Layman's attempt at gravity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 22, 2017.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you Q-reeus for your reply I appreciate and value your observations.
    river and Q-reeus like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    So it was settled before they realised the Universe was more than the Milly Way?
    I posted the following elsewhere here and when doing so it occurred to me strange that GR was established before they thought of the universe as more than the Milky Way.

    From Wiki when google Island Universe.

    The Great Debate, also called the Shapley–Curtis Debate, was held on 26 April 1920 at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, between the astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis. It concerned the nature of so-called spiral nebulae and the size of the universe; Shapley believed that distant nebulae were relatively small and lay within the outskirts of the Earth's home galaxy, while Curtis held that they were in fact independent galaxies, implying that they were exceedingly large and distant.

    The two scientists first presented independent technical papers about "The Scale of the Universe" during the day and then took part in a joint discussion that evening. Much of the lore of the Great Debate grew out of two papers published by Shapley and by Curtis in the May 1921 issue of the Bulletin of the National Research Council. The published papers each included counter arguments to the position advocated by the other scientist at the 1920 meeting.

    In the aftermath of the public debate, scientists have been able to verify individual pieces of evidence from both astronomers but on the main point of the existence of other galaxies, Curtis has been proven correct.

    Shapley was arguing in favor of the Milky Way as the entirety of the then known universe. He believed that "spiral nebulae" such as Andromeda were simply part of the Milky Way. He could back up this claim by citing relative sizes—if Andromeda were not part of the Milky Way, then its distance must have been on the order of 108 light years—a span most astronomers would not accept. Adriaan van Maanen was also providing evidence to Shapley's argument. Van Maanen was a well-respected astronomer of the time who claimed he had observed the Pinwheel Galaxy rotating. If the Pinwheel Galaxy were in fact a distinct galaxy and could be observed to be rotating on a timescale of years, its orbital velocity would be enormous and there would clearly be a violation of the universal speed limit, the speed of light. Also used to back up his claims was the observation of a nova in the Andromeda "nebula" that had briefly outshone the entire nebula, constituting a seemingly impossible output of energy were Andromeda in fact a separate galaxy.

    Curtis on the other side contended that Andromeda and other such "nebulae" were separate galaxies, or "island universes" (a term invented by the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, who also believed that the "spiral nebulae" were extragalactic). He showed that there were more novae in Andromeda than in the Milky Way. From this he could ask why there were more novae in one small section of the galaxy than the other sections of the galaxy, if Andromeda was not a separate galaxy but simply a nebula within the Earth's galaxy. This led to supporting Andromeda as a separate galaxy with its own signature age and rate of nova occurrences. He also cited dark lanes present in other galaxies similar to the dust clouds found in the Earth's own galaxy and massive doppler shifts found in other galaxies.

    Curtis stated that if van Maanen's observation of the Pinwheel Galaxy rotating were correct, he himself would have been wrong about the scale of the universe and that the Milky Way would fully encompass it.

    After the debateEdit

    It later became apparent that van Maanen's observations were incorrect—one can not actually see the Pinwheel Galaxy rotate during a human lifespan.

    Due to the work of Edwin Hubble, it is now known that the Milky Way is only one of as many as an estimated 200 billion (2×1011)[1] to 2 trillion (2×1012) or more galaxies[2][3](containing more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth),[4]proving Curtis the more accurate party in the debate. Also, astronomers generally accept that the nova Shapley referred to in his arguments was in fact a supernova, which does indeed temporarily outshine the combined output of an entire galaxy. On other points, the results were mixed (the actual size of the Milky Way is in between the sizes proposed by Shapley and Curtis), or in favor of Shapley (Curtis' galaxy was centered on the Sun, while Shapley correctly placed the Sun in the outer regions of the galaxy).

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Einstein's cosmological constant was the sole fudge factor in his final equations. Meant to justify his initial belief in an eternal and static universe. Such a universe was shown to be unstable, something AE himself didn't notice:
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you Q-reeus.
    Q-reeus likes this.
  8. nebel Registered Senior Member

    Like your style of writing. did not take the time to read all comments, but:
    Thinking of the experiments to establish the Gravitational constant by having objects of known mass deflected from the perpendicular
    If you thought of the pushing force radiating in all directions, as generated by thrust of rocket engines ( this is alternate rocket science ), would not the effect become more pronounced as the opposing rockes got closer, closed the escape of the gases? If the pushing force came from the outside mass of the universe at large , ( kind of like the Casimir effect), would that not require the rewriting of the squared distance rule?

    happened to me, took out a patent 40 years ago on a mouse milk propulsion method I thought was original, to discover 2 years ago it was based on a
    1901 theory by Yarkovsky. Even the patent examiner (not an Einstein), did not cite that prior art to refuse the patent.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you.
    I understand your concern however think of it this little pool balls rushing everywhere but only a small percentage even inter act with matter so although a huge number only a few interact...
    I doubt it.

    But I think it would be difficult to fit the idea with math because you would need to get down how each pool ball acts all at once.


Share This Page