Sunrise, sunset

The fate of my gravity theory should rise or fall with the new year.

I have enlisted the help of volunteers at the University of Montana, which houses a Worden gravimeter, to measure gravity there on Jan. 3, 4, and 5, 2009. The measurements should confirm or refute my theory that gravity is an effect of matter meeting resistance in space.

As I predicted in my blog entry on Nov. 26, 2007, gravity measurements should be stronger on the side of the Earth facing the Sun on those dates. I have not divulged my theory to the university volunteers, so I am anticipating results that will have the quality of a blind study.

While I am hopeful that my theory will be supported by the measurements, I will feel more relief than disappointment if the measurements do not support my theory. I have been mentally wrapped up in this idea for almost two years, and it has been unsettling not to know whether it is a good idea or not.

I have resigned myself to either eventuality. In either case, I want to focus on writing fiction in the near future.

At least I know I have a good imagination.

Alexander Friedman and relative peace

I couldn't go to sleep one night recently because I was troubled about the likelihood that my gravity theory will not be taken seriously.

I struggle with this concern because I realize it seems ludicruous that I, having no credential or standing in the scientific community, might have a deep insight about gravity. And what is more troubling, I still believe my basic theory is valid. So I persist to the point that it causes me to lose sleep on occasion.

But on this night, I was comforted as I remembered the fate of Alexander Friedman. He is relatively unknown in scientific history, but he was right about his theory of the universe.

Working in some isolation from others in the field of general relativity, he was the first to conclude mathematically that the universe was expanding. But he was rebuffed, even by the father of relativity --- Albert Einstein.

Unfortunately, Friedman died at age 37 before his theory was validated when Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe through his telescope in 1929. And Einstein himself recanted, acknowledging what he called his "biggest blunder."

So if my ideas are not validated, at least I got to sleep one night because of Alexander Friedman. I think that is "relative peace."

Surfing the cosmos

Astronomers discovered another dwarf planet in our solar system and recently named it "Haumea"after the Hawaiian goddess of fertility.

As a Hawaiian, I'd like to dedicate an aspect of my gravity theory to this newest member of the solar system. I call it gravity wakes, or "the Haumea effect."

When a planet or other massive object rolls though space, it curves space and creates a wake along the way. Curved space is not a new concept. We can thank Einstein and general relativity for that. But a gravity wake is new. I'll accept the blame for it.

The idea follows from my theory that gravity is an effect of matter meeting resistance as it moves through space. As I have refined the application of this theory to rotating bodies, I have another prediction about gravity.

I predict that the gravity wake will be smoother for bascially round bodies as they rotate, and that the wake will be rougher for asymmetrical, rotating bodies. I hinted at this in my article titled "The Core of the Apple."

In that article, I said that the Earth has gravity variances around the globe because of its turbulent effect on spacetime as the planet moves through the cosmos. It dawns on me now that asymmetrical bodies --- like some dwarf planets and asteroids --- will have a more turbulent effect.

It is like the difference between dropping a smooth, round object and a jagged-edged object in water. With sufficient mass, both objects will fall but the turbulence following each object will vary on the way down. In extreme cases, the objects will fall in perceptibly different paths as well.

Haumea, for example, orbits the Sun in an irregular path --- through Pluto's orbit and higher than the other planets and dwarves. It also rotates faster than any planet or dwarf in the solar system. If it exhibits variable gravity, it may be due to the fact that Haumea is irregularly shaped, more oblong than round, creating an unusual gravity wake as it surfs the cosmos.

Atom-smashing gravity

No doubt, the Large Hadron Collider will produce some unexpected results when it goes online.

Applying my gravity theory to the possibilities, I predict that one result may be the discovery of uneven gravity waves emanating from the supercollider. That's because the LHC will smash atomic particles at unprecedented speeds, and the equivalence principle --- which equates acceleration and gravity --- dictates that the accelerated particles will manifest a gravity-like effect.

I suppose it is not a revelation to say that gravity waves will be that effect. I don't know, but I think general relativists probably foresee that result. However, my theory breaks down general relativity's implications on Earth. Basically, I think that the Earth creates turbulence in spacetime as it plows through space and that is what holds objects on Earth rather than matter attracting matter.

So I suspect that in the realm of atoms, where gravity will be manifest in some way through the LHC, the effect will be even more tumultuous. Perhaps gravity will be really mixed up.

Or maybe I'm mixed up. Thank goodness, it's just a theory.

Occam's Razor and lunar recession

Occam's Razor is a principle that says, all things being equal, the theory with the simplest solution is the best. When it comes to explaining lunar recession, I think my gravity theory is simpler than the generally accepted theory of gravity.

Lunar recession is a matter of fact. The Moon is moving away from the Earth at about 1.5 inches a year. In time, it will break free of its orbit around the planet. Why this is occuring is a matter of theory.

Newton's gravity theory, which says gravity is an attractive force inherent in all matter, explains that the Moon is receding from the Earth because of tidal forces. Basically, the theory states the Moon's gravity pulls the oceans to form a bulge around the Earth. The bulge is rotating slightly ahead of the Moon's orbit and the bulge's gravity is pulling the Moon to accelerate. Simply put, the oceans are pulling the Moon out of orbit.

My gravity theory, which proposes that gravity is felt as matter meets resistance as it moves through space, posits that the Moon is receding because space is getting thinner as the universe expands. With less resistance as it moves through the cosmos, the Earth is losing gravity. Simply put, gravity is getting weaker.

Simplicity, of course, is not determinative. Other factors should be considered.

For example, another factor is that the Earth's mass is 81 times times greater than the Moon's and 125,000 times more than its oceans. And the Earth is getting more massive all the time. It accumulates about 40 million tons of space dust, meteorites and other material every day.

In other words, in Newtonian terms, the Earth's gravity is overwhelmingly larger than its oceans and should be keeping the Moon in its orbit or even pulling the Moon closer rather than pushing it away. Unless, or course, gravity is getting weaker.

The Big Bang and kinetic energy

Kinetic energy --- the energy of matter in motion --- is another expression of my theory that the Big Bang is moving all matter through space and creating the effect of gravity.

Kinetic energy takes many forms in the cosmos, i.e. the orbit of planets, the rotation of solar systems, etc. Applied to gravity in the traditional sense, it is called gravitational potential energy.

In my theory, kinetic or gravitational potential energy must take into account that all matter is moving. For example, even a book at rest on a table is moving. It is moving along with the rotation of the Earth, its orbit around the Sun, the solar system's trek through our galaxy, etc. In other words, the book's kinetic or gravitational potential energy must include the expansion of the universe caused by the Big Bang.

This fact shows that we do not live in a stationary environment. And when we see objects like a book falling off a table --- which is kinetic or gravitational potential energy in action --- we are actually seeing the Big Bang in action.

The flip side of relativistic mass?

One of the odd conclusions of relativity is that matter will gain mass as it accelerates. It is called relativistic mass.

I think my theory --- that gravity is an effect of matter moving through space --- makes some sense of this counter-intuitive conclusion. In my view, the matter does not gain mass. Instead, the matter gains more of the force of gravity --- manifest in weight --- because it meets more resistance as it accelerates through space.

Think of it like a bullet being shot out of a gun. At slow speeds, the bullet will impact with less force. At higher speeds, the bullet will impact with greater force. The bullet does not gain mass; it gains force.

Likewise, objects moving through space gain the effect of gravity as they accelerate. Basically, they meet more resistance as they accelerate through space. They do not gain mass; they gain the force of gravity.

From this perspective, relativistic mass is the flip side of my theory that gravity is a quality of matter in motion.

Finally, a debate

I was pleased to learn that Sirius Astronomer, a publication of the Orange County Astronomy Club, published one of my articles on gravity recently. But I was more excited to find out that a reader had written to the editor about it.

Donald Lynn, a respected member of the club, expressed concerns that my article was reported as a scientific fact rather than a scientific theory. As proof, he cited the Michelson-Morley experiment to refute my theory that gravity is an effect of matter meeting resistance in space. He wrote:

"The theory that the fabric of space presents resistance was thoroughly disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, at least insofar as resistance to light. If one wishes to claim resistance affects matter but not light, then one has to disprove General Relativity, which claims gravity affects both light and matter."

I responded to his letter with my own. I said:

"The Michelson-Morley experiment did not, as Mr. Lynn states in his letter, disprove 'the theory that the fabric of space presents resistance.' That experiment disproved the existence of a 'luminiferous aether,' a theoretical medium through which light traveled.

"The 'fabric of space,' as used in my article, is equated with Albert Einstein's reference to 'space-time' in his theory on general relativity. And Einstein's work did not discard the notion of resistance. He said in 1920:

“'...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable . . .'

Citing Einstein, I think I won this debate about my theory. In other words, I think I showed that my theory is consistent with general relativity.

I do not boast because, afterall, I am just a self-taught, amateur astronomer. But I am confident in my logic: If the Big Bang is moving galaxies, stars and planets through space in the cosmos, then it is moving objects through space on Earth. In other words, gravity is an apparent effect of the Big Bang.

To read more, check out http://www.ocastronomers.org/e-zine/sirius_astronomer/SA_2008_02.pdf