Explore the Wonders of New Physics
Learning About Dark Energy
Geophysicist Mary Fowler’s insight into Dark Energy
“A Perpetual Inverted Buoyancy Dynamic”
These three brief videos advance Dark Energy
NBC Interview 2009
A Buoyancy Expert’s Perspective
Rob Clark’s Buoyancy Expertise
Here is Mary Fowler’s PREM chart. This is important.
The blue area is solidly accurate since the surface data is easily collectable; boreholes validate the density-gravity dynamics’ initial values. The earth’s total mass is known. Seismic data creates an accurate avenue wherein the accumulation of mass for each density layer in the chart, will equal the already known mass of the earth.
Now the start of the paradox is in the yellow area! For example, 10135 is LESS buoyant than is 9432!
Yet 10135 is further away from the center than 94321!!??!!
In other words, this is an inverted buoyancy dynamic.
And pragmatically these gravity and density parameters appear to be perpetually stable!
So this ‘inverted buoyancy flip’ is perpetual; and tensor analysis points to a rotational dynamic, and therefore this is a contradiction for the “conservation of energy and momentum parameter?!?!”
Why do we think that this ‘buoyancy flip’ and spin occurs in black holes?
Since Black-Holes are not singularities, gravity created spherically inclined masses with an Earth-PREM-like spin is a reasonable assumption
If this conjecture is valid, then our high school concept of “conservation of energy in momentum” is in jeopardy.
Therefore, perpetual motion is apparent!
A Ton Of Information In A One-Minute Video
Pause the portions of this one-minute video where you want to
further examine this somewhat complicated math-dynamic.
For newbies (and tenure professors) who want to learn what’s novel in physics.
The Larson-Clarke Dark Energy Conjecture:
The Larson-Clarke Dark Energy Conjecture modifies conservation of energy and momentum laws. The amplifying of space dimensions in conjunction with dark energy to maintain a constant energy density reality is this conjecture.
Overview and Background
This conjecture has been promoted by Drake Larson and Robert Clarke as they expanded upon the research of UK Professor Mary Fowler’s geophysics ‘inverted buoyancy’ curiosity.
Fowler’s paradox, perpetual inverted buoyancy zones, is the kernel for this conjecture.
Fowler’s inverted buoyancy data as a pathway into dark energy is mildly analogous to Einstein’s famous 1905-1912 conjectures for Special Relativity. But in Einstein’s early work, time was slowed and space would shrink for exceptionally fast-moving objects. Conversely in this Larson-Clarke conjecture; space expands with dark energy! … (Many of its technical details remain perplexing along with numerous noteworthy equations.)
On the flip side: Perturbation theory has obfuscated this dark energy conjecture as highly unlikely; and is allied with inflexible academic Einstein fanatics who are steadfastly against this radical conjecture.
Theoretical origins
This Larson-Clarke Dark Energy Conjecture builds on a spherical fluid math proof*[1] predicting that Earth's fluid core region has a complex form of super-rotation.
This phenomenon has been observed*[2] and linked to a specific math proof and nominal entropy observations that challenge*[3]many conventional wisdoms in physics. The Larson-Clarke conjecture claims that energy conservation laws, as established by Newton and later refined by Einstein, require further modifications to incorporate dark energy dynamics and cosmic redshifts.
A few researchers have proposed that inversion physics can provide insight into these anomalies. Their analysis identifies well-over 24 entropy endpoint curiosities, many of which have been explored by Nobel Prize Physics*[1] recipients. If conservation of energy and momentum (CEM) is upheld while rotational energy and entropy data contradict Weinberg’s*[2] theorem; then the Larson-Clarke conjecture argues that conservation laws are preserved by modestly amplifying space dimensions in conjunction with dark energy to sustain a constant energy density*[3]reality.
Implications
This Larson-Clarke conjecture provides a sounder alternative explanation for key curious phenomena; including cosmic redshifts, a type of dark energy, and an explanation for universal expansion, while incorporating spinor dynamics beyond Hamiltonian, Hilbert and other spin theories taught in many advance physics courses. This is accomplished via inversion physics.
Reception
This conjecture is a subject of ongoing discussions within the scientific community. It presents an alternative perspective of energy conservation and cosmic expansion. Further peer-reviewed analysis is needed to assess its implications.
The flip side: This concept is inclined to be rejected by those who lean heavily on perturbation theory; and fanatical Einstein admirers who don’t want to ponder beyond Einstein’s famous assertions of pre-November 1915.
Miscellaneous Detail
Larson and Clarke met as teammates on the UCLA water polo team where they developed a shared instinct for hydrodynamic principles. Larson received extensive mentorship from Edward Teller and Barry Boehm, both of whom were in the highest echelons*[4] of DARPA. Clarke focused his career on academic facility enhancements.
Larson and Clarke examined Fowler’s work and felt that ‘dark energy’ was an appropriate term for earth’s curious spin from unstable fluid forces found in perpetually inverted buoyancy zones.
A few 2026 questions regarding the Larson-Clarke Conjecture are:
1) Wouldn’t numerous super-rotating massive black holes lead to eventual ‘many massive bangs over time’ be a more reasonable conjecture for the ‘microwave cosmic background’ than is ‘just one’ Big Bang?; 2) a) How does the rate of space expansion vary with varying intensity of localized dark energy? b) How can these varying dark energy parameters be estimated? c) How can varying conjectures be compared to observations? 3) How similar/dis-similar is this to quintessence thinking? 4) The fact that the Webb telescope further validated that galactic planets are practically countless, and no solidly confirmed alien life has communicated with earth; Doesn’t this further add credence to our ‘expanding measurement’ conjecture?