Introduction

The key concept in this presentation unexpectedly emerged during an analysis of the  Hubble constant. With its knock effect on mass  it turned out to be as revolutionary to astronomy and atomic physics as Darwin’s studies were to biology. The mysteries of dark matter and dark energy were solved as were  several. celestial paradoxes

The Hubble constant is a bizarre constant although it is a marker for the expansion and the age of the universe. Its units are the velocity of any galaxy divided by the distance to that galaxy. Dimensionally when stripped to its bare essentials it is a number divided by time. That is it is a frequency.   There is a strange resonance to the ancient astronomers who talked about the “music of the spheres”. Music is merely an arrangement of a collection of frequencies. The music of the spheres apparently consists of a single note, the Hubble constant. 

But if, as the constant predicts, velocity increases with distance then that is acceleration. But that requires energy. More significantly normal geometrical analysis showed that the Hubble constant should not be constant yet data from the most distant supernovas shows that it is. Examination of the appropriate equations revealed a startlingly simple mathematical answer, but that answer is revolutionary when applied to astronomy as well as various branches of physics such as nuclear physics, astrophysics and geophysics. Despite this no conflict was found with all the proven laws of physics. In addition to resolving such mysteries as dark matter and dark energy it explained the origin of Saturn’s beautiful ring system as well as the magnificent five hundred mile high ice fountains from Saturn’s baby moon Enceladus.  It explained Jupiter’s stormy equatorial belt and gave a better explanation for the Background Microwave Radiation. It showed that  all current theories  on cosmology are obsolete and that the Big Bang didn’t, and couldn’t  have happened. It even predicted with tolerable accuracy the height of high tide for the islands in the mid Pacific Ocean simply from knowing the mass of the moon and its distance from earth.

But perhaps the most significant, if totally unexpected, discovery was that solar energy does not and cannot come from hydrogen fusion. That is hydrogen fusion absorbs energy rather than emits a surplus.  It is this very property that prevents the overheating of the sun, and indeed all stars.  Without this property the sun would have exploded billions of years ago. Helium at temperatures higher than those of hydrogen fusion becomes unstable and undergoes violent fission.  This gives rise to the most powerful force in the whole universe, one that can blow up giant megastars into supernovas. Just 0.1ml of helium gas has the energy of 9000 megawatt power stations although only 1-2% is likely to be heat energy.  The so called success of the H-bomb was a lucky chance affair and could not have been predicted from the knowledge of the time. It so happened that the temperature generated by the nuclear triggers of that bomb was sufficiently high that the newly formed helium, from the hydrogen fusion, underwent helium fission releasing an awesome amount of energy.

An unfortunate consequence has been that laboratories around the world have struggled for more than twenty years expecting to find surplus energy from hydrogen fusion, and they have failed.   Even now a big international project is being planned whereby 15 billion dollars, gathered from a consortium of nations, is to be spent trying to get surplus energy from hydrogen fusion with an answer in perhaps twenty or thirty year’s time.  This is the Iter project. It is doomed to fail.  If only the scientists asked the simple question, what is it in the helium atom that prevents it fusing when hydrogen atoms fuse. And what is the energy cost for this prevention?

This presentation has two principal parts. The first is a non technical description of the different discoveries that emerged during the study giving a brief account of the scientific logic behind each of them.  The second is a more extensive and more technical presentation including showing the relevant mathematics that led to any particular conclusion.  The ideas of this second part have been submitted in various writes and re-rewrites to the professional journals but they have all refused to publish it. This was not altogether surprising as the history of science shows that revolutionary ideas if they conflict with existing beliefs they generate controversy and a reluctance to accept the new. What was remarkable was that none of them offered a justification based on science for refusing to publish, nor did they state that there was any fault with the science. But as one journal said   it was too revolutionary.

About the author:  he is a retired academic who has spent a career analysing and interpreting data, examining hypotheses, and looking for hidden unproven assumptions, such as  that the period or duration of a second is and has always been constant. He is neither an astronomer nor physicist, but has had to learn the basics of both disciplines when checking that the expansion of time concept did not break any established and proven law of physics. He was greatly encouraged to find that general physics as well as the physics of the very small, quantum theory, and the physics of the very large, relativity theory, confirmed his conclusion that over time as quantitatively so much energy was being used to produce the acceleration of all the galaxies it had to come from the reduction of mass and therefore time and mass must be inversely related.