Gravity And Time

In my Theory Of Stationary Space, matter consists of bundles of strings in background space of at least four dimensions. One of these spatial dimensions is what we experience as time because our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. This causes us to see matter as consisting of particles rather than strings, such as electrons and quarks, because we can only see in three of the (at least) four dimensions. This also explains why the speed of light seems to be the maximum possible speed, but we have no physical explanation of why this speed is what it is.

As I have described, the spatial direction of our time flow moves away from the Big Bang because we perceive this as the beginning of the universe. Even though it is space which separates us from the Big Bang, we perceive it as time because it lies in the direction along which our bundles of strings are aligned, and along which our consciousness moves.

I am certain that we are traveling in the "right" direction as far as time goes. After all, the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe and it seems logical that our direction of time flow in space should be away from it.

But even so, it wouldn't be breaking any basic rules if our experience of time flowed in the opposite direction, toward the Big Bang, since time is really a dimension of space. But what would it look like to us if this opposite time direction were the case? What would the basic laws of physics be like to us?

To begin with, since what we perceive as time is actually a dimension of space, if it were reversed then the other spatial directions would have to be reversed also. North would be what was south, and east would be what was west.

The significant thing about this thought experiment of having our time flow in the opposite direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains is what it reveals about gravity. As it is now, we see objects apart but waiting to be pulled together by gravity. If time were reversed, we would see objects together but waiting to fall apart.

The point of this is that gravity is actually a function of time. It is true that gravity is an attractive force as long as time moves forward. However, I think that I have shown beyond any doubt that time is anything but absolute. It is only something that we perceive as our consciousness moves along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Since gravity must be a function of time, because gravity creates motion and motion is a function of time, the revelation that time does not really exist, but is only the way that we perceive a dimension of space, forces us to redefine gravity.

It is important to understand that to grasp this concept, we must eliminate from our minds all of the "new motion" that comes from living things. This includes anything constructed by, or altered by, living things. Nothing in inanimate reality is really in motion, or has been in motion since it was thrown out across space by the Big Bang. But living things came along with the ability to move things and make changes to the environment, this is referred to as "new motion".

I explained that while the principle of entropy is often cited as proof that time can never be reversed, this is really not the case because all meaningful examples of entropy involve either living things or things made by living things. One example is the bottle of ink placed in an aquarium filled with water, the ink flows out of the bottle and mixes with the water much more easily than it flows back into the bottle. But this involves items made by and altered by living things (us), it only shows that our time direction is not reversible. It does not apply to inanimate matter.

The point of this concept is that the universe is neutral with respect to gravity, whether it is an attractive or a repulsive force depends on which time direction that we move in. Living things are designed to move in one time direction only. If we were to reverse time as I am describing here, we would not have people walking backward.

Moving in our time direction away from the Big Bang, we see the gravity of a star's mass crunching together smaller atoms into larger ones. If we moved in the opposite time direction, we would see larger atoms being pulled apart by gravity into smaller ones.

If the flow of time were reversed, nuclear fusion would be replaced by fission. In the present time direction, we perceive the extreme gravity in centers of stars overpowering the electron repulsion of electromagnetism to crunch small atoms together into larger ones. If time were reversed, we would perceive the gravity in centers of stars as overpowering the strong nuclear force in pulling large atoms apart into smaller ones.

The nuclear binding energy curve, of the binding energy holding nuclei together, would be inverted. Stars would seem to generate energy by fission, rather than fusion, but the fission would result from reversed gravity, and not from neutrons colliding with the nucleus. Instead of smaller atoms being crunched together, and releasing excess binding energy when they combine to form a larger atom, it would be inverted in that the energy would appear to be released when the larger atom is pulled apart by reverse gravity. Since gravity works with the strong nuclear force to fuse atoms, if gravity were inverted the binding energy curve would also be inverted.

In the opposite time direction, gravity would work against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei against the electromagnetic repulsion of like-charged protons. The creation of elements from one another involves a competition between the basic forces of nature. In our present time direction, gravity in the center of a star works against the electromagnetic repulsion that keeps atoms separate by the like charges of the electrons in neighboring atoms.

Thus, electromagnetism dominates until the sheer mass of the star allows gravity to overwhelm it. If time were reversed, we would perceive the balance of forces as having shifted. Gravity would now be working against the strong nuclear force, which binds atomic nuclei together, rather than against electromagnetism. There would still be the competition between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism, concerning the formation of elements from one another, but gravity would have changed sides.

The electromagnetic force and the nuclear forces would not be changed if our time flow was in the opposite direction. Like charges would still repel, and opposite charges would still attract. Negative would still be negative, and a positive charge would still be positive. The strong nuclear force would still provide the binding energy to hold the like-charged protons together against electromagnetic repulsion in the nucleus. It is only gravity that would be different.

Picture space as something like a rubber sheet, and this makes perfect sense considering the well-proven Lense-Thirring Effect described by Einstein, otherwise known as "frame-dragging". The simplest way of proving that space actually behaves like a fabric is that a satellite in orbit around the earth will have it's position gradually shifted by the rotation of the earth because this rotation pulls the sorrounding space with it, to some degree. My cosmological theory describes space as infinitesimal alternating negative and positive charges in multiple dimensions, so it makes sense that it can be "pulled" to a certain extent.

My conclusion is that if the rotation of a planet can have an effect on space by "pulling" it along with the rotation, what about the expansion of the entire universe? This expansion has got to have some local effects that we can observe or measure. Whether the universe, as a whole, is expanding or contracting depends, of course, on which way our time direction is flowing.

When we move away from the Big Bang in time, as we do, we perceive the universe as expanding but gravity as an attractive force, pulling matter together, on a local scale. The local effect opposes the state of the universe as a whole. this is rather like pulling a rubber band so that it expands, and the band tries to counteract this by contracting.

If our time direction was toward the Big Bang, we would perceive just the opposite. The universe would seem to be contracting, as a whole, but gravity would be counteracting this by acting as a repulsive force. This would be like squeezing a rubber ball so that the ball tries to counteract by pushing outward.

This scenario does imply that gravity must be getting stronger, from our point of view, as we move along in our present time flow direction. Although this occurs much too slowly for us to perceive. This strengthening is because the space in the material universe is becoming more stretched by it's expansion, and it tries to resist this stretching. If we were moving in the opposite time direction, gravity would be getting weaker while the universe was contracting, until it could not hold matter together at all.

Gravity would actually be more complex than simple attraction or repulsion, because of the apparent expansion or contraction of the universe, according to our direction of time flow. In the opposite time direction, gravity would seem to be a repulsive force on a local scale, but an attractive force in the universe as a whole, because the universe would appear to be contracting.

This means that we could describe gravity in terms of osmosis. This is a chemical and biological principle that apparently has nothing to do with gravity, but provides an excellent analogy. In a simple example of osmosis, if salt is concentrated in a certain portion of a volume of water, osmosis will tend to move water into the concentration until the salt is evenly distributed in the water.

In the opposite time direction gravity would be an osmotic force, trying to even the distribution of matter in space by repulsion at the local level and attraction in the universe as a whole. In our present time direction, away from the Big Bang, gravity can be described as a clumping force, or anti-osmotic. It pulls matter together locally, even as the universe expands as a whole. The "clumps" of matter held together by gravity would be groups of galaxies.

What about the time dimension of space? I mean the dimension of space along which the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains are aligned. This is the dimension going toward and away from the Big Bang. The universe is neither expanding nor contracting in that dimension. Therefore, according to this theory, there should be no gravity in that dimension.

But what about cosmic rays? These rays, which are not really rays but particles of matter, bombard us from all directions in space, and move at, or close to, the speed of light. Now according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a body moving at the speed of light should have infinite mass. Since gravity is proprtional to mass, it should also have infinite gravity. This should be true even for a sub-atomic particle. These cosmic ray particles are particles with mass, not massless neutrinos.

By the way, I discussed this in depth in the posting "Cosmic Rays And Relativity" and how it proves that my cosmological model must be correct.

Obviously, the particles comprising cosmic rays certainly do not have infinite gravity. They would pull the entire universe in around them if they did. We cannot see that such particles, moving close together in the same direction, have any gravitational effect on each other, or other matter, at all. Strings of matter do not occupy all spatial dimensions, meaning that there would be no gravity in the dimensions perpendicular to the dimension along which the strings of matter are aligned. So, an object that we perceive as moving at the speed of light, which is actually perpendicular to our time dimension, actually has no weight at all from it's own point of view.

This model also helps to explain why electromagnetic waves have no mass. My theory defines space as a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating infinitesimal negative and positive charges. Space does not have mass, and it defines what masslessness is. Matter is defined as long strings of an electric charge. Since this is a disruption of the neutral space pattern, matter does have mass. Electromagnetic waves are also disruptions in the perfect checkerboard of background space charged particles. These waves affect the matter which has mass, but have no mass themselves due to the dimension of space lacking parallel strings of matter in which they exist.

This means that if the so-called "Steady-State" model of the universe, in which there was no Big Bang, no known beginning, and no apparent expansion or contraction were correct, there would also be no gravity, either attractive or repulsive.

Living beings, moving in the opposite time direction, could conceivably co-exist. They would perceive one another as moving backward. If they could communicate, they could tell each other what was in their future, but only for the speaker's own past and for inanimate matter outside of the creatures themselves and their influence, such as earthquakes, meteorite impacts and, supernovae.

Beings with a reverse time direction would perceive the universe as having been created in the past (our future), but in the process of coming apart by reverse gravity. Gravity would seem to be an osmotic force evening out the distribution of matter, with the osmotic force getting stronger as time progressed. A ball thrown into the air would still fall back down because the reverse gravity is not yet strong enough for it to be otherwise.

Just as gravity seems to get stronger to us as it pulls mass together, due to the increasing concentration of mass, reverse gravity would appear to get stronger as it pulls mass apart. They would perceive that there was attractive gravity that created the universe in their past (our future), but that gravity was in the process of evening out the matter in the universe in an osmotic way. The stronger the gravity, such as in the centers of stars, the more it is reversed.

We know that our apparent expansion of the universe is not due to gravity, but those with the opposite time direction would have no Big Bang in their past as a reference point, and it would appear that gravity is an osmotic force.

Instead of perceiving matter-antimatter mutual annihilation when the two are brought into contact, those in the opposite time direction would perceive spontaneous creation out of empty space, equal amounts of matter and antimatter along with the burst of energy. There would be many such "Big Bangs" instad of the single one that we, in our time direction, perceive. They would have our Big Bang far in their future. But if beings in the reverse time direction put matter and antimatter together, they would get the mutual annihilation and burst of energy.

By the way, I find that this time perspective on the relationship between matter and antimatter strongly indicates that the Big Bang was such a mutual annihilation, as I speculated in the cosmological theory.

We see at 45 degrees into the past dimension, as I described in "Why We Perceive The Speed of Light". This means that, if our direction of time flow were reversed, the groups of galaxies in the wider universe would seem to be much further apart then they do to us, although they would appear to be gradually moving closer.

In summary, gravity as we see it now is a function of time. That means that, if time turns out to only be something that we perceive and not a part of inanimate reality, gravity must also be something other than it seems to us. We are designed to move in one time direction along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, but it would not be breaking any fundamental rules if our time flow was in the opposite direction so that the Big Bang appeared in the future, rather than in the past. But since gravity is a function of time, because it creates motion which is a function of time, it would have to be reversed if our time direction was reversed.

But how can a basic force of nature be reversed if time, which we only perceive, was reversed? None of the other forces of nature, electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force binding atomic nuclei, would be reversed.

There is one very simple, clear and, obvious explanation. If time were reversed, the apparent expansion of the universe would also be reversed. If space can be shown to behave like a fabric by the Lense-Thirring Effect (frame dragging), then the expansion of the universe on a large scale must also have some type of local effects.

Indeed it does. But whether the universe, as a whole, is contracting or expanding, the local effect is of space resisting by either being an attractive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as expanding, or being a repulsive force if our time direction causes us to perceive the universe as contracting.