|
Abstract
Definitions
Variables
Reality
Gravity
Origin
of Energy
Fluid
Nature of Space
Time
Evidence
Abstract:
This theory in general is to
provide an explanation for many
unanswered questions about gravity,
force, the cosmological constant, and
hopefully many other phenomena not yet
perceived by myself.
This is not an effort to discount
Einstein's' "Theory of
Relativity", but rather to describe
the same effects with a different
understanding.
Rather than viewing the presence
of matter creating a "curved space
time", I am initiating the idea of
a "Composite Gravitational
Constant", in which there are three
individual actions at work creating the
illusion of gravity.
These three being accelerated
inflation, the cosmological constant,
and time dilation.
First, I think it is necessary to
make certain points clear that have been
important in the process of my drawing
these conclusions about gravity.
By choosing to not ignore the
truth that the universe was created by
the Living God, it becomes obvious that
God has left His signature on His
creation.
The "Trinity" of God,
defined Biblically as The Father, The
Son, and The Holy Spirit, inseparably
united as one God is portrayed in the
creation of the basic foundation of the
universe as: time, space, and
energy…which is also inseparably
united.
This
same signature can be seen in the three
states of matter (solid, liquid and
gas), the way in which our minds were
created to perceive light frequencies as
the three primary colors (red, blue and
yellow), the three dimensions of space
(height, width and depth), and time
(past, present and future), just to
mention of few.
DEFINITIONS:
Reality:
Our physical tangible universe
defined by the unification of space,
time and energy.
Permeability:
The property of mass, which
allows space to inhabit the same area.
Gravitational
Constant: The composite of two forces,
the sum of the accelerated inflation of
two masses and the outward flow of
space, which is a result of this
inflation.
These two forces compose what is
currently viewed as "curved
space-time"
Cosmological
Constant: The value of the potential
force of the outward flowing space as a
result of the accelerated inflation.
Energy:
A measured change in the
relationship between two or more masses.
VARIABLES:
a=
accelerated inflation
p=
permeability of mass by space
d=
distance
G=
gravitational constant
=
Viscosity
=
Cosmological constant
R=
resistance of mass
t=
time
m1
= mass 1
m2
= mass 2
REALITY:
Since I was a child I have
contemplated the nature of space.
I remember asking my mother what
space was and her answering
"nothing".
That is what provoked me to
understanding what the nothing was.
Since then, I have become aware
of the study of physics, and in the
process of trying to understand the
divers branches of physics I have
developed a kind of philosophical view
of space.
It seems that a lot of theories
now are viewing space as behaving as a
fluid and possessing density.
It is natural for us to compare
space to familiar substances like liquid
or gas, but for my description of
reality to work, space must be a
separate entity from time or energy.
Space cannot be any more
substance than time is.
So it must have completely
different properties than that of a
fluid, gas, or solid, properties that we
may have not even dreamt of discovering.
In my efforts to understand this
mystery, I tried to picture myself
outside our universe.
I realized that without this
nothingness that we call space, we would
be left with "less than
nothingness", that is, our universe
would be non-existent.
If space were to then be
non-existent there would be no problem
with long distance travel.
Every particle of matter would be
compressed to one mass because there
would be nothing to separate them, in
fact there would be no place for matter
to exist.
Since space must exist for the
universe to exist, I am compelled to
wonder what is beyond the borders of our
universe where space doesn't exist (I am
assuming here that the universe is not
infinite).
The closest thing that we come to
in an understanding of what would be
beyond our existent universe would be
"non-existent", or imaginary.
By 1929 Edwin Hubble had
established that according to red-shift
data that distant galaxies were moving
away from us at a rate directly
proportional to their distance from us
(except for the andromenda galaxy which
is moving toward us).
More distant galaxies are moving
away from us faster than closer
galaxies, it was from this that it was
established that the universe is
expanding at an accelerated rate, which
eventually led Stephen Hawking to the
"Big Bang Theory".
Since the discovery of the
expansion of the universe, it is
understood that the universe must have
borders, and these borders are expanding
also.
In the case of the "Big
Bang", space and time originate at
a singular point and propagate outward
relative to the force of the explosion.
This propagation of space and
time would need to take over something
in order to propagate.
Since this area in question can
be considered a non-existent place, it
is irrelevant to say that the universe
is expanding as the result of an
explosion. With this understanding of
our reality existing in a non-existent
or imaginary place, it becomes obvious
that our reality must have been created,
not only created, but, existing only in
the mind of the Creator.
Space can't exist alone though.
As Albert Einstein showed us in
his Theory of Relativity, time is as
much a part of our universe as space is.
As Einstein did, I am going to
explain time as it pertains to my
theory.
As I have stated, for our
universe to exist time must be present.
A universe with space is a place,
but cannot exist without time because
there is no beginning or end.
The beginning and end could be
said to occur simultaneously.
This brings me to the third part
of this "trinity" of our
universe, energy.
As I have defined energy (above),
it is the measured change in the
relationship between two masses.
I will try to explain this by
bringing you back to our hypothetical
universe.
In this universe we have space,
and time (a beginning and an end
although occurring simultaneously).
If we place a mass in this
universe moving at a given velocity,
alone through empty space, does it
posses any energy?
According to Einstein's theory it
does.
But there is still no way to
measure that energy, for example an
observer, another interacting mass, test
equipment.
That mass could just as easily be
said to be perfectly still.
In this case there is nothing to
judge time by, so, our hypothetical
universe begins and ends simultaneously
again.
For time to exist our mass must
be moving relative to another mass,
therefore, energy could be described as
"a measured change or difference in
the relationship between two
masses".
As I have hopefully explained,
space, time and energy are all totally
reliant on each other for their
existence.
What we have now is
space-time-energy.
These three compose what I would
like to call "reality".
To understand this
"reality" and how it relates
to this theory we must understand the
following.
1.
Space as we see it must encompass
all that exists in our universe.
2.
Space must perfectly permeate
matter for matter to exist.
3.
Space-time and energy are
completely reliant upon each other for
their individual existence. (As
previously stated)
A very simple equation could be
used to explain what I have described so
far.
(s)(t)(e)=r
In this equation if the value of
any variables s, t, or e, is set at
zero, the value for r (reality) is zero.
As you might have gathered, this
view of "reality does allow for
Einstein's' "flextime".
Each individual mass possessing
it's own value of time and energy
relative to the other masses in the
universe.
This does bring up the question
of "first cause" to the
beginning of the universe.
With the above description in
mind, there would have had to been a
simultaneous existence of two particles.
The Hartle-Hawking model of the
beginning of the universe explains that
the idea of first cause or "first
event" can be explained
mathematically by using imaginary time.
This imaginary time is derived
from Minkowski's formula for
"space-time".
I won't get into the concept of
Minkowski's space-time, but on this is
basically what Stephen Hawking is basing
his defense of the "first
cause".
In my opinion, this defense is
totally unfounded, it uses the vague
understanding of quantum uncertainty
applied to Minkowski's space-time to
interpret that space and time can be
smeared in a sort of "quantum
fuzziness", and at some point time
emerged from space by the same unknown
laws of physics that explain
Heisenberg's "uncertainty
principle".
Furthermore, the "Big Bang
Theory" does not explain how time,
space and energy (matter) came into
existence in the first place, or how
these three came to be in a non-existent
place, non-existent meaning, not
including the three parameters of
reality- time, space and energy.
So,
how does time, space and matter become
existent in a non-existent place?
I believe that scientists will
continue to come up with speculative
explanations to this question and spawn
theories derived from these speculations
until the end of time, but there is only
one explanation that can end the
speculation and begin a true
understanding of the universe, God.
The "Big Bang Theory"
was introduced to replace the
"Steady State Theory" when it
was discovered that the universe was not
actually remaining still, but was
expanding, everything in the universe
was found to be traveling away from
everything else.
The best way to explain this was
to introduce a beginning to the universe
in which everything originated from the
same point and began a trajectory away
from that point.
Beginning with an understanding
that God created space, time and matter,
I don't feel that it is necessary to
pursue the idea of a "big
bang" anymore.
In fact, by not pursuing this
idea and focusing my thoughts on the
idea that God created the universe I can
see other options that I feel actually
fit better with current observations and
known phenomena.
With the truth in mind that God
doesn't need a "big bang" to
create the universe, and by
incorporating the expanding universe,
with the known fact that mass possesses
gravity and Einstein's
"Principle of
Equivalence" (a gravitational field
and accelerated motion cannot be
distinguished by an observer), I have
developed a theory to extinguish the
idea of a big bang and it's defenses for
the "first event"
GRAVITY:
Einstein's "principle of
equivalence" states that a
gravitational field and accelerated
motion cannot be distinguished by an
observer under the influence of either
of these forces.
Rather than trying to find a
mystical underlying explanation for
gravity, one could come to the
conclusion that gravity IS accelerated
motion.
I am not throwing Einstein's
theory of relativity out totally, but I
intend to explain it more fully.
So, for the purpose of this
theory, gravity will be defined as
"an accelerated inflation"
This "inflation" would
have to originate at the quantum level,
not the molecular level, otherwise there
would be an increase in mass by
increasing the number of particles
making up the mass.
If we imagine two particles of
the same size and mass inflating they
will seem to "gravitate", it
wouldn't be very long before they
collide, and if this was all there was
to it, the universe would be
experiencing a "big crunch"
right now.
(See equation 1:1).
In the first chapter where I was
describing reality, I explained that
space must perfectly permeate matter, at
least so it would seem at our level of
observation.
What I am proposing is that space
doesn't permeate matter perfectly, but
that matter possesses a negative
permeability.
I will express this value as the
variable "-p" from now on.
The value for this -p would be
very low, but is a value that I intend
to find when the resources become
available.
This is what I believe to be the
source of Einstein's "cosmological
constant" and I have developed an
equation to express this: Equation 1:2
This negative permeability of
matter in junction with an
"accelerated inflation" would
cause an outward flow of space which
would manifest itself when interacting
with another particle or body with a
force proportional to the second body's
-p.
I have expressed this idea as:
Equation 1:3
ORIGIN
OF ENERGY AND NEGATIVE VISCOSITY OF
SPACE:
Einstein, in his theory, viewed
space as a "void vacuum".
As I have outlined above, I have
assessed that space cannot be described
as void, empty, or nothingness.
Space must be an existent
function of reality.
What are the properties of space
if it cannot be related to substance or
matter?
This thought, like the idea of
space permeating matter leads me back to
the idea of Aristotle's
"Ether".
Aristotle's view of this
"Ether" was that it was the
medium through which light and matter
move.
This idea was continued until the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, by which
the search for the effects of the ether
was found to be inconclusive.
There is a property of space that
must exist to allow a "place"
for matter to exist.
There is also a property of
space, which allows measurements to be
taken between two objects.
This property could be easily
understood to be a property of space,
when in fact it is a function of the
threefold unity of space, time, and
energy.
To explain this idea, I want to
go back to our hypothetical universe
with one mass (or particle) alone.
As I have described, a universe
in this state contains no energy, so it
begins and ends simultaneously.
If we add another particle and
place it at a given distance away from
the first particle, there is no reason
for either particle to change
trajectory.
There will be no measurable
difference in their relationship to each
other, therefore, no energy.
Again, our hypothetical universe
begins and ends simultaneously and
cannot exist.
With this thought in mind, if one
were to place a measuring stick that was
as long as the given distance between
the particles, one has determined the
distance between the particles.
This idea is irrelevant because
if there is no difference in the
relationship between the two particles,
again, reality doesn't exist.
If we use this same analogy in a
real-life situation, we can see some
other explanations arise.
Consider the smallest unit of
mass currently known the electron.
If the only thing in the universe
were one electron, there is no energy.
Likewise with two electrons,
there is still no energy.
If somehow these two electrons
were made to move relative to each
other, there would then be a measurable
difference and energy, and obviously
time would then be measurable.
How, then, would one or both of
these electrons begin moving relative to
each other?
There couldn't be an outside
force to propel an electron toward or
away from the other electron because
this would mean another mass in the
picture, and doesn't explain the origin
of energy.
My proposal is that the origin of
energy is the same action that brings
the particle into existence.
As a particle is brought into
existence, it begins as a singular point
of a distortion of space, and radiates
outward like a sphere.
This in itself would not
constitute reality because the
distortion is not radiating relative to
another.
This could just as easily be
viewed by an outside observer as never
changing.
When another distortion is
introduced, though, the two will radiate
toward each other, or will appear to
"gravitate" toward one
another.
Not only do they radiate, or
gravitate, toward each other, but also
they will radiate at an accelerated
rate.
At this time, I feel the best
explanation for this accelerated
radiation or "inflation" is
negative viscosity of space or
"vacuum".
This negative viscosity is what I
believe to be causing the accelerated
inflation.
This can be expressed as:
Equation 1:1
FLUID
NATURE OF SPACE:
With all fluids that we are in
contact with we know that they are not
fluid at all, they are many particles
acting together to simulate a fluid.
As I was observing the behavior
of water in a whirlpool in my garage, I
found that the easiest way to detect the
movement was by observing the particles
movement in the water.
I realized that in order to have
fluid movement with particles, there
would have to be a fluid medium.
Conversely, we could observe how
the particles behave to make conclusions
about the attributes of the medium.
In the case of the whirlpool we
have two variations.
The first being caused by
colliding particle masses creating a
low-pressure area and the system
organizing around this low-pressure
area.
Or, a low-pressure area could be
introduced to the system and the
particle mass will organize around this
area.
When a low-pressure area is
introduced into a particle mass, for
example: a container of water with a
hole in the bottom.
As the water leaves the container
there is no gravitational force on that
water.
According to the "principle
of equivalence" an observer cannot
distinguish gravity and acceleration, so
the acceleration of the earth is acting
on the water's mass and the water's
resistance to the force is what is
pulling it out of the hole.
So the water "leaving"
the hole has no force acting upon it.
It is actually being allowed to
remain still.
As this acceleration force is
removed from the mass it begins to spin.
It is as if a second force is
acting upon the water and manifesting
itself only when the more dominant force
(acceleration) is sufficiently reduced.
This second force is what I
believe to be the primary force of the
universe, a spiraling or spinning force.
This being a characteristic of
space which manifests itself as force
when it interacts with matter at a level
of its' permeability.
This is what I believe to be
causing the stars, planets, galaxies,
comets and quantum particles to spin.
I believe that this can explain
all spinning entities.
As for the fluidity of space, as
I have pointed out in the section of
this theory "reality", an
object that does not posses energy
cannot exist.
If we picture two objects moving
relative to each other alone in space,
one would think that it would be
possible to imagine an object at any
point in its' trajectory, to be
"frozen" in a single frame.
As this is possible in a thought
experiment, it cannot be duplicated in
reality because the object in question
cannot exist unless it is moving,
whether it be moving itself, or another
object moving relative to it.
This would mean that there is a
direct relationship (simultaneous)
between two objects moving relative to
each other.
If space is to be fluid, this
would mean that as two objects moved
closer or further from each other, the
entity of space between them does not
change.
It would mean nothing to say that
an object is any distance from another,
because the space between them could be
divided infinitely and would never
change.
To view space as fluid is not a
sufficient explanation for energy,
because there cannot be a measured
difference between two masses.
I am proposing that, because
space must be fluid, another property of
space must co-exist with the fluid
nature of space as the medium for
energy.
This medium can be closely
related to Aristotle's
"ether", which changes in
density between masses.
TIME:
The problem with this theory of
inflating mass is that smaller objects
would be accelerating at a slower rate
than larger objects, speaking of
inflation that is.
This would seem to cause an
observer to view objects of differing
size to change size.
An object observed to be larger
would seem to keep growing larger and
smaller objects would seem to keep
growing smaller.
This is where I believe time
becomes a factor.
For this theory to fit
observations, time would have to be
augmented at a value proportional to
its' acceleration.
In this case an observer on a
small planet (i.e. the earth) would view
Jupiter as not accelerating at a rate
that its' size would indicate.
Likewise, an observer on Jupiter
would view the earth as accelerating at
a rate higher than its' size would
indicate.
Time speeds up with acceleration.
This idea conforms with the
accepted idea of Einstein's theory of
Relativity, and to all current data
pertaining to this subject.
There seems to be two ways in
which time can be measured: individual,
or personal time which only pertains to
a single mass, and relative time, which
is the measurement taken between the
difference of two masses.
Relative time is the measurements
referred to in "Einstein's Theory
of Relativity" and is what I was
speaking of in the above paragraphs.
These measurements can only be
taken as a relative difference between
two masses.
Personal, or Individual time,
which only pertains to a single mass
cannot be measured by an outside
observer.
This personal time is indicative
of the energy involved in the creation
of the mass' existence.
In the case of a celestial body
like the moon, the moon's personal time
cannot be measured by an outside
observer on the Earth, but, an observer
on Earth could measure the relative time
difference between the Earth and the
moon.
If an observer were on the moon
the difference becomes even harder to
measure because the difference in
relative time becomes much smaller.
An object's existence depends on
its rate of personal accelerated
inflation.
This inflation is directly
related to the objects personal time.
The size difference between two
objects is directly related to the
relative time difference between two
objects.
If, for instance, an observer
were standing on the Earth, his value
for time would be equal to the sum of
his personal time and the personal time
of the Earth, as he is not only
accelerating outward as every particle
in his body is inflating, but he is also
accelerating at a perpendicular to a
tangent on the sphere of the Earth at
the rate of the Earth's acceleration.
Any accurate measurement in the
difference of relative time would have
to account for this.
EVIDENCE:
(Case
#1)
In the case of our solar system I
find evidence of this theory.
Firstly, if the theory of
negative viscosity were correct, the
planets would all be being pushed away
from the sun. This being the case, Pluto
would be the oldest member of the solar
system, and mercury the youngest.
There seems to be a pattern that
coincides with this thought in the angle
of tilt of the planets' axis of
rotation.
Mercury's rotational axis is
almost perpendicular to the suns.
Mercury's angle of obliquity is
0.1 deg.
Venus is 177 deg. (When you
discount the direction of Venus' spin
its axis is tilted at 13 deg.)
Earth is 23 deg.
Mars is 25 deg.
Jupiter's is 3 deg.
Saturn is 27 deg.
Uranus is 98 deg.
Neptune
is 30 deg.
Pluto is 120 deg. (When you
discount the direction of spin it could
be viewed as 70 deg.)
Jupiter and Neptune's obliquity
would seem at first to not coincide with
the pattern but when you consider
Jupiter's mass it does fit the pattern.
Also the fact that
Neptune
and Uranus' orbits overlapped recently
and the two planets changed positions in
their distance from the sun must be
considered.
This pattern of obliquity, as I
understand it, is being caused by the
force of the spin of the sun pushing the
planets in their orbits.
This same force is turning the
planets' rotational axis like a
gyroscope.
Because of the weakness of this
force, Jupiter and Pluto's masses pose a
high resistance.
(Case
#2)
It is a well-known fact that the
moon is responsible for the tides on the
earth.
It is assumed that the moon
gravitational field is responsible for a
difference in the earth's gravitational
field, and causing the "high
tide".
There is a tidal effect that has
not yet been explained though, which is
the presence of a "high tide"
on the opposite side of the earth from
the moon.
The cause for this other tide is
loosely assumed to be the result of an
acceleration of the earth toward the
moon.
The problem with this is that,
the earth is not moving toward the moon
(speaking in terms of curved space).
This theory explains how this
could be possible.
On the opposite side of the earth
from the moon, the same force that is
countering the sum of the earth's
accelerated inflation and the moon's
accelerated inflation, which is what I
have described as the cosmological
constant, is inducing a force on the
earth's mass at a perpendicular to
parallel tangents of the earth and moon.
This force would act to compress
the earth and/or water mass first at the
point of the perpendicular then
increasing outward as can be calculated
by equation 1:2.
This force would continue through
the earth only being decreased by the
earth's value for -p.
The mass of the water also
possesses a factor of negative
permeability, which would act to
decrease water pressure on the inverse
side of the earth.
This decrease in water pressure
would manifest itself as a "high
tide".
The force with which the tidal
side of the earth/water mass is acted
upon could be calculated by the
following equation: Equation 1:4
| 
