End of a chapter

I published a book called "An Amateur Astronomer's Guide to Gravity," incorporating much of the information from this blog, so I will end this chapter of my life in the blogosphere.

If something signficant occurs regarding my theory, I may re-emerge to chronicle my exploration of gravity. But for now it seems like I have contributed my two cents in the universe.

Not so fast . . .

Sometimes I have to slow down on my path to understanding gravity. I may even have to take a few steps back and re-think some ideas.

For example, I was probably moving too fast when I opined on Feb. 6, 2009, that blacks holes may be the fastest objects in the universe. I reached that conclusion because it made sense as I applied my theory that gravity is an effect of matter in motion from the Big Bang.

After all, black holes have the greatest gravity in the known universe. Therefore, I reasoned, they must be moving very fast.

However, scientific observations have not corroborated my conclusion. I don't think we know how fast black holes are moving through space. So I started to see a crack in my theory as it applied to black holes.

On the other hand, astronomers have observed that black holes are spinning incredibly fast. Likewise, neutron stars --- which are almost as heavy as black holes --- are also spinning extremely fast. So I don't think I missed the point completely.

It seems that the cumulative motion of matter, including its expansion and rotation through spacetime, creates the effect of gravity. I previously scratched the surface of this subject when I applied my theory to planets, asteroids and other objects creating turbulence in spacetime.

Once I slowed down and applied this idea to black holes, I began to feel a little more comfortable with my theory. It also made sense because general relativity states that matter gains mass, or relativistic mass, as it accelerates.

In other words, matter gains more gravity as it accelerates. That explains the black hole a little better.

Blow me up, Scotty

Here's a fun thought experiment:

If you could blow up a ball to the same mass as the Earth, what would happen?

Although I am not a physicist or mathematician, I believe Newtonian physics predicts that the ball and the Earth would stick together because of their inherent gravity. But I believe Einstein's general relativity predicts that the objects would drift apart into their own curvatures of space.

It would be an interesting experiment because, assuming my prediction, it suggests that gravity is not an inherent property of matter. It is not an inherent property of a ball or of a planet, or anything in between.

Gravity, in my view, is an effect of matter in motion from the Big Bang. And as matter increases in mass, the Big Bang affects it more. This is consistent with general relativity.

In our thought experiment, the inflated ball proceeds on its own course independently through space because the Big Bang is moving it just like the Earth. The inflated ball establishes an orbit around the Sun, falling into its curvature, just like the other planets in our solar system.

So if we wanted to populate a new planet, I guess we could just inflate our own and launch it from Earth. Now wasn't that a fun?

If this, then what?

If the Big Bang is causing the universe to expand, then what is it doing here on Earth?

The answer seems to admit an undeniable reality: the Big Bang must be doing something here. But even though scientists have said for decades that the Big Bang is causing the universe to expand everywhere else, they have not recognized its role on Earth.

As chronicled in this blog, I see it this way:

The Big Bang is moving everything, including objects on Earth. When we see objects "falling" on Earth, we are watching the Big Bang in action. To conceptualize this dynamic, it helps to think of "falling" as "moving."

Newton's apple, for example, was "falling" with the inertia of the Big Bang. The apple was in free-fall until it ran into the Earth.

Likewise, the Moon is falling around the Earth, which is falling around the Sun, which is falling around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, and so on. It makes sense to me that the Big Bang is the cause of all this "falling," or motion. It is moving all matter through space.

However, most scientists say the Big Bang is causing space itself to expand --- rather than causing matter to move through space. In other words, galaxies, stars and planets are just along for the ride, like ants on an expanding balloon. But that explanation begs the same rhetorical question:

If the Big Bang is causing the universe to expand, what is it doing here on the Earth?

Meandering math

My mind meanders occasionally as I explore my gravity theory, so I write down my ideas to give them direction. Today, I put down some numbers to help.

Well-known gravity measurements show a difference in gravity at the equator and at the poles, which I call the equatorial gravity difference. Measured in terms of acceleration, the difference is about .043 meters per second. Translated into a percentage of the weight of a given mass, that means things weigh about .5% more at the equator than at the poles.

My gravity measurements, taken for my experiment earlier this year, show a difference between gravity in the day and in the night. I call this the diurnal gravity difference. It is about .000185 centimeters per second, a much smaller difference but still measurable. I calculate it to be about .0115% more weight in the day than in the night.

To illustrate, a 6,800-pound sports utility vehicle weighs about 34 pounds more at the equator than at the poles. Applying my gravity measurements, it also weighs about .782 pounds more in the day than in the night. With a heavier object, the difference is more significant.

For example, a 162,000,000-pound aircraft carrier weighs about 810,000 pounds more at the equator than at the poles. Using my gravity measurements, it also weighs about 18,630 pounds more in the day than at night.

While the equatorial gravity difference is generally an accepted fact, the dirunal gravity difference is my invention. At least, I believe I am the first to propose it exists based upon my experiment.

Of course, my findings are preliminary and more testing will probably produce a more accurate measurement of the difference. (My experiment was conducted on Jan. 3, 4 and 5, 2009. Long-term measurements will give a better average.) But the experimental data shows that there is a diurnal gravity difference.

I believe my gravity theory, which led to my prediction about the diurnal gravity difference, also explains the equatorial gravity difference. Gravity is a product of mass in motion. The Earth is moving through space and straining against spacetime, and more of the Earth's mass is accumulated at the equator due to its rotation. As a result, there is greater resistance to the Earth's movement at the equator and concurrently a greater gravitational effect there.

Passing through and flying by

As long as I am just passing through life, I may as well offer an explanation for another gravity puzzle called the "flyby anomaly."

Various spacecraft, including Galileo and NEAR,  have accelerated faster than expected when exiting from their slingshot maneuvers around the Earth.  Using this manueaver, scientists give spacecraft gravity boosts into space. The unexpected acceleration has been called the "flyby anomaly" because current gravity theories do not explain the phenomenon.

So I'll throw in my two cents, suggesting again that gravity is an effect of matter moving through space. In this case, the Earth is accelerating as it approaches the Sun and creating a deeper gravity well in spacetime. As a result, the spacecraft are falling into the gravity well and then are getting a bigger slingshot boost than Newtonian physics would suggest.

Of course, this is just a flyby explanation of these phenomenon. I have not given it serious thought. But it seems to me that if the principal theory is true, then this explanation should be true so long as I have applied the theory correctly.

Moving black holes

Black holes, according to my theory, are created by matter moving through space. They are not a product of dense matter in a static universe. They are part of an accelerating universe.

Smashing through the fabric of space, these dense phenomena obtain their massive gravitational effect through their accelaration. They may be the fastest-moving objects in the expansion of space, out-running even light particles in a sense. Not even light can escape their gravity.

This may be a bold assertion, but I think it is simply an extension of particle physics to astrophysics. In the realm of particle physics, scientists predict that they can create blacks holes by smashing atomic particles together at near light speed. In other words, black holes will be created by matter moving through space.

I think this idea is consistent with Einstein's equivalence principle --- that the force of gravity is equivalent to the force of accelaration. Or as I think of it, a physical law should be universally true. But I am no Einstein; I'm just a lawyer.