Thinking - Universal Theory

First let me just make a disclaimer.*

There's a stack of stuff that's wrong with the universe, but rather than tackle all that stuff, I'm just going to try to describe how it got into this state in the first place.

At least to my satisfaction.

Actually what I really want to do is see if I can describe it to my satisfaction.

Just as an exercise.

I have lots of missing bits to my theory, but I don't like all the stuff in current theories that pulls magic numbers out of hats.

And things like gravity suddenly getting repulsive at long distances. Gravity is a gentle, sensitive thing. But you don't want to get on it's wrong side by claiming it's repulsive at a distance. If you're going to say it, say it to it's face.

And all that dark matter to explain why the universe is still expanding, when according to someone's calculator, it should no longer be expanding.


I'm going to try to picture a model of the universe that has none of that stuff, and still makes sense. My real aim is to test a new plausibility function of something I call the Invention Engine, but a new theory of the universe, and/or Nobel prize for physics always looks good on the resume, especially when there is nothing else on my resume.

To start with, I thought about the stuff I was thinking about when I thought I had a pretty good grasp of gravity, but proved myself wrong. That was a few days ago. It looked like this as described in a previous post called "Thinking - Gravity" and basically led me to the conclusion that, not only did I not really understand gravity, but I might never understand it.

But gravity is very interestingly odd.

That much is certain.

So ...

The one thing I really like about the universe, perhaps the only thing, is the chaos, and it's a good thing, because I'm going to need it. Not chaos like in chaos theory. Well actually it's the same stuff, but just... mess. I'm also going to need a lot of extremely sophisticated mathematics. But there's no Nobel prize for mathematics because some mathematician helped Mrs Nobel cheat on Mr Nobel or something* It doesn't really matter, but I'll ignore the mathematical proof for now.

That and I can barely count.

But mostly because there's no Nobel prize.

So we need a universe that looks like ours, but without all the problems associated with those things I mentioned earlier.

Picture a big bang**.

Any big bang will do.

Notice how all the stuff hasn't blown out from the middle to the same distance.

That's normal.

Also notice that we cant see all of the tiny detail.

It's the entire universe after all, so we are probably going to need at least a second sheet of paper.

But for the time being, lets just concentrate on a little bit of it.

Bit "A"

Bit "A" isn't a special bit, it's just a bit. There are bits further out than it, and there are bits less far out.

If we zoom in on bit "A" we would find it would be made up of lots of smaller stuff.

Lots and lots.

And lots.

All flinging out roughly from some central point. Well, that's what you might think but I don't think scientists like central points.

But I do.

Anyway, some of it has glubbed together into lumpy bits, some other stuff is glowing in the dark.

Yet other stuff is on fire, and some has given up on the entire process and has wandered off course a bit. Perhaps it was caught up in a local little bang. Perhaps it was influenced by another thing's gravity as the really big other thing rushed past. Perhaps it left its hand brake off and it simply rolled away.

Who knows.

But lot's of it is doing it's own thing.

See the stuff in point "A" doing it's own thing?

What a mess.

See that little bit at point "B".

See it doing it's own thing?

What a mess.

But lets have a closer look at point "B".

Point "B" is also made up of a stack of smaller stuff, but a lot of it is arcing a bit to the left. Perhaps it's being influenced by all the stuff that didn't go out as far.

Point "B" was full of stuff that was not going straight up (I say up, but there is no up. Only out or in, or a bit to the side) Point "B's" stuff had it's course slightly altered by some stupid thing exploding, then a big thing went past a bit to it's left.

All the stuff that looks like this.

It turns out a lot of the stuff around point "B" is on an arc that's heading roughly along the line I've drawn.

Which is lucky, because otherwise my drawing would have been wasted.

But my point is that point "B's" Stuff isn't heading straight out any more, it's on an arc, and might eventually fall back towards the centre.

I don't care if it does, because I don't believe the universe is expanding.  Or at least I'm not sure if it is. I don't think we can ever know.

Actually I do, but ...

I believe the known universe is expanding.

Not the universe.

I think the universe might be doing exactly what it should be doing if not for the magic numbers, dark matter, and repulsive gravity.

Bit's of it are collapsing in on themselves as we speak. At least I hope they are. Because then I'll get a Nobel prize, and perhaps more importantly, nothing odd has to happen any more.

Point "B" on the other hand, is racing back into annihilation as well, but that turns out to perhaps not be the contradiction that it might seem.

At one point, point "B" went through the top of it's arc at point "C".

Then it started racing home.

Now it's at point "D".

Strictly speaking, that big black shadow on the bottom of my photos is part of the universe, but it's not important at the moment.

Part of looking at my perfectly flat billiard table valley in that previous post, forced me to try to picture some stuff I wasn't familiar with. I also don't understand what the stuff from point "B" is going through, so this looks like it might be an excellent time to employ the same methods.

If a car is driving at 10 kph, and another car is travelling at 100 kph, regardless of which car you are in,  as long as you cant see the road or any other fixed point, you see that you are moving away from the other car.

You might be moving in the direction of the other car but you cant tell if there is nothing to compare your movement against.

You are moving away from the other car.

Even if you are in the slow car chasing the other car, it's moving away from you, and so as far as you know, you are moving away from it.

Rather than driving, if we were to drop cars, say... from an invisible car dispenser, we would see a similar result.

Lets time our drops so that when the first car is falling at 100kph, and the second dropped car is falling at 10kph, we stop and take a look.

from any seat, as long as you couldn't see the car dispenser or anything else, you would experience the cars moving away from each other.

If we zoom all the way in (say to galaxy sized objects) to a few objects at point "D" where the objects have passed through the top of their arc, and are heading back, we see the objects are experiencing something similar to our car's passengers.

All objects at point "D" will see all other objects at point "D" falling away from them.

Pictured here, point "E" might be falling at say 100 Kazillion kph, and the object at point "F" might only be falling at 10 Kazillion kph.

Anyone standing on either object, would experience the other object moving away from them at 90 Kazillion kph.

Even if two objects were very close to each other (like the two also pictured next to each other in the centre), they would appear to be travelling slightly away from each other, at lets say... 3.2 kazillion kph, because if the trajectories are even slightly different they will be travelling at different speeds****.

According to lots of scientists, the universe needs to weigh*** up to ten times more than it does, otherwise it would be collapsing on itself. I think this is because you need a certain amount of momentum to overcome collapse. Like you need a certain amount of momentum to overcome gravity and stay in orbit. But we can tell the universe is expanding. We just don't like it because it isn't heavy*** enough.

Not only is it expanding, but the further stuff is away from us, the faster it's moving away from us.

When you drop stuff on earth, it accelerates away from where you drop it at 9.8m/second/second.

I have no idea how fast galaxies fall when you drop them.

And that's basically it.

What if we see a tiny bit, of a tiny bit, of the smallest fraction of a section of the universe. Just some of the objects from the point "B", that are currently in a free fall to annihilation in what may well prove to be big bang number 2, (or any other meaningless and forgettable number).

Those objects within the observable universe are all racing away from each other, not toward any obvious (to the math-less observer) point, just away from each other.

The further you are away from  any given object, the faster it appears to be moving away from you.

Things tend not to expand and then collapse along exactly the same lines. In fact things tend to collapse a bit more like a whirl pool where for reasons of chaos and mess, a bit goes into orbit rather than perfectly back the way it came. So arcs, rather than straight lines.

And there's no need for any missing matter or repulsive gravity.

I'm personally quite comfortable with that explanation, but that's probably because I have no mathematics skills.

As for this theory's merit or otherwise....

I have no idea.

But it does beg the question, "What would a hole... a perfectly straight hole... a perfectly straight hole in gravity infested space ...curved space... look like, and where would a ball roll if thrown onto an imaginary flat billiard table valley?"

I have no idea.

120 Things in 20 years is thinking about the universe, and has come up with this ad hoc collection of sentences to explain it.

*Text may not reflect reality

**Actually, I suspect it will prove to be more of a big, kind of gradual... whoosh.

***mass weight whatever - I dont pretend to know this stuff.

****I know I mentioned a big heavy thing overtaking the stuff at point "B", but I'm not sure that would really happen. That was just for illustration purposes to describe some mess.  If that was to occur, there would need to be secondary smaller bangs (which I'm all for) or perhaps more of a big condensing whoosh. I dont think it would have a lot of impact either way.


  1. *** Weight is mass (amount of stuff a thing is made of) in gravity. You would have the same mass on earth and on the moon, but you weigh a lot less.

  2. And ...

    "begs the question" is incorrectly used!

    You're saying nothing, me!

    Stop it!


Popular Posts