gravity and expansion

okay, i just thought of this and it seems brilliant to me, but let me know what you think.

what if gravity isn't a force or a curvature or a motion or anything. what if it was the expansion of matter into other matter.

imagine when you jump up. to you, the earth quickly meets your feet (or your face, if you are as graceful as i am). imagine that this is the earth expanding into your momentum. your initial motion away from the earth is still there, but it quickly becomes too slow to outrun the exponential expansion of the earth. this explains many things:

first, why gravity effects all things uniformly on earth, regardless of mass or physical makeup. you are expanding, too, of course, but this is insignificant in comparison to the expansion of earth. all things big and small accelerate toward the earth, or rather the earth towards them, at the same speed because their inertia remains unchanged, it is the earth's motion that is important.

second, why larger objects create greater gravity. this is due to the fact that there is more matter in objects such as the earth and the sun. the greater the mass, the more the surface is caused to expand as a result of that mass.

third, why the effect of gravity changes with the distance of the two objects. the greater the distance between the objects, the more space there is expanding between them. when you jump up, the space from you to the surface of earth is expanding much slower than the earth, as that space is small. but up in space, the gravitational effect of earth is insignificant, as the space between the object and earth is expanding at a similar speed as the earth.

fourth, why our universe is expanding. the distance from an object lightyears away from us is expanding far faster than either of the two objects.

let me know if i am on crack. also let me know what you think of this theory.

samus

[This message has been edited by samus (edited March 15, 2000).]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems to may you are mixing two different meanings of expansions :
First you talk about expansion as being increase of a volume that a certain object has.
Second you talk about expansion of the space between those volumes.
The difficult thing about theories regarding the universe is that there isn't anything with which we can compare the universe because it comprehenses everything there is so the only thing that we can compare it with is itself but that is a trivial comparison.
If you are talking about expansions however you implicitly are talking about a velocity of something relative to an other thing, it would help your case however if you could be a little more clear on that last part...

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry, but my friend crapped on with the same theory and it is a load of crap.

Basically it is something from nothing.

So, so bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not too brilliant. Keep trying.
I tell you what-- Take a course in Physics.

 

wow, teach me to write about a theory i thought of after 17 beers. you guys are brutal. ironically, plato, this was inspired by your flawed explanation of how the universe is expanding.

rest assured, i have already come to the conclusion that my theory is incorrect, but none of you people have the correct answer why. everything i posted works out with our current theories in physics, but i didn't cover a certain angle. you all seem cocky, so why don't you figure out what it is, and i'll tell you.

here's a hint, energy1, they didn't teach it in your physics class...

samus

 

samus,

you must be a true genius if you can even find the flaw in your own brilliant theory ! I stand in awe !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I hope you will enlighten us more in the future with the improved version 2.0 of your theory of the cosmos...

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

 

I really do apologize, Samus, for hurting your feelings. You are absolutely correct about the flawed explanations of the expansion of the universe, and I'll be glad to tell you what the flaw is... but..first you've got to promise me one thing... that you WILL attend the next Alcoholic's Anonomous meeting.

 

energy1:

i stopped going when i found out it was BYOB.

plato:

i don't think you read my last post completely. like i said, i already have decided independent of this forum system why my theory was incorrect. i just question if you know why. from your first post, it doesn't seem you understand it well enough to dismiss it so easily.

samus

 

Wonder what makes these so called experts so cocky?So do I.They need to study the Urantia book for 20 years as I have.Then maybe they would be able to answer you'r questions and theories.Gravity is a force created by the infinte creator.It is regulated by dark bodies of gravity{ we call them black holes}they are inturn controlled by the paradise force organizers.Got you wondering who I am? Write me and I'll tell you.

 

samus... i know how you feel, you get this great idea... and you post it... then the next day u look ant it and think "damn... what was i smoking" (or in your case drinking i beileive) but whatever... your idea's are good, and it is possible... jsut not plauseible

------------------
when christianity ruled the world, it was called the dark ages.

-dexter (nimrod242 :aol sn)

 

Paul,

Sorry but gravity is infact created by mass, any mass. If its mass it creates gravity. Unless your better then Einstein, if you are then please let us know where Einstein and every other credible sane physist went wrong and I will withdraw my remark.

Regards

Rambler

 

Samus,

I'm not sure how you faulted your theory but I believe that if you tried to formulate it mathematically it wouldn't stand up. As far as uniform gravitational attraction is concerned, this can be very easily explained by newtonian mechanics. The equations involoved are very simple and the required mathematical manipulation is extremely simple. If you play with kinematics and the equations derived in this field you will find that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass. i.e. rate of fall or acceleration is a function of the EARTHS mass (or g = 9.81 m/s/s this will always be the case no matter what the mass of the object being attracted). That is why if you drop a cannon ball and a feather from the same height and remove drag they will both hit the ground at the same time.

 

okay, i don't really care all that much because as i have said three times now, i have learned why this theory is wrong. (probably. it can be worked out, but not well.) but i feel it is my duty to step in when someone doesn't understand something.

first of all, newtonian gravity has been completely replaced by general relativity as far as our views on gravity. no one really disputes this. newton is only used now because the equations are far easier, and for most pursposes, the difference is insiginificant.

second of all, things cannot be proven mathematically, they can only be described. i of course point you to your own example of newtonian mechanics, which were "mathematically proven." if i had a dollar for every "mathematically proven" theory that didn't pan out, i would be giving loans to bill gates instead of talking to you. just search the web for about 5 minutes, and you will find hundreds of new theories that use math as their evidense, yet none of them are taken seriously. there are many different forms of math, and we have seen that almost certainly you can use math to describe nearly anything, leading to us being able to "prove" anything mathematically, true or untrue. the fact that i don't have equations in my post is meaningless.

third of all, my theory does account for the fact that acceleration is only dictated by the total mass, not the mass of the individual object. in this expansion theory, the earth accelerates towards all objects at the same rate because the individual expansion of each object is insignificant in comparison to the expansion of earth. this fits with why larger cosmic masses cause greater gravity, but the cannon ball and feather are the same because neither are moving.

rambler, i pass on the same challenge i gave to the rest of these people. i know what is wrong with this theory. everything i have posted works out, but i didn't cover one angle. can you find it? no one else could.

samus

 

Ok samus I will try to find this angle. One observation I will make though is in regard to this expansion idea. Perhaps I'm just dense but what exactly do you mean by expansion?, if you mean volume then I don't see how you theory fits anything, I mean when the moon orbits around earth it only attracts and distorts the atmosphere and water on this planet, to some degree it distorts the shape of the globe but not enough to make it an issue. So if indeed you are describing an expansion in the sense of volume then your thoery could be proven by simple observation. And my observation say it aint happening.

With regard to mathematics....I know of no other tool that is quite as usefull when it comes to physical science. So I do see your point but please show me one theory in the physical sciences that is not primarly supported by mathematics. It's not the be all and end all of theory but it sure is a well rooted start.

Could you tell me how your theory explains lensing effect?

 

Hi Rambler,

I'm not favouring Samus' theory here (since we all agree that there's a flaw with it), but if everything is increasing in volume (even ourselves) then we wouldn't notice things getting larger (if you make everything in your room 10 times larger and you walk back in, then you either conclude that you have shrinken or that the world has become larger... But if you also get 10 times bigger you won't say a thing).

Anyway, I think you were right about the observational evidence. If samus' theory were to be correct, no such thing as satelites would work (since they would immediatelly crash back to earth if the earth's size increases). Now this is not what we observe so there's trouble.

Furthermore, an increase in volume without increase in mass/particles would lead to desintegration of everything over a period of time since this gigantically fast expansion would rupture all material bindings(and if the expansion happens exponentially, as samus suggested, then this would be pretty damn fast). However, if mass would actually be created in this expansion, then every single object would become, in a short period of time, extremely massive and lead to problems of just way to much mass (black holes perhaps, but I am sure Samus can correct me on that one in some inventive way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Either way, contradiction to our observation and hence a flaw in the theory.

Bye!

Crisp


[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited March 30, 2000).]

 

Crisp,
I was refering to an observation like say Jupiters effect on its moons. The gravitational effect to the observer on earth would be small enough to be ignored. Hence we would see volume fluctuations.

What I think Samus was getting at though (correct me if I'm wrong samus) is an expansion or 'stretching' of space time, but in an elastic sense. Like a rubber band perhaps. As some physists describe the nature of our universes expansion, i.e. the distance doesn't really get greater but the space in between two bodies is stretched...or something close to that....

 

Samus -

The first thing I noticed about your theory was that it seems to require a universe literally full of mass. Since volumes of true vaccuum have no associated gravity, they would not expand, yet the rest of the universe would, soon crushing these bubbles of vaccuum. For example, the earth and moon would be expanding, but the empty space between them would not, so they would be pulled(pushed?) closer together.

Also, how does your theory fit the inverse square relation for gravitational force?

FyreStar

[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited April 01, 2000).]

 

New to group

Just wanted to say Hi

 

Expansionary Theory of Gravity

I think there is promise here. After doing some research on the Internet this doesn't seem to be new idea, but rather one that meets with contempt and speculation and is quickly discarded. The main problem is getting over the hurdle of an expansionary behaviour mimicing gravitation effects. On the surface the similarities are many, and difficult to ignore. And as always the best theories are usually the simpilest. However, there is also research that claims that no expansionary behaviour could in fact mimic gravitational effects. So, the problem seems stuck. But, what if the problem is addressed from two different angles. First from the angle of expansion relative to a Universal frame of reference ( UFR ) and then in its absence. It can be shown on a simple coordinate system that an expansionary behaviour of 2 objects, relative to a UFR manifests itself as transilatory in its absence. And if this expansionary behaviour were accelerated then it would be a non-linear translation. And if the space around it were also expanding then it would be an expansion of order 2. That is to say, in the absence of a UFR we would indeed observe a non-linear accelerated translation of objects. So, now the question seems to be "How do we reconcile the UFR issue?"
I think this would depend on how you define a reference frame and then further a UFR. Something to think about.

 

After reading some of the other posts, I wanted to address this again. There is a lot of discussion regarding "expansion" of things, and what we would percieve. Like planets getting larger one relative to the other etc....but again this can be addressed depending on what kind of reference frame we are using. If we were to observe this expansionary behaviour from a UFR then we would surely observe this expansion. But in its absence, we would not....so the question then becomes "is there really an expansion at all?" BUT, an UFR would surely be an intertial reference frame, against which the laws of physic would have to hold as with any inertial reference frame, so although what we percieve is quite different the underlying physical laws must be the same. So, if we observe gravitational effects relative to any arbitrary inertial reference frame, then the physical properties that govern these effects must also be present when we observe these objects relative to any other arbitrary inertial refernce frame, even an UFR, but there we observe an expansion. This raises many more questions. If according to special relativity there is no UFR then we would conclude that there is no expansion and all the sceptics points are resolved. Or maybe we want to make the case for a UFR that is not percievable to us, or that is somehow here but not recognizable. Again this goes back to your definition of a reference frame. Still lots to think about.