PROOF OF CONSTANT G AND NO BIG BANG: Age of the Universe
Alan Foos November, 2021

This was to be my last chapter. Knowing they were way off track correlating distance in terms of brightness with redshift and with hope fading, I was still expecting to validate the physicists’ fervent conviction of a Big Bang. A lifetime of slick propaganda had stolen my soul. It made no sense. It was most troublesome that they’ve recently concluded that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Of course it is, but that extrapolates to the opposite of a Big Bang. And then, of course, if cosmic expansion didn’t always accelerate there would have been no gravity or flow of time whenever it wasn’t. I couldn’t brave the thought that so many brilliant leaders of science could be so tragically wrong. but... It all hinged on G. 

To my astonishment, analysis of G exposed a crucial omission (lie?) by Einstein. G cannot be changed to allow for a Big Bang. Simple unit analysis of G forbids altering it in a way that could allow an expanding universe or Big Bang. Indeed, the universe started at c and since has expanded at the rate of c/s into the ethereal, cosmic dimension where its size in the cosmic space must be unimaginably large. This expansion is the prime force of action expressed as the equal and opposite force of gravity in the lower, fixed dimension. If there ever was a Big Bang, the peak of explosive power would be right now and then increase by c every second following. This crucial but obvious observation based on the units of G has escaped the world's attention for over a hundred years. Fancy that. The Big Bang never was unless it is just getting started.  

This shocker forced me to revise earlier statements offering speculation that G might save the Big Bang so I didn’t have to grieve the death of science. This is extremely important. There is no hyperbole on my part that the Cosmic Expansion Model is the most important scientific discovery in world history. You can take it to the bank. It’s a far bigger step than moving out of caves. I stake my life on the truth of it and hope for you to see it. Understanding it could be the most valuable treasure you'll ever find. 

Before continuing this chapter, I must admit to having stated that G could vary depending on the speed of light or on the mass density in a given region because the mass density within the universe is anything but uniform. This is because the units of G include c in the numerator and effective mass density in the denominator. That was the biggest blunder of my career, because the speed of light is a function of mass density. If one increases, the other decreases proportionally; therefore, G cannot vary under any circumstances. 

​

A genius not, but I do have a talent for problem solving honed by countless hours of tough university math and science and hard experience being lied to by Uncle Scam. The education was paid for by risking death in Vietnam. It didn’t pay much, and I tortured myself with intense study for years while enduring grinding poverty. For what? Maybe this was what it was all about. Who knows? How do we feel about multi-billion dollar budgets and thousands of articles and videos hitting hard with a Big Bang that never was and other related, assorted fables while struggling to get food on the table? How does an enlightened, disadvantaged few deal with world leaders who are so badly self deceived? Thousands of web sites and videos boldly promote this massive misinterpretation of redshift data and big bang propaganda.  How could they so blind themselves to the real meaning of the Michelson-Morley experiment and instead praise Einstein for inventing impossible paradoxes, contradictory logic, and phony mathematical formulas to explain observations that speak loudly for themselves? God help us! 

Nothing could be more shocking or heart breaking, but now is time for all good mathematicians to rescue man from eternal darkness. The only right conclusion from the phenomenon of red shift and Michelson-Morley is that light is always carried by cosmic expansion generated by the density of mass within space. This is what governs the motions of celestial bodies, most certainly not Einstein’s frames of reference bristling with  complicated equations copied from the Lorentz equations that without evidence of any kind ties uniform motion to contraction of length and clock rate.

You always knew it. The rate of cosmic expansion, is geometrically tied and proportional to the total mass M of the universe. This in turn determines that the speed of light must be the same and so defines c, the initial and everlasting c. This fixed relationship combined with radius R (actually R squared) is the secret meaning inside Newton’s G. Since we all float inside the expanding cosmic bubble, we don’t experience expansion but feel it as the force of gravity. The physicists have badly missed the point even after Einstein explained how local observers don’t measure changes in clock speeds or length and therefore live inside a private, fixed dimension. But cosmic expansion is a force and action of its own that exerts the equal and opposite force of gravity in the fixed, lower dimension. If you think about this long enough and hard enough it will begin to make real sense. Everything will fall into place. Good bye relativity, hello reality.   

Unlike the cosmic universe, internal dimensions of the physical universe are not altered by expansion at a rapidly accelerating pace but fixed. We mortal bodies get the equal and opposite force of gravity. The physicists get some credit for concluding that the universe “may be” expanding faster than the speed of light and accelerating, but that is only a fact of experience in the outer, cosmic dimension where the universe is blowing up with a bigger bang every second. Still, instantaneous cosmic expansion is equivalent to the velocity of light, c and the force thereof the acceleration, c/s. And since G cannot be varied as Einstein claimed, we can only look forward to a big bang, not back.  Sorry, boys, better luck next time.  

How many times did I already say that? Not enough if needed to offset the avalanche of propaganda from the big bang boys. It may be too late for the field of cosmology to reverse such profound and long standing mistakes, especially when mention of any such thing in the past would likely get them fired by those chickens in suits who can’t withstand the light of day. How could they be so myopic as to attribute intergalactic redshift to recessional velocity and “prove” it by correlating redshift with levels of brightness? But that they have done, and you cannot tell them otherwise. Within the galaxy, red shifts between celestial bodies are regarded as gravitational, not recessional. End of argument. Standard candles show distance correlates with redshift. Duh... What will never be explained is why I was the first to notice. Or the only one still living? 

The party dogma will keep the truth buried as long as possible. In this book lies the only glimmer of 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 is proof of the swindle. I, too, had been so brain beaten by the Big Bangers that I suffered mightily a whole night trying to see what I was doing wrong, then finally had to accept that entire human civilization has had it bass ackwards. The confusion wasn’t my fault all along. The physicists have been proving the Big Bang by means of a vast misunderstanding. Correlating intergalactic red shift with distances measured by "standard" candles could work if the redshift observed really was due to recessional velocity in the physical dimension. 

But it’s not. It’s due to recessional velocity from expansion taking place in the upper dimension. Their tactics sound sophisticated, but why does gravitational redshift within a galaxy suddenly become Doppler redshift between galaxies? How could they overlook the proof that expansion in an upper dimension explains both? Oh, yes, because Einstein snatched the ball for relativity. Considered the smartest man in human history, he couldn’t explain, but managed to cook up a batch of crazy equations that made it seem like he could. I can do better. I know my writing isn’t the best and the subject isn’t easy, but surely the mathematicians can see the light and save us all. Intergalactic redshift is progressively greater with distance not because inner space is still expanding from the aftermath of a Big Bang, but because the light observed has traveled through the ether dimension where cosmic expansion has been relentlessly increasing by the rate of c each second. The true rate of cosmic expansion is big C, a number by now almost too large to comprehend. It isn’t looking good for the physicists. Maybe we should have pity on Einstein for making Newton's G a variable. Who dares to accept the truth and quit lying to the public? 

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 without regard to any meaning. Why were we all taught so poorly? It could be that the way Newton derived the law was scrubbed from the books, but comments attributed to Newton portray him as capable of describing gravity perfectly but not understanding it. He just arrived at G by constructing the units required to reduce to force F equal to mass times acceleration. After several attempts, I gave up trying to retrace Newton’s logic, but did succeed in breaking G down in terms that do in fact explain its purpose. The effort went like this: 

Newton had invented his universal law of gravitation from the insight that the force of gravity between two objects was the product of both masses. He didn’t realize this was due to the combined expansion of space between them. A greater genius was never born,  so I wish I could have shared with him the Cosmic Expansion Model and saved science before such questions fell into Einstein’s lap. In the weightless ether dimension where light is propagated, the velocity of recession of objects is proportional to their masses. Total mass M determines the velocity of light. This we have proved from the nature of redshift and the Michelson-Morley results and found that only the Cosmic Expansion Model of the Universe could be correct. Cosmic recession is constrained on the physical level because the force of expansion is trapped by dimensions fixed because of the connection between clock speeds and length. The force of gravity comes from the fact that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Because dimensions are fixed within the physical plane, the force of gravity matching the acceleration of light results in retrograde motion  perceived as gravity, thus F=MA, the force of gravity at the edge of the physical universe matching the acceleration of light. Of course, expansion applies to protons as well as quasars. It follows without effort that E=M*C^2 and  E=mc^2. It’s difficult to understand why this simple derivation should be regarded as profound.

But Newton's law is blind to expansion as the cause of gravity. He didn’t know that G encapsulates radius R and mass M of the physical universe and ties them to the acceleration of light. The strength of universal gravity is a function of these three fundamental, eternal values. G exploits the fixed relationship between acceleration of light and ratio of volume to mass expressed as R^2/M. Without knowing its significance,  Newton defined G as the fixed relationship of universe mass M, radius R and the resulting velocity of light c, the three essential properties of matter whose values describe how fast matter expands on the cosmic level to induce the equal magnitude of gravity on the physical level.  The velocity of cosmic expansion must accelerate to produce the accelerating counter force of gravity. The rate of expansion between two points is proportional to mass, but the force of gravity depends on acceleration expansion and is proportional to the product of 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 for a math wizard like Newton to arrive at F = G * (m1 x m2)/r^2 . What a crying shame he didn’t realize our universe is a closed box in which accelerating expansion causes the equal and opposite force of gravity.   

Since the definition of length and clock speed forbid cosmic expansion to be perceived on the physical level or permit a Big Bang, G must diminish as the cosmic universe expands, the only way that F could diminish and account for the recession of celestial bodies.  That was to be my last effort to rescue the Big Bang before stopping to remember that was Einstein’s last tango affirming him as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He defiled Newton’s G by calling it his own and decided that it could diminish and therefore make peace with the Big Bangers flashing their “standard candle” correlation. What a tragic error since the expansion of record occurs outside the fixed dimensions our instruments exist in. The physicists continue with zeal to promote this flawed model using progressive intergalactic redshift. Why did Einstein cave on a constant G when any math student could see it doesn’t work given the units of G? 

The units of G, R^3/M/s^2 do not permit such a possibility. I use R to represent distance instead of d because it must be a global unit. Radius of the universe. R^3 might be taken as universe volume, but if increased due to expansion has the opposite result needed to allow a big bang. And if not volume, we see that R/s^2 gives us the fixed acceleration of light, leaving R^2 / M. That doesn’t help, either. We can’t expand the universe by making its radius R smaller. Not only could there never have been a Big Bang, but cosmic expansion has been increasing exponentially for billions of years. The biggest bang ends up being the last in a universe without end.

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

Being nearly as brain washed as the great unwashed, I was near surrender and tearing my hair out trying to make G permit the Big Bang model of creation. Their redshift dog and pony shows and relentless propaganda had rendered me intellectually blind, but  the expanding universe they promote with such passion is simply not possible. Even less possible is that Einstein could have missed this fact. He was either 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 l/s^2 which can only be c/s, acceleration of the velocity of light where R is not radius R but the distance traveled by light in one second. This hits the spot because it changes the equation to the form F=ma, Newton's expression for force. G in essence establishes the rate of cosmic expansion, c, as 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 produced by c/s. You see the point. The expression reduces to F = m*a where m represents the scaled rate of expansion defined in G from the product of m1 and m2. 
Newton correctly constructed G from units required by F but without knowing its true meaning. Even at that, he would have been smart enough to know that the units forbid any expansion in the physical universe. So Einstein in effect killed physics. Any way you try to change the factors of G to make expansion happen results in a stronger force of gravity. G is the fixed, defining ratio of radius R^2 to mass M of the universe times the accelerating rate of expansion in the ethereal dimension, c/s. This is the ONLY reference you will ever find that correctly defines G. 

After seeing this, it hit me with a BANG that I'd been unknowingly retracing Einstein's steps before yielding to the Big Bang. You know, the ones that led to the famous Biggest Blunder he humbly admitted to by switching G from constant to variable. 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 his biggest lie, and changing his mind to make it variable the act of the world’s biggest fool.

By hook or crook he gave the cosmologists the perfect ammunition required to sell a bogus Big Bang to a gullible public. Nobody would dare go over Einstein’s wild hair and check out what G represents. Those crackpots bold enough to try would be out of their jobs by next morning. Just keep watching this Big Bang...

Facing up to the absurdity of a Big Bang was like regaining consciousness while slowly emerging from a deep well of hypnosis. You can’t show your face in Flatland now ever again. Einstein ceremoniously abandoned the constancy of Newton's G, calling it his biggest mistake without ever mentioning it was Newton's masterpiece, not his, or that neither Newton’s G or his own G could be changed. What kind of science is that? The ruse sticks out like a sore thumb. Einstein ate his words to appease the Big Bangers. It had to be an agreed upon lie in those early days, knowing that nobody would ever see through it, though his relativity really smelled fishy to me. Einstein would become greatest scientist of all time and the public fed an ongoing drama about a Big Bang that could have never been. Was the knowledge of cosmic expansion deliberately concealed? Maybe they didn't want to admit to an upper dimension which could stir up religious zealots. Or maybe they just didn't know how to find the correct model of the universe and had to invent a good story to justify those expanding tax dollars. 

Either way, it was a crooked deal. The swindle was called out by the president of the Royal Society and Louis Essen who first accurately measured the velocity of light, but their protests fell on deaf ears. And now you see this clearly because you see the Cosmic Expansion Model clearly. The Cosmic Expansion Model is the real deal. Not only does it prove that dimensions and clock speeds within the universe are fixed by mutual agreement, but the gravitational force of attraction enforced by accelerated expansion in the upper dimension is proportional to mass M has also always been and always will be constant. 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 upperland of an infinite, fixed dimension being rapidly invaded by an expanding bubble called the cosmic universe, a bubble perhaps within an ocean of other bubbles, not to be confused with the lower physical universe where the physicists live.

Ask me again how we explain the increasing red shift of galaxies with distance that the physicists tout and shout about? Do I have to do everything? You tell me. If you can't answer the question, you should go back and study the book until you get it. Ok, ok..., just kidding. Light is transmitted, or more correctly propagated by expansion in the upper ether dimension where the cosmic universe has rapidly expanded into at an exponential rate for billions of years, and therefore progressive redshift is a reliable measure of the expansion of the universe in cosmic dimensions, not our fixed, lowly physical measurements. This is why the physicists keep blathering about the universe accelerating faster than the speed of light which is the opposite of a Big Bang. This is expansion in the dimension outside the universe sphere. There is no expansion in here, only up there. And, listen, Charlie, it’s cumulatively faster than the speed of light by zillions of times if you’re far enough away. That’s the equal and opposite engine for gravity and flow of time on this level and the rate increases dramatically at the rate c every second on the universal scale. The redshift you’re looking at isn’t that, though, it’s just the minor rate of accumulated drift between you and that galaxy as measured not in this fixed dimension, Einstein, but in the upper dimension where things are running away from each other. What does it take to penetrate that deeply? 

Can any of you 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 the mysterious gravitational red shift to be plain old Doppler feedback equal to the combined rates of recession caused by cosmic expansion between two points. So, like distance and clock speed, we see from the units of G that in the physical dimension the distances between galaxies are fixed yesterday, today and tomorrow. On the cosmic level, outside the boundary of the physical universe, radius and velocity of light increase exponentially with each passing moment, leaving a trail of redshift for physicists to ponder. Remember that light travels outside the physical dimension and redshift represents the rate of differential expansion on the cosmic level. Likewise, the progressive increases in red shift with distance to remote galaxies reflect accumulated cosmic expansion with time, so redshift will be progressive as the cosmic universe grows like mad, but not due to physical recession despite the correlation with “standard candles.”
Accumulated cosmic expansion fully explains the progressively larger red shifts, and that they are due entirely to cosmic expansion that doesn’t affect measurements on the physical level inside the box. Indeed, the universe consists of two conjoined, dependent parts, the lower, physical, static dimension of specific mass M and radius R, and the upper, ethereal dimension devoid of mass which permeates and contains it. 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. Can anyone hear me? What can be done?

I 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 squared? The plain truth of the Cosmic Expansion Model is that it is the only correct model of the universe and most important discovery in world history. Everybody should know and see this clearly for himself. Forget mainstream physics, know the real universe in which you live and grab the wheel and steer. Knowing is your right and educating others your sacred duty.  

CONCLUSION: DERIVATION AND EXPLANATION OF G in UNIVERSAL 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 is how you know there is no possibility that Einstein wasn’t either a complete fool or a shameless liar when admitting to his “biggest blunder” and throwing Newton’s G to the wolves. G was Newton's discovery, not Einstein’s, 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. It’s not about how big it is, but what it says about the universe. Keep this book safe. It is the most important book in the world today because it tells others about the only correct model of the universe in the world. 

At the start of this project I believed in a Big Bang and a variable G, even though based on only the established but seldom spoken link between time and distance, it would have been impossible for the universe we know to have ever had a bang or be expanding. I then noticed that the physicists were making a mistake by attributing intergalactic redshift to recessional velocity. But how could they be so dumb? Surely they had another reason. What apparently led them to abandon the gravitational source of intergalactic red shift is that annoying progressive red shift with distance. This can't be explained by gravitational redshift within the physical dimension as if it ever could, so the Big Bang Gang welds itself to the conclusion that the cause of redshift is recessional velocity consistent with a Big Bang followed by ongoing expansion. Don’t talk about the recent news that the universe expands faster than light and that means no Big Bang. 

But from the Cosmic Expansion Model, we know that the true cause of gravitational red shift is Doppler recession resulting from expansion in the upper 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. Nothing else truly explains progressive red shift. Tell me if you find something. Within the upper ether dimension the universe has progressively expanded rapidly over time and goes faster by the second by leaps and bounds. It is that accumulated expansion the physicists observe and somehow sadly mistake for recession in the physical universe.  If they ever wake up and get it right, they could use the Cosmic Expansion Model to investigate the origin and age of the universe with the added bonus of a fixed, universal clock speed that depends solely on total mass M of the universe. The holy grail of physics is staring them right in the face and they’ll call it a conspiracy theory. You could cry.   

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 disregarded by our institutions of learning 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 the expression to the cosmic level. 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. R radius, M mass and acceleration c/s, the three fundamental properties of the physical universe are defined and fixed forever for the universe as a whole. Newton was the giant of scientists and always will be. 

Newton's feat cannot be but marveled at, but it's much easier to understand from the perspective of the Cosmic Expansion Model. This is the correct, geometrically sound meaning of G that enables us to define the basic fixed ratios of mass, density and rate of cosmic expansion of our universe. It would be impossible for G by any other name to be varied in the way Einstein published to allow for an expanding universe. All dimensions of the physical universe, R, M, V and G are fixed, so there could not possibly have ever been a Big Bang or ever could be, especially when the force of gravity depends on an accelerating rate of expanding cosmic universe through which light is propagated near the boundary of physical space. Einstein was right the first time when he plagiarized Newton, but gives not a hint that he had any understanding of what made G tick. Note that G is the product of the inverse of mass density (in terms of area, not volume) and the acceleration of light. Since the speed of light, c, is a function of mass density, the value of G must be constant under all circumstances. 

The physical universe is static thanks to the cosmic dimension expanding at the rate of C to produce the equivalent force of universal gravity in the lower dimension. I wasn’t happy having to shoot down the physicists, but these huge errors of judgment just can’t be tolerated any longer. Oh, sorry, fellas, no Big Bang... We could still throw you poor bastards a bone. You could extrapolate cosmic expansion back to an instantaneous creation occurring at the point where cosmic volume equaled physical volume, V.  If it went any lower all mass M would disappear. Then the CMB could be an imprint of the sudden birth of the universe. 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 own 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. Well, personally, I think the curve going backwards is asymptotic with the X axis, so that could mean the universe never had a beginning any more than it could have an end. Sorry, guys, I try, but...

---