Home page
Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about in this field, I just happened to be bothered by the graphs of universe acceleration over time and thought that it might be far simpler than people were making out, Dark Matter and Dark Energy seem like such a kludge to me, but wierder things have happened I'm sure.

10/12/2005 anyone here might like to ref. F.I. Cooperstock and S. Tieu's 
 "General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter" 
and their compainion paper...
  "Perspectives on Galactic Dynamics via General Relativity"  

I still think there could be echoes of gravity waves in the same way that there 
is that 3K CBE EM radiation and possibly the background cosmic rays that have 
been constant for 10^8 years, tracked in moonrocks.  It would  certainly help 
explain inflation and acceleration, as well as the delay before acceleration 
started and the large features of the univers.  I do like the Cooperstock/Tieu 
explanation of galaxies rotational behavior.

There might be a ?simple? explanation of why we only can account for an 
apparent 0.5% of matter and why accelerated inflation started happening.

   ((keep the cosmic background radiation in mind as a VERY loose 
analogy to the following in terms of gravity accretion over time in a closed universe.))

   The apparent linear? expansion of the universe for a time then the
apparent acceleration looked a lot like it was trying to tell me something
something like an echo? A delayed self interference of mass?

   As the universe exists now, if it were closed any matter would see a 
gravitation attraction of itself equally in all directions delayed by the
speed of light the distance to the 'edge' or 'size' of the universe, from
a smeared out spherical? image of itself in a shell the 'size' of the universe.

   At the beginning the mass of a particle hadn't existed long enough for
echo's of its smeared out self, to add to the mass of the universe.  I'm 
thinking here that each particle in a closed universe has a completely smeared 
out shell version of itself at a distance of the 'size' of the universe, centered
at that particle, and in fact every other particle had shells of that same size
centered on them?

   As time went on the gravity of particles started traveling from the edge
image of that particle and started making the universe appear heavier.   Since
this apparent attraction was away from each particle (in all directions) it
showed up as an apparent acceleration after a time of (distance from edges of
closed universe)/(speed of light)  Lets call this time center_to_edge time.

   Since we can only account for 0.5% of the mass of the universe I'd guess that
the universe is somewhat older than 199x center_to_edge time (99.5%/0.5%) the reason 
that 199 might not be the exact number is that the acceleration hasn't been 
constant but stepped and ramped (i.e. until the center_to_edge time had 
occoured matter hadn't started interfereing with itself.   (This value might be 
deduceable from when cosmologists are guessing inflation started, this might 
also tell us the size of the closed universe at that time, and 199x that amount 
might tell us a lower bound for the current size of the closed but expanding 

    I don't think that center_to_edge time is constant, it's probably growing
as inflation happens and the rate of growth is probably going to compount at 
least until and if the 'edge' of the universe starts to recede faster than light,
would the universe be open at that point and acceleration turn to decceleration
or just constant expansion as matter could no longer affect itself off echoes
of itself.

    If I'm guessing correctly here, after center_to_edge time there will be 
what appears to be the echoes of whatever mass was there center_to_edge ago.
This would manefest as 'dark matter' if real matter just happened to be close
enough to be affected by the echos of the old mass.   

    The large clustering of galaxies would certainly be explained as the amplification
of gravitational attraction in a closed universe which apparently has happened at
least 199 times up to now.   Also the fact that galaxies tend to clump will ensure
that on average the mass gravity echoes will ensure this gets more and more pronounced.

Q10) Does this mean all the
initial mass continues to ring back and forth throughout time rearranging and
reacting with whatever mass is there now, only to get more complicated echoes
and continue to raise the percentage of 'dark matter' to 'real matter'.   

Q9) Are there galaxies that move fast enough relative to local clusters that they 
outrun their dark matter echoes and thus show no (or little) dark matter? or
is there evidence of dark matter in each galaxy regardless?

Q1) How is it possible that there was a time when acceleration didn't happen?
perhaps at first when energy predominated that allowed the expansion without
matter echoes off the edge (since there was no matter to speak of)

Q2) If the matter echoes have had 199x to self interact we should see inflation
follow a geometric rise at least to the point where the apparent size of the 
universe exceeds the event sphere limit of the speed of light.

Q3) Given Q2 it might be possible to determine if/when the apparent size of the
universe got bigger than the event sphere.

Q4) Is it possible that our universe started out closed and eventually became
'effectively open' as the 'edge' started receeding faster than light (note that 
this is allowed by relativity since the 'edge' isn't really a thing.

Q5) what effect would mass echos of different particles have?   Would this show 
up as an amplification of any initial differences in mass distribution?  Is this 
what caused the large groups of galaxies and inhomogeneity?

Q6) I might be off by a factor of two as to when a particles gravitational 
attraction starts to show up from the 'edge' of the universe.

Q7) How do I know that an image of a particle from the 'edge' will be a shell?
I can't assume the universe is a 4-sphere (n-sphere?) it may be that a particle
will show an 'echo' as being directly in one direction, or its even possible that
because of the self inflation nature the n-sphere is really all spiky because of
the matter itself and getting even more spikier.

Q8) Dark Matter is apparently a more localized phenomenon that what I was 
assuming, also apparently on the order of 200 reflections off the 'edge' have happened
I'm sure reflections (i.e. center_to_edge) times used to be MUCH shorter 

Q11) Could one run a simulation of what would happen if these assumptions
were true? would the resulting universe look like ours with tons of 'dark matter'?

6/25/2005 19:45

For a simulation, the attraction of masses from the past should be added after a 
integral? of the masses path over the center_to_edge(time) and of course will be
zero additional (apparent dark matter) until at least one center_to_edge(time) has

Initial conditions: center_to_edge(t_init)=K ;almost randomly distributed mass 
                  in universe when mass first existed. K is radius of the universe
                  when this happened (when universe became transparent?).

Intermediate? conditions: should show when (if ever) the 'edge' passes what we can
                  observe given the speed of light.

Current conditions: should match an apparent 199 reflections over time since big bang
                  should show a match of real mass/dark matter-energy
                  should 'look' like our universe.
                  center_to_edge(t_now)=K2; can we set this using the Cosmic microwave background? Cosmic microwave background
                  should be analogous to dark matter, with the caveat that gravity
                  is an attractive force and should therefore sum for each 'ringing'
                  of center_to_edge() of which we've had 199? so far?

Future conditions: what is going to happen? and when?

Q13) Can one (and I know this is icky) fill in enough blanks and change 
the initial conditions enough to closely approximate what 'now' looks like.  It 
would be a quick way to tell if any of these guesses are close to correct or not.

Q12) If these assumptions are true, early galaxies should show a MARKED reduction
in local dark matter? is this true? I'm not sure, it may not be possible to see rotational
info enough at these distances.

6/25/2005 20:23
Perhaps simulations could be distributed over BOINC and different parameters tried in 
parallel with winning parameters (those which closer match our reality) going on to the
next round of BOINC jobs.

Just realized if mass distorts the shape of the closed universe 
'enough' then it wouldn't take 199 trips of gravity to show us this much 
'dark matter' but something far less.   I don't know enough to know if we
have enough mass yet for the sphere to be so distorted.  I would think that
the Cosmic microwave background would show up large differences from a sphere very well, and it isn't yet.

6/26/2005 20:08
If the gravity shows up from the same place as the Cosmic microwave background, is it possible there are 
also 'harmonics' of the Cosmic microwave background at different frequencies?   What would these frequencies
be?  Certainly higher/hotter/earlier.  Would some of these earlier echoes explain cosmic 
rays?  are they just Cosmic microwave background from a different round trip?

6/27/2005 17:45
Perhaps the gravity echoes did something other than create excess mass in the 
initial phase of the universe, when it was still opaque.   And thats why acceleration
had to wait until the initial transparent center_to_edge(t) distace was covered.

8/11/2005 11:43
the reason we don't appear to be 200 times more massive than we should is that 
we've actually moved our position from the time our matter has bounced off the 
edge.  I wonder if that means we're in big trouble if we go through a black 
hole echo?  space might be big enough it won't be a problem until we have 
millions or billions of bounces? It might also be that space bends as we pass 
through these echoes but that there isn't any local effect, but thats just a guess

8/11/2005 12:08
After talking with Tim Fleehart, I should clarify a few things.  I'm choosing 
to call whatever mechanism brings us the 'big bang microwave background 
radiation'. a 'reflection off the edge of the universe' and holding that this 
isn't the first time this has happened nor is it limited to em radiation.  I
suspect that an earlier bounce perhaps the previous bounce? is responsible for the 
background cosmic rays, shown to be the same for at least 10^8 years by the 
examination of cosmic ray tracks in moon rocks.

Tim Corrie Jr.
Some links to people who know a lot more about this than I do,
Dark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe --P. J. E. Peebles
Dark Matter.
Dark Matter --Martin White.