Neebert.net

Part4 Created 05/2008

An experiment

 

Over the years I have thought about how to be more sure of my discovery.

I have come to realise that an experiment will have to be done.

There are many ways to do this but the best is as follows...

My work shows that light can push things, it has a low strength though.

I think if you fired a powerful laser at an object in space it would start to move.

It would take some time but I have shown the stars are moving apart because of this.

 

 

Part3 Created 04/2008

I have thought more about how to explain the universe.

I will keep it simple, gravity on earth accelerates matter at 9.8m/s.

The speed of light is about 300-330 million meters a second.

If you compressed 100 million earths then they would accelerate matter at 980 million meters a second.

Light could not escape from this. Black holes are believed to act like this.

At the point of the big bang there was more than 100 million earths in matter.

Gravity should have held this together like a black hole.

If it had we would not be here, we are here so gravity's strength could not be as it is now.

Gravity must have been weak when the universe was small.

It is stronger now because the universe is bigger.

Simple, the big bang was just a big black hole but that made the universe small again.

Once the universe was small it stopped becoming a black hole because gravity was very weak.

With no gravity what would happen to a black hole?

Simple.... a big bang.....

 

 

Part1: Created 01/2008

 

Gravity's strength throughout the universe is relative to the size of the universe.

Double the size of the universe and everything's gravitational pull doubles.

 

As it has taken 13.7 billion years to get to it's current size, there will not be a noticeable change for some time.

 

The universe has expanded twice though?

The second expansion was because gravity was too weak in the early universe to provide enough force to start a fusion reaction. After the universe was big enough to make gravity quite strong the expansion slowed but then billions of stars were formed which caused the second expansion.

 

We still observe that the expansion is speeding up and everything else my work has predicted. When the universe gets very big and the stars have burnt all their fuel the universe will collapse as gravity will be very strong. It will become one super massive black hole. When all the radiation in the universe that is making it so big gets pulled in the universe will be tiny and gravity very weak. All the energy will reform into atoms giving rise to another expansion.

 

Hopefully space craft will be using radiation to propel them soon.

 

 

PART2: Created 10/2007

 

 

Information

1) Time since the big bang 14 billion years

2) Size of the universe billions of light years across

3)Universal density in energy per meter cubed, hard to be sure.

4)Energy as in e=mc2

 

Facts

We know the universe is expanding.

We see everything is coming from the same point.

There has been two expansions.

Black holes have very strong gravity.

We are in the second expansion and it's rate is accelerating.

 

My first thought is that why did gravity not hold everything together?

The only way I can be here and not with everything else is if gravity was non existent at the start of the universe. If this is the case the universe was small and gravity's strength was small.

 

The universe is big and gravity is strong now. It seems that the denser the universe is the weaker gravity is.

I will go through the universal timeline now to try to make sense of this.

We will look at it and say gravity = energy divided by universal density.

 

At the start the energy per cubed meter would be very large, say a trillion trillion.

Now G = 1 divided by 1024

So this would make gravity very weak.

All the matter would start to form atoms if there were no gravity to keep it compressed like it was in a black hole.

 

I find it helps to imagine a black hole but the gravitational force has just been set to 0

 

I believe this is what caused the big bang.

I know other people have said the atoms formed were helium hydrogen and lithium I agree with this.

 

The new atoms would be millions of times bigger, this event would cause a very big bang. It is a bit overwhelming to imagine this as NASA say there are in the order of 1021 stars in our universe. I don't know how many black holes and other things were squashed too, but I can see it had a high energy density.

 

Once this event had taken place the universe was expanding. After a billion years or so of expansion the universal density would have got lower and gravity would have started to effect things. The large amounts of gas that filled the universe would start to congregate and form galaxies. This gravitation pull should slow down the universal expansion and we have observed this.

 

We have observed and live in another expansion though, what caused this?

Well as universal density got lower gravity got stronger, everything was pulling together. The universe would have collapsed but some of the 1021 stars that NASA has estimated started to fuse hydrogen into helium and as you know this sends out energy at the speed of light. All these stars must be what is making the universe expand. This would have made the universe bigger and gravity stronger, enabling more stars to form and the universal expansion to increase. So now our universes expansion should be speeding up. I have looked into this and all the evidence show us that it is. It should continue to until the stars run out of fuel and the universal density gets too low. I estimate that the universal density will half in the next 9 billion years give or take a few billion years. So even if you are a healthy eater if you survive the next 9 billion years you will double in weight, its not your fault its gravity.  Earth will be accelerating you at 19.6ms rather than 9.8ms as it does now. I wouldn't worry as I don't think you will live 9 billion years (sorry).

 

Once there are no stars left spraying energy out, pushing everything away from them and gravity is strong because the universe's density has fallen the universe will contract. It is harder to attract radiation as it moves quickly. I think all the matter will be pulled together to form one super massive black hole, this will eventually pull all the radiation in the universe to it. I can't be sure how the radiation will effect it but I know the universe's density will be very high again making gravity very weak. This will give rise to another big bang. I cant see how anything could survive this and all life would be recycled. This explains why we haven't come across other life forms. It shows us that the universe will be in a ever changing state. The big recycler, my council try's to recycle as much as it can but I don't think its fair to expect it to recycle a galaxy. I do hope the human race is up for the challenge of trying to be around to witness this event. Some would say it's sad, but it should make people think. We only have a limited time to do as much as we can as a race so we should use the time wisely. It also shows us light pushes things. We can make a "Light drive" now, this should make sending space craft long distances easier and satellites that maintain geostationary orbits can be fitted with little nuclear reactors rather than using matter based thrusters. I don't know if this will save money, I am just happy that finally the universe and what we observe makes sense to me. I can dream that the human race upgrades it's self and Mr Robot gets to witness the big crunch. "I can't believe it... I am being recycled! This is what happened to my great great great great grandpa... He was a fax machine though... the insult of it!"

 

 

Manuscript: Created 09/2006

The Elastic Space Time Theory of Gravity

Anthony Neil Barker

 

Abstract

 

Numerous theories have been produced to attempt to explain the fate of the universe including the Big Bang and Expansion Theory among others. All these theories left me with questions I felt needed to be answered. I take my considerations to the time before we even understood the constellations, when research forwards various answers, but none I believe to be the correct one.  I propose a theory to answer my questions and much more. My proposition is that the strength of gravity is dependant on the size of the universe. My thought is that if the property of gravity at the time of the big bang were, as it is believed to be at present, then the big bang could not have occurred. This hypothesis will have an impact on numerous cosmological theories, although more investigations and experimental data are required to prove this.

 

 


Introduction

 

I do not possess any formal qualifications in physics, nor have I studied it at any level. However, I started to think about the gravity problem after reading 'The Universe in a Nutshell". I found myself with more time to read book s in this area after I was involved in a bad road traffic accident. I had much more time to ponder over my thoughts and theories of other physicists and soon realised we were stuck at gravity. I then became interested in learning more, but it was apparent that there was no more to learn! It seemed perfectly logical to me to try and solve the problem- I never thought I would, but Eureka!

 

Very little is known about the size of the universe. It may be trillions of light years across, or even infinite in size. A lower bound of 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light years) has been proposed, although there is no reason to believe that this bound is anywhere near tight. As such measurements a hard to define, even today, there is even less evidence to provide any definite answers to indicate how small the universe has previously been.

It is believed that the fate of the universe is determined by the density of it, with the favoured hypothesis, based on the preponderance of evidence to date, leaning towards the idea that the universe will not collapse.

The Big Freeze occurs in an environment where continued expansion results in a universe with temperatures lower than that capable of sustaining life. It may occur under a flat or hyperbolic geometry, as such geometries are a necessary condition for an ever-expanding universe. On the other side of the spectrum there is the hypothesis of heat death, which posits that the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy, where everything is evenly distributed, with the absence of gradients, which are necessary for the sustaining of life. This Heat Death scenario requires that the universe reaches an eventual temperature minimum.

General relativity predicts that the universe will have an indefinite future existence, although will reach such a state where life as we know it does not exist. In this open universe theory, dark energy results in the acceleration of the universes expansion. This ever-accelerating process will result in all materials in the universe; no matter how small will disintegrate in to unbound elementary particle. This results in an end state of the universe as a singularity, as the expansion rate becomes infinite.

The Big Crunch theory is a view of the ultimate fate of the universe that has been subjected to much scrutiny and argument. In the same fashion that the big bang began a cosmological expansion, the big crunch theory posits that the average density of the universe is sufficient enough to stop its expansion and resulting contraction. The end result of this however is unknown although a simple thought would be that all the matter and space-time present would collapse in to a dimensionless singularity. Such a scenario allows for the big bang to be preceded by the big crunch of a preceding universe. If this were to occur repeatedly we would find ourselves with an oscillatory universe, where the universe could consist of an infinite series of finite universes, each ending with a big crunch that precedes a big bang of the next universe. However, cosmologists have abandoned this oscillating universe model after suggestions that the universe is not closed, and that heat death may occur after a series of oscillations.

The mulitverse scenario indicates that while our universe may be of finite duration, it is but one universe among many, with all being subject to different physical laws then those that apply in our own universe.

 

Propositions

There is no experimental evidence to explain the seemingly undetectable force that moves things apart, despite gravity forcing things together. It is therefore difficult to explain why the universe is expanding, although I posit that there is such an explanation that I put forward in this paper. It is infinitely low in probability that there has only ever been one expansion, nor that there will be no other future expansions or indeed collapses.

 

Current theories appear to use forces that have no experimental data to support them. I take my considerations to the time before we even understood the constellations, when research forwards various answers, but none I believe to be the correct one. Assuming that the sun was a fire, scientists posited that the planet could only be a few thousand years old. As we are aware however, Einstein’s resolution of this idea went against conformity in a similar fashion to this current proposition.

 

I believe that the ongoing uncertainty of why only light elements were emitted from the Big Bang can be answered, and indeed can be tested. Despite it being difficult to be sure how this process works on a large scale, data can be collected by observing a similar process in partial accelerators.

 

I have always believed that the laws of physics have almost come too far, and we should be looking at them as they were in the time of the Big Bang. My proposition indicates that this is indeed the case and the laws have regressed to this time. I propose therefore that I am able to explain the creation of the universe, and more importantly its future. The problem has been that scientists were simply assuming too much by claiming gravity was a constant. Although natural to assume and that there is data to support this constant, the question must be raised of whether it is really a constant or merely something that has remained at a similar strength. Whilst I appreciate that it is easy to make this claim and do little to further the thought, which is where scientists are at, I believe that we need to look at this again and revisit.

 

I propose therefore that gravity is not a constant. My supposition is that if the property of gravity at the time of the big bang were, as it is believed to be at present, then the big bang could not have occurred. Present theories presuppose that it takes only one black hole to prohibit light, so I think it fair to assume that the existence of sufficient matter to create billions of black holes would have done the same. I surmise therefore that the only explanation I can see for the expansion on the universe to occur is that the strength of gravity was almost nil at the time of the big bang. This forwards the question of what would occur if a black hole were placed in a space-time where gravity did not exist. One would expect it to expand at a rapid rate, without the constraints of gravity. This does sound like a nice idea, but the question then remains as to why would gravity be non-existent at the time of the big bang. My thoughts then led me to realise that the difference between the present and 13.7 billion years ago is that the universe was incredibly small in comparison, therefore suggesting the presence of gravity restraints. Gravities strength therefore is dependent on the size of the universe, and not vice versa, perhaps to inhibit its growth.

 

 

My proposition is that we will be able to calculate the exact size of the universe, although there is the issue that the Doppler shift speed checks are now not so accurate. Let us say for instance that light left a distant star a billion years ago, then gravity would have been lower, we would then suppose that it has been travelling through space where gravity has been increasing. This provides an explanation as to why it appears that the expansion of the universe is becoming faster. The universe’s expansion is getting faster due to the billons of stars that did not have sufficient gravitational force to start the fusion process as the strength of gravity was too weak in the early universe. If gravities strength is dependant on the size of the universe it will get stronger as the universe gets bigger. Eventually there will be a big crunch, as other theories suggest. This will be the end for all life, as light will maintain the contraction. .It appears that the end of the universe will occur in a similar shape to a hydrogen atom, with the proton comprising of the universes matter, and light acting as the electron. I agree that this is by no means a perfect analogy, but I hope it helps to convey my idea. In time, the light will be attracted toward the matter, moving toward it. I propose that the strength of gravity at this point would be immense. I believe that a single proton would weigh many tonnes, and would recycle all matter present in the universe compressing it into pure energy. As the light is dragged to the matter, gravity will weaken until all of the light collides with the existing matter. As the light has been created over billions of years it my have heated the singularity. As the last remaining photons collide, gravity will become extremely weak, leasing to the reformation of matter into atoms. This in turn will lead to a massive expansion. My ideas also provides the beginnings of an explanation as to why the universe only began with light elements, as well as proposing why galaxies formed as we observe them. Perhaps it even goes some why to forwarding the notion that even the sun will supernova in the very distant future.

 

Conclusions and Future Considerations

We now need to measure exactly how gravities strength is increasing although this will be no mean feat. We also need to revisit our current thoughts and visit the possibility that the suggestion that gravity may not be a constant, may also apply to light. It could possible alter whilst in a vacuum in a similar fashion to gravity. We may also need to rethink the idea that the universe may not be 13.7 billion years old, indeed it may be older and undergone numerous big bangs and collapses. There is no possibility of surviving the collapse of the universe, as all matter has been compressed and sucked together. Only light is trying to escape, imitating one large unstable atom, although this atom would possess photons trying to orbit it. Light cannot escape or fall into this orbit, although it too eventually gets sucked into the matter, making the universe small and gravity weak. This compression of light and matter will generate heat and can now reform into atoms. Something that maybe a few centimetres across, is attempting to expand to later form trillions of stars and planets, mimicking the effect of cooking popcorn, except the seeds of corn are billions of times smaller than the popcorn fragments!

 

As gravity gets stronger the moons orbits will get faster, in turn the sun will burn faster and the speed of light will possibly reduce. The universe is active and dynamic and we exist in something far greater than any of us have realised.

 

Returning to the notion that the universe has been created from an existing universe, a huge amount of radiation would have been held. When gravity reached a weak enough state, this radiation would have moved away at the same speed of light, which now reaches us as microwaves. I believe that the radiation we observe now is residue of that emitted at the time of the big bang.

 

We are now aware therefore that the universe has undergone numerous expansions and collapses and that gravity will increase in strength as it undergoes such expansions. I have also proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, indeed it may work in the opposite manner as gravity, reducing in speed as the universe expands. This hypothesis will have an impact on numerous cosmological theories, although more investigations and experimental data are required to prove this. The change in the strength of gravity will occur very slowly, and it will take years for it to become noticeable and longitudinal experiments will be required for the foreseeable future. Life in this universe may only have another 20 billion years in existence, although it is possible that if we are still undergoing expansion after 13.7 billion years, life may have much longer to survive, although possibly in a very different form than as we know it now.

 

I smile when I think of the early universe, all the matter compressed. The last of the light finally getting drawn in. What an expansion, I mean billions of trillions of atoms forming. We all love watching popcorn cook as kids, well I did, the little seeds…. Watching them then pop and this new thing. It looks nothing like before but somehow it came from the seed. I used to think how can the popcorn be so big and come from something so little.


 

 

Other work: Created 04/2007

The speed of light and time

 

I wonder how time slows as we approach the speed of light.

What is time? I think it is just measurements made by humans. I think it does not slow as you increase your velocity.

I think it is just our measurement that is slowing. How did we measure this? Well an atomic clock was used.

You cant go faster than light, neither can an electron.

As we accelerate a particle we must remember the electron is already in motion.

As we get close to the speed of light the electron has to slow in order not to break the speed limit.

Our atomic clocks show us this as they report less time passing as we accelerate them.

It is an illusion given to us by the effect of accelerating an electron already in motion.

This opens another question, how is speed measured?

Can I go faster than light?

Can I travel without upsetting my electrons orbits?

 

On a lighter note...

I have decided the most powerful thing in the universe is a horse...

Apparently a horse killed superman?

 

What? Don't take life too seriously... it's not permanent.

 

JOKE:

What did the duck say to the chicken?

 

 

Nothing, ducks can't talk....

 

I created a basic simulation of the universe, it really is basic though.

I recommend the one with just a third of the particles, the other one is processor intensive.

There are 2 games I made there as well.

ftp://neebert.net/

 

All rights reserved Anthony Neil Barker 09/03/2008

feedback@neebert.net

Tel:

Mobile: 07969 730 244

Skype: Neebert