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.

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

Gravity experiment

The diagram above illustrates the point on Earth in its orbit around the Sun where I predict gravity will be the strongest based on my theory that gravity is an effect of matter moving through space. The "tail" marks the point on the Earth where this increased gravity should be most apparent.

I propose that gravity measurements --- or weights --- will vary on Earth at different times of the year and day because the Earth is creating turbulence in spacetime as it orbits the Sun. The greatest gravity will be observed when the Earth is nearest the Sun --- January 3 --- and at a point on the Earth's surface which is between the point closest to the Sun --- a place in daylight --- and opposite the direction in which the Earth is traveling.

This variation will be small because of the Sun's overwhelming effect on the Earth, but my theory will explain the difference. It will not be due to an attractive force of matter because in that case gravity would be greatest at a point on the Earth's surface farthest from the Sun. In other words, if matter has an inherent attractive force then the gravity of the Sun and the Earth would combine to create the greatest gravity at a point opposite the side of the Earth facing the Sun --- a place in the night.

Instead, my theory explains that gravity is the effect of the Earth moving against the fabric of space as it orbits the Sun. This motion is due to the Big Bang, which is causing all matter to move through space. The variations in gravity on Earth are due to the density of matter and the speed of its motion, such that the Earth will exhibit the greatest gravity when it is moving the fastest and meeting the most resistance. In other words, gravity will be the strongest when the Earth is closest to the Sun.

It is just a theory, and it must take into account other variables in this context, such as the position of the Moon and other planets. But my prediction in this experiment may tend to prove that gravity is an effect of matter moving through space rather than an attractive force of matter.

Cosmic terminal velocity

I had stalled in my thoughts about gravity recently, needing to gain some perspective about my ideas and myself from a distance. I feel lonely sometimes on my path through creation. I am even ashamed of myself for believing that I --- an amateur astronomer --- have discovered a new truth about the universe.

But I cannot relent. I feel compelled to contemplate and test my ideas mentally. Sometimes I have insights that are exhilarating, even joyous, and I have concluded that either I am on the path to profound truth or to ignorant bliss.

For example, I was riding my motorcycle this week and enjoying the fresh ocean air. And, as it has become my habit, I was contemplating another application of my theory. It had to do with the concept of terminal velocity.

Falling bodies, such as a person jumping from an airplane, will accelerate towards earth until reaching a maximum speed, or terminal velocity. This occurs because the body meets air resistance sufficient to slow down its progress. Without such drag, however, the body will continue to accelerate at the uniform speed of 9.8 meters a second.

Objects with less resistance will fall longer and thus faster than those with more drag. And theoretically, an object without resistance will continue to accelerate indefinitely. It is Newton's first law of motion.

Applying my theory --- that gravity is the effect of matter meeting resistance in its motion through space --- it dawned on me that terminal velocity is a local frame of reference for this dynamic. It illustrates very well my theory as applied to motion through the cosmos, particularly as it applies to the accelerating expansion of the universe. Galaxies, stars, planets and other matter are moving through space with inertia from the Big Bang, and gravity is the effect of that matter straining against the fabric of space.

So just as we can see that falling bodies without resistance will accelerate towards Earth, we can see galaxies, stars and planets receding through space will accelerate as resistance diminishes. This explains the reason for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

It is my insight --- true or not -- that this is the dynamic set in motion by the Big Bang. That all matter is accelerating through space. That when we see an apple falling from a tree, we are witnessing the expansion of the universe on Earth. When we see galaxies receding through space, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.

As for me and my motorcycle, I was going about 45 mph. It was exhilarating.