Wow, most of these replies are just junk. I feel very sorry for people who feel they need to degrade others to make them selves feel better.
Anyways, as far as logic, reason, math, and the scientific method are concerned, look at the photo of atoms on freeornottobe.org under "The Genesis of Relativity" or "How We Exist" and consider the orbital patterns (S,P,D,F) known to exist. Then consider where matter came from and how matter first formed. Then try to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. While you're at it, figure out what consciousness essentially is, and where that came from. And after all, what exactly caused matter to form in the first place? What exactly is that thing in the center of our galaxy which is so massive stars whip past it but we cannot see it? Why is the light bent more by gravitational lensing around the galaxies in the bullet cluster and much less by the majority of visible mass which is in the space between galaxy clusters? Is that not the massive centers of the galaxies, which are really dense matter, but dark black, curving that light? And what about the flat rotation curve of galaxies? Where exactly is all that dark energy?
Sure, I still need to do the math, but Myron Evans already figured out the math of magnetic dipoles and electric charge. I just need to learn them and incorporate them like I have with all other theories before me. The only four points of my theory which are unique are the First Event, the Nature of Dark Matter, the Origin of God and thought, and what happens after the rapture.
(I almost don't even want to respond to someone named: hackenslash, but I will respond to anything productive.)
hackenslash said: "black holes haven't actually been discovered, they have been inferred, which is not the same thing."
I even have on my computer the video compiled of stars orbiting a massive but invisible object in the central light-year of our galaxy. What do you want to call that if not a Black Hole? It is black, and it is very massive, this we know. Do you want to give that a different name? A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Would it not?
"So this isn't actually a peer-reviewed journal, it's the pseudo-scientific blog of some anonymous guy on the internet?"
Yeah, it is not peer reviewed, unless you feel you are worthy to be called my peers. I think we are all created equally in the image of the mind of God. Do you even believe in God? And why, or why not? I found God through logical deduction. If God created all physical existence, then in Gods image cannot refer to our physical bodies, but only to how our minds work.
"Tell us all what a 'spinning field of momentum' is. In fact, please define 'spin' in the context you are employing it here"
Spin is a simple word that should not need definition, but it is movement around a point. In general, that point is not usually stationary, such as with spiral paths of motion. Momentum is inertia, or velocity times mass. Will that do? I thought these things were obvious enough to not require definition or further explanation.
--You must see the images and read the entire theory (which is only 22pgs anyways) to understand it. Without doing so you are not fit to provide a review.---
"mythology into science" you say? How many times do we need to discover that mythical cities actually existed before we learn that every myth and legend came from some original truth? The point of my life is to understand how and why we exist, by finding the real truth. Whether my theory is true or not, is a matter I cannot determine alone. History proves this.
"Well, the problem there is that, if it agrees with major accepted theories, it doesn't agree with any religions. Furthermore, if you think it can answer 'why' questions, it isn't science." I laugh at this one. It describes the common thread, the fundamental makeup of reality, that which unites everything.
If your mind is closed, you cannot fit this in.
You say science cannot explain why things are? Have you ever had a science class? Discovering why things are is kind of the strongest reason why science has been developed.
"so some anonymous guy on the internet has the answers, while one of the world's leading astrophysicists is somehow wrong?"
Yup. The reason is Dogma. Independent study encourages comprehension, while mainstream education involves more memorization than understanding.
"The fact of the matter is that black holes are NOT dark matter. They are two very different things. If your claim to have studied 'theories of everything' (which ones, by the way) had any basis in reality, you'd know this."
---You give me one good reason why "Black Holes" are not the same as "Dark Matter".---
"Emits tremendous amounts of gamma rays, eh? Invisible, eh? What's wrong with this picture? If it's emitting tremendous amounts of gamma rays, it isn't invisible, is it?"
Earth to hackenslash, Human-Beings cannot see gamma rays. We use special telescopes to see them, and there are quite a lot of gamma rays coming from galactic nuclei and those massive dark spots (which are apparently not called Black Holes according to you).
But to be fair, Neil DeGrass Tyson said pretty much the same to me by email, and he was on that Bullet Cluster video. It just seems obvious to me that those dark massive spots in the middle of those galaxies, the ones bending all that light, are Dark, and they are really massive, so lets call them Dark Matter, or Black Holes. What else would you designate as Dark Matter or Black Holes? Perhaps those particles that only exist for fractions of a second (everything but Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons in stable atoms)?
Here is a good response (the only one on this forum yet): "Because Dark Matter neither interacts with, nor emits, any kind of electromagnetic energy, while black holes..."
Scientists figure the matter we cannot see, which is making the stars move as they do, must not be interacting with, or emitting any of the light waves we can see, either with our eyes, or with computers (which see radio waves, micro waves, infra red, ultra violet, gamma rays, etc.).
Do you know how hard it was to figure out how to make frequencies that high? Clearly the dark masses at every galactic nuclei are a different form of matter than normal, with much higher energy density, which do emit strong amounts of gamma rays because those have the escape velocity, and it is likely that they emit lots more energy in even higher frequencies which we cannot yet see.
If Dark Matter is specially interlinked Neutrons, and if Neutrons are an Electron and Proton in a special, tight, binary orbit, if particles are really just pressure in motion, if those Neutrons are only linked into dark matter during supernovas which strongly expand (and cool), then compress the matter, than we can reproduce this effect, create Dark Matter and/or Black Holes in the lab. To do this we would super cool to 0.000001 Kelvin as MIT did, then compress the BE Condensate into a critical mass just like an atom bombs first stage explosive shell does to the core. This black hole/dark matter mass would divide rapidly if normal matter was permitted to attract to it, and it would dissipate rapidly as well, causing much radiation.
Does anyone have any intelligent arguments? Please.