I suppose someone had to be Rajesh.XX

Both fascinating and very intriguing. Was this experience recent? And where you already aware of the significance of the number 137 and the Fine structure Constant prior to your experience?

I'm from Glasgow area myself. What about the content though?

Hi Ken. It appears we both have dispensed with the need for dark matter - but have arrived at the same conclusion coming from a different direction so to speak [ 8rs ago for you]. I'd be interested to know if anyone has so far been able to come up with a valid argument against your theory? The only issue with me is the prerequisite condition which is inherent in your model, that the singularity at the centre of the black hole of a galaxy is required to possess infinite mass & density - in order that the orbital rotations of the outer stars conforms with the /your predicted Newtonian curve?

@@theparadigmshift2461 Hi James, I have so far, not received any objections to the idea, only the usual repeating of the mainstream mantra on the subject. Certainly, I am not aware of any scientific argument against it. I did however receive interest from a guy in Academia.net, who suggested the idea has merit. That's not to say I must be right, only that there is still a chance. The idea should be on the table so to speak. I do not subscribe to anything with infinite density, that is impossible as you appear to suspect. I am not a great mathematician, but I have taken opinions from some who are and it appears that the event horizon forms BEFORE the rest of the matter finally collapses in to form the "singularity". Now that means it doesn't matter a hoot whether a further , completing collapse does occur, because the exterior gravitational effects will remain the same from the moment the event horizon forms. As far as the outside universe is concerned the black hole "completes" at that moment. In fact, if you visualize the process of collapse and freeze it at this moment, then all the matter, still within the event horizon must literally freeze because there is no time passing. All the energy of the field of time is being used up by the energy of the matter, locally and so time stops. This is mathematically proven by Schwarzschild. If time stops, then no events are possible and so no continuation of the process of collapse is possible and so the singularity can never form. TBC

Continued;- Mainstream scientists take an ethereal view of time and ASSUME it carries on somehow beyond the event horizon. They find it interesting to pursue the final collapse mathematically because this is fun for them. There's a lecture on it by Leonard Susskind and he does say up front that either nothing further happens or, the collapse continues. He then goes on to ignore the "freezing" option altogether and to derive the collapse to the singularity. This is what all mainstream scientists do. I take the view that the process of time (and that is what it is, a process of change), as a finite process, equivalent to the speed of light when not dilated by any mass. Therefore, I believe that when time stops, this means that all the energy that propels things into the future, has run out completely and is being used up by the mass density at the same rate as it occurs. This is why we get the speed of light commensurate with zero time. The energy of the field is diminished by the energy of the mass within it since there is only this finite energy available for all processes. So, I see no technical problem with my proposal for the galactic rotation anomaly.

@@TheBinaryUniverse Hi Ken. You wrote '…........it appears that the event horizon forms BEFORE the rest of the matter finally collapses in to form the "singularity". I was unaware of this hypothesis. However, it does coincidentally endorse my own proposal that the timeline of the formation of the elements / matter originates [ and begins] at the circumference / shell / of the 'time field' [ the latter defined as in the video]. According to my own model, the mass / inertial rest weight of an atom of any of the elements is determined by the Planck time it takes for the electron valence shell of that element to form -within the interior of the time field - AFTER the moment of the creation of the field of time itself. At an altitude of 3,200 or so km above the planet, the time contraction caused by the orbital free fall velocity at that altitude, cancels out the corresponding gravitational time dilation relative to the mass of the planet at that specific height. A photon which is orbiting the planet at this notional shell will have a velocity = to c in a vacuum. Relative to the 'gravitational' field /field of time of the planet, the photon will neither gain nor lose time. It is reasonable to assume that every object which contains mass therefore has an associated time field and a 'timeless' shell at a specific radius which is relative to the field, and where the flow of time has a velocity of c. As such, it is therefore reasonable to further infer that the free fall velocity of objects possessing mass orbiting the central nucleus and beyond [or external to] the radius of the 'timeless' shell, will increasingly flatten out as the distance from the nucleus increases [as is observed in the rotational curves of galaxies ]? Any radical new theory must surely incorporate an alternative interpretation of the observations of the distant cosmos as opposed to trying to prove that the observations comply with the LCDM model. I'm afraid '….not giving a hoot'' about the circumstances which apply beyond the event horizon does not make the absurd Einstein singularity disappear. I believe any proposed scenario regarding an explanation of the true nature of reality must provide a legitimate description of the condition of the universe within the event horizon.

@@theparadigmshift2461 Hi James, You wrote - "It is reasonable to assume that every object which contains mass therefore has an associated time field and a 'timeless' shell at a specific radius which is relative to the field, and where the flow of time has a velocity of c." Yes I agree that every particle has a time rate field around it and that time is always slowed down by the presence of mass or matter. The default time rate of space time without any mass present, is equivalent to "c" as you point out. A particle slows time down locally and the rate recovers in accordance with Schwarzschild with increasing distance, until at infinite distance, it has regained the default rate. Thus, the time "curvature" around all mass. But I cannot agree that all objects have a timeless shell. as you put it some distance away. I think you misinterpret the time rate equivalent to "c", as being somehow timeless. Sure, a velocity of "c" means your time stops, but the maximum time rate in space time is equivalent to "c", not the minimum, or zero. time rate. I'm not sure what point you are making though, as all this is quite well known and accepted in mainstream physics. I have focused on WHY mass slows time and conclude that without mass, the time rate is constant and equivalent to "c", so that any mass must "use" the energy of this time rate filed for its internal energy. When the density of a mass is enough to use up ALL the time energy locally, then time stops and you get a black hole event horizon. The ultimate conclusion is that the energy of time, of space time, is finite ! When it runs out, there is zero left and time stops. This is counter to the mathematical physicist's view of some ethereal time that always carries on , say for an object "passing through" the event horizon. They ASSUME that time must continue for this object and so it is possible, in their minds, for the object to progress toward the "singularity". I believe this is the flaw in their reasoning.

The fact that you pose the question, betrays the fact that you obviously haven't watched the video.

@@theparadigmshift2461 There's no real need to. Again, you can't ensure anyone goes to somewhere that doesn't exist. Also, what is a "confirmed atheist"? Confirmed by whom? And how?

@@TheRealCatof you don't have to worry about it because obviously your staying 🕷️🕸️

None. Well, no empirical evidence since there is read-hear-say "evidence".

I don't understand what your saying?

@@theparadigmshift2461 the idea of you are a god

was really great to have had your reply i want to learn even more since i have had loads of idea on how is language is involved in the world

Hi Robert. Apologies for the delay in replying. I believe that any theory which proposes to describe an alternative theory of physical reality must incorporate the existence of consciousness as being a universal physical constant This theory goes as far to say that physical reality would not exist without the pre-existence of consciousness. (I am an atheist btw) The theory is consistent with both quantum mechanics and classical physics. I have spent the last 2-3 yrs trying to discover why the theory could or may be be incorrect However my studies have only served to confirm my conviction that the theory is indeed correct. I am in the process of constructing a website which is dedicated to hopefully proving that the theory is correct. You can view the early draft stages of the site here . jamescarty61.wixsite.com/planckuniverse