How Kavli Institute and others fail

The Kavli Institute and many other brain childs fall short in at least the discipline of fresh discovery and astronomy.

At the age of 6 six I asked questions of my parents about the existences and accuracy of reports. Soon they could not contrive answers. So they gathered some books and laid them out on the table and said, you choose. Two large categories I decided to pay attention to and have so for decades and even until now and will beyond. I kept studying these two areas while I was going through school, and not in school and any time I had free.

I spent hours at our city library which was across a bridge and I went no matter what weather the Pacific Northwest could throw at me to read and read and read.

Shortly after junior high 1964, I surveyed in my mind what I had gathered and drew a conclusion on what truly was the state of the universe and what truly was the dominant component. This after reading many science articles. I could not conceive that others who also must read the same material would disagree.

NO ONE agreed. Not just at that time but for decades after. My school buddies could not agree, my teachers I presented it to would not agree (education is supposed to be non biased, objective!), science teachers would not support it, my parents did not support it, university professors who I went to would not support it, Raytheon employees would not support it ("oh! everything must be light!"). 

I wrote to other professors and institutes and got no reply or that I could not be congruent with their academia. My conclusion is by simple reflection.  And so it went on for years despite my sharing the scientific information that is plain as day as other data. Was I alone? It strongly felt like it, based on responses. Hundreds of people and not one could agree

At a school distant from my own, I finally got only a glimmer of hope. One and only one science professor responded, "Wait".

And I waited and waited for years and pursued it in reports, papers. Finally the ice started breaking in the 1980's. Nervous data seeped through to the doubtful world. Things were starting to tally up differently than the well hammered hypothesis every one earlier followed. Observations on ground and in space began to force a rethink of the universe. It is looking dark and may be dominated by darkness not light. The pie charts quietly were placing the greater percentage with the dark and it was growing with incoming data.

The bombshell hit in early 1998, undetected by all the "know -it-alls" and brainy ones, about 70% of the universe is dominated by a "dark energy" never before known. How can they miss 70 per cent? Yet the "experts" did. Then it was found that over 85% of matter budget you cannot see is called "dark matter". Turns out that the visible part of the universe has been and is only 1% of the total budget. I was right! I said that back in 1964, I concluded the universe is dark based on science readings.

I understood my early reading correctly-and brainier ones could not. And even today there are many that still deny that the universe is mostly dark, even after all the published and televised information put out. (Hey, I should be sitting pretty by now with my early knowledge of the universe others didn't see (and other events) rather than living in a hovel-useless presuppositions) And now there is even posited a "dark sector". As of yet, I do my research by my own all these years. No one steps up to support this study.

[and now freely I stare at the Virgo cluster, while others must invest in expensive structures, tons of metal and fuel]

And with those results, the nay sayers still insist they are qualified to run the projects of today and the future. What more will be found overlooked?

And further, I cannot escape the conclusions that the universe is an open one and others have not obviated  that the frontier of the cosmos has nothing to impede its expansion.