Gravity as consequence of universe expansion. A speculation.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Blade runner, Feb 24, 2008.

  1. JukriS Registered Senior Member

    Expanding atoms!

    Atoms nucleus expanding and emit expanding energy and that energy have a nature of expanding electrons and expanding particle.

    Expanding electrons just moving to the next expanding atoms nucleus and get this expanding more energy etc!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    If the nucleus of atoms expanded, things would literally start to disintegrate. Our universe relies on a constant nuclear force.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Paul6144 Registered Member

    I would like to reinstate my request to find someone with Quantum mechanics knowledge to calculate my option. :shrug: <‘One could calculate the strength of a gravitational field according to the result of amplitude as per quantum calculation for the amounts of these particles that goes through a quantity of space time.’>

    Note; By reading ‘JukriS’ I am starting to understand Deutsch or something, and by him reading me he will start understanding French, and ultimately we will both learn English…

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    so sorry for all readers…

    ‘JukriS’ I have read your website and watch your videos. It is good stuff but I have a major head hake now… :shrug:

    I don’t get your explanation about that energy coming from outside the visible universe.

    Do you agree with the expansion of the universe or not? From what I understand, you agree that it is an energy that is expanding and not space. If so, this is what I am saying as well, it could be the Dark Energy. But I do believe in Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Matter constituting the universe, sorry.

    I am not looking to elaborate on different ‘thinking’ but to find a way to explore mathematically a proposal. I agree with ‘DH’ that someone should be developing the underlying mathematics. So to keep it simple, can someone use the present comprehensible Quantum mathematics and explore what would be the big G ( or what would replace r2) if gravitational forces was some kind of Bernoulli Effect that affect the masses in the expansion of the universe caused by the emissions of these particles. (I believe this question does not change even though ‘JukriS’ stipulate;
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. tracyk35 Registered Member

    My belief is that everything is expanding at an continuously accelerated rate down to the last atom, resulting in gravity. Hard to prove because your units of measure (space and time) are changing at the same accelerated rate. An inch today was a mile yesterday etc. This would be hell for carbon dating and the age of the universe itself, since time and space could not be thought of in a linear fashion. Probably a good place to start would be with the acceleration due to gravity and work it backwards. To me the expansion of the universe would be like ripples on a pond after tossing in a rock, if you were one of those ripples and looked out you would see the ripples expanding away from you in all directions, unaware that you were also expanding. The tough part is proving it. As far as the planets go they would have to be spiraling outward at the same accelerated rate as the expansion itself to maintain the spatial relationships. This wouldn't be so hard to believe since the other galaxies we look at from a distance are spiraling outward. I believe this to be fact and worked on it for a couple of years in my free time but couldn't work it out. Hope someone can so I can tell my wife I'll be bigger tomorrow.....
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    You won't prove because it isn't true.
    You'd have to introduce something else to explain why planets actually orbit a sun. And you'd have to explain why there's no discernible difference between the sunward side of a planet and the anti-sunward side.
    If "gravity is due to expansion" then there should be a noticeable difference as the side away from the sun is expanding away due to the distance expanding AND the planet expanding, but on the side nearer the sun it's expanding away from the sun due to distance and toward the sun from the planetary expansion.
  9. BobG Registered Senior Member

    It is important to point out that this is NOT what General Relativity says nor is it a consistent interpretation of General Relativity. This is the rubber sheet analogy which is so often used yet explains very little. What you have found is the inadequateness of this analogy, the fact that it requires gravity to explain gravity and the fact that in GR particles follow the shortest distance within curved space time, they are not just rolling into depressions of a rubber sheet.
  10. baptizo1403 Registered Senior Member

    To me gravity being the result of expansion doesnt quite fit. But I have to admit that I have no proper schooling in physics. To me the reason it doesnt fit is because if im jusing logic correctly, an expansion of space in the way that you are describing implies that space is not empty, which I am perfectly ok with. But if space is not empty then what is it made of? And if it is made of something then more of it has to be created at a rate that increases at the same rate that the universe is expanding, otherwise space would be thinned out so to speak, and you would have drift in orbits, which would prove what you say. So in my mind the question is, how is space created, and where is the source?
  11. Mawe Registered Member

    If the expansion of the universe is constant in all directions (maybe at the speed of light), the space expansion would be constantly accelerating.

    As all the galaxies, solar systems, and planets are moving in a constant time around the universe, they need a constant acceleration because the space it needs to move is constantly expanding (The orbit around the universe keeps getting longer).

    Hence gravity is formed by this constant acceleration of movement. (Just a speculation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. wdevlin Registered Member

    Let's not neglect that matter itself occupies space and this space too would be accelerating into the 4th dimension. Matter's volume would increase concurrently with surrounding space. It would be virtually undetectable in any give temporal frame of reference. Gravity and time would be the only perceived effects.

    The 4th dimension battle is between entropy and inertia.

    This tendency towards entropy would be inflation's driving force. Gravity is thus a fictitious force as matter coalesces due to non-uniform expansion rates. Distortions in the rate of inflation at the quantum level will culminate away from space with higher inflation rates that are devoid of other matter and cause itself to spatially move through 3 dimensional space towards higher matter density regions.

    As matter still expands and gathers, more inertia induced drag to inflation is created. Matter itself is setting the rate towards entropy (localized time). Culminations of matter will continue to slow entropy until a singularities is achieved.
  13. Joseph Shawa Registered Member

    Well, no matter because everything would fly apart as soon as the universe stopped expanding and switched direction.....
  14. Joseph Shawa Registered Member

    Good thoughts. I would venture that if the universe is infinite then the infinite stuff that came forth is still doing so and "precipitating" into what we call space. Just as all the subatomic particles precipitated into matter.
  15. Blade runner Registered Senior Member

    Apparently the expansion of the universe doesn't mean matter itself is expanding. Matter moves on - following the simile - the surface of the rubber sheet, which I think is a good simile for the Higgs field. On the other hand, if you have read Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbot, in the way I see the cosmos, Flatland is the surface of a balloon in accelerated expansion. Just add one more space dimension.
  16. Lady Elizabeth Registered Member

    This thread sucks - wholly unbefitting a science forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    What we first need to do is clarify what can be proven and what is only inferred. The expansion of space-time, via dark energy has never been demonstrated in the lab. Dark energy has never been isolated in the lab, to prove it is real. The premise depends on something inferred, but which has never been proven, directly.

    What we can prove, in the lab, is an expansion of mass (substance) will cause space-time to expand, since space-time contraction is dependent on the degree of mass and mass-density. This is GR and is fully proven. It does not need emotional appeal or dogmatic tradition but was done in the lab. Einstein had gravity as a stand alone variable capable of contracting space-time; forms wells. I choose this since it can be proven to be real, in the lab.

    Based on what can be proven in the lab, the opposite is true, or substance/gravity is causing the expansion; with gravity first; action of gravity causes the reaction called expansion.

    How can gravity cause an expansion of space-time? If gravity is a force, like the rest, then when this force acts, there should be an exothermic output, which can reverse the force, elsewhere. For example, we can get heat from gravitational pressure with mass gaining mass/energy. Then hotter materials expand, relative to cooler materials. Energy conservation says this heat has to come from somewhere, with the action of gravity the only thing added.

    The oldest galaxies, which have been using gravity the longest, have given off the most energy. An acceleration expansion simply means gravity is quickening. The universe expands, relative to the galaxies, because these are the main sources of centralized gravity. A question could be, how does dark energy centralized mass at the level of galaxies?

    If a cloud of Stella gas was to collapse via gravity, into a star, the mass often rotates. The gravitational force is initially pulling radially toward the center of gravity. However, the stella cloud can develop motion vectors that are perpendicular to the original radial motion; rotation. Gravity is also responsible for this extra vector. This is another output.

    Another form of output is connected to entropy. Gravitational pressure can cause entropy to decrease. The liquid water on the earth's surface would not be possible on the moon, since gravitational pressure is too low. The higher pressure induces liquid water, which has less entropy than water as a vapor.

    If the entropy of the universe has to increase, but gravitational pressure can reduce entropy (releases the heat trapped in the entropy such as heat of vaporization) then entropy has to increase through other means. If the entropy of the universe has to increase this can be done with a global expansion of space-time.

    Picture two references, such as the twin experiment. One twin is moving near C and the other stationary. In this scenario, both twins are working a similar production lines, in similar factories. Each machine is identical and makes one defect per hour. The defect is a measure of system entropy. Since time is moving faster in the stationary reference, the rate of defects will appear to occur faster. The moving reference has time slowed, so its defect rate will parallel its time and appear to slow. The bottom line is more entropy can be expressed in an expanded reference compared to contracted reference (all else equal).

    Since gravity lowers entropy and universal entropy needs to increase, if we expand space-time we can amplify the entropy rate within the material that remains between galaxies.
  18. ween scim Registered Member

    i am 17 and have been doing research and thought of a similar, if not identical theory. This is a very interesting topic.
  19. C L Adams Registered Member

    For the postulate to have merit we will need to process this expansion from different viewpoints. Viewpoint A is from Big Bang Zero Point. Viewpoint B is from our current location in spacetime. For the purpose of this discussion, spacetime can be conjectured as a sphere emanating from Big Bang point zero. Our current location in spacetime is 4 billion years past big bang zero give or take for gravitational anomalies. The surface of our spacetime sphere creates and encapsulates dimensional space. So basically, we have a "balloon" analogy which is ever expanding however not at an accelerating rate but at a constant rate. The expansion gives us energy.

    At big bang zero, spacetime zero......there was no space, no matter, no movement, and thus no immensely tiny spec of nothing. The big bang occurred....immediately causing the sphere to expand at light speed (i.e. speed of all radiation). The matter inside of this sphere initially had to wait until the sphere was large enough to contain atoms and create nuclear forces in order to form matter. the nuclear forces hold the matter together the distances between the matter becomes space. The expansion of space & matter over time at light speed (aka spacetime) also requires that matter & dimension as we know it only exists at the surface of the spacetime sphere. However, since it is an expanding sphere, we are able to experience in it in three dimensions. Gravity is a result of the continual expansion of spacetime. We perceive it as an accelerating force however, from the point of view of big bang zero it is a constant force as well as an additional dimension.

    According to Einstein's theory, e=mc^2 - the energy contained in any point of spacetime = the mass contained in that space x the speed of light squared. Einstein's formula equates to the area of a circle A=pi*R^2. Therefore, the energy contained in a given point on the surface of the sphere = the mass of the point (which is expanding at the speed of light) x the speed of light squared. There is no theory to account for the remainder of energy in the universe. The calculation would therefore be the entire volume of the sphere. Therefore, the total energy in the universe should be Et=4/3*Mt*c^3 (where Et=total universal energy and Mt=total of all mass in the universe). This calculation is extremely close to explaining why 96% of the matter and energy in the universe is "dark".

    Head hurts now. I will finish later.
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

  21. C L Adams Registered Member

    Thanks for the link. I cant wait to check it out!
  22. Dwal Registered Member

    I googled the title of this article (almost exactly) after the following occurred to me...
    Gravity is a consequence of expansion.
    To understand why matter is attracted to other matter in an expanding universe, think about what would happen if the universe was heading for the Big Crunch. Matter would need to repell other matter, spread out in tiny pieces. This would create the most space between matter as that space contracts. A box of sand holds more matter than a box of golf balls. Perhaps then the opposite is true when you are leaving the Big Bang. Matter comes together resulting in Gravity.
    Good luck with this. I think it could be a big idea.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Ideas?? We need evidence.......and as of this date such a proposal defies all we presently know about gravity, Universal expansion, the four forces and cosmology in general.
    And besides this being an ancient thread suddenly and recently revived by a couple of first time posters, and [ as per usual with most cranks] posted in the wrong section to boot.

Share This Page