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.