The Gravity Model vs. Big Bang Theory

I'm a layman with a wide interest in science subjects. Some years ago I came up with a theory which I believe explains the cosmological redshift and other observations about the universe much better than Big Bang theory. I'd like to post it as a topic on this forum just to see what kind of reaction it gets. As it's rather long, I'll do it in two parts. This first post contains the main points. Okay? Here goes.

In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, scientists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy'. This is because their thinking is constrained by their belief in an expanding universe caused by the Big Bang. However, an alternative explanation could be that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature capable of causing such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a super-massive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) to which all the galaxies in the observable universe werebeing drawn.

If such a body existed, it seems unlikely that it would be the only such body in the universe, just as the Milky Way is not the only galaxy. There might be billions of such supermassive bodies, each drawing billions of galaxies towards them. This would mean that that which we cal the 'observable universe' is merely a finite system of galaxies among many such finite systems in the 'universe at large'.

If such a model could explain other observations such as the fact that the galaxies all seemed to be moving away from each other, then would it not deserve to replace the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory which requires us to believe so many unorthodox and unproven assumptions about the universe. I believe it should.

A simple 'thought experiment' reveals how the Gravity Model would result in almost all the observable galaxies being redshifted. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by Jupiter's gravity into 22 discernible fragments up to 2km in diameter. The fragments were described as being like a 'string of pearls'. Imagine five of those 'pearls' in a line numbered 1 to 5 with 1 closest to Jupiter and 5 farthest away, with equal spacing between them. You, as the observer, are on number 3, the middle fragment. You have at your disposal, the most exquisitely sensitive scientific instruments capable of detecting minute differences in redshift, velocity and acceleration. You would see that the other four fragments were all redshifted. Fragments 2 and 4 would have the same redshift value. Fragments 1 and 5 would also have the same redshift value, but their redshift would be higher than that of 2 and 4. In other words, the farther away a fragment is, the greater its redshift. This is not because the space between them is expanding, but because of the differential influence of Jupiter's gravitational pull with regard to the proximity of the fragments. Increasing redshift with increasing distance - exactly what we see when we look at the galaxies. Your instruments would also tell you that the fragments were accelerating.

However, it could be argued that the galaxies are not a two dimensional string of pearls. This is true. But, in whatever direction you look, the galaxies you see would either be closer to or farther away from the Great Body than yourself, and so they would be redshifted. Nevertheless, this presents the Gravity Model with its most serious challenge. Big Bang theorists claim that the universe is isotropic. This means that galaxies at a given distance from the observer would be moving at the same velocity away from him in every direction. However, this idea that the universe is isotropic is simply not true. Various research groups have found that the recessional velocity of galaxies with similar intrinsic luminosities varies according to the direction in which the galaxy is to be found. One study adjudged minimum values to be around two thirds of the maximum. One might have expected a greater discrepancy. It may be that galaxies which lie in the direction of the Milky Way's galactic plane, and are therefore not seen, will provide more extreme values.

Another observation which Big Bang theory cannot explain is the 'peculiar' motion of galaxies. In the Gravity Model, the galaxies will not simply be travelling towards the Great Body in a straight line. Instead, they will be spiralling towards it, and the 'peculiar' motion is the transverse component of their spiral path.

The CMBR. I have read that the 2.7K temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be caused by hydrogen clouds, but that astronomers have not been able to detect enough clouds to account for it. If the observable universe is a finite system, as it must be in the Gravity Model, then the question arises as to what lies beyond it. The answer must be that it is a hydrogen field, since galaxies cannot condense out of nothingness. This hydrogen field envelopes the observable universe and presumably radiates at 2.7K. It is the source of galaxies and astronomers have observed giant, highly flattened 'pancakes' of hydrogen containing up to 10 to the power of 14 solar masses. It seems likely that these are the precursors of large clusters of galaxies, and they are being drawn into the observable universe by the gravity of the Great Body.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where's part 2?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought I'd wait for a few replies before I posted it, QM.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand, I was just getting into your theory. I have to admit, I'm as laymen as they get, so my understanding of the Big Bang theory and it's supportive evidence is limited, but your theory makes just as much sense to me as the Big Bang.

 

Yes, they have found these Super Massive Black holes. They are in the center (Not necessarily the exact center) of all the regular galaxies. The galaxies in clusters are gravitationally bound to each other, so the expanding space is actually the space between the clusters that is expanding.

Hope that helps.

RussT
S=G
___________________________
Everything, is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

 

You have missed the point by a long way, Russ. I am not talking about a black hole inside a galaxy. I am talking about a supermassive body that exists outside the observable universe and very probably is more massive than all the galaxies in the observable universe combined.

 

Does this 'supermassive body' exist such that it circumnavigates the entire visible universe? It would have to if all galaxies in all directions are moving away.

 

In the model, the entire observable universe condenses from a hydrogen field as a result of the gravity of the Great Body. All these galaxies are moving towards it in spiral paths. Models with a cluster of Great Bodies all influencing the motions of galaxies in the observable universe are possible, but observed phenomena can be explained by the simplest model of just one Great Body. This means that the observable universe is a finite system, possibly one of billions of such finite systems throughout the 'universe at large'.

I've another post to make on the subject, but it's quite long and I haven't the time at the moment. Hopefully, I'll put it up tomorrow.

 

why r they spiral?

 

It's just the way gravity works. Like water down a plughole.

 

It strikes me that within this model, there would be some very noticeable relativistic effects. The gravitational lens effect would terribly distort our view of faraway galaxies, for one.

 

no, becuz then the galaxy should dissapear, like water down a plughole.

 

You're right. Galaxies get 'hoovered up' by the Great body and become part of its mass.

 

The gravitational field strength is zero everywhere inside a uniform spherical shell of mass, actually, so even that explanation wouldn't hold.

 

Hmmm... Is that really the way gravity works?

Planets do not spiral into the Sun, and Moons do not spiral into their planets.

 

Unless something VERY unusual happens, orbits decay while maintaining their membership in the ellipse club.

 

Only if the orbit is atmosphere brushing.

 

Your statements are even more obscure than your questions.

Wotnell is "atmosphere brushing" in relation to hypothetical planet and moon orbital decay?

 

Your insults are even more repetitive than your pseudoscience.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No. My intention was to assert that if an orbit will not usually decay unless the orbiting object interacts with the atmosphere of the central mass.

But, I made that post because I misread the intention of your previous post, and I apologise. I do agree that a decaying orbit doesn't generally form a spiral (at least, I don't disagree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

Not to change the subject too much, but the most recent Protostars and Planets V (PPV) conference, held late last year at the Hilton Waikoloa here on the BIG ISLAND, revealed amongst other things that Galaxies are actually composed of numerous sub-galaxies that are in collision with each other, each of which sub-galaxy likely has a black hole in the center. Currently, one such smaller galaxy is crashing into our Milky Way galaxy.

One astronomer has a huge collection of such photos of colliding galaxies. She finds them because where they intersect they have a region of intense new star growth, which puts out light characteristically different from more mature stars. She justs aims her scope at galaxy regions where such light is pronounced, and voila, she finds these colliding galaxies. To me it seems quite probable that there are lots of black holes in our galaxy, in addition to the larger ones at the centers of the sub-galaxies.

Incidentally, when galaxies collide, for the most part the separate stars don't actually collide, but rather get gravitationally perturbed, and collisions of numerous 'spherical cluster' galaxies will result in a spiral form as the 'spheres' get stretched into arms of the spirals. The new star formation is triggered by the collisions of large interstellar gas clouds, much like we see here in our Milky Way in 'stellar nurseries'.

Presumptively, circa 5 bya, our own sun and numerous other stars emerged from just such a stellar nursery. The other then-nearby OB stars likely volatilized away the gas and dust, leaving clear 'space', and allowed the formerly gravitationally bound nearby stars to drift away by their own inherent respective momentums. Such nearby OB stars are postulated by some to have volatilized away about 2/3rds of the Hydrogen gas from Jupiter, leaving it relatively enriched in Helium compared to the remaining lighter Hydrogen, and to have volatilized away all of the Hydrogen gas surrounding the Earth-Moon system, leaving behind the inner rocky cores. Or, at least, such are the most recent reasoned theories.

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)