Gravity Restatement

Consider the first schematic diagram. It represents gravitational mass displacement at work. At left is a massive gravity object, such as a large galaxy. A less massive galaxy (right) is moving toward the gravity object. Both galaxies have super massive black holes at center.

Two imaginary lines (green) represent a starting line and finish line for two photons, shown in red. Both photons cross the start line simultaneously, one (bottom) emitted from an outer star in the galaxy, the other emitted from a star near the center. Great distance separates the photons, at least a thousand light years.

Consider the second schematic diagram. The less massive galaxy is accelerating toward the gravity object and pulling the nearby photon with it. The photon near galaxy center reaches the imaginary finish line first. It wins!

Were humans to place a particle accelerator near the center of the less massive galaxy to accelerate a particle to 99% of light speed, that particle would travel faster than the distant photon, as long as the black hole at center had a speed of greater than 1% of light speed. The particle would move in a manner analogous to the photon (first diagram).

This in no way violates E=mc^2.

 

The familiar Big Bang model of the universe is represented here by the yellow
circle (initial bang), and two arrows (time). The three faint dots to the left of
the yellow circle represent three hypothetical points “beyond the Big Bang”:
The “Indeterminate Points”.
 
Indeterminate Points

Indeterminate Points

Because of Indeterminacy, Notions of “Pre-Big Bang Era” Fall Apart

 Father Time rules.

 Why?

 The answer is simple. The existence of time before the Big Bang can be discussed theoretically but never proven. The theoretical point called the “Indeterminate Point” is a point that can NEVER conclusively be proven physically. It can be discussed hypothetically, but it cannot be proven to exist. Consequently, one cannot conclusively prove the existence of other photons (three dots shown above) that are theoretically beyond the Big Bang. Therefore, the entire notion of an epoch beyond the Big Bang collapses.

Any photon that is, hypothetically speaking, even farther beyond the Big Bang can certainly never be proven. The reason for this fact is that the Indeterminate Point cannot be proven. The Indeterminate Point is the theoretical point that is just beyond the Big Bang in the speculative diagram above. As explained, it cannot be proven physically because of the initial heat of the Big Bang.

That heat would certainly have destroyed anything that might have existed. As mentioned in the article entitled “Indeterminacy”, the energy from the initial singularity would have obliterated anything near it. Because the Indeterminate Point cannot be proven to have physical existence, the other points too remain a matter of speculation.

Contrast this situation with what is known about the universe according to Big Bang theory. It is known from physical evidence provided by Penzias, Wilson, and Smoot that background radiation exists from the initial singularity. Indeed, Smoot and his team at Berkeley have created a map of this background radiation. Such physical evidence proves that the initial singularity was a moment of intense heat and energy. 

Professor Penrose, though he is the premier mathematician of this age, will not be able to prove the existence of a time before the Big Bang.

Copyright, 2009. Wade Hobbs, Jr. 

indeterminacy_point_ver33

To my mind, Professor Roger Penrose’s lecture, “Aeons before the Big Bang”, merits another response.  Mathematics begins with very simple propositions such as 1+1=2, which can hardly be denied. Professor Penrose and Professor Stephen Hawking have manipulated the Einstein equations and proven that the universe began with an initial singularity. Professor Penrose, focusing on a particular term in Einstein’s equation, reasons that there is some possibility that an entire epoch existed before the Big Bang. This web page is presented to prove that, though mathematics provides powerful analytic tools for theoretical formulations, it can never be used to conclusively establish that time existed before the Big Bang.

The above diagram is the familiar schemata showing the Big Bang, but with a tiny theoretical point just behind the initial singularity (the faint dot just to the left of the yellow circle). It is only – and can only be – a theoretical point.  We can imagine it, we can discuss it hypothetically, but it can never be proven because of the initial heat of the Big Bang. That heat has been estimated at 10^32 Kelvin. The initial heat, so great that it borders on the inconceivable, effectively establishes a fundamental limitation on what can be known about the universe.

The tiny point on the diagram represents the “indeterminate point”. Though science may look back to the Big Bang, it can never describe the indeterminate point because of lack of information. The reader will pardon any excessive redundancy; perhaps this theoretical point should be called the “Great Indeterminate Point”. The initial heat obliterated any information that would have been left theoretically before the Big Bang. We can barely detect information from the initial singularity, so can we really expect to find information from a time before the Big Bang?

What we know is that the Big Bang began with immense heat. Professor Gamow predicted that background radiation from the initial singularity would still be detectable.  As a professor at George Washington University, he published often. His teacher in Russia, Friedmann, had also concluded that the universe began with an initial singularity.

Hubble, the famous astronomer and Oxford graduate who worked with Vesto Slipher, observed that the universe was expanding. He based his observations on data he recorded through his astronomy work using the giant Mount Wilson telescope, and in doing so, he built upon the work of Slipher. LeMaitre, too, believed that the universe began with an initial singularity.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate, has described the initial moments that followed the Big Bang in his book, “The First Three Minutes”. According to Weinberg, the initial moment was one of incredible heat. Any reader who doubts this can review Professor Weinberg’s book.  It was a moment of such incredible heat that one can hardly imagine it.

After Professor Hoyle derisively labeled Gamow’s concept “The Big Bang Theory”, the name became a part of our vocabulary. Gamow, known for his sense of humor, named Alpher and Bethe as co-authors of the paper; Herman joined later. (Any reader or researcher who wishes to learn more on the topic can visit the Library of Congress.) Professor Gamow was teaching at George Washington at the time along with Alpher, his assistant.

Wilson and Penzias, both at ATT at the time, stumbled upon the background noise that confirmed the Big Bang. Years later, George Smoot and his team at Berkeley produced a map that shows the cosmic background radiation. Wilson, Penzias, and Smoot all received Nobel prizes for their work, and it has been conclusively established that the universe began in an initial moment of tremendous heat.

Let us presume, for sake of argument, that the indeterminate point is at 10^(-3) beyond the Big Bang. What information do we have about such a moment? How do we collect information about that moment? If our best instruments can barely detect the background radiation from the initial singularity, how can know anything about a theoretical point beyond the Big Bang? What physical proof can Professor Penrose offer for a time beyond the Big Bang?

Would it be easier if the scientific community were to begin analysis at a full one second beyond the Big Bang? We lack information about anything beyond the Big Bang, so how can we know anything about such a theoretical epoch? Indeed, what information do we have about anything that theoretically existed before the Big Bang? How is it that we are to proceed on exploration of anything beyond the Big Bang?

The theoretical point on the other side of the Big Bang cannot be proven because of lack of information. With it falls all other notions, concepts, and conjecture about what may have happened beyond the Big Bang.

What lies beyond the Big Bang? There be dark, ugly dragons beyond that point.  Seriously, with the dearth of physical evidence on what occurred after the Big Bang, how is that we can expect to gather evidence of anything beyond it? Exactly where do we start?

It is true that we have the Cosmic Microwave Background information. That is only a faint perturbation in the radiation from the initial singularity. That evidence has been confirmed by Wilson, Penzias, and by the Smoot team at Berkeley who built the COBE telescope and confirmed it. Wilkinson at Princeton confirmed it.

Nothing has been presented to date that proves that anything physical exists or existed in the theoretical area beyond the Big Bang. To my mind, it would be a vain effort to attempt to prove that anything ever existed at the theoretical point.

Easter, 2009.

Copyright, 2009. Wade Hobbs, Jr.

The following diagram shows two geometries.  On the right is a schematic drawing of the spacetime around the sun.  Notice that the sun’s gravity alters space somewhat.  On the left is a schematic drawing of the spacetime around a black hole having mass of 2 billion times that of the sun (a Schwarzchild geometry).  The depth of curvature of space caused by the black hole cannot be accurately represented; suffice it to note that the curvature must be dramatic. 

To my knowledge, the depth of the gravity well caused in spacetime by such a massive black hole has not been published.

The known laws of physics breakdown in the black hole region.

Perhaps this geometry of spacetime explains the jet that extends from the black hole in the M87 galaxy. See the picture at  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M87_jet.jpg  (Dan Gardner) and the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87 .

geometry12 Read the rest of this entry »

Gravitational Mass Displacement at Work: Two Galaxies Attracted by Gravity

Gravitational Mass Displacement at Work: Two Galaxies Attracted by Gravity


(These articles were originally published on the Lycos network beginning on March 27, 2009, and transferred to WordPress about a month later.)

 

 

Oceanic Whirlpools; Hurricanes; Tornados; bathtub whirlpools; eddies in rivers; Jupiter’s Red Spot; Two star systems where one star’s gravity is pulling in the other star; whirlpool galaxies that experience gravitational pull of a gravity object.

Gravity Objects explain a great deal. 

Here is The Law:  Whenever you get three things – A massive Gravity Object, another less massive collection of mass, and a space of relatively little mass between them – you are likely to see a whirlpool-type geometry that leads to a movement of the lighter mass to the Gravity Object – a “Gravitational Mass Displacement”.

As a black hole pulls in more matter, it increases in gravity, causing it to bend space, in a manner that is analogous to a tornado, or a funnel cloud.  It moves toward the Gravity Object.

Someone (Watson) has apparently seen a phenomenon like this – Astronomica, p. 145.  Two black holes collide and create gamma ray bursts.

This law explains the mysterious gamma ray bursts.  As a galactic black hole intensifies, it starts bending space in the direction of the more massive gravity object.  When the black hole collides with the gravity object, it causes a gamma ray burst and great destruction, much the same way a tornado touchdown causes destruction.

Further, the new law explains supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies.  Somewhere in distant space, a gravity object exists.  This could be another galaxy or another black hole or a galaxy cluster.  Between the gravity object and the galaxy is space that has far less mass.  Notice the similarity with earth (a gravity object), air and funnel clouds.  The pull of gravity from the gravity objects creates the black hole and the swirl of the other galaxy in the first place.  While we may not be able to immediately see the gravity object, we know it lies on a line that is roughly perpendicular to the plane of the black hole.  (Note that, to the extent that the gravity object is not on a line that is perpendicular to the plane of the black hole, it is because of the motion of the gravity object and the galaxy caused initially by the Big Bang.)

All swirling galaxies operate according to this new law.  We don’t see “funnels” in space because, just as in the case of tornadoes, the funnel cloud doesn’t usually touch down.  Most galaxies that are swirling appear like dark funnel clouds that begin to form but never touch down.  Further, we are observing a process that would in many cases take perhaps thousands or millions of years, as compared to the seconds it takes a tornado to strike.

This law explains the problem mentioned by Watson at p. 182.  In fact, Watson alludes to the “bath water” phenomenon at p. 182.  The Law explains the “cannibalism” of one galaxy by another noted by Watson at p. 184. It is essentially an extension of gravity theory.

 

Newton Variations

Gravity Objects explain a great deal.  Again, here is The Law:  Whenever you get three things – A massive Gravity Object, another less massive collection of mass, and a space of relatively little mass that separates the two – you are likely to see a whirlpool-type geometry that leads to a movement of the lighter mass to the Gravity Object – a “Gravitational Mass Displacement”.

Further Reading:  Books by the following authors are quite good and are recommended without reserve:  Filkin, Sagan, Hawking, Penrose, Gibbins, Thorne, Wheeler, Greene, Einstein, Newton.

 

Copyright, 2009.  Wade D. Hobbs, Jr.