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.

Like looking in a mirror

When we see the distant universe accelerating away, it is like looking in a mirror. What we see there is also happening here.

But this distant image is so foreign to us we don't recognize it. So to make sense of it, we have constructed a theoretical world that doesn't exist. We say that dark matter, which we cannot see, must be causing this acceleration through some dark energy, which we cannot measure.

As I have chronicled in this blog, I think I have another explanation for the accelerating expansion of space. Applying my theory, it became more clear to me today how this phenomenon is manifest in our world.

Based on the results of my experiment this month, it is appears that gravity on Earth diminishes from day to night. It dawned on me this morning that by a similar experiment, it should become apparent that the Earth is losing its gravity. And if my theory is correct, all the planets, moons, asteroids and other stable masses in our solar system are losing their gravity.

This is due to the accelerating expansion of space. As I proposed in my first articles on this subject, the Big Bang is pushing matter such as planets, stars and galaxies against the fabric of space. This matter is stretching space so thin that the matter meets less resistance and therefore accelerates.

That resistance is manifest in weight. The less resistance, the less weight or gravity.

If that is true in the distant universe, then it should be true in the local universe. In other words, space is stretching such that gravity is diminishing everywhere.

Five-sixth's of the way there

My gravity experiment was a success.

According to gravimetric readings I requested from the University of Montana, gravity increased during the day and decreased each night on January 3, 4 and 5, 2009. This is precisely what I predicted by applying my gravity theory. See my blog dated Nov. 26, 2007.

One of the six readings, however, showed an opposite result. I do not have an explanation for the difference yet, but I am awaiting further information from the university. So I am 5/6's excited about the prospects for my theory.

Despite this encouraging development, I am still guarded about sharing my theory with a broader scientific audience. I suspect there will be other explanations for the results and certainly criticisms for my theory.

But I feel more confident that I have not been on a fool's errand. I think I am on the road to understanding.

Waiting for the bottom to drop out

As I have waited for the results of my gravity experiment, I have tried not to think about my theory because I do not want to preoccupy myself with it until I have some confirmation about its viability. 

I guess I have been bracing for the possibility that the bottom will drop out. I don't want to invest more of my mental energy if it is a flawed idea. But I couldn't help myself as I mused about another application of my theory this week.

I was thinking about the phenomenon of weightlessness that passengers experience as they descend in airplanes faster than gravity pulls them down. Astronauts train in this zero-gravity environment, and even tourists can pay to have the experience.

In my musing, it occurred to me that objects on Earth should also experience weightlessness if the planet suddenly accelerates around the Sun faster than gravity is pulling it through space. If so, then this phenomenon further illustrates my gravity theory.

According to my theory, gravity is an effect of matter moving through space.  Everything is moving with the inertia of the Big Bang but things slow down as they meet resistance. And that resistance is manifest in weight.

If my theory applies, the zero-gravity phenomenon shows that matter does not have an inherent attractive force but is an effect of matter moving through space. As extrapolated from the experience of passengers on a speedily descending plane, the accelerating planet will leave its inhabitants floating in space once the bottom drops out, so to speak. 

In other words, everything --- planets, planes and people --- are moving through space. The Big Bang is propelling us all, and we sense resistance to that motion as weight.

Until the results of my gravity experiment, however, I guess I'll just float around in my own world.