This, IMO, is a more appropriate venue for this sort of conversation. In that, I hope to address some of the conflicts the sci-fi writer may encounter when researching the realistic content needed to build a setting. I've been working as an independent mind laboring in freedom from the mainstream, academic food chain for nearly 40 years. That means I earn my research funds through other means and generally gain the ability to thumb my nose at academic leaders that omit elements from their research because a predecessor has deemed it insignificant. Through this, in 1994 I began to develop a theorem that explained the Tachocline http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~bpbrown/Welcome.html originally postulated by Brown in 1987, if I recall correctly. By 1998 NASA had released some information about the thermal structure of the sun. Below is my own sketch made in 1995, shortly after the launch of SOHO. This was later shown promise by NASA's release of this image constructed from the probe's data. The blue areas are the hottest zones. Red zones are the coldest. In 1998 I submitted a proposal for antigravity propulsion to NASA. It included the comparisons of the two quite in depth. The proposal was declined, however, in 2005 NASA Channel aired a series about SOHO depicting that middle layer to be just such an interface between the inner core and the convection zone as I predicted. My requests for recognition by the space agency were continually ignored. In 2008 a judge looked at some of this in a "Request For Judicial Notice" and the result was him allowing me to use the title Doctor with my name. It hasn't changed the ignorance I receive from the mainstream academics. In fact that has made it worse yet in so jealous a field. Nonetheless it doesn't change the fact that physics is based up-on the foundations of math, nor does it change how mainstream scientific minds lead the aspiring sci-fi writer astray in their quest to accurately envision a plausible concept of interstellar flight. The asymptote is a mathematical structure where 1 is asymptotically equal to -1, in its simplest definition. Its intended graph depicts a curve where x at y descends below 0 to become -x at -y. We see real world examples of this in binary stars where the dominant star is assimilating the host. Dark matter and dark energy must conform to this. Dark matter, entertaining light speed as a universal velocity limit against my personal scientific opinion, must include opposite physics. What string theory would define as an extra dimension defined simply as "out" or "in," would reverse in dark matter. Entropy is similarly inverted, among a myriad of other factors following that same condition. Hand wave all we like. If this were not so, dark matter/energy would not be defined as "missing" quantum.
I get ignored, treated like an imbecile, a quack or any combination of those. After being blown off for three years by Lewis Research Center, a fellow starts to form a negative opinion about these other "physicists." In fact I get better audience with MD's. At least they treat me as though I'm actually there instead of the invisible man.
The above is a Hubble Space Telescope image of a forming star in the Taurus constellation, known as DG Tau B. The pixels that comprise the influx of matter near the image's fringe show no relationship to the RGB values of the pre-ignited (I claim) star. That suggests that matter is producing its own light devoid of the plasma jets being squeezed out of what may likely be a dark matter conflict. The overlay is my added exemplary work.We see the asymptotic relationship at the center of that conflict. I've presented this concept to scientific circles. It's been a waste of time. It does, nonetheless, beg to validate the chronology of Genesis.
