PROOF OF CONSTANT G AND NO BIG BANG
Alan Foos November, 2021

This was to be my last chapter but to my astonishment, it exposed a crucial lie by Einstein that forbids to my great surprise an expanding universe or Big Bang on the physical level. This crucial observation has escaped the world's attention.  This forced me to revise earlier statements. You may not understand what I'm talking about, but it's extremely important. Understood or not, the Cosmic Expansion Model is the most important scientific discovery in world history. You can take it to the bank.  I'd stake my life on the truth of it. I guarantee that understanding it could be the most important treasure you'll ever find. I'm not a super genius, but do have a talent for problem solving honed by countless hours  of tough university math and science paid for by risking death in Vietnam. This web link highlights the confusion of cosmologists still smoldering after the failure the last 100 years to correctly interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment and derive the cosmic expansion model for themselves. https://askanastronomer.org/bhc/faq/2015/11/09/is-space-expanding-faster-than-light//

This book will answer such questions with certainty. The only right conclusion from the phenomenon of red shift and Michelson-Morley is that light is carried forth by cosmic expansion, not relativity, thus the rate of cosmic (not physical) expansion can only be the speed of light, never more or less, and never does this alter the dimensions of the universe in any way. Expansion alone determines what the velocity of light will be. And since G cannot be varied as Einstein claimed, there could have never been a Big Bang.  You may have caught me in earlier statements that there could have been a Big Bang but only if G diminished over time due to cosmic expansion. It's too late for the field of cosmology to reverse the mistake after a hundred years promoting it to excite the masses and strip the coffers. How could they mistakenly erred by attributing intergalactic red shifts to recessional velocity "proved" by correlating redshifts with levels of brightness? But that they have done. Within the galaxy, red shifts between celestial bodies are regarded as gravitational, not recessional. But what makes gravitational redshift different? See, Doppler shifts are easily understood, but don't tell me anyone understands why. Physicists don't go there if they want to keep their jobs. This is because the change in speed of light in gravitational red shift exactly matches the Doppler shift of the acceleration due to gravity; thus, the only possible conclusion is that the velocity of light is nothing more or less than cosmic expansion. Period.

The party dogma will keep the truth from you. Am I the only one to ever find it? It appears so. This is the only hope the world has of knowing the truth of cosmic expansion. Count yourself most fortunate if you see it clearly and get the word out before it's lost forever. Einstein's BIGGEST BLUNDER exposes him and the physicists as the swindle relativity and the Big Bang really always was. I, too, had been so brain banged by the Big Bangers that I couldn't bring myself to reject it despite the lack of real evidence. I told myself that the world could not possibly make such an absurd mistake, yet the physicists have been misrepresenting intergalactic red shift by correlating it with distance measured with "standard" candles. The tactic sounds high tech, but why does gravitational redshift within a galaxy suddenly become Doppler redshift between galaxies? Do you smell the rat? Expansion in an upper dimension is the only explanation for both "gravitational" red shift within a galaxy and intergalactic red shift. In both cases there is no change in distance within the physical dimension. Intergalactic redshift is progressively greater with distance not because inner space is expanding from the aftermath of a Big Bang, but because the light observed travels through the ether dimension where cosmic expansion always accelerates to produce the force of gravity. The most remote red shift is a measure of the difference in COSMIC expansion over billions of years. If that conclusion isn't 100% correct, then Newton's G would have to be variable which unit analysis proves simply isn't possible.

I'd always felt uncomfortable with the failure of textbooks to go into depth about the meaning of G. It was considered only a proportionality constant possessing the units needed to reduce the expression to F=ma. We were told the value of G had to be obtained by experiment and those results weren't very consistent. It could be that the way Newton derived the law was scrubbed from the books, but comments attributed to Newton portray him as not understanding G himself. He just arrived at it by unit analysis. After several attempts, I gave up trying to retrace his steps, but succeeded in breaking G down in terms that do in fact nicely explain it. So, the effort went like this: 
Newton had invented this formula while expressing ignorance of any cause for gravity as Einstein himself did later. I so wish I could have shared with Newton the Cosmic Expansion Model and saved science. In the weightless ether dimension where light is propagated, the velocity of recession of objects is proportional to their masses. Total mass defines the cosmic velocity of light V as a function of mass M of the universe. This we have proved from the nature of redshift and the Michelson-Morley results. This recession is concealed on the physical level as so well explained so many times because the force of free expansion is contained in the physical dimension. The force of gravity, comes from the property of mass being more than simple expansion, but accelerating expansion. Because dimensions are fixed within the physical plane, the force of gravity matching the acceleration of light is exerted resulting in retrograde motion we perceive as gravity, thus F=MA. Caps means the universe as a whole, but we see the differences in expansion as gravitational redshift. Of course, expansion applies to protons as well as quasars and is where Einstein got his famous E=mc^2, the second bonehead step from cosmic expansion.  Being there is no mass in the upper dimension, no force is felt, but a Doppler shift is registered from objects of mass expanding within it, and this is what Earthlings are seeing in their telescopes and calling gravitational red shift.  

But with Newton's law we aren't interested in total expansion, only the relative expansion between bodies of variable mass that manifest as gravity. We could point out that the velocity of expansion must accelerate to produce the force of gravity and the force must be the product of the two masses. Force F diminishes with the square of radius between them as easily diagrammed with areas of concentric circles on any restaurant napkin.  So, it's a simple task to arrive at F = G * (m1 x m2)/r^2 .  If there is any possible way for recessional velocity to exist in the physical universe or a Big Bang to have occurred, G must diminish as the universe expands, causing F to diminish with increases in distance everywhere. This the physicists purport to demonstrate with progressive intergalactic redshift when the only true expansion occurs outside the bounds of the observable universe. This is why Einstein caved on a constant G. The idea goes BANG when we see what G consists of. Relative expansion between two objects within the universe does not occur in a vacuum, but is governed by total universal mass density expressed as G. It isn't immediately clear how units of G, R^3/M/s^2, represent that. I use R to represent distance which you'll understand later. R^3 could represent universe volume, but if increased due to expansion has the opposite result needed to vindicate Einstein. The Big Bang is shot down before leaving he chute. 

Value of G: Einstein the Fool or Einstein the Puppet Liar? 

Maybe R^3 does not represent volume. At first I was tearing my hair out trying to make G permit the Big Bang model of creation physicists had banged into my head for decades. Their redshift dog and pony shows mixed with incessant propaganda had left me blind. An expanding universe is simply not possible. Einstein could not possibly have missed this fact unless suffering from advanced senility or caving to blackmail. What then is the right way to interpret the units of G? Let's take another look. 

Breaking down the units of G further, G is length R cubed divided by mass M per second per second. Borrowing one R gives R/s^2 which can only be c/s, acceleration of the velocity of light. This hits the spot because it changes the equation to the form F=ma, Newton's expression for force. G establishes that the rate of cosmic expansion is geometrically fixed to the quantity of mass, M. We can  factor length cubed as R^2*R and cancel the R^2 with radius squared term in the denominator of m1*m2. This scales the problem to universal proportions which is what we need. That leaves distance over time squared which is the acceleration of expansion equivalent to the universal force of gravity. You see the point. The expression reduces to F = m*a where m represents the scaled rate of expansion from the product of m1 and m2. Newton correctly constructed G by unit analysis without knowing its true meaning. Any way it could be made a variable points to a big suck, not a big bang . The notion that F could be reduced by cosmic expansion by any means is clearly wrong because any way you try to change the factors of G to match expansion will result in a stronger force of gravity. In a nutshell, G is the ratio of the radius R to the mass M of the universe times the rate of expansion in the ethereal dimension from the acceleration of light velocity c. This is the ONLY reference you will ever see that correctly defines G. There is no book in the world more valuable than this. NO BIG BANG. 

But what hit me with a BANG was the realization that I'd been retracing Einstein's steps that led to his famous Biggest Blunder he humbly admitted to by treating G as constant.  He was either the most confused physicist of all time or the most devious. Screwing with Newton's G in the first place was Einstein's Biggest Blunder, pretending G to be his invention was his biggest lie, and changing his mind to make it variable his biggest dive. By hook or crook he gave the cosmologists the perfect ammunition required to sell a bogus Big Bang to a gullible public. Nobody would be conscientious enough to study what G actually represents and blow the whistle. Or maybe those who did were never heard.    

Before realizing what G mean, I had been unknowingly parroting Einstein's famous BLUNDER as if in a state of hypnosis. He ceremoniously abandoned the constancy of Newton's G, calling it as his biggest mistake ever, not ever mentioning it was Newton's masterpiece, not his or that G could not be changed as any good mathematician could easily see. The ruse sticks out like a sore thumb. Einstein ate his words for nothing but a concession to the Big Bangers who wanted an expanding universe. It had to be an agreed upon lie in those early days, knowing that nobody would ever see through it. Einstein would become known as the greatest scientist of all time and the public fed an ongoing drama about a Big Bang that never was. Was the knowledge of cosmic expansion was deliberately concealed? Maybe they didn't want to admit to an upper dimension which could incite religious debate. Or maybe they just didn't know how to find the correct model of the universe, but had to invent a good story to justify those expanding tax dollars rolling in. Either way, it was a crooked deal, the swindle claimed by Louis Essen who first accurately measured the velocity of light.  

The Cosmic Expansion Model is the real deal. There never was a Big Bang. Not only have the dimensions and clock speeds within the universe remained constant throughout time and always will, but the gravitational force of attraction enforced by accelerated expansion in the upper dimension proportional to mass M has also always been and always will be the same. This is the natural, geometric consequence of the property of expansion of mass in the upper dimension, not high in the air kind of up, but the up of an infinite, fixed dimension within and through which our universe floats like a bubble, perhaps next within an ocean of other bubbles.

Ask me again how we explain the increasing red shift of galaxies with distance? Do I have to do everything? You tell me? If you can't answer the question, you need to go back and study the book until you get it. Light is transmitted, or more correctly propagated by expansion, in the upper ether dimension where the cosmic universe has expanded into many, many times over, and therefore progressive redshift is a reliable measure of the expansion of the universe in cosmic dimensions, not physical measurements.

Can the mathematicians help? Think outside the box. If the increasing intergalactic red shift can't represent recessional velocity, then what could it mean? The Cosmic Expansion Model reveals our old friend gravitational red shift to be equal to the differential rates of cosmic expansion between two points, so certainly it indicates increasing expansion on the upper level, but like distance and clock speed, we see from the units of G that in the physical dimension the distances between galaxies are  fixed. On the cosmic level, outside the boundary of the physical universe, radius and velocity of light increase exponentially with each passing moment. Remember that light travels outside the physical dimension and the red shifts represent only differences in rates of expansion on the cosmic level. Likewise, the progressive increases in red shift with distance to remote galaxies reflect accumulated differences in total cosmic expansion over a very long period of time. This fully explains the progressively larger red shifts and that they are due entirely to cosmic expansion that is not measurable on the physical level. Indeed, the universe consists of two conjoined, dependent parts, the lower, physical, static dimension of specific mass M and radius R, and the upper, expanding dimension devoid of mass. All points consist of both the boundary between the two dimensions and also the center of expansion. This is what university physics should have been teaching the last 100 years. 

I just have to end with this link where after a hundred years knowingly misrepresenting G to sell you the Big Bang, they now decide to take it back. Einstein was right the first time? Or was it Newton? Can you believe such nonsense? https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html.  What do they suppose dark energy is? How about the property of mass being expansion at the speed of light? The truth of the Cosmic Expansion Model is the only correct model of the universe and most important advance in science in world history. I wish for you to see this clearly for yourself and help save science. Let go of mainstream physics and know the real universe in which you live. Knowing is your right and educating others your sacred duty.  

CONCLUSION: DERIVATION AND EXPLANATION OF G in UNIVERAL LAW F=G * (m1*m2)/r^2

It should be obvious to anyone that G cannot be varied, particularly in a way that would reduce F and permit a Big Bang by extrapolating backwards from an expanding universe, so this how there is no possibility that Einstein was either a fool or a liar when admitting to his "biggest blunder." casting G as a constant. G was never derived from relativity. It was Newton's formula even though Newton didn't fully understand it himself, but Einstein understood it far less and had no business claiming it for his own.  The various explanations for G found on the web are sure to spread confusion. Herein is the only accurate explanation of the value of G since Newton arrived at his law of gravitation in 1687, over 300 years ago. Keep this book alive. It is the most important book in the world today.  
At the start of this project I believed in a Big Bang and a variable G, even though based on the established link between time and distance, it would have been impossible for the universe to have ever had a bang or be expanding. I did suspect the physicists were making a mistake by attributing intergalactic redshift to recessional velocity, but how could they be so dumb? What has led them to dismiss the gravitational source of intergalactic red shift is progressive red shift with distance. This can't be explained by gravitational redshift within the physical dimension, so the Big Bang Gang wrongly concludes the cause is recessional velocity consistent with a Big Bang followed by ongoing expansion. But from the Cosmic Expansion Model, we know that the true cause of gravitational red shift is Doppler recession resulting from expansion in the ether dimension. The physicists should know that dimensions in the physical universe remain fixed as the universe expands at a galloping rate on the cosmic level, so what explains progressive red shift? Recall light travels only in the ether dimension where there is no mass. Within that dimension the universe has progressively expanded rapidly over time and it is that expansion the physicists observe and mistake for recession in the physical universe. 

If they ever pull their arrogant little heads out of a black hole, they could use that fact to calculate the age of the universe with certainty, at least in terms of the internal clock speed that on bottom line depends solely on total mass M of the universe. There you go. The holy grail of physics staring them right in the face, but they will never admit it. Can the mathematicians be of any help?  

Our first airtight deduction from cosmic expansion as a function of mass is that the rate of expansion defines the velocity of light. The accelerated rate of expansion is responsible for gravitational attraction and the force of attraction between adjacent masses is the product of the masses such that the acceleration of expansion resulting from two grams of mass will be three times as great for a total force of m1*m2 = 2x3 = 6. Since the force will be diminished with the area of widening circles with distance, we know that radius squared must be in the denominator. It appears that from these simple deductions made in hindsight that Newton simply assigned the necessary units to G required to reduce F to units of force. Since then poor G has been dismissed as a fudge factor arrived at by experiment so that the physicists can bark up the Big Bang.    

Understanding the units of G are critical to understanding the law, however. Let's have at it again. G is distance cubed over mass divided by time squared. If we take one of the three distance factors over s^2 we have acceleration, c/s which is necessary in the equation to arrive at force F = m * a, the product of mass and acceleration. Now we can rephrase G as distance squared over universal mass, M times acceleration, a. Think outside the box. M is total mass of the universe, so G is a correction factor that scales m the cosmic boundary. Distance squared must also be R^2, radius of the universe squared, so when the units of R^2 cancel with r^2 this scales radius in the equation to match the radius R of the universe as a whole. After scaling the equation, units cancel and we end up with F = m * a, where acceleration matches expansion, c^2, the velocity of light squared. The value of c matches the total acceleration due to gravity at the boundary between the physical and cosmic universes where the force of expansion obeys Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction known as gravity. G then is R^2*c/s/M, radius, mass and acceleration of the universe as a whole. 

Dare not trivialize Newton's feat, but it's much easier to understand from the perspective of the cosmic expansion model. This is the correct, geometrically sound meaning of G within the two dimensional universe. G is impossible to be varied in the way Einstein suggested to allow for an expanding universe in the physical dimension as a concession to the Big Bangers. Dimensions of M, V and G are thus fixed, so there could not possibly have ever been a Big Bang or ever could be. Einstein was right the first time when he plagiarized Newton. The physical universe is static that the cosmic dimensions are expanding with the equivalent force of gravity. I wasn't happy having to shoot down the physicists, but the biggest mistakes in science just can't be allowed any longer. We could still throw the poor bastards a bone extrapolate cosmic expansion back to an instantaneous creation that occurred at the point cosmic volume equaled physical volume, V.  The CMB is still useful. Indeed, if the James Webb telescope delivers, red shift from the most remote galaxies could enable an easy and accurate measure of the universe's age in terms of the static clock speed of our static, non expanding, physical dimension. So, now the cosmic expansion model has given the mathematicians an easy way to accurately calculate mass M, volume V, acceleration due to G, and even the age of our universe.