​Proof God Is Center of Cosmic Expansion and Union of All Things
by Alan Foos, MS Soils-Chemistry
October 2020

Jen Jamison's paper blew me away. I had no idea cosmic expansion had ever been considered the cause of gravity, then read in her paper that it was one of Alexander Friedman's models of the universe about 1920. But that a physicist was original and daring enough to promote my own private thesis which long ago had gotten me banned from physics forums was beyond my comprehension. I don't follow her logic or math all that well, but it gives detailed structure and credence to the claims about the proof of gravitation expressed on this site. On one hand she strongly validates those claims but on the other appears to be obscure the topic with cryptic logic and poorly defined mathematics. Of course, more likely I'm simply not brilliant or educated enough to follow, but confusion at my level of education is common in mainstream media and science and all of us are plagued by some degree of confusion. I was impressed by the boldness of Jamison's remarks questioning established physics such as the twin paradox and clocks that all run more slowly than all others. One has to wonder if taking such risks is why she discloses hardly any personal information. We don't know her real name, degree level or current job, though she appears to be employed as an aerospace engineer. 

The proof that cosmic expansion is the cause of gravity is a formal, academic proof. Proof that God is at the center is a subjective proof based on a near death experience. I am far from disappointed that a scientist of great stature such as Friedman had pondered the same cause of gravity and yet it failed to go beyond being only a model when it could be so easily be proved as done by myself. But understand that by 1920 Einstein was already the God of physics and if anyone were to outright contradict him that was the end of his career.  I am on the one hand soaring with pride knowing that I was able as a non physicist to perceive the same things as Friedman and then see Jamison nearly a hundred years later so dramatically confirm my own work, but also discouraged knowing that the truth has been so obscured by dogma and hero worship. Being right and making a revolutionary discovery is doomed by established dogma but no less satisfying to the one who makes it. It's the pinnacle of achievement and ego boost to find that the most brilliant minds have trod the same ground with conviction however tempered by the realities of official disapproval. 

So far there is little motive to add to my initial 2020 proof of the cause of gravity. There will likely never be any serious interest, and the more I talk the more risk of making embarrassing errors.  I don't feel competent enough to tackle sweeping equations like those bandied about even by Jamison, though I'm no lightweight. I was pleased to see that she affirmed by recognition that Newton's gravitational constant G had to diminish with cosmic expansion. I see the overall trend of cosmic processes but don't see how expansion is or should be measured. The meaning of the units required of G begin to make more sense when you see they derive from the degree of cosmic expansion (density) of the universe, though I don't see why an exponential increase in the rate of expansion as Jamison seems to maintain. Even though rods and clocks would not register local changes, cosmic expansion will dilute gravitational force as if they did and this is why G must change. It isn't necessary for the rate of expansion to accelerate to produce gravity or for the strength of gravity to depend on acceleration and I only see the redshift as a product of a slower comparative rate of expansion over time and not expansion itself. An accelerating expansion should not be required for gravity. The experts cite the rate of expansion initially slowed for roughly ten billion light years after the Big Bang, so are we to believe that gravity has only been with us for the last four billion light years? Uh uh. What I see is a steady state volumetric expansion that produces a force of acceleration on a two dimensional surface. But how should rate of expansion be defined? I fail to see how others define it. G defines the rate of acceleration between two masses which will vary with cosmic density even as local density measures the same (or not). 

If, as my proof claims, the outward force of expansion is proportional to the mass that produces it, then a reactive force should be proportional to radius square as Newton confirmed.  Any expansion should be enough to cause outward pressure against space and produce a counter force of gravity. Only if the universe were not expanding at all would there be no gravity. So, what additional effect, if any, that an accelerating expansion should have or why it should occur is beyond me.  Nobody has any clue as to why expansion should resume accelerating after ten billion years of deceleration as the most recent measurements indicate. My only position is that an increasing rate of expansion is not required.  It is then inevitable that G will continue to decrease as the force of gravity withers away. Thus it is that the value of G hints at the age of the universe as well as the current density of the universe in both cosmic and local terms.  How can we arrive at these figures from the value of G? I have no idea. There are certainly much better minds than mind for that.  

So, the cosmic G is proportional to cosmic density and decreases with expansion. This is without question the same process responsible for the second law of thermodynamics. The universe began with perfect order and since then disorder eternally increases until the universe runs down.  It isn't very exciting, is it?  What causes expansion? I tend to think it's simply the cosmic version of diffusion. Clearly the universe could not exist if it were not expanding, so expanding space must be an inherent property of matter. Since it is a fact that everything originated from the same point at the same time, there must be and there is a common center to the universe. This of course resurrects the old problem of choosing a different coordinate system, but there is no coordinate system that works. The origin and center is everywhere at once.  

If it seems off topic or religious in nature to bring a supreme, creator God into the subject, please set aside your bias for a moment. I very much believe that the nature of the universe cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of certain facts that very few others if any can testify to, so pay attention. I had a near death experience (NDE) that in my mind confirms the reality of a common center of the universe where every point in the universe is also the center of expansion from that common point, even as that center is everywhere. As contradictory or metaphysical as it sounds, you now see that this is the exact requirement of any coordinate system that can account for the observations of modern physics. I can't describe it in mathematical terms, but can state that I've been to the point of origin and center of existence in person and can describe it. How can that be? What is very common to NDE's is the experience of traveling through a tunnel where there is a light at the end. This blinding light invariably turns out to be the presence of God. My own NDE wasn't quite like that. The Holy Spirit, yes there really is a Holy Spirit person, seized me at the point of death from Lyme carditis and bad medical practice. He then drew me with immense power towards Heaven. This involved an upward, accelerating  sensation, but I was not traveling as the crow flies. As I was leaving the physical realm, God spoke verbally, "The Union of All Things." This was far more than the equivalent of a movie subtitle. It was the literal experience of the entire universe being connected to a common point and me being taken from my body and transported to that common point. That's what Jesus meant when he said the kingdom is within you. 

While approaching the boundary from the physical to the eternal realm, my speed slowed and a golden crown of ethereal and eternal substance appeared over my head. It was directly under it that I stopped for several moments and was bathed in the most exquisite diamonds that emanated the essence of kindness. Then I suddenly found myself on the other side of the physical universe and surrounded by a blinding light that carried the purest love of God. I'd say more about the experience but only brought it up to explain that there is a real Heaven and it can only be entered by passing through the origin of all things, the beginning of the Big Bang and center of all things which can only coincide with the center of cosmic expansion. From this experience I can affirm with utmost certainty that the origin of the Big Bang and center (union) of all things is God himself. There is a real living presence there which is also the portal to the Heavenly dimension. In no way do I embellish or fabricate this fact. I'm a witness to it.  If you're familiar enough with NDE's (real ones)  then you know that every witnesses describes a far more real place than anything experienced in the physical realm. I can state with certainty that the mind of God is the origin of the Big Bang and still the physical center of all things. All things can only mean the universe as a whole. The right coordinate system will somehow have to include all of these facts. 

Do you think I'm making all this up to bait you into a religious conversion? God forbid! Can we dismiss this knowledge as religious claptrap once we know for certain that the origin of the universe and the glue that holds all things together is a literal, living God?  How impossible it seems to find a physical cause for either the Big Bang or cosmic expansion once you know that not only is God the union of all things, the origin of all things and the center of universal expansion, but the very fabric of space. The entire universe, trillions of galaxies each with billions of suns and planets, is nothing more or less than the invention of a cosmic mind far more vast than even the entire universe. This knowledge based on direct experience has made me poorly fit for some Christian company. None seem to have had or understand such a profound experience, but they talk much about what God told them personally to do that day. Also, I've never had experiences like theirs so we can't communicate that well. I have fixed in my mind the God I saw face to face in Heaven and not the one who parted the Red Sea or killed an army of Assyrians. I don't have any reason to brag, I'm just like Popeye. 

So, now let's get back to physics and the cause or source of cosmic expansion. It couldn't possibly be inertia as is commonly claimed, at least not the inertia of common experience. The expansion is primarily cosmic and has no unique vector in space.  We are still part of an ongoing Big Bang. Without expansion there could be no gravity. Without matter there could be no space to expand into, and so if there ever was a universe there had to be matter of some kind, either dark or light. Matter creates space by expanding from a central point that is everywhere at once. The Big Bang did not start out as a dense ball of energy that expanded and gradually cooled but as a sudden infusion of matter and energy. God decided at a certain point before the existence of time to will the universe into existence, having already conceived in his mind that it was a one shot deal of infinite violence eventually spreading into cold, dark nothingness. The time this takes cannot be expressed in meaningful terms when the rate of clocks themselves change in the process and run at different rates in different gravitational fields. There is no absolute clock, no absolute meter stick and no middle in the universe, at least accessible to our physical existence. It isn't just galaxies that are speeding away. Every atom in your body is speeding away from every other atom even while they appear fixed to our instruments. It's more than just distance between atoms, Ms. Jamison, it is indeed the very subatomic particles themselves that are continually expanding into new versions of themselves, but these dimensions are in cosmic terms. We see them reflected in the redshift, but we cannot directly measure cosmic expansion since all our instruments and senses are being affected in the same way. It is absurd and smug to say that cosmic expansion is too slight to be the cause of gravity when we have no means to directly measure it. Each cell in our body could be expanding from every other at the speed of light and nobody could or would know it except through observations of the cosmic redshift. The cosmic redshift does not affect local measurements in any way. The only local affect of cosmic expansion is the resistance of matter to expansion which is equivalent to the force of gravity. This I have proved with clear logic to my own satisfaction.

If the NDE in 1981 taught me anything, it's that the will of God is the source of the Big Bang and ongoing expansion, but that doesn't exclude other ideas. Since atheistic physics describes the center of expansion as being everywhere, that sounds an awful lot like God, doesn't it? Indeed, God himself may well be the only source of expansion and as such must be ever present and every where aware of everything. There's no privacy from God, he's alive at the center of every atom in your body. He is a sentient being who never misses a thing or forgets a thing. This is what I know is real based on matching my NDE experience to questions physicists have long struggled to grasp. 

Then there are certain assumptions made that may not be true at all, one being that a fixed amount of matter came with the Big Bang and no more or less since.  Perhaps matter and energy are both being created all the time or destroyed. It must be beyond the ability of human science to be sure of such assumptions, let alone find an apparent source of physical energy that fuels cosmic expansion when both the origin of the universe and the current center of it exist everywhere at once. This is what the Big Bang tell us. It isn't just what happened way out there long ago, it's that way out there and here both came from the same place and that place is inside you and still expanding. This is real, not imaginary. You are cosmically the center of the universe, the only absolute in a universe where clocks and rulers are in a constant state of change and could not exist if they weren't undergoing constant expansion.   

You do realize by now that the downward force of gravity is an illusion? What is happening in  cosmic dimensions is that the Earth is accelerating toward you or pushing you away, but we don't see this because everything is accelerating outwards at the same time. Since our local dimensions of distance and time change together with cosmic dimensions we perceive the opposite of what is really happening.  Let's try to imagine what's going on at the atomic scale. The resisting force in the nucleus of an atom is far more powerful because of the short distance between neutrons and protons, so like or neutral charges are equally affected and jammed together extremely close by the expansion of space within and without. Atomic particles must also be expanding then, as well as the distances between electrons and the atomic nucleus. The distance between an electron and the nucleus is relatively vast, but the electron being extremely small is held fairly loosely by electrostatic force. This force is still enough to bind atoms together to create what appears to us as a gaseous, liquid or solid continuum. Even though these subatomic particles are continually expanding along with the distances between them, this cannot be perceived on a local level and the measurable distances between particles remains the same because length and time are defined in those terms. The natural definition of a meter in 1960 was the number of wavelengths of a specified spectrum of light. Since that would still cover the same relative distance from atom to atom, cosmic expansion does not affect that measurement. Since then it was changed to the distance traveled in a certain period of time, but since clocks run more slowly, a meter still measures the same distance within an expanded space. It isn't just space that is expanding, but everything within it. 

More should be said about the electromagnetic forces that bind atoms to atoms and form the structure of the matter we see and feel. The strength of these forces remains the same, but just as important, it is the same relative distances that also give us a uniform experience of light velocity and frequency as we might travel from one gravitational potential to another. However, if we were to look back on our earthbound twin while traveling in space, we would see a smaller wavelength and meter because ours had expanded with a higher gravitational potential (less dense gravitational field). What is difficult for me is visualizing the whole of the cosmos at once. There is no east, west, north, south, up, or down with respect to a space that has no boundary. You are the center and no matter which direction you travel, you are still at the center of the cosmos. How does that make sense? Certainly space is not empty, because the expanding earth has considerable influence over nearby bodies even if that influence declines rapidy with distance from the center. But no, that is only the earth accelerating outwards. Then how do we explain that the "force" diminishes with distance?  Because it is the surface area of the Earth that is accelerating and thus it will diminish with the square of the distance from the center of the Earth. This in effect is Newton's inverse square law. Anyone who can calculate the surface area of a sphere knows it varies with the square of the radius; therefore, the pressure of expansion from the center of the Earth will be inversely proportional to the radius squared. That is the force of gravity. Anyone with a good academic record in college math can easily derive the inverse square law. 

Also, our own space expands beyond the surface of the Earth since a meter is slightly larger than on Earth's surface even though it seems the same to us. This is why the expansion of space holds no power over our local dimensions and we have the opposite sense of the reality of the Earth accelerating our bodies outwards.  This all takes a lot of meditation to absorb. Space is also, everywhere invisibly to us, rapidly expanding in all directions from all bodies in space at a rate proportional to their masses. This is why g on Jupiter, 24.8 m/s, is much higher than on Earth, 9.8 m/s. The force of that expansion, also in represented by g, diminishes with the square of the distances from their centers, so it also makes sense that meter sticks are longer and clocks run faster. It is thus that we perceive the expansion of space as gravitational force. So, now we know what we never hear in college physics, that all surface areas in space are expanding but since changes in time and length cancel during the expansion, we only sense the expansion as the resistance of matter to it, hence, gravity. As the radius beyond the surface of the Earth expands, the force (or acceleration) of the expansion is distributed over a larger surface area inversely proportional to the square of the radius. 

That should make perfect sense. But there can be no surface area for the cosmos as a whole, so it may never be possible for me to conceive of it having a surface area or a way to measure its size or age since those measurements only apply to local phenomena. Perhaps the value of the gravitational constant G which varies with cosmic size (density) can be correlated with redshift values and somehow give us answers to such questions. I've no doubt, especially after reading Jamison's paper, that many great minds have been trying and failing to find answers to such questions for over a hundred years. Indeed, I've no ability or chance of beating them to the punch, let alone understanding half of what they talk about, but I do have a well developed if narrow talent for problem solving and claim with confidence that I've proved that gravity is caused by cosmic expansion. Much more than that, I've applied enough basic principles of time and distance as affected by gravity to convey a good understanding to others in the most simple, straightforward manner. Those would be the same principles affirmed by observations that were  given credit for validating the theory of relativity, so there is no disagreement with established physics there. But if the theory of relativity couldn't prove that gravity is due to cosmic expansion then we really don't need it or want it.

That's how I see it. I've placed the below animation in hopes you will meditate on it and think of the expansion coming from the center of the Earth and pushing against you to cause a force of gravity. This is a cosmic expansion which doesn't move of course as perceived within your own space and time. Note also how  distance gets bigger and time faster with distance from the center. This is the cause of gravity. Of course, this helps visualize what is real but we can't see. It has no realistic scale but really helps you see a different, broader reality. Don't forget, there's also a cosmic expansion taking place that makes gravity weaker. It will show up as a smaller gravitational constant G. 

SPACE IS EXPANDING

---