# Thread: Gravitational force between two spinning masses

1. Originally Posted by hansda
Originally Posted by AlexG
Because up to distances of about 200 million light years, gravitational attraction is stronger than expansion.
If the above is true , for a mass moving alongwith spatial expansion ; there should not have been any other mass within the radius of about 200 million light years . Is it true ?
Think of it like this....

Gravity starts out strong and drops off in an inverse square relationship $\frac{m}{distance^2}$.

Dark energy the place holder for the force behind the acceleration of expansion is a constant. It stays the same at all distances.

Closer than 200 million LY gravity rules, but there comes a point at or around 200 million LY that the farce of gravity is no longer stronger than the uniform effect of dark energy and expansion.

As roughly and simply as possible — gravity is stronger than expansion at <200 MLY and at distances >200 MLY expansion is greater.

2. Originally Posted by RoccoR
hansda,

I don't understand the question here.

What doen't follow?

v/r
R
My question is that : Why the smaller mass does not follow the 'cookie dough analogy' , as you have explained ?

Why the distance between two smaller masses is not increasing ?

Why only the distance between two bigger masses is increasing ?

3. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Think of it like this....

Gravity starts out strong and drops off in an inverse square relationship $\frac{m}{distance^2}$.
As per Newton's Law , Gravity reduces with distance . But why a mass should move with a reducing gravity ?

Dark energy the place holder for the force behind the acceleration of expansion is a constant. It stays the same at all distances.
Is this force constant throughout the space ? Can you give a figure or equation for this force (or any reference) ?

Closer than 200 million LY gravity rules, but there comes a point at or around 200 million LY that the farce of gravity is no longer stronger than the uniform effect of dark energy and expansion.
Is this rule same and uniform for all the masses ?

As roughly and simply as possible — gravity is stronger than expansion at <200 MLY and at distances >200 MLY expansion is greater.
So , according to you at around 200 MLY ; 'gravitational force' = 'spatial expansion force' . Can we say that , 'gravity is zero' at around 200 MLY ?

4. Originally Posted by RoccoR
hansda, et al,

Here is a profound question!

(MUSE)

Suppose the fabric of space is not stationary?

Suppose the Point of Origin (POI) for the Big Bang is still generating more fabric for space; and it is the movement of this fabric (outward) that is causing the expansion?

Could we tell the difference?

Most Respectfully,
R
Do you mean to say that space ( or fabric of space ) is still being generated ?

5. hansda, et al,

It's a --- "I wonder if it is."

I mean the generation of space-time (the fabric of space <FOS>), those planes that are warped by the presence of matter and that scientist use to explain gravity.

Originally Posted by hansda
Do you mean to say that space ( or fabric of space ) is still being generated ?
(THOUGHT - AMPLIFIED)

We estimate that, from our Earthly vantage point, our Solar System is about 13-to-14 Billion light years away from an epicenter we call the POO, or the Big Bang. We surmise that we are not the material that is the farthest out in the universe. There was some material that was ejected before that point in time, and some material ejected after that point in time. But all the material in the universe did not eject instantaneously.

What information do we have that the POO is not still erupting some sort of energy?

We surmise, from what we can observe from that portion of the universe we can detect, that when an event occurs, there is usually some remnant left behind (a dwarf, a neutron star, Cepheids, a black hole, etc) with a deep ring of ejected material that can sometime form a nebula. we also observer that the universe seems to form in clusters and chains:

Currently, the most popular theory suggests that about 73% of the Universe is dark energy, with about 23% is dark matter. That means that we can only glimpse about 4% the of the material we call the universe.

My thought is to question the "dark matter" and "dark energy" theory as a way to invent a solution to the unexplained observations we make.

We see some unexplained effect or action and tend to invent the mysterious and undetectable to explain it away; like the Luminiferous Ether (1881) Michelson–Morley fame. This "dark energy and dark matter" (both bordering on the edge of being supernatural) is another one of those enigmatic and puzzling properties to explain it.

We've already bought into the space-time theory and the warping of space-time (the fabric of space <FOS>) to account for gravity. Which also suggest that gravity may not be a force at all, but merely the manifestation of matter within space-time.

So, since we already have concluded that space-time <FOS> is real, why must it be stationary? Why can it not be in motion - and explain the motion of the universe? Why must we assume that the 96% of reality that exist between me and you is some mystical thing that we cannot sense OR test for in any real way?

Just My Question and Thought!

Very Respectfully,
R

6. Originally Posted by RoccoR
I mean the generation of space-time (the fabric of space <FOS>), those planes that are warped by the presence of matter and that scientist use to explain gravity.
We've already bought into the space-time theory and the warping of space-time (the fabric of space <FOS>) to account for gravity. Which also suggest that gravity may not be a force at all, but merely the manifestation of matter within space-time.
So, since we already have concluded that space-time <FOS> is real, why must it be stationary?
In fact space-time is not stationary or static . Space-time is also moving alongwith the masses .

Why can it not be in motion - and explain the motion of the universe?
Let us consider the interaction between a mass and space-time . Presence of a mass warps or curves spacetime . Absence of mass does not cause any curvature to spacetime . As the curvature of spacetime generates gravity , the mass moves alongwith this gravity . As mass moves to a different location , the curvature of spacetime will also move to the new location of the mass . Thus 'curvature of spacetime' is also moving alongwith the mass . This curvature and normalisation (no curvature) of spacetime is local movement of spacetime . Thus spacetime is locally dynamic and elastic also .

As the 'curvature of spacetime' moves alongwith the mass , spin of the mass also may have some additional contribution to the 'curvature of spacetime' .

Why must we assume that the 96% of reality that exist between me and you is some mystical thing that we cannot sense OR test for in any real way?
This dark energy may be supporting elasticity of spacetime .

7. Now , that Higgs-Boson has been discovered . This particle gives mass to massless particles and slow down their vellocities from c . These masses generates gravity or curves spacetime .

This gravity generation requires energy . As long as this gravity is not generated , the energy may remain as dark energy (which is almost 96% ) .

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•