Friday, 11 December 2015

Before Time

So I was thinking. If before the universe came to be there was nothing. No time, as time is the creation of the expanding universe. Then at the edges of the universe must be this state. Which means you could theoretically leave one side of the universe and travel to any other point at the edge of the universe in no time, as there is no time. Which in turn means, if you existed before the universe was created, you could travel to any point or be at any point of an infinite nothingness simultaneously, and if you can be at all points of something at one time that would make it minuscule. So the universe grew from something infinitely small but something that can also be infinitely large. I.e. nothing.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

Dark energy does not exist.

Dark energy is thought to exist because of the fact that universal growth is speeding up. But time is relative. My theory states that universal time is slowing down from the point of it's origin, the big bang.
As galaxies are moving away from the creation point, time is expanding, slowing, making galaxies to us with our fixed time appear to gathering speed. Therefore dark energy has no need to exist.

Friday, 26 October 2012

Our Universe

I will now try and simplify and correct all of this:

The big bang looked like a big bang to us now, but it wasn't. It was a very, very, slow gradual growth of space and time. There was no space or time. The pre-universe was an infinite void of nothingness with no existence of time to differentiate one thing from another. We know that hydrogen atoms pop up and disappear randomly throughout our universe as they did before it existed. So let us imagine that in the pre-universe hydrogen atoms pop up and disappear all at the same time, as there is no time. To us, in a universe with time, it would seem that the pre-universe existed infinitely in a infinitely small pin prick of time. If hydrogen atoms are popping up randomly in an infinite space at the same time then they would fill that space. If even just two atoms were close they would create a mass greater than a single atom, which in turn would draw in that single atom, which would lead to a chain reaction of atoms being drawn together eventually over billions of years forming something big enough to be a star...

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Big Bang.

So back to Displacement Theory...

My theory says that there was no big bang but instead a big growth from a single hydrogen atom and I have just worked out how.

Before the universe there was no time or space. The thing that hadn't occurred to me is the fact there was no time or space means that everything happens all at once, all in one spot, forever! But forever is one moment... It doesn't make much sense if you think about it in our universe, but, imagine an infinite amount of time where anything could happen but probably wont, all squashed and happening at once, something is bound to happen. So a hydrogen atom popped into existence! This actually does happen quite a lot but the fact it got bumped out of the way of meeting it's dark matter doesn't.

Now this displacement of nothing starts a chain reaction of many more atoms, which generate mass, which in turn leads to the creation of gravity, which builds into the expansion of space and more importantly time. As matter grew and time was slowly created, the universe slowly, slowed down, from everything happening all at once to something as slow as the universe today. If you were an outsider trying to look in on this after the event (as we are), it would appear to look like an explosion. From everything all happening at once at a single point, to a relatively large amount of atoms interacting with each other, over an increasingly larger area, from faster than light, to eventually slowing down and stretching to the universe today. To us it would appear to expand at the speed of light, as time would be created at that speed. So Boom! Universe! But not really if you were there from the beginning. Time was just slowing down.


Displacement theory


Black holes

We all know the example, in two dimensions, a planet sits in space-time as a bowling ball on a trampoline. If you were to roll a smaller ball past the bowling ball, it would circle, until eventually falling into the centre and colliding. Remove pretty much all the friction and the smaller ball would seem to orbit the bowling ball.

Now imagine that the bowling ball is made of something much heavier, something that the trampoline can only just support without tearing. The ball would sink deeply into the trampoline's surface causing a droplet shape. Anything rolled nearby the heavier bowling ball eventually would end up falling into the trap of the droplet shape, never to escape, the only thing that could leave would be the air that the smaller ball displaced.

But just to confuse things, the universe isn’t two dimensional or made of rubber. The mass would have two poles, causing the droplet shape to become more doughnut like and the trampolines surface, space time, to stretch around, concealing the shape apart from the entrances.

An earlier project.... My thinking a few years ago...

Displacement Theory.

An actual theory of everything.

At the point of the beginning of what we know as the universe an atom appeared! This single tiny atom displaced the space it occupied. The displaced space causes a tiny amount of pressure on said atom. Then another atom appeared, and another, and another, probably over millions and millions of years. Each atom that appeared displaced its own tiny amount of space, each displaced amount of space caused more pressure. This happened for millions and millions of years until there were enough atoms to be the size of a small sun. The mass of atoms the size of a small sun occupied a space of the universe the size of a small sun. The pressure of the space of the universe around the mass of atoms the size of the small sun caused the effects of what we know as the effects of gravity.

Everything is Nothing.

String theory is a load of complicated made up rubbish! Why get so complicated? Unfortunately that is usually the direction things head in, as with the beginnings of everything, from a simple state of nothing to the confusion of the universe today. If you want to start at the beginning it must be simple, it must have all started from nothing.

So I might not make much sense, my facts may not be correct as I am learning about these things as I write, and, I might contradict myself a bit, but I am going to have a go at telling you my theory of everything. I have not finished thinking my theory complete through. There are some black holes, apt, some large black holes but this is how it starts.

My main overall belief is that everything started from nothing and just wants to be nothing again. It is the fact that everything wants to be nothing that drives the universe. Let me explain.

So, maybe, the starting point of the universe would be a neutron, which could indeed be nothing as it has no value, it is neutral. A fragment is split from a neutron forming a proton and electron. How this has happened I have no idea, but let’s say for now, it has. The electron is displaced and wants to rejoin the proton, it wants to be neutral or nothing again, as my theory dictates. The electron can’t meet the proton because it also wants to whiz off in a straight line, as everything has an opposite and equal reaction and the force of the split has given the electron some momentum. But it is held in limbo by the attraction of wanting to meet the proton and be neutral once more. Which is basically what we call centrifugal force. Anyway, no matter, hydrogen has just been created and this is the start the universe as we know it. Was there an actual ‘Big Bang’? We shall come to that later.

So, we see it as the negatively charged electron being attracted to the positively charged proton. And we know this as one of the four big forces; Electromagnetism. Each force is mealy a way that the universe of nothing is split and is trying to fix itself. It is very hard to explain in words as we don’t really have the words to explain and in some cases we have named things, and the way we think about what that name means is completely the wrong way. We see the smaller part of the split of nothing as being negatively charged and the large central part as being positively charge. Each piece is not charged positively or negatively, we just encounter the effects of them trying to be neutron again as these things. The way that this piece of neutralness is split to form a positive half and a negative half we happen to call electrowhatever…. It makes no difference.

I can only see one force, not even a force, just three things. One is Neutral. This has the perfect name for itself. The second and third are called a number of different things like positive and negative but a mealy two parts of neutralness trying to be neutral once more. I wonder what happens if neutralness splits into more than two? Or if indeed it can, or if it cannot then why can’t it? And does this explain why two protons want to get away from each other? These are things I will have to look into.

All in all. What I am trying to say is that a ‘force’ is what we call an unstable part of the universe trying to be stable again or a displaced part of nothing trying to get back to nothing once more. We happen to name different ways that nothing is separated as different kinds of forces. This justifies me to go using the word force. Even though I don’t like it.

One word I dislike more than ‘force’ is gravity because this is just a name for one direction of a force. Every other force has one name for all directions. So why one direction should have a name all to self is beyond me. This brings me nicely onto the next half of my theory.

The next half is on the larger scale. Gravity! Yuck!

Most people think there are four forces in the universe. In my opinion Gravity is definitely not one of them. It is a force as much as it is a similar to air pressure or water pressure. But this kind of force does not fit in with the four forces. I don’t know the whole story but it seems to me that Stephen Hawking, amongst other people, can not understand why gravity is so weak compared with the three other forces which started at the time of the big bang. One force is electromagnetism and another is something to do with radioactivity. These are just names for one thing anyway and are not necessary forces but I’ve already covered that, I would like to name all the forces that are not forces to prove my theory but maybe later …. Anyway gravity is not as strong because it has nothing to do with them! These big four starting forces, which I will call bbsf for now as I don’t know the real name, must exist inside an atom as that is where they started. Gravity does not and is only created by a massive collection of atoms. Therefore can not be a bbsf.

Gravity is simply one half of space pressure. Space pressure is just nothingness wanting to be nothing again. Space-time is nice and happy being inert and nothing with the tiny occasionally hydrogen atom popping up from time to time. It’s all lovely and peaceful with itself. Then along comes a massive load of atoms. Usually consisting of a planet or a sun or a black hole or of which are the same for my purposes. Just a big load of atoms. Anyway this massive load of atoms (or mass for short) pushes nothingness (space-time) out of its space. Squashed up Space-time wants to get back in its space and be nothing again. Much like holding a balloon full of air underwater. The force of space-time trying to get back to into the space that the mass has taken causes a pushing force from the surrounding space time. This pushing force on to the space that the planet has taken is what we know as gravity. There is also the opposite and equal reaction of the planet trying to get as nice and spread out as it possible can into space which has no name, as much as air pressure or water pressure only has one name for both reactions. Space pressure is a much better word for gravity is than gravity is.

So as you can see everything only exists because it wants to be nothing. And that is as far as I have got with my theory…….. I know it has some holes but I will fill them, eventually.

Is it just coincidence that a nice neutral amount of nothingness is already called a neutron; a massive collection of atoms is already called a mass. It’s certainly handy. If only space-pressure and nothingness were both recognised words.

An earlier project.... Very early workings out! Some times quite nonsensical.

Gravity is Nonsense!

I understand why the word gravity exists, it’s because people didn’t really understand it, but when you do understand it, the word gravity makes no sense.

Gravity is just one direction of the force; it is like calling the low pressure above a plane’s wing ‘air’ and not having a name for the rest of the gas in the atmosphere.

Unless the word gravity is used for both the pushing and pulling forces, then I would be happy, but you have all these scientists saying that gravity is only a pulling force, which is a load of rubbish. So apparently the ‘gravity’ pulls into the centre of a planet and then just stops does it? NO! There is another force pushing from the centre, what is this? It has no name. But it is the same as gravity.

So let me try to explain.

I shall compare it with air, I think that most pressure differences in the universe have the same laws; water and air do so why not space. I might regret this statement later but I’m sticking with it for now.

Albert Einstein theory is that a planet bends space-time like a heavy ball on a trampoline and everyone is happy with this theory, okay, so space isn’t linear like a trampoline, it’s 3 or even 4 dimensional so this effect is happening all the way around the planet, stretching a hole in space, 3 or 4 dimensional is a bit hard to think about so imaging a second trampoline inverted on top of the ball, and no, dare-I-say ‘Gravity’. (Fig.1)

Now the trampolines or space wants to get back to its normal state and pushes in on the ball or planet (this is Gravity (Note it does not pull)) but the solid mass of the ball/planet pushes out on the trampolines/space, much as the ground does to a building, and this has no name but is the opposite force of gravity, therefore this force can either be called gravity as well or the word gravity should be scrapped for space-pressure or space-time-pressure, although that’s getting a bit of a mouthful.

So there you have it, why is there only one word for water-pressure or air-pressure but space-pressure has a separate word for one direction of the force between high pressure and low pressure? It makes no sense!

The above was the words of a drunk.

As I was walking home from the pub this idea suddenly came to me and so I had to write it down. Since thinking about it further I have tried to disprove my theory but can’t. The only thing I can think that might be a flaw is magnetic force, but we shall look into that later, first lets look into my theory in more detail…..

Gravity is a pushing force compressing down onto the planet surface and not a pulling force at all.

This is quite hard to get your head around because this means that space (currently thought of as being an empty vacuum) is in compression. Mmhhh. I think I have found another flaw. Before we go into this maybe lets try to prove that gravity is a pulling or pushing force. For instance. The effects gravity has on buildings…

As you can see structural diagrams seem to back up my side of the story, in these diagrams found in some reference books gravity clearly pushes down and the ground pushes up. But maybe that’s not quite enough proof.

Why does the force of space trying to occupy the space taken by the planet cause things to fall to earth?

Sir Isaac Newton deduced that gravitational forces exist between all objects. This would work. Any size object would stretch space in my theory, it must be something to do with the amount, density and attraction of atoms to how strong gravity is. If space were made of very thinly spread, repelling, atoms then a tight cluster of atoms would force them to push back.

In further investigating I have found the ‘theory of loop quantum gravity’ this seems to suggest that

Space might be made up of some kind of atoms, maybe not atoms as we know them but something like it…… Maybe even something that repels atoms? Anyway I haven’t read the book, the theory of loop quantum gravity could be the same as mine.

Also if there were such a thing as a space-atom then this would explain why light bends around planets, as the space-atoms become more compressed around a planet light would stand more chance of hitting them and bouncing off.

Even though I have just used the words space-atom a lot in the previous sentence, I really don’t like it. I just thought I would let you know that.

I have found the reason for my theory not to be true: If there were ‘Space-atoms’ (I’ve really got to get a better word for them but there doesn’t seem to be much point now) trapped in a space-atom tight room, on a planet surface, this room would have no gravity with my theory, but it does. Unless ‘spatoms’ (no better, but you can see what I’ve done) effects could pass though atoms, in which case what would cause gravity in the first place?

So the previous few paragraphs about ‘spatoms’ were an absolute load of nonsense. Forget it. Gravity passes through solid objects. That’s a fact, which ruins my theory initially. A pretty obvious fact that I over looked. But I still am determined to find out how gravity is created. So this is what I am thinking: Nobody I know of understands gravity. That’s a fact. Centrifugal force passes through solid objects. That’s a fact. People understand centrifugal force. That’s a fact. If I can learn how centrifugal force passes though objects I should be able to work out how gravity does as well.

I basically want to work out what causes General Relativity. Even though Einstein worked out that there was this curving effect he did not work out why. I had a drunken thought that it seems to be the pressure difference between a planet and space. But what causes this difference is so far a mystery. But I don’t think it’s to do with spatoms!

So it begins…..

I have been thinking about how centrifugal force works. If you suddenly stop in a car then you get thrown forward. The laws of inertia explain this. An object will stay in a constant motion unless acted upon by an opposing force. So this rule tries to take you as far forward as it can before the seat belt stops you. Centrifugal force is similar but the object wants to go in a straight line but can’t because it is constantly being forced round a curve. It is a bit annoying that I don’t know why objects want to stay in there state of motion but I am sure I will find out eventually. And why is an objects path of motion straight? Anyway it is gravity and centrifugal force acting together which causes planets to orbit, and maybe even spin, but have to look into that. The planet wants to go in a straight path but gravity pulls it round. As I was writing that I was thinking that disproves my drunken theory but it doesn’t necessary because if a ball was rolled around the inside of a tyre it would still want to go in a straight line, that’s how those walls of death work. And anyway in Einstein’s theory it would be a ball rolled around a trampoline with a heavy ball in the centre, what is that? It’s gravity pulling that ball into orbit. Tee Hee! that’s true. No it’s not, it’s gravity that will pull that ball eventually into the other but it is the angle of the trampoline that will cause it to change its path. Is it? What would happen on a trampoline in space? Now that sounds like fun…. I might change the title of this to ‘Trampoline in Space’.

Sorry lost it for a moment there… So on a hyperthecal trampoline in space the ball would constantly be redirected by the angle of the surface but never fall towards the larger ball because there would be no gravity acting on it. It would constantly spin around, only to be slowed by the friction of ball on trampoline action. I think. I’ve just realised that the trampoline would not actually sag in space, but you get the idea.

So if we put this into reality we know wall the balls are but the trampoline is what? I need to find out what the trampoline is and then come back to this point. In my mind at the moment the trampoline is different pressures circling the planet. And like buoyancy the orbiting planet is circling the larger planet in its most buoyant point being pushed towards the planet by space but pulled outwards by centrifugal force. But I think that is wrong.

Hold your horses!

So I found out some interesting facts today. Other people already think my theory is correct, and it is not my theory at all because it’s Einstein’s theory but people find it too difficult to understand and use Newton’s incorrect theory instead. That’s okay if it works for the purposes you need it for, but I don’t think it should be tought in schools that that’s the correct one. Newton was wrong. Every mass does not exsert a gravitational force on every other mass, every mass stretches the surrounding space, and the surrounding space exserts a force onto every mass within its radius. Why arnt children tought that general relativity is correct but you can use newtons theory for the easy stuff.

One thing I could not work out is that how come the earth’s gravity forces the moon towards it but astronauts were not effected by it in a much lower orbit. I have since found out that it is not a lack of gravity that the astronauts experience but centrifugal force once more. Infact at 100km the atmosphere is so thin that a planes wing would have no effect but at this point gravity has only fallen by 3% even at 2600km the gravitational field is about 50%. A space shuttle orbits at about only 300km above the earth’s surface so Gravity plays a very big part, and obviously if I had thought about would have realised causes the shuttle to orbit. The shuttle is forced towards the earth but it’s forward momentum forces it out into space, it’s basically like it’s always falling towards earth but it has flown past earth so there is nothing below it. So the astronauts experience weight loss much as in a very fast lift. Make any sense?

So my theory needs a new name, as it is not my theory, I suppose it is general relativity is its correct name, and I

should hand it back to its rightful owner.

The way I see it, general relativity has no reason to why it exsists, it just does, hopefully I can prove why. Also to my knowledge and nasa’s it has not been proven to be correct it is just a theory.

Saturns Rings

Saturns rings consist of debris being held in orbit around saturns equator (I Think) Now, they are being held the

It is really annoying me now. In every document I find on the internet It says that gravity is a pulling force or an attractive force. IT IS NOT! In all the schools across the world children are being taut this incorrect information.

I was right in my drunken thoughts; the word gravity is used wrongly. It is not a pulling force that makes thing fall to earth, it is an distortion of space and time. It’s more like a pushing force from space that pushes things towards earth, and a pushing force from the mass that stops a mass from turning into a black hole, and a space. We use the word gravity as only one of these forces and in the wrong direction. And as for the word falling!

So is there any such thing as a pulling force?

So you may think if my theory is correct there will be a loss of gravity towards the centre of a planet. But how close to the centre and how do we find out? The problem with that is if there is no matter to stop it then it would continue, rather like if a balloon underwater did not have a smooth surface but a dimpled one. The water would always fill the furthest inwardly point.

If gravity is a pushing force why does the moon pull the sea towards it?

It doesn’t, it counteracts our gravity, thus lowering it.

We can create gravity using centrifugal force

Space is not a vacuum. It has trace amounts of hygrogen

Forces: as we know them