Prophet12

Krash- What do you mean source- i have told in posts and personal msgs, i am as close as you will get to Snell (the source) for now; that is dictated by him. For now just accept I am the best source on the Theory available to you/forums until he decides otherwise. Peace

Excellent EdEarl- Test this- Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3 are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest. Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity. To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year. Questions: 1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be getting expansive-greater? 2- would light shift be red or blue between them. 3- if universe which is space with objects/matter existing in it (not space-void-etc) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater-expanding from or at the first measurement or last? 4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion relative to each other and space between them while in a state of universe contraction? This simple example is to help others understand the (mis) perception of redshift which led to expansionism etc. The example is to help understand Snell Theory which explains contraction of the universe instead of Einstein's original GR of static universe which was changed after redshift was detected to/change to expansion. Peace

Here is a simple example of how Snell's Theory questions/addresses the 'redshift' that changed Einstein's static the expanding universe/relativity- which he did not claim 'accelerating expansion' in his changes to static formulas; accelerating expansion is what is currently claimed. Regardless of whats happened, the debunking has to take place before correction can start. Here is part of what explains the debunking of the 'redshift' which led to expansion etc. Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3 are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest. Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity. To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year. Questions: 1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be expanding-increasing? 2- would light shift be red or blue between them. 3- if universe (existing in space-infinite) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater at the first measurement or last? Would the measurements indicate expansion or contraction? 4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion based on redshift and their relation to each other while in a state of contraction in relation to the whole universe? Peace

Ok- what evidence proving the theory do you want? The universe? The GR claim that the universe is expanding, and now perceived as not only expanding but at and increasingly accelerated rate? And the acceleration of the expansion can not be explained by Relativity without necesseties for unexplainables. Big bang theory has in it logic an expansion that slows, not accelerates... True or false? Yet mainstream says its proven, expansion is accelerating. Einstein relativity said universe is static, then redshift was detected, and he changed relativity to expansion- all the rest followed that. Redshift was the (mis) perception that preceeded expansionist etc. See the example of O1, O2, O3 acceleraring to B for debunking the redshift that led Relativity 'predicting' expansion. And, for now, until Snell decides to make public himself etc, i am perhaps as close to the actual 'document of the theory' you have access to. Instead of looking to that as a problem, he says its a luxury you unknowingly disregard. Ask your questions, i/we will supply what advances validity. The theory stands on its own, i or Snell or anyone else is just parties regarding it. The theory is about relativty, the universe, physics etc- it has nothing to do with persons like Snell, me or Einstein. Ask pertenant questions regarding the theory, as its been explained, and we will supply what evidence we have. We welcome all scientific inquiries or research. Peace

We understand General Relativity, GR is wrong as it is presently written with a constant that predicts expansion, period. Bignose's post -demonstrate 'more accurate or more predictions' and 'will be displaced' -is correct. Snell's theory does demonstrate, more accurate, better predictions, so as to disprove present GR and more perfectly match theory/science with the universe/mass/space etc. The questions about relativity are not just because some dont understand, its because they do and GR presently does not make sence/logic etc. in the real universe; it leads to too many mysteries-inventions-necessities etc. Snell's theory addresses it all, and supplies the answers, scientifically. The questions by many have been posed, now the answers (Snell's Theory) has been supplied; its all for a reason, if you care to reason. Peace

Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research, and i have yet to find anyone to debunk it and from everything it explains, it matches up with reality, sound physics/law, observations etc totally. It answers what others only question or they say is a mystery... Its no mystery to the theory. Most posts against it is typical try to detract without knowing what it says, simply because it proves/explains contraction instead of expansion of mainstream etc. Pay attention, mainstream relativity-GR is about to change. Yet because the crowd's momentum is what it is, change will be...? Peace

New Theory explains accelerating contraction of the galaxy and universe instead of expansion. Snell's Theory shows why redshift (mis) led Einstein to change his static General Relativity universe from static to expanding; and explains both static and expansion is wrong, its actually contracting. The Theory eliminate the 'necessity' of dark matter or dark energy. The theory states that by 'varying acceleration in spiral pattern' objects appear to be moving away (redshif-expansing) when all are accelerating into contracted space such as black holes and onto cluster and super cluster etc. The 'varying acceleration' of each object is varying because of the varied proximity to the massive gravitation pulling each galaxy-solar system-object etc; the acceleration is based on the gravitational force and proximity from the dominant mass/force and each object. Interested? Post your questions etc- More info to follow.