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.

The speed of gravity

What is the speed of gravity?

It's another puzzle about gravity that my theory may help solve. Because my theory says that gravity is the effect of matter set in motion by the Big Bang meeting resistance, the speed of gravity is proportionate to that motion. In general, the greater the mass the faster the speed of its gravity. The smaller the mass, the slower the gravity.

However, I think speed is a misnomer in this regard. Gravity does not move so much as it is an apparent effect. The following example, a modification of a common analogy to general relavity's curvature of spacetime, illustrates:

A baseball rolling on a trampoline equidistance between a small cannonball and a large bowling ball will move towards the dent left by the cannonball if it is removed at the same time as the bowling ball. That's because the apparent gravity (or loss of gravity) of the bowling ball will "reach" the baseball faster than the gravity of the cannonball, even though they are removed simultaneously.

This shows that gravity does not travel at a uniform speed, such as the speed of light. It travels very fast, however, because its effects are continuous. The bowling ball, for example, is continuously affecting the motion of the baseball. When it is removed, the effect appears instantaneous because the dent disappears at virtually the same time.

I think gravity speed will also change with the relative motion of the masses. But whatever the speed or mass of matter, the apparent speed of its gravity will be proportionate.

Publishing, not perishing

Amateur Astronomy Magazine published a version of my articles on gravity theory, and not an issue too soon. I was starting to think no one was interested in my ideas. (See http://www.amateurastronomy.com/)

Appearing in the 55th Edition, the article was titled "The Apple is Still Falling." It summarizes the basic principle of my theory that the Big Bang is the moving force behind gravity. In other words, the Big Bang put all matter in motion and gravity becomes apparent as matter meets resistance and slows down. That resistance is measured as weight.

I am grateful to Charlie Warren, the editor, for giving me some space in his publication. He said that he enjoyed the article very much and that he thought it would receive some good feedback.
It is nice to receive any feedback --- good or bad. Even criticism can be helpful.

Otherwise, I am left to wonder about my ideas in a vacuum and I don't know if they are valid or not.