Gravity and the creation of the Universe

Reads: 579  | Likes: 2  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic


I explore concepts of gravity, string theory, the big bang and my own theory of how the universe began and will continue to recycle itself.

Submitted: May 05, 2015

A A A | A A A

Submitted: May 05, 2015

A A A

A A A


GRAVITY AND THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

by Michael Dale Sipes, Jr.

There is something weighing heavily on my mind, gravity and the cosmos. I have been reading for quite some time that science is finding that at the center of most galaxies are black holes. I theorized before the announcement that the creation of galaxies depends on black holes. At the beginning of the Big or whatever you want to call it, two membranes of different universes touched and an enormous amount of energy was released in the form of heat, gas and abundant hydrogen filled the early cosmos. Galactic winds and the shock wave of the explosion formed the early stars, which in some cases stars became incredibly dense and formed black holes, thus collecting additional debris, dust, particles, elements from surrounding space and eventually forming galaxies.

Black holes also must have something to do with the rotation of the galaxy at the event horizon, making the galaxy turn in a counterclockwise direction, instead of a clockwise direction. Of course, spin is based on an observation point; anything can be seen spinning in either direction if viewed from a certain vantage point. Most physicists say that gravity is a very weak force. For instance, you can pick up an object like an apple that the entire earth’s gravity is holding back. Well, if gravity is actually emanating from the neutrons of the atoms and atoms are generally nothing but empty space, would one not theorize that the gravity of even a relatively large object is small, compared to a neutron star, which is packed full of neutrons and has gravity and mass that is so large that a teaspoon full of neutron star material would weigh as much as the pyramid of Giza. There is also another observation about gravity that I have taken into consideration and this is mere observation. The gravitational force on earth is said to be approximately 9.0666 m/s, but a new mapping of the Earth’s magnetic field shows a great variance, especially in areas of lower density such as the oceans. So hypothetically a ball of rubber and a ball of lead dropped on a sailing vessel would both fall at the same rate and hit the deck at the same time but at a slightly slower speed then say in Paris off the Eiffel tower. There are also the planets of our solar system to consider. A man on Earth who weighs 150 pounds, would weigh a mere 9.3 pounds on Pluto, But if you were to be able to withstand the immense atmospheric pressures of Jupiter and descend to its surface you would weigh a whopping 354 pounds. Objects of heavier mass, whose neutrons are closer together, emit more gravity.  Solids have atoms that are relatively at rest and spread apart relatively evenly. A liquid’s atoms are moving more so and therefore the neutrons are closer to each other and more often. Lastly, the atoms in a gas are in rapid motion and the neutrons are in closer approximation even more than the liquid. So, would a ball of gas have a larger effect on gravity than a ball that was solid? For instance, the Sun is made of gas, but it is also incredibly hot, has an immense amount of mass and an effect on the fabric of space which Einstein said influences gravity, compared to the planets that are solid and have less influence on the fabric of space and less gravitational influence. But the other gravitational giant of our solar system is Jupiter which is mostly made of gas and is a sun that failed. It seems logical that gravity has something to do with neutrons and not an imaginary force or particle. If we were to assume this to be true and that gravity emanated from the neutron, not some imaginary particle called a graviton, then the universe would make more sense. Unfortunately, scientific observation does not always agree with the math and physicist rely heavily on math and proclaim it to be the language of the universe. Well, it is to us, but to an alien civilization their concepts of math or even a number may or may not even exists. They may have a completely different way of expressing the same thing, or perhaps they have gotten it right and express it as it really is. If our math does not work, has not worked, and hasn’t for hundreds of years regarding celestial bodies then our math regarding the cosmos is equally invalid. If any part of an argument or scientific theory is wrong, then the entire theory must be thrown out.  I think that is where new and bold concepts come to play such as M theory or brane theory, string theory, dark matter, multi-universes, dark energy, and inflation.  I have pondered the concept of infinity, an imaginary concept that cannot be proven but is used in most physics equations. I cannot conceive of any natural occurrences of infinity, not on Earth, in our solar system, galaxy, globular cluster, home group or Cosmos itself. Everything has a finite number; even the atoms that comprise the Cosmos have a lifespan. That number depends on the protons of the atom, carbon 15 only last 2.5 seconds after its creation. But other atoms with a stable number of protons and electrons last a long long time but nowhere near infinity. The proton is believed to have a half-life of approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. This seems to be an eternity to us since our species will be long long long gone, not to mention our planet, sun, and even galaxy, but again there is no infinity. The current theory of how our universe came into being is not even infinitely long. The first hypothesis which is also the currently accepted theory that the universe was infinitely small and then for whatever reason unknown to man it exploded, expanding rapidly into its forms today. But there are major problems with this theory. It does explain expansion and may even hint to eventual contraction, but it does nothing to explain what came before. A pocket watch denotes a watchmaker, the same principle applies to God and the Cosmos. That is where religion comes in to fill in the gaps for most people due to the lack of scientific knowledge they accept the idea that God commanded the bang and created the universe. But if you take that one step further then you must ask, who created God? And then there is an infinite progression of creation, so the answer may as well be that God or the Cosmos has always existed. I am not debating the idea that God created the universe since I was not around to see it and I don't possess divine knowledge therefor the hypothesis that the Cosmos has always existed is just as valid as the most advanced theories concerning its creation.

A more current hypothesis is that two separate universes in the form of flat branes, touched, producing an enormous amount of energy in the form of heat that expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. Now if the model relies on one membrane being completely devoid of substance before the collision and the other membrane similar to the cosmos we know of today then that raises a question similar to the big bang theory, what was the current brane like before? Was one membrane always full and the other always empty, a sort of never-ending balancing act where the two branes want to be in a form of equilibrium or sort of homeostasis? My own theory is that there is only one brane which is flat and infinitely large or unbound. Since space-time is a kind of fabric, it can be wrinkled or even twisted upon itself.  When this happens huge fluctuations in gravity are created at the point where the universe is now no longer expanding but contracting. The fabric of space folds upon itself and when two of its surfaces collide, the result is the release of an enormous amount of energy inside that brane. Einstein himself said that gravity is nothing more than the bending of space and time due to its influence on the fabric of space or in other words the fabric of space could be considered a membrane or brane. After the folding of the brane and the release of energy, the energy flattens the brane back into its original shape which would be similar to how the big bang spread the known universe out relatively evenly. After the brane has been reshaped into a flat brane and spread back out, the point in which the energy was released now spreads outwards, not in a nice concentric circle but outwards filling the empty void of the brane, then our universe as we know it today comes into existence. Slowly over time, the amount of energy in the universe reaches a critical phase where the expansion which on a cosmic scale was instantaneous but on a human scale took an infinity long time, now contracts due to the slowing of particles and the increase in gravity at the Cosmos’s center where the abundance of remaining black holes exists.  These black holes form a massive cosmic black hole with a super singularity at its center and with nothing to support the branes surface from beyond the center of the super-giant black hole, the brane crumples or folds upon itself and the cycle of creation and destruction repeats itself over and over again.

This cycle would be a continuing cycle of bangs and deaths, but for how long.? The brane may even take the shape of the singularity or black hole momentarily, which is why some scientist agree the universe is shaped like a flatten horn stretched out into a long funnel, flaring into a bell-like shape at one end. The thin end would be infinitely long but finite. I do not know if this is true but it does have a similar shape to a black hole.  If the membrane was momentarily crumpled into the shape of a black hole caused by an immensely large singularity then the explosion would result in the flattening of the brane, so why do our current scientific observations show the brane or universe to be horn-shaped now and not round, or uniform in shape as it would after a birth of a new cosmos? The only logical answer is that we are close to another annihilation and rebirth. If we do not include religion into the equation and only use our understanding of the Cosmos as we know it today, then we can skip creation completely and say that the universe has always existed. That the cosmos really is all there was, all there is and all there ever shall be.

My own theory of how the universe came into existence would include a concept of Infinity, but not necessarily mathematically, since we can only write the representation of infinity on any indelible surface or the vague perception in our minds, but true infinity as far as the Cosmos is concerned is because a three dimensional being's concept of time and cosmological time are completely different and not comparable at all. Infinity is more of a reality only in the minds of humans and not necessary for the creation of the Cosmos. It might be why Einstein’s theory of relativity works extremely well on the very small scale of atoms, but not the extremely large scale of the cosmos. The two are not the same and have different expressions due to their different interpretations from the human perspective to the cosmic perspective, or God’s perspective if you believe in creation as the means in which the cosmos came into being.

Space is not just emptiness but has its own unique reality, unlike our own, Einstein mentioned that himself. Big Bang, Creation, Inflation, Cyclic Universe, String theory, and M theory it all boils down to one word, theory. The true answer lies locked away in the infinite dimensions of the Cosmos and we cannot unlock that door while stuck in a three-dimensional world with only practical and working theories that pertain to what we can see or feel with our three-dimensional instruments and minds. Perhaps the true answer will be revealed with the transference of our collective being or soul to a higher dimension when we physically die. Perhaps then all the answers to all our questions will be answered, again this is just another theory!

Addendum,

I postulated years ago that the universe is not finite in size but rather mankind being three-dimensional beings using three-dimensional instruments can never fully understand the true size of the cosmos which is infinite. With each new discovery of extra dimensions, now at over 120, there seems to be an endless progression of dimensions. I have been quite interested in quantum entanglement with respect to gravity. Since 95% of the observable universe seems to be empty space, every subatomic particle must have a twin, quantum entangled at a higher dimension of space. When a mass moves through this space the interaction of these two particles gives rise to the effects of gravity. The closer you get to a mass of particles, for instance, our sun, gravity increases in relation to distance and the mass itself distorts space-time. There is a relationship between moving towards an object of increasing mass, the warping of space and our concept of time. Mass moving through space creates time, or more precisely our concept of the present which the closest point of convergence of the past's future and the future's past. There is no true present, again this is a theory just as valid as a linear concept of time with individual time slices. There will never be a definitive explanation of time only theories.

To be continued...

 

 

 
 
 
 
 


© Copyright 2019 MichaelS76. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments: