Throughout my life Einstein has been my "windmill."
Adapt, Improvise. Overcome. This is the scientific method in a nutshell. Adapt your thinking, improvise new tactics and overcome false beliefs.
A lot of you may find my style unusual or abrasive. I guess that is just another reflection of me. I have always thought that one of the biggest obstacles in science is they make the literature so damn boring. The reason I was able to unlock the final mysteries of the universe is because I never cared what they say. I always demanded proof of A before I would allow them B.
To Mr. Sedgwick, my 9th grade science teacher at Groveport-Madison - I hope you are still alive. You made a far greater impact on the world than you would have ever guessed and I hope I can pass on your inspiration to others. Your simple thought experiment on the first day of class opened my eyes to the interconnectivity of EVERYTHING!!! when you asked us to think of "how different the world would be if ice sank."
Mr. Sedgwick introduced the "butterfly effect" to me before anyone else had ever heard it. One of Lineback's Laws is The Sedgwick Effect - "Everything affects everything else."
I didn't allow the "experts" to intimidate, ridicule or bully me. I stayed on point. I soon discovered most of the people that would attempt those things did it because they accepted things that they couldn't even explain and knew they would look even more foolish if they tried. If people can't explain what they think then they really haven't thought about it at all. This generally irritated everyone around me. I didn't care because the search for truth was more important to me. I wasn't afraid to ask questions if I didn't "get it" and look foolish, rather than allow my future beliefs to be founded on nonsense. This is why I have always hated liars, they steal the right to make good decisions from me.
The first time I heard about the "Big Bang" I immediately knew it was just insane. Einstain makes a lot of claims that could be considered inferential, at best. He offers not ONE single provable premise in EITHER Special Relativity or General Relativity.
I didn't even need to look at his formulas, I simply reviewed real world experience. I guess I was the only one who liked to watch things blow up. I knew no explosion I had ever seen dispersed either mass or force equally. I was 15. I tried and tried to get people to listen but "he was a genius."
By the time I was 17 I had come up with a nearly complete cosmology I knew made a hell of a lot more sense, but I could never get anyone to listen because "he was a genius." I could prove he was wrong with logic if I could get them past the "he's a genius" mantra.
I can prove he is wrong now both logically and empirically. I will take Einstain down real quick, with logic first, which should have caused everyone else to reject him, and then the data that will allow you to satisfy the JWST, SDSS and Planck readings simultaneously. I know some of you won't stay long if I don't walk the walk, so HERE IT IS.
My original "Chunky Soup" cosmology proves a universe model where super massive chunks (10⁶–10¹² M⊙) about 1% of total universal mass (scalable) are part of the original mix. The original total universal mass scales inversely with the number and size of the SMBHs.
I was only able to determine the solar mass range recently. I had everything else in the Macrocosm figured out when I was 17. The Chunky Big Bang was my original theory from 1979 that had to lie largely untouched for 45+ years before I was finally able to find the Unifier and prove EVERYTHING!!! in March of 2025.
References:
DESI Collaboration (2024). DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from BAO. arXiv:2404.03002.
Planck Collaboration (2018). Planck 2018 results. VI. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6.
Wang, F., et al. (2021). A luminous quasar at redshift 7.642. Astrophysical Journal Letters,
Matter moves in arcs in response to motion, with redshift arising from SMBH driven gravitational effects, as well as galactic rotation - which the great "genius" somehow missed. This framework eliminates the horizon problem, early SMBH formation issues, and dark energy timing anomalies of standard cosmology, aligning with DESI redshift and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data using one adjustment, offering a variable-driven alternative.
I still needed to figure out how it all worked. In true scientific fashion I continued gathering available evidence. There was very little additional proof, one way or the other, because Einstain led everyone down a dead end trail into a box canyon and they failed to realize that the only way out was to go back. Each year moved humanity further and further away from the truth. If I hadn't been the one to uncover the true nature of the Universe it may have stayed buried forever.
They nicked themselves with Occam's Razor and dropped the Scientific Method on the floor during the 20th century. Man's hubris taught him, "we are better than the ancients because we are modern." That is the ONLY reasoning they needed to reject things that had already been proven long ago.
Each time I read Einstain's words or heard any of the Disinformer's brigade speak about it I said, "really? Can you prove that? Or that time didn't start until the Big Bang? But Albert ... if space and time are one then they have to start together, at the Big Bang. Doesn't that mean that both of them have "always existed?" Doesn't that make them both "eternal?" You can't have it both ways, they are either one or not one. This is the Disinformer's second major violation of the rules of Math and philosophy, the Rule of the Excluded Middle. It says "something is either A or NOT A, it can't be both."
The first violation of both math and philosophy by the "great thinker," was breaking the Law of Identity. Something must ALWAYS equal itself. Meaning that he can't use space AND time as separate things in one part of his argument and then claim Spacetime exists in the other part of the argument unless he is trying to prove or disprove one or the other.
Mathematician and physicists have searched for Einstain's imaginary friends for over a century. I could have saved them 46 years.
I would have said, "Einstain resurrected the universally scoffed-at theory of the spontaneous generation of flies and turned it into the unbelievably accepted spontaneous generation of everything. Way to go, Einstain. Great work scientists." <sarcasm drips>
Einstain claimed to like philosophy. Apparently he didn't read or understand Hume who said, "you can't prove causality" and if you assume it you get infinite regression.
I believe every physicist who researched Einstain's wild claims (they aren't even good enough to call "theories,") was scamming the government. Even Hans Albert Einstein, Einstain's son, rejected his nonsense and did real science based on provable truths. I’d like to tell the "theoretical physicists" to take their polynomials and shove 'em.
I eventually deduced EVERYTHING!!!I with math you can do on a 10 dollar calculator. They would have never seen it because they weren't even scientists. Einstain said, "this makes sense," and everyone goes, "uhhh ...okey doke," as they trudged forever onward, chanting, "genius," "genius."
There is one thing ALL of the following scientists shared: they started with observations, confirmed them by testing, and moved forward in their experiments, which is exactly how I went from my initial "Chunky Soup" mix to my final, empirically provable EVERYTHING!!! These were the last cosmologists and scientists who were working empirically:
Isaac Newton: Born December 25, 1642; died March 20, 1727. Most Hailed Work: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). Accomplishments: English physicist and mathematician who formulated laws of motion and universal gravitation, grounding classical mechanics in deduction, free of speculative origins like T = 0.
David Hume: Born May 7, 1711; died August 25, 1776. Most Hailed Work: A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740). Accomplishments: Scottish philosopher who challenged necessary causation, advocating acausality in A Treatise and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), underpinning my rejection of T = 0 and time’s intrinsic role.
Daniel Bernoulli: Born February 8, 1700; died March 17, 1782. Most Hailed Work: Hydrodynamica (1738). Accomplishments: Swiss mathematician and physicist who introduced Bernoulli’s principle (P + ½?v² + ?gh = constant), tying pressure, velocity, and height in fluid dynamics—the field’s pioneer.
Claude-Louis Navier: Born February 10, 1785; died August 21, 1836. Most Hailed Work: Navier-Stokes equations (1822). Accomplishments: French engineer and physicist who co-developed the Navier-Stokes equations (?(?v/?t + v·?v) = -?P + ??²v + f), describing fluid motion.
George Gabriel Stokes: Born August 13, 1819; died February 1, 1903. Most Hailed Work: Refinement of Navier-Stokes equations (1845). Accomplishments: Irish mathematician and physicist who refined the Navier-Stokes equations, advancing fluid dynamics and optics.
Irving Langmuir: Born January 31, 1881; died August 16, 1957. Most Hailed Work: Plasma oscillation research (1920s). Accomplishments: American chemist and physicist who coined ‘plasma’ for ionized gas, studied its oscillations, and laid foundations for plasma physics.
Hannes Alfvén: Born May 30, 1908; died April 2, 1995. Most Hailed Work: Cosmical Electrodynamics (1950). Accomplishments: Swedish physicist who pioneered plasma cosmology, theorizing magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves—Alfvén waves—describing plasma behavior along magnetic fields, challenging Big Bust orthodoxy with deductive plasma dynamics.
and sane ol' Hans Albert Einstein.
Hans Albert Einstein restored the family name to me by making significant contributions in the fields of hydraulic engineering and sediment transport. Born on May 14, 1904, in Bern, Switzerland, he pursued a career distinct from his father's theoretical physics - the greatest waste of manpower and thought watts in history - focusing instead on practical engineering challenges related to water and sediment movement.
Hans Albert earned his doctorate from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) in 1936, where his dissertation focused on the transport of sediment in rivers. His work laid foundational insights into how rivers carry and deposit sediment, a critical area for managing waterways, flood control, and infrastructure development. After moving to the United States in 1938, he worked at institutions like the California Institute of Technology and later joined the University of California, Berkeley, as a professor of hydraulic engineering in 1947, where he remained until his retirement in 1971.
Look At Me
What do you see when you look at me?
Do you think I am what I seem to be?
Or does what you see reveal what you are?
Am I an object of study in a specimen jar?
Remove me from home and put me on the street,
Do I stay the same with all that I meet?
Perhaps observation is scanty at best,
You see what you see, but where is the rest?
If you delve deeply and break through the shell
You’ll find more to me than mere sight can tell
Break me into pieces, put a slab on a slide
Check up, down, in, out, till every angle’s tried.
Reveal all my images, and blend them into one.
I am all my pieces, but greater than their sum.
Scott L Lineback circa 1985?
Old buildings must be razed and the rubble removed before new construction begins.
With Hans Albert's crazy father's work proven incorrect
the following laws fell with him: ALL formulas including either time or space time in their formulas.
The universal constant (c) and everything done in cosmology since James Van Allen's final work.
Everything based on redshift is also wrong, since is assumes "everything moves away from a central
starting point and always moves in a straight line after that, despite Einstain's own theory citing
gravitational lensing, the effects of SMBHs etc. and ANYTHING dependent upon them. The Chunky
Soup mix explains all that with elegance. Here is a list of the rubble:
1. Special Relativity (Time dilation: Δt’ = Δt/√(1 - v²/c²))
2. General Relativity (Spacetime, Gμν = 8πTμν/c⁴, uses t)
3. Big Bang Theory (T = 0, expansion over t)
4. Hubble’s Law (H₀ = v/d, v tied to t)
5. Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger: iħ∂ψ/∂t = Hψ)
6. Thermodynamics (Entropy, dS/dt)
7. Nuclear Physics (Decay rate, dN/dt = -λN)
8. Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Expansion over t)
9. Classical Mechanics (v = dx/dt)
10. Statistical Mechanics (Boltzmann: dS/dt)
11. Chemistry (Reaction rates, d[A]/dt)
12. Materials Science (Stress-strain rate, dσ/dt)
13. Nuclear Binding Energy (Decay, t-dependent)
14. Chain Reaction Theory (Neutron flux over t)
15. Thermonuclear Fusion (Reaction rate, t-based)
16. Dimensional Analysis (t in units)
17. Planck Units (t_P = √(ħG/c⁵))
18. Newton’s First Law (p = mv, v = dx/dt)
19. Newton’s Third Law (F = ma, a = dv/dt)
20. Work-Energy Theorem (W = F·d, F tied to t)
21. Simple Harmonic Motion (x = A sin(ωt), ω = 2πf, f = 1/T - implied t)
22. Heat Transfer Equations (∂T/∂t = α∇²T, diffusion wave-like - implied t)
23. Electromagnetic Wave Propagation (∂²E/∂t² = c²∂²E/∂x², c = fλ, f = 1/T - implied t)
24. Relativity’s Time Dilation (Δt’ = Δt/√(1 - v²/c²))
25. Lorentz Transformations (t’ = γ(t - vx/c²))
26. Black Hole Physics (Event horizon dynamics, t)
27. Quantum Field Theory (Time-dependent fields)
28. First Law of Thermodynamics (ΔU = Q - W, W over t)
29. Kepler’s Laws (Orbital periods, t)
30. General Relativity’s Field Equations (t in Gμν)
31. Quantum Gravity (Time evolution)
32. Gravitational Wave Theory (Wave speed over t, wave-like - implied t)
33. Orbital Mechanics (t in orbits)
34. Tides and Gravitational Potential (t in tidal cycles)
35. Conservation of Momentum (dp/dt = 0)
36. Angular Momentum Conservation (L = r × p, p over t)
37. Lorentz Force Law (F = q(E + v × B), v = dx/dt)
38. Schrödinger Equation (iħ∂ψ/∂t = Hψ)
39. Maxwell’s Equations (Time-dependent: ∂φ_B/∂t, c = fλ, f = 1/T - implied t)
40. Terminal Velocity (v_terminal over t)
41. Stokes’ Law (F = 6πμrv, v = dx/dt)
42. Relativistic Mass (m = m₀/√(1 - v²/c²), v over t)
43. Relativistic Energy-Momentum (E² = (pc)² + (mc²)², p over t)
44. Lorentz Invariance (t in transformations)
45. Quantum Electrodynamics (Time evolution)
46. Cosmic Microwave Background (Temperature over t)
47. Ampère’s Law (∂φ_E/∂t, wave-like - implied t)
48. Faraday’s Law (∂φ_B/∂t = -∮E·dl, wave-like - implied t
49. Air Resistance Models (F_drag = kv, v = dx/dt)
50. Relativistic Free Fall (Geodesic motion, t)
51. Rotational Dynamics (ω = dθ/dt, α = dω/dt, ω = 2πf - implied t)
52. Conservation of Angular Momentum (L = Iω, ω over t, ω = 2πf - implied t)
53. Frictional Torque (τ = (V)·ω, ω over t, ω = 2πf - implied t)
54. Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT, dynamics over t)
55. Planck’s Law (I(ν,T), ν = f = 1/T - implied t)
56. Wave-Particle Duality (λ = h/p, λ tied to f = c/λ, f = 1/T - implied t)
57. De Broglie Hypothesis (λ = h/p, λ tied to f, f = 1/T - implied t)
58. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Δx·Δp ≥ ħ/2, Δp tied to v = dx/dt - implied t)
59. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation (F = GMm/r²)
60. General Relativity (Gμν = 8πTμν/c⁴, G in Tμν)
61. Black Hole Physics (Schwarzschild: r_s = 2GM/c²)
62. Gravitational Wave Theory
63. Orbital Mechanics (F = GMm/r²)
64. Tides and Gravitational Potential (V = -GM/r)
65. Kepler’s Laws (T² = (4π²/GM)r³)
66. Quantum Gravity
67. Bernoulli’s Principle (P + ½ρv² + ρgh, g)
68. Terminal Velocity
69. Stokes’ Law (F = 6πμrv)
70. Special Relativity (E = mc², c²)
71. General Relativity (c in Gμν)
72. Maxwell’s Equations (c = 1/√(μ₀ε₀))
73. Electromagnetic Wave Propagation (∂²E/∂t² = c²∂²E/∂x²)
74. Relativistic Energy-Momentum (E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²)
75. Lorentz Transformations (t’ = γ(t - vx/c²))
76. Relativity’s Time Dilation (√(1 - v²/c²))
77. Black Hole Physics (r_s = 2GM/c²)
78. Planck’s Quantum Theory (E = hν)
79. Schrödinger Equation (iħ∂ψ/∂t = Hψ)
80. Einstein’s Photoelectric Equation (E = hν - φ)
81. Ideal Gas Law (PV = nRT, R)
82. Stefan-Boltzmann Law (j* = σT⁴, σ)
83. Ohm’s Law (V = IR,)
84. Gauss’s Law (∮E·dA = Q/ε₀, ε₀)
85. Maxwell’s Equations (μ₀, ε₀ in c = 1/√(μ₀ε₀))
86. Coulomb’s Law (k = 1/(4πε₀))
87. Gauss’s Law for Electricity (∮E·dA = Q/ε₀)
88. Ampère’s Law
89. Faraday’s Law Lorentz Force
90. Biot-Savart Law
91. Poynting Theorem Second Law of Thermodynamics
92. Nuclear Force Models
93. Weak Interaction Models
94. Dielectric and Magnetic Susceptibility
THE FAILURES OF MODERN SCIENCE
AS I researched to prove MY Chunky Soup Cosmology EVERY time I researched one of the "laws" I found that evidence disproving them ALREADY EXISTED when they made their "law." I grew angrier and angrier. NO ONE has bothered to verify preexisting "laws" in cosmology since Einstain soiled physics diaper with the Big Bust. ALL theoretical physicists have been pulling off the scam of the century(s). Their "research" has yielded nothing new or productive. The last major validated finding was a stroke of luck by Henri Becquerel, a French physicist who discovered radioactivity in 1896.
I have already described how Einstain made inference after inference despite existing evidence to the contrary. He wasn't the first or the last. Our current Electromagnetic theories are simply wrong. The Greeks proved that electricity and magnetism are two different things over 2 thousand years ago with the lodestone and static tests.
Rather than testing THEIR work modern man just assumed that he "knew better" and disregarded existing empirical data. The also ignored the fact that a bar magnet produces no electricity and lightning bolts don't magnetize anything. I can't figure out if the bureaucrats that funded this stuff were corrupt, stupid or both.
SO everything resting on a unified electrical/magnetic field joins the heap of hubris known as modern physics. Let's turn to another untested, untried and untrue concept of science, differential rotation.
The Differential Rotation Disproof:
This is another theory that defies all common sense as well. Anyone who has seen a merry go round or a cd turning knows that they have the same rotational speed but the outside has to travel a much greater distance to get to the same place, i.e. the person at the center of the merry go round always has the advantage. Why would galaxies be different? Additionally, with this model, the slower moving stars would collapse into the faster moving stars in a never ending symphony of destruction. they have to move together. This is another part of the red shift misinterpretation to go with their assuming things have moved eternally in straight lines ever since the big bang.
My Proofs: Galaxies Spin Like Records, Redshift’s Rotation
(ω\omega\omega) everywhere, so outer stars move faster in linear speed v=ωrv = \omega rv = \omega r)
Take a 12-inch record at 33⅓ RPM (1.8 seconds per turn). Outer edge (radius 6 inches) has a circumference of
2π×6≈37.72\pi \times 6 \approx 37.72\pi \times 6 \approx 37.7 inches, speed
37.7÷1.8≈20.937.7 \div 1.8 \approx 20.937.7 \div 1.8 \approx 20.9
inches/second. At 2 inches from the center, circumference is
2π×2≈12.62\pi \times 2 \approx 12.62\pi \times 2 \approx 12.6 inches, speed’s
12.6÷1.8≈712.6 \div 1.8 \approx 712.6 \div 1.8 \approx 7 inches/second. Same RPM, but the outer edge screams along.
Now a galaxy, 100,000 light-years across—radius 50,000 light-years. The Milky Way’s Sun, at 27,000 light-years out, moves at 828 km/s, period 225 million years. Angular speed is ω=2π/T=2π/(225×106×3.156×107 seconds/year)≈8.86×10−16 radians/second\omega = 2\pi / T = 2\pi / (225 \times 10^6 \times 3.156 \times 10^7 \text{ seconds/year}) \approx 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \text{ radians/second}\omega = 2\pi / T = 2\pi / (225 \times 10^6 \times 3.156 \times 10^7 \text{ seconds/year}) \approx 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \text{ radians/second}.
If the galaxy spins at this fixed ω\omega\omega, a star at 50,000 light-years has. v=ωr=8.86×10−16×(50,000×9.461×1015 meters/light-year)≈2097 km/sv = \omega r = 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \times (50,000 \times 9.461 \times 10^{15} \text{ meters/light-year}) \approx 2097 \text{ km/s}v = \omega r = 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \times (50,000 \times 9.461 \times 10^{15} \text{ meters/light-year}) \approx 2097 \text{ km/s}. The outer stars are screaming along. Observed speeds are 200-250 km/s, but that’s averaged over gas clouds. High-velocity stars and outflows hit 1000+ km/s—my model’s closer. No dark matter is needed; the flat curve’s a misread of uniform spin.
That speed gives redshift: z=v/c=2097/300,000≈0.007z = v/c = 2097 / 300,000 \approx 0.007z = v/c = 2097 / 300,000 \approx 0.007. At 500 Mpc, they measure
z=0.116z = 0.116z = 0.116 (Hubble’s Law: v=H0dv = H_0 dv = H_0 d, H0≈70 km/s/MpcH_0 \approx 70 \text{ km/s/Mpc}H_0 \approx 70 \text{ km/s/Mpc} so
v=35,000 km/sv = 35,000 \text{ km/s}v = 35,000 \text{ km/s}
z≈0.116z \approx 0.116z \approx 0.116).
My rotational redshift’s 6% of that—huge. At 5000 Mpc (v=350,000 km/sv = 350,000 \text{ km/s}v = 350,000 \text{ km/s
z≈1.16z \approx 1.16z \approx 1.16, using z=(1+v/c)/(1−v/c)−1z = \sqrt{(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)} - 1z = \sqrt{(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)} - 1)
The signal’s a mess—dust, lensing, unresolved arms. They can’t subtract the rotational part, so they overestimate “expansion.” The farther the galaxy, the worse their readings get. Current redshift theory is wrong, it is a combination of inferred data and incorrect observations. It is mostly rotation and differentials in velocity of the moving objects, i.e. galaxies.
Their differential rotation’s a disaster. They say inner stars move faster—828 km/s at 27,000 light-years—and outer ones slow to 200 km/s at 50,000 light-years. But gravity’s still there:
F=GMm/r2F = GMm/r^2F = GMm/r^2.
Slower outer stars can’t hold their orbit—they’d spiral inward, crashing into the faster ones. There would be supernovae everywhere. Galaxies wouldn’t hold their shape for 10 billion years, like the Milky Way has. We’d see chaos, not stable spirals. Their model’s a fantasy; uniform spin keeps stars in their lanes, no pile-ups.
Redshift as expansion is wrong as well. They say v=H0dv = H_0 dv = H_0 d, so farther galaxies recede faster—proof of the Big Bang.
But my rotational redshift (z≈0.007z \approx 0.007z \approx 0.007) eats a chunk of that.
At 5000 Mpc,z≈1.16z \approx 1.16z \approx 1.16
They can’t correct for rotation because they can’t resolve the arms—readings get worse with distance. They assumed redshift means expansion, ignored rotation, and invented dark matter to fix their broken rotation curves. That’s not the Scientific Method.
“The Differential Rotation Disproof,” with your proofs (uniform spin:
ω≈8.86×10−16 rad/s\omega \approx 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \text{ rad/s}\omega \approx 8.86 \times 10^{-16} \text{ rad/s}
v≈2097 km/sv \approx 2097 \text{ km/s}v \approx 2097 \text{ km/s} rotational
z≈0.007z \approx 0.007z \approx 0.007)
Now we move to the "Laws of Conservation" Also based on on ignoring common sense and preexisting evidence. Any child can tell you it is easier to destroy than create. Why WOULD they be the same? You are not calculating each step of the process, i.e. how much energy it takes to turn H into He>to Boron, etc., etc. until you get to the final element. You are underestimating building costs in figuring out your energy in vs mass out equations and vice versa.