A HISTORIC IMPRESSION OF PHYSICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
The 19th century perspective of physics was mechanical and mainly based on Newton’s Principles. Fitting in Maxwell’s law of electromagnetism was not easy but resulted in the ether theory, the medium bridging empty space between the stars and the planets for one had to explain the propagation of electromagnetic waves through space. Then the Michelson interferometer experiment determined that the ether wind caused by the rotation of Earth could not be influenced by the speed of light. When Einstein and others came to the conclusion that the speed of light was an absolute constant and independent of the motion of material objects, the special relativity theory was born and somewhat later the general relativity theory was established stating that gravity was caused by the four dimensional curvature of time and space. Then experiments followed showing that the quantum mechanical principles of matter could not be united with Einstein’s GRT. This discrepancy is carried over into the 21st century, only new phenomena such as discoveries of dark matter/energy confused our understanding further.
The enormous efforts in mathematic modelling involving thousands of theoreticians in uniting the discrepancy between the two pillars of the quantum mechanics based on Bell’s theorem and the general relativity theory to catch gravity and the new phenomena of dark matter in a theory of everything, are still not resolved. So the question is like during the 19th century, the ether theory was flawed but what is the 20th century’s flaw? Why is unification impossible principally or does the scientific community make a fatal flaw in perception from the objective observations of nature’s phenomena?
The answer is, Yes and No. Considered from the point of view of symmetries in the absolute sense and taking in account time, unification is not possible, just because symmetry generates separation in all its abstract considerations. The yes-answer is yes, in a manner symmetry can unite. Einstein’s concept of special relativity and even the approximation of a continuum for gravity are correct but these are separated from the close ranged matter systems such as galaxies adhering strictly to Newton’s principle laid down in the internal laws for the atoms including the electrons. In other words dark matter or pseudo vector ‘vacuum’ is not affected by the electromagnetic laws and around macroscopic matter it is the replacement of the old discredited ether theory.
By not making a distinction by introducing a mediating medium, present-day fundamental principles in physics become hopelessly complex and difficult to grasp for these theories, only perhaps for the happy few. However most of these theoretical efforts are correct. There is nothing wrong with the two pillars of fundamental physics as GRT and the quantum mechanical principles.
Although the pyramid theory is young and still somewhat speculative, it introduces a mediating medium representing dark matter, a particle wind in which the force of gravity as an internal acceleration in matter causes a reaction thrust of the pseudo vector electron neutrinos, very low in mass then exercising a pressure to the matter surface. Just similar to a rocket thrust but now around the entire sphere of the planet, Sun etc. In short the mediating pseudo ‘vacuum’ escapes from the surface due to the synchronized internal acceleration of the atoms.
Note: Every solar eclipse scientists try to refine the measurement of the shift of the Mercury perihelion which is 42’’ seconds per century according to Einstein’s GRT. The discrepancy is around 43’’ seconds measured, slightly greater. In terms of pseudo ‘vacuum’ because the medium carries inertia, it explains this small deviation and also gives an impression how small the influence is of this mediating medium compared to empty space curvature as the explanation of the gravity ‘thrust’ of the sun.
The calculation of the perihelion coefficient in terms of pseudo vector ‘vacuum’ or dark matter mediation can be sent on request. (was not good enough for publishing) email@example.com