An Alternative Approach to Gravity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by RajeshTrivedi, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,002
    They are both models trying to describe the Universe.
    You probably dont have to convince me.
    I think it is wonderful to try ... not everyone tries to build their own universe..I have tried and right or wrong the attempt caused me to at least think ...
    I am going to re read all you have said...I dont really see what you see I am yet to visualise it..I have to somehow see it in 3d and I havent been able to do that...mind you not much further with General Relativity.
    Thank you for your post.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    If you think gravity is warped space-time, I will leave you all too it......scratches head.....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525

    Ok, I will make it simpler to visualize.

    The origin of universe t = 0

    1. There was nothingness all around. This nothingness is unstretched-PSMR.
    2. No way or no means to detect unstretched-PSMR, it is as good as nothingness.
    3. No relative motion, no change, the clock has not started yet.
    4. Something happens at certain points (indistinguishable so far), I do not know what, and the PSMR starts stretching.
    5. Stretch in PSMR beyond certain limit produces matter, rather the stretch is produced because of lumping of PSMR.
    [The quark - quark bond will help in getting this point, if you try to stretch q-q, then the new particle forms, if you try to bring q-q closer, then bond weakens.]
    6. Once the first lump forms, the stretch starts pervading all around, now there is relative aspect so t = 0 started, the clock has started ticking.
    7. Even now, even if the universe is 14 b years old or 100 b years old or 1000 b years old, the more and more unstretched PSMR beyond the horizon is getting stretched, thus the outwardly expansion continues and will continue.
    8. Any relaxation in the stretch of PSMR releases radiation and any stretch beyond certain limit produces particles.

    [I am sure start of stretch, the first step, is as good or as bad as assuming an infinite density singularity of spacetime at t = 0 as in Big Bang Cosmology]

    What is gravity

    1.Under this hypo gravity is measure of this stretch in PSMR between two objects.
    2. Stretched PSMR also causes gravity.
    3. The stretch in the PSMR at any given point outside a spherical object depends on the (rest mass energy density of the object + stretched energy of the shell between the surface of the object and this point).
    4. It is interesting to note that highest energy density is present between the q-q bond, it rapidly falls as we move from q-q to N-N/P-P/N-P to Nucleus-electron, molecule etc.
    5. This indicates that there is maximum gravity between q-q, somewhat lesser between nucleons and almost prevalent magnitude gravity between hydrogen atom proton and electron.
    6. This explains q-q bond reverse nature (Asymptotic freedom), this explains instability of larger nucleus (as the nucleus size increase, the stretch around reduces, thus weakens the gravity causing instability or upper limit for stable nucleus size).
    7. This further hints at cause behind nucleus disintegration and radioactivity.

    The observations

    Any theory of gravity must explain cosmological redshift and CMBR, probably the steady state of Hoyle was discarded in favor of big Bang Cosmology because it could not explain CMBR. This hypothesis can plausibly explain both and differs in the interpretation too.

    1. CMBR is due to relaxation in the stretched PSMR around any object. This relaxation is caused due to dynamics of celestial objects. The "axis of evil" cannot be accounted for by prevalent CMBR explanation, but this hypothesis predicts such axis.
    2. Wherever there is anisotropy in the CMBR, if the experiments are carried out then minute changes in line with such anisotopy would be there in G too.
    3. The simple experiment will falsify this hypothesis, take simultaneous measurement of G one facing the Sun and another at 180 degree away point (other side of the globe), the one facing the sun will have higher value.
    4. On the other hand cosmological red-shift is the measure of total stretch between two objects. Obviously it will be higher as the distance between two objects is higher. This differs from mainstream interpretation that farther the galaxies, faster they are receding from each other.
    5. This hypo also predicts that if two objects (galaxy or cluster) are equidistant from the earth (observer), then the redshift value will differ depending on the difference in the mass of these objects, a higher mass object will show higher red shift even if they are at the same distance from the earth. This interpretation is different from the prevalent one.


    ...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    No, it is not as per OP.
    The gravity is stretch in space (PSMR)
     
  8. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    I do not mean to sound rude or arrogant, but that is a bit awful.
     
  9. amber Registered Member

    Messages:
    323
    Gravity is attraction, stretching is expansion.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,002
    The big bang model predicted it and steady state did not so I think that put steady state out of the running.

    Thank you for taking the time to explain your model to me.

    I encourage you to keep at it and you can put me down for a copy of your book if you get around to it.

    I will leave it to others to pick holes in your idea as there is nothing that I would like to disagree with.

    Thanks again.

    Alex
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    11,269
    Alex the key to CMBRs is that you have eliminate hundreds or thousands of microwave radiation sources . Of which we can not do . Hence using CMBRs as proof of BB theory is moot .
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,002
    Considering the number of micro wave ovens world wide one wondersâ˜ș

    I think the process is similar to processing astro photos and its doable I think you will find. You can subtract stuff ...or add stuff.
    Alex
     
  13. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,576
    Except that we can, and the scientists working with the data have just that. Please provide evidence that this has not been done to a satisfying degree, or admit that you are wrong.
     

Share This Page