This is Still Under Progress
To my readers, please just keep in touch. I'm still researching and editing my other articles ...Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Custom Search
About Me
- sir jon
- I was inspired by the book of Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time”, copyright 1988. From then on, I'd been obsessed (if that is the right word) to find out what gravity really is and based on this book, I made my own opinions about gravity in a non-conventional points of view. I was also a Math Student before and creating Square Edging came from my own innovative thinking. ...as a repairman, I'm wishing to share my skill and experiences
Hi , dont know if my blog comes attached to this , but it's sort of similar in ideas.
ReplyDeleteI came upon my theory by thinking that the idea of a load of fundamental particles in the UNiverse was daft , and tried to simplify it . One particle seemed too much - how was it formed ?
Two particles ,equal and oppposite in every form , which when met , destroyed themselves seemed much better . I believe nature is very simple in its simplest form , but creates complexity very quickly ...
~Thus if you assume that sometimes these get blown apart before self destruction and you have a mechansim to create 'matter' [ plus an equal amount of anti matter of course] . As these have equal and opposite properties , it follows that one has negative gravity and a replusive force .
For this to create a universe where most of the middle bit is positive [sic] , it follows that the universe if full of these particles being created ad destroyed , a real maelstrom in fact ....
If some of these particles sometimes lasted long enough then they would be blown apart and 'stable' particles would be about . If some of these encompassed a negative one or two , then we can get partticles with different properties and we have the beginings of a universe ... [or maybe part way through]
With time , the positive bits would accumulate through gravity and you would get extremely large lumps of positive matter [ the other sort would be getting pushed away through gravity ] .
Twoor more [much much more likely 2] agglomerates would eventually be attarcted to each other and would finally hit . Thus the Big Bang couldbe exactly that , a HUGE explosion .
During this bang , [ eventually when things cooled down a tad] , some negative bits would be encompassed by the MUCH larger number of neagtive bits , and matter as we know it could start to be produced .
Thus this theory efectively states that there is a large amount of other matter within space [ but most balancing out og course ].
The centre of the Universe would be a very large ball of negative , of course .
Now , if you simplify the above still further ,and make the assumption that matter has time as well as matter and energy and gravity ........... and dimensions?
At the start of the universe there was nothing as there was no time at all. then a particle appeared and time started . Once time starts ,then the rate of accumulationof these particles can start accelrating [ as it must surely be today ] and thus timeflow can start accelerating .
If we look at the expanding balloon of hawkins thoughts . Light travelling from a distant source is travelling at a different time speed from the observer [ when it gets to the observer , the time has to speed up to his timerate , so getting a redshift ] thus all light from a distant object would appear 'almost' as a linear speed going away from the observer . There wold appear to be an acceleration of course , which would be the rate of actual expansion of the Universe . Thus the observations that the universe is accelerating is wrong .... [ if I'm correct ]
A hugely controversial theory , which seems to fit all the facts though ....