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.