure these changes that result from frequency change. You can't in fairness call me wrong without denying the natural definition of a meter in which case our entire system of units collapses. I am sorry for being stubborn, yet not open to argument.

Hang on for a bit. We know, no thanks to Einstein, that light velocity is fixed at c, but light leaving the Earth at rate c will in fact accelerate, not as a result of Einstein's relativity as claimed, but simply due to the expansion of meters with redshift. The bottom line is that light accelerates as redshift away from Earth at the exact rate bodies fall in the opposite direction, and the increase in distance traveled by falling bodies coincides with the opposing rate of expansion of space measured only indirectly in terms of redshift. Acceleration is a force; hence Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applies: every action (expansion) creates an equal and opposite reaction (gravity). Distant celestial bodies do not exhibit progressive changes in redshift because they are outside the range of gravitational influence; hence, the redshift observed is due to uniform expansion of space as not just gravitational energy but of real Doppler origin. Our measurements regard distant stars as fixed in distance, but in fact they are receding away due to uniform expansion in proportion to mass by the Doppler equivalent of observed redshift.

Therefore, it is without question that Earth is expanding at a far greater rate than we are, but since everything expands simultaneously in proportion to its mass, we do not perceive this expansion as such. Hence, we are not falling to be precise. Instead, being of smaller mass, we are being forced into space by the accelerating expansion of Earth at 9.8 m/s^2. Don't try to deny it because the very nature of redshift demands this inference is correct. So, if Earth is expanding at rate g, which it must be, the universe as a whole must expand at the accelerating rate c/s where the potential energy at its surface is mc^2. This is simple arithmetic. Since light must accelerate away from mass just as it does on Earth, the universal speed of light is fixed internally at c for all observers inside the box and the kinetic energy holding particles together in an atom is E=mc^2. Light consists of waves, not photons or corpuscles or mass; hence, photons are not expelled by little atomic cannons, but light is propagated outward from atoms at the fixed rate of c in all directions. This and only this explains the results of Michelson-Morley.

I apologize for not being open to argument on these facts, though I well expect many people can't follow them either because they lack sufficient scientific background or have been too brainwashed by Einstein's ideas. I accept that to the extent I'm ignored I'll probably be despised, but I'm almost 75 now and want to contribute to the advancement of knowledge and not get sucked into a black hole by the cult of Einstein before my time runs out. That's why I wrote The Big Bang Boozle book.

One other thing. If the universe expands outwardly at rate c/s as does Earth at rate g, then Newton's G, a fixed geometric construction and not a theory, must be equal to R^2/M (c/s) where R is the radius of the universe, M the mass of the universe, and c/s the rate of expansion. Check me for accuracy by pretending the mass of the sun is the entire universe. Then M is mass of the sun, R the radius of the sun. Check me out and see if c/s is not 274 meters per second per second; hence, speed of light in a sun universe would be 274 meters per second. This means that there could have been no Big Bang. The internal dimensions of the universe are eternally fixed; however, for observers billions of light years away, the progressively greater expansion of the universe as a whole would be surface as accelerating redshift at rate c/s just as cosmologists presently confirm, but their understanding is upside down. Neither the dough or the raisins are expanding in the universe of our experience; instead, all points in space expand simultaneously into an infinite void possibly filled with the CMB, and this alone is responsible for the progressive intergalactic redshift. I hope I've given light to your day. Thanks for listening. Al Foos

## How It Started

My first formal exposure to Einstein's wacky theories was a lecture by Professor Denny Lee at Montana State University in 1972. Denny was an excellent and popular physics instructor, also a friend of mine at the time even though he doesn’t remember me now. But on this subject he fell flat. As I later observed in other university freshman physics texts, the introduction to relativity begins with two postulates, the first being that if A and B are moving in uniform motion relative to each other, it is arbitrary which could be considered at rest and which moving. This is almost too obvious to warrant being a postulate. The second is that A's clock runs more slowly than B if A is moving, and B's clock runs more slowly than A if B is moving. At this, I raised my hand and asked if that wasn't an obvious logical contradiction because both clocks would be simultaneously running slower than their counterpart. This also was the basis for the famous Einstein twin paradox where the traveling salesman ages more slowly than his stay at home twin by virtue of uniform velocity. In 1972 I didn’t know that only a few humans are able to see a problem with that, so I asked Denny because I knew him to be a really smart fellow. Denny fumbled for the explanation, then saying the complete answer had to do with acceleration and deceleration. In other words, his profession had required him to lie about the fundamentals of Einstein's relativity, because if clock A ran more slowly than clock B or vice versa, it couldn't be due to uniform motion. Acceleration and deceleration okay, but not uniform motion. As if two and two was suddenly declared five now four, the acceptance of this contradiction on the various grounds such as simultaneity and later repeated fraudulent mathematical constructions of Einstein's has successfully prevented the advancement of science for over a hundred years. How could the world be so blind? So, in 2020 I finally had time to more completely plumb the cause of gravity and follies of Einstein and announce to the masses the publication of the true cause of gravity in 2020 by Alan Foos dba Foos Research. The result? So far, the masses are deaf, but I’ll keep trying.

So began my fixation on these clearly bogus logical constructions claimed to be the remarkable insights of the world's greatest scientist of all time. It was in fact, Herbert Dingle, a fellow, vice president and president (1951-1953) of the Royal Astronomical Society for over 30 years, who tried to sound an early warning. He in fact wrote an essay, Science At The Crossroads, in which he made the case that the acceptance of Einstein's theories was the doom of science. Still today, you can find troves of articles that declare Dingle's criticisms to be misunderstandings of various origin such as failing to grasp the meaning of simultaneity or which invoke complicated trains of reasoning backed with formidable mathematical relations, particularly the famous but bogus Lorentz transformations which Einstein borrowed to represent how time and length contract with uniform motion.

This particular snafu was popularized and widely embraced as the famous "Twin Paradox" where the traveling brother ages less than the stay at home guy. Dingle's earnest objections were finally snuffed by an Article in Nature magazine which upheld Einstein's quirky ideas and cast down Dingle as failing to properly comprehend Einstein's logic or the genius of his use of the Lorentz transformations. Still today, after a hundred years, Einstein's fallacies are embraced and celebrated as revolutionary advances in science by the greatest of all geniuses as Dingle's warnings went unheeded.

At the height of this controversy, Einstein made a public statement to the effect that the true cause of the difference in elapsed time in the twin paradox was in fact acceleration and deceleration, not uniform motion, but he wouldn't otherwise know how to calculate the result (except by use of the Lorentz equations). This admission was ignored by a frenzied media and would be likely denied by what has become an entrenched cult determined to deflect rational inquiry into these glaring lapses into inconsistent logic. It is also quite impossible to argue against the complicated mathematics used to defend Einstein because they are very articulately defended despite the mathematics having no essential meaning. The true science of physics has thus been overcome and destroyed as Dingle warned by the worship of Einstein and fake science by a legion of pretenders using deceptive mathematics and empty logic in the defense of claims without merit.

On a later date, Dr. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock and first accurate measurement of the speed of light, wrote two short essays in which he also declared all of relativity and Einstein to be empty of any physical meaning, that the equations were a mixture of plagiarism and fraudulent claims. One was titled, Relativity: Joke Or Swindle. Though well deserving of a Nobel Prize for his own work, he was quickly warned that further criticism of Einstein would seriously cripple his future career. Thus began the magnificent and popular game of pretend enabled by Einstein's fraud.

Exactly who, how and why the field of physics was taken over by thugs and quacks is beyond my understanding, but as Dingle feared, it has destroyed all but the tiniest hope for real progress in science, a tragedy made worse by admittedly great advances in technology. The halls of academia are governed by arrogant pretenders heavily defended by a huge mass of the same old arguments and poised to boot dissenters as conspiracy theorists and even make it impossible for them to earn a degree. Denny Lee, of course, will not speak to me, nor will anyone at Montana State University. It is obvious that there is no hope in attempting meaningful argument on established turf nor in pointing out the absurdities of relativity, though over the decades I've tried enough times just to test the waters. Perceiving the false claims of the relativists is not enough. The real facts must be extracted from the Einstein fakery and correct results arrived at using pure mathematical inference as opposed to Einstein's mix of plagiarism and complicated trickery. It's not clear whether he knowingly concealed true knowledge. The best picture is that he was an opportunist who seized on early results, matched them to meaningless, complicated equations and with the help of a frenzied media succeeded in gaining credit for predicting results that were already known or easily derived. The truth lies somewhere beneath the clutter.

There could be no hope of bringing light to the world, but finding the correct answers could be done for personal edification by digging past the false notions battered into our heads since birth to find real answers. On my side was eight years of 16+ hour days solving the most difficult math and science problems in the toughest math and science classes I could find. Such intense conditioning leads to a mastery in both problem recognition and meaningful problem solving as opposed to the popularized but empty meaning of Einstein's equations not comprehensible to the uninitiated masses. These are the most valuable skills in any society. Unfortunately, without the right paper credentials they aren't useful. These are the most valuable skills in any society. Nor would anyone be allowed to get the right credentials if more motivated by the truth than a paycheck. Poor me, not a very good strategy for making money, but then I believed the right answers were buried somewhere beneath the Einstein hoax and eventually I found them.

This is why I saw a ray of hope for myself and at least a shot at passing it on. The key to problem solving is isolating and identifying the knowns. The most important known in this case is the fact that clock speeds are slower at lower elevations or from acceleration or deceleration. The Lorentz / Einstein claims about uniform velocity (clock speed and the famous "Lorentz contraction" of length were clearly meant to garble the significance of clock speed and length in gravitational fields. It was clear even in the 70s that clock speed was slower at lower elevations and that since the natural definition of length depends on clock speed, that both would be less. The frequency of light must increase in the same proportion since a change in one requires simultaneous change in the other two, and that meant there was an inner space in which mass could contract or expand indefinitely without the laws of physics changing within. The key was near at hand, but in the midst of a hectic life the facts didn't congeal until 2013 after I'd left the country. Other emergencies would occupy my thoughts again until 2020 when I felt compelled to finally announce the true cause of gravity, the true way in which the universe expands, the cause of the passage of time, questions posed by the unified field theory, and the origin and fate of the universe. These all became perfectly clear as soon as there was time to explain them.

I chose to call this the Cosmic Expansion Model of the Universe. It is, of course, pure fact, more than a model or an idea or hypothesis or a theory, but the fully correct and factual solution to all of these questions. I strongly encourage everyone who has ever pondered these questions to watch my videos and read my books for answers to these profound questions now available for the first time in world history. I may never get acknowledgement from the powers who have been deeply committed to perpetrating the Einstein fraud for over a hundred years, but no serious gain in the body of scientific knowledge will ever be made until they admit I'm right or find a way to plagiarize my claims.

So began my fixation on these clearly bogus logical constructions claimed to be the remarkable insights of the world's greatest scientist of all time. It was in fact, Herbert Dingle, a fellow, vice president and president (1951-1953) of the Royal Astronomical Society for over 30 years, who tried to sound an early warning. He in fact wrote an essay, Science At The Crossroads, in which he made the case that the acceptance of Einstein's theories was the doom of science. Still today, you can find troves of articles that declare Dingle's criticisms to be misunderstandings of various origin such as failing to grasp the meaning of simultaneity or which invoke complicated trains of reasoning backed with formidable mathematical relations, particularly the famous but bogus Lorentz transformations which Einstein borrowed to represent how time and length contract with uniform motion.

This particular snafu was popularized and widely embraced as the famous "Twin Paradox" where the traveling brother ages less than the stay at home guy. Dingle's earnest objections were finally snuffed by an Article in Nature magazine which upheld Einstein's quirky ideas and cast down Dingle as failing to properly comprehend Einstein's logic or the genius of his use of the Lorentz transformations. Still today, after a hundred years, Einstein's fallacies are embraced and celebrated as revolutionary advances in science by the greatest of all geniuses as Dingle's warnings went unheeded.

At the height of this controversy, Einstein made a public statement to the effect that the true cause of the difference in elapsed time in the twin paradox was in fact acceleration and deceleration, not uniform motion, but he wouldn't otherwise know how to calculate the result (except by use of the Lorentz equations). This admission was ignored by a frenzied media and would be likely denied by what has become an entrenched cult determined to deflect rational inquiry into these glaring lapses into inconsistent logic. It is also quite impossible to argue against the complicated mathematics used to defend Einstein because they are very articulately defended despite the mathematics having no essential meaning. The true science of physics has thus been overcome and destroyed as Dingle warned by the worship of Einstein and fake science by a legion of pretenders using deceptive mathematics and empty logic in the defense of claims without merit.

On a later date, Dr. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock and first accurate measurement of the speed of light, wrote two short essays in which he also declared all of relativity and Einstein to be empty of any physical meaning, that the equations were a mixture of plagiarism and fraudulent claims. One was titled, Relativity: Joke Or Swindle. Though well deserving of a Nobel Prize for his own work, he was quickly warned that further criticism of Einstein would seriously cripple his future career. Thus began the magnificent and popular game of pretend enabled by Einstein's fraud.

Exactly who, how and why the field of physics was taken over by thugs and quacks is beyond my understanding, but as Dingle feared, it has destroyed all but the tiniest hope for real progress in science, a tragedy made worse by admittedly great advances in technology. The halls of academia are governed by arrogant pretenders heavily defended by a huge mass of the same old arguments and poised to boot dissenters as conspiracy theorists and even make it impossible for them to earn a degree. Denny Lee, of course, will not speak to me, nor will anyone at Montana State University. It is obvious that there is no hope in attempting meaningful argument on established turf nor in pointing out the absurdities of relativity, though over the decades I've tried enough times just to test the waters. Perceiving the false claims of the relativists is not enough. The real facts must be extracted from the Einstein fakery and correct results arrived at using pure mathematical inference as opposed to Einstein's mix of plagiarism and complicated trickery. It's not clear whether he knowingly concealed true knowledge. The best picture is that he was an opportunist who seized on early results, matched them to meaningless, complicated equations and with the help of a frenzied media succeeded in gaining credit for predicting results that were already known or easily derived. The truth lies somewhere beneath the clutter.

There could be no hope of bringing light to the world, but finding the correct answers could be done for personal edification by digging past the false notions battered into our heads since birth to find real answers. On my side was eight years of 16+ hour days solving the most difficult math and science problems in the toughest math and science classes I could find. Such intense conditioning leads to a mastery in both problem recognition and meaningful problem solving as opposed to the popularized but empty meaning of Einstein's equations not comprehensible to the uninitiated masses. These are the most valuable skills in any society. Unfortunately, without the right paper credentials they aren't useful. These are the most valuable skills in any society. Nor would anyone be allowed to get the right credentials if more motivated by the truth than a paycheck. Poor me, not a very good strategy for making money, but then I believed the right answers were buried somewhere beneath the Einstein hoax and eventually I found them.

This is why I saw a ray of hope for myself and at least a shot at passing it on. The key to problem solving is isolating and identifying the knowns. The most important known in this case is the fact that clock speeds are slower at lower elevations or from acceleration or deceleration. The Lorentz / Einstein claims about uniform velocity (clock speed and the famous "Lorentz contraction" of length were clearly meant to garble the significance of clock speed and length in gravitational fields. It was clear even in the 70s that clock speed was slower at lower elevations and that since the natural definition of length depends on clock speed, that both would be less. The frequency of light must increase in the same proportion since a change in one requires simultaneous change in the other two, and that meant there was an inner space in which mass could contract or expand indefinitely without the laws of physics changing within. The key was near at hand, but in the midst of a hectic life the facts didn't congeal until 2013 after I'd left the country. Other emergencies would occupy my thoughts again until 2020 when I felt compelled to finally announce the true cause of gravity, the true way in which the universe expands, the cause of the passage of time, questions posed by the unified field theory, and the origin and fate of the universe. These all became perfectly clear as soon as there was time to explain them.

I chose to call this the Cosmic Expansion Model of the Universe. It is, of course, pure fact, more than a model or an idea or hypothesis or a theory, but the fully correct and factual solution to all of these questions. I strongly encourage everyone who has ever pondered these questions to watch my videos and read my books for answers to these profound questions now available for the first time in world history. I may never get acknowledgement from the powers who have been deeply committed to perpetrating the Einstein fraud for over a hundred years, but no serious gain in the body of scientific knowledge will ever be made until they admit I'm right or find a way to plagiarize my claims.