Return to http//



Noel Hodson, 14 Brookside, OXFORD OX3 7PJ, UK

Tel 00 44 (0)1865 760994


Letters – Scientific American


Saturday 17th August 2002.




Mordehai Milgrom’s excellent article Does Dark Matter Really Exist (SA V287No2 Aug02), together with the panel by Anthony Aguirre, clearly informs me, an amateur, for the first time, of the factors that stimulate CDM theories and Professor Milgrom’s 20 year old alternative theory MOND that arises from the observation that a space shuttle falls to Earth at one hundred billion times the acceleration that Earth and its Solar System fall towards the centre of the Milky Way. I can only speculate, as I have not the training to calculate, that the Hubble constant for the expansion of the universe (extrapolated from observed Red Shift, not light-speed, thus mitigating the wholly circular arguments that universal expansion might otherwise be reliant on) is, while mentioned in the article, not given as prominent a place in these theories as it may deserve. Hubble expansion measured at the visible horizon of the universe, a horizon that recedes from us at the speed of light, is approximately 2.64E-18  or in laymen’s terms 0.00000000000000264% per second.  This endless, minuscule expansion of every sphere, large or small, represents a constant acceleration of the surface or horizon of that sphere. Einstein postulated that constant acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. It is therefore worth spending some thought on the idea that gravity may be partially driven by Hubble expansion. Professor Milgrom cites as an exciting possibility, “The vacuum. The vacuum is what is left when one annihilates all matter (or equivalently energy) that can be annihilated …….. the interaction of the vacuum with particles might contribute to the inertia of objects ….. the vacuum also enters cosmology as on explanation for cold dark matter.” I believe that the vacuum of any sphere in the universe is momentarily increased by Hubble, as the stuff inside that sphere (radiation, plasma or particles) attenuates, before being refilled from the omni-present background radiation. I have further speculated that sphere’s of matter – say at the centre of large planets or stars – or in any element, have formed surfaces that hold back the incoming radiation for fractionally longer, and thus have a stronger, attractive vacuum for a microcosm of time. It is these ubiquitous Hubble vacuums, varying with the density of matter, I believe, that are the reality behind CDM as they pull on each another. How this fits with MOND will take me many months or years to understand. But I see no scientific reason to yet change my construct “Universe”, about the creation of matter and CDM, on my web site


Noel Hodson


Return to http//






Noel Hodson, 14 Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ

Tel +44 (0)1865 760994 fax 764520


The Letters Editor

New Scientist Magazine

letters @


CC Aharon Davidson, Ben-Gurion University, Beersheba

       LEP elctroweak working group CERN


21 December 2001.


A Christmas gift to physicists searching for dark matter and Higg’s boson.


Adrian Cho’s article “Darker and Darker” (NS 22/29 December 2001 page 10) revisits the mystery of dark matter, thought by many to be required to glue the universe together. My view is that Hubble expansion is the missing, mysterious dark force sought. If Aharon Davidson’s team at Ben-Gurion University re-run their “brane” model and factor-in the expansion of the universe, I guess they will find what they are seeking.  I suggest they apply 2.642482665314E-18 percent per second as the average/mean expansion factor. I speculate that expanding matter exerts “pull” in proportion to its surface tension. To embrace the idea that gravity is expansion requires attention to three sadly neglected scientific beliefs – first that Hubble was right and that the universe is indeed expanding – second that space is something rather than nothing and is stuff that can expand and attenuate – third that constant expansion (acceleration of a surface of a sphere) is indistinguishable from gravity; as Einstein asserted.


Happy Christmas




Noel Hodson




Opinion Letters, New Scientist Magazine

27th Sept  2001. By Fax 020 7 331 2777 and Email


I note that Steinn Siggurdson says he publicised his theory of planetary formation, a new dimension of space and a huge increases in Newton’s inverse law of gravity on submillimetre scales “as a bit if fun – to see if anyone could knock it down”. And Marcus Chown elevates it as above “merely a theorists fantasy”. (Pulling Power, Marcus Chown, NS 29 Sept 01). In the same spirit of open debate would you now on the 4th time of writing extend the courtesy of allowing me, an amateur, but a devoted reader of NS since its first issue (Yes, I’m that old), to comment via your letter pages and to outline my theory that seems to fit some of the data, or at the very least please pass this note to Steinn Siggurdson and Marcus Chown for their comments.

If Hubble expansion is the prime driver in the universe and if it acts at every scale, then every zone or bubble or globe of space/time is expanding; by a percentage of each globe’s surface, that gets larger every second – this is constant acceleration. Einstein demonstrated that constant acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. Let’s assume that expansion is gravity and vice-versa. The basic stuff or energy of the universe is light (the electro-magnetic spectrum). We have dismissed the existence of the ether but wherever we choose to erect a sensitive screen in the universe, light will be detected. It is an energy that is everywhere at all times. It is the stuff of the universe. Imagine a zone or globe that expands and attenuates the energy field, causing a vacuum. Light rushes in to fill it. It expands again, light again rushes in to fill it. This process and pulse is everywhere and it never ceases as the universe expands. Randomly, light collides in these zones of expansion and in some instances creates spin at the square of their impact speed (no friction exists to slow them down). Such vortices are the first fractals of matter – and they are also expanding constantly. This leads to the uncomfortable image that the Earth is expanding, and that so are we. Imagine the zones are quantum defined at the Big-Bang moment, and they are everywhere. Randomly, a zone will suck in a fractal of matter; that in turn has compressed the equivalent of several zones and acquired mass and inertia – all expanding. As such mass expands it has a material surface that slows the tendency to refill the attenuated space and allows a more powerful vacuum to form, it is a stronger attractor than open space. Gravity has become apparent and that zone is actively attractive. Think of it as an in-falling zone. It does not rely on random collisions to build its mass and therefore the mass will build more rapidly. The “gravity radiation” or gravitons that elude particle physicists are, in this theory, the in-falling of any zone, that pulls or attracts energy and matter from its immediate surroundings into the hole caused by expansion – in a field force effect, at a constant rate, that Einstein tells us is indistinguishable from gravity. I propose it is but a small mental leap to imagine that expansion is gravity – and if so, this new perspective, this new dynamic tension throughout the universe will answer some of the perplexing questions Sigurdsson and many others are investigating.


This Gravity-is-Expansion theory, I aver, is a lot more fun than Stienn Siggurdson’s theory. It gets scary when the question is put – “what happens if it all stops expanding?”


Noel Hodson

14 Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ. 




Return to http//



Opinion Letters, New Scientist Magazine

21st April 2001. By Fax and Email.


Stuart Clark’s article Chasing Shadows (NS2287 21s April 2001), updates reports on the cosmologists’ search for CDM, WIMPS and dark galaxies. These phenomena may or may not be found to exist. However, the fundamental factor for measuring the universe and for making many of the calculations that trigger the searches for missing “dark” matter is Hubble’s Constant for the expansion of the universe. The application of Hubble’s Constant necessarily creates a set of circular arguments, but it has been widely accepted and is the basis for the Big Bang theory.  The implications of expansion seem to be not factored into the search for the alleged missing mass that, for example, holds galaxies together. If scientists rely on the Big Bang theory they should also accept expansion. The effects of expansion are, it seems, ignored. However tenuous the, in practical terms, infinite fabric of the universe and its energy fields may be, if the whole is constantly expanding then those elements must also be expanding and must for a short, virtual moment of expansion become even more tenuous. This attenuation must occur on every scale and in every zone or sphere of the universe, however large or small. It may vary with mass and other features and forces. Such attenuation would, logically, create an attractive, binding force. The most reliable data about the rate of expansion (though again a circular argument), is that the visible perimeter, circumference or horizon of the visible universe accelerates away from us, the observers, at the speed of light.  As a percentage of the universe it is a small effect – but then so is gravity. And if, as the Americans say, we do the Mathĺ, it may be seen as a significant part of the solution to missing matter. Perhaps not matter at all, but rather the absence of it.


Noel Hodson

14  Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ, UK        


ĺ We believe the radius (age) of the visible universe to be about 12 billion light years, receding at 300,000 kilometres per second. Adding 300,000 kilometres to the radius and calculating the change in the circumference gives a factor of 2.642482665314E –18 (0.00000000000000264% per second).  




Opinion Letters, New Scientist Magazine

1st Feb 2001. By Fax 020 7 331 2777 and Email




The article, Medium Mass, by Marcus Chown 3rd Feb 2001, on Mass, Inertia and Gravity, reviewing the work of Haisch, Rueda, Wesson and Puthoff  prompted me to contemplate my own agreeable mass and inertia. On Earth I weigh 13.5 stone of perfectly formed, but aging bone and muscle, leavened with a few ounces of brain cells. I daily fight the heroic fight to remain vertical against the forces of gravity. To stop the fight I would need to travel 250,000 miles from Earth where I could bob about in space weighing just 0.5 Newtons or half the weight of a Cox’s Pippin. But this easeful existence would not last. As the article hints, the quantum vacuum of the space immediately next to me, Earth-side, would appear for a virtual instant and suck me into it. Quantum here refers to the smallest spheres, zones or quantum jumps at the base of the fabric of the universe. A moment later the next minuscule vacuum would open, I would fill it and be two quanta nearer the Earth. This gentle process would continue at an accelerating rate until one fateful day my mass would be sucked back into the Earth’s atmosphere and either burnt to a crisp or flattened onto the surface in a futile attempt to reach the ultimate (local) vacuum at the centre of the Earth.  According to Einstein it would be impossible for me to know if I had indeed fallen to Earth or if the Earth’s surface had expanded upwards to thwack me at 32 feet per second per second, or at a barely detectable 1.8E-06% expansion per second of its circumference. As Marcus Chown avers, the concept of vacuums in space is just lazy terminology. There are no vacuums in space as it is filled with energy, mostly electro-magnetic energy (light) that can be seen anywhere in the universe – just erect a large screen in the darkest region of space and it will glow, however faintly, with starlight. Outside the energy field is true void or no-thing, an annihilation of existence that is better not to contemplate. Should the energy field open onto the void, a terrible prospect, it would create what I call a supra-vacuum, that would be instantly filled with energy or matter. As the universe expands at Hubble’s rate or even at the infinitesimal rate of 2.6E-18% of its circumference per second (as measured at a radius and light-horizon of 12B light years), the energy field may attenuate and form super-vacuums. These real vacuums would multi-directionally attract light (energy) and some perfect collisions would occur where light collides with light at light speed, forming vortices spinning at 90 billion kilometres per second or C2. The surface tension of these vortices is, I believe, the basis of matter and mass. They are the universal fractals of matter. As the vortices draw energy from their immediate surroundings, they create a margin of slight vacuum just beyond the surface. These near-surface-vacuums attract the fractals one to another. The spinning surfaces repel one another. This push-pull dynamic is stable matter. However, if Hubble is right, the universe is also expanding and logically this occurs at every scale. It is the space-time continuum that expands. The virtual vacuums that Marcus Chown writes about, are likely to be the result of expansion. Because we and all our measures also expand, and because the rate is so small (2.6E-18% per second at the universe horizon), we experience an endless expansion, void, fill and collapse (in fact not a collapse but a new expansion) – in other words a pulse or vibration.  I believe, as Marcus Chown alludes, that what we call gravity, the gentle tug across space, is the result of energy and matter flowing from expansion vacuum to vacuum, drawn to the stronger, longer lasting vacuums protected in the heart of compacted mass. Thus matter is being continuously, but rarely, created across the universe and the force of gravity is being created, both by the force of Hubble expansion. Gravity is Expansion.


Noel Hodson

14 Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ. 





Return to http//



Opinion Letters, New Scientist Magazine

8 April 2000. By Fax and Email.


The three articles on black-holes in New Scientist  1st April 2000; by Marcus Chown, on atom sized black holes and by Nigel Henbest and by Stephen Battersby on quasars, radio jets and galactic sized black holes tacitly assume that black-holes are collapsed very large objects, compressed by gravity – a force that, as Newton’s apple demonstrated, is self-evident but, as the continuing search for gravitons and CDM illustrate, is not yet understood. The observed and theoretical characteristics of black-holes, particularly the emission of immensely energetic radio jets, might better fit with Hubbard’s expanding universe than with the concept of matter crushing itself into the total annihilation of a singularity and quitting the universe.


Einstein demonstrated in his constantly accelerating windowless elevator thought experiment that gravity and constant acceleration are indistinguishable from each other. If Hubble expansion is to be incorporated into universal theories then every zone (e.g. sphere), at every scale, sub-atomic through galactic to universal, must logically be expanding at a constant (or variable) rate of acceleration. Einstein tells us that we would not know whether our experience of weight were due to gravity or expansion – if we were to stand on the surface of a sphere in Hubble’s ever expanding universe. We must ask ourselves just what is expanding in Hubble’s universe – just what is the fabric of the universe that stretches and grows infinitely; and what local effect does such expansion have on attenuating energy and matter.


The existence of galactic and atomic black holes implies that black holes may exist at any scale in any part of the universe. If, as Fred Hoyle postulated many years ago (before recanting), the universe is being constantly created at all points and if, as Einstein demonstrated, we cannot distinguish between expansion (acceleration) and gravity and if Hubble’s interpretation of red-shift being evidence for universal expansion is correct, the ubiquitous black holes could be caused by expansion – and they could be spawning not destroying matter.


Thought of as vacuums created by the attenuation of the stuff of the universe as it expands, black holes would exhibit exactly the same behaviour and characteristics as collapsed gravitational objects. The power of expansion would attenuate the universal fabric and nature, abhorring a vacuum would rush to fill the void – with energy and matter. As the void of a black hole was filled, bearing in mind that the zone is constantly expanding, a pulse would occur of expansion, void, fill, expansion. The in-rushing or in-falling energy and matter would collide, become plasma due the impact and recoil. It may be postulated that the collisions of energy in these zones created and still create primary particles.


Thus paradoxically, zones of Hubble expansion would attract matter and energy as the zones push out their boundaries. This expansive, attractive force would in all ways be indistinguishable from gravity. CDM would be explained by the existence of innumerable, invisible black holes. Black holes rather than being The Great Annihilators of Nigel Henbest’s article, would in fact be the fundamental unifying force and the creators of the universe.


Noel Hodson

14 Brookside OXFORD OX3 7PJ     



Return to