greenj

"A study done several years ago showed that the universe's energy is decreasing. What if gravity, too, has been getting weaker?" --- Dark matter, in a nutshell, is a theoretical force envisioned by scientists that would explain the behavior of galaxies that seem to be spinning fast enough for some of their stars to fly out of their orbits but do not. For galaxies to remain intact they would have to have a greater gravitational pull than their visible mass suggests. Scientists therefore theorized, as far back as the 1930s, that there must be some invisible matter -- dark matter -- that's holding galaxies together. The problem is that as hard as we try to detect dark matter we cannot. And despite other theories to explain galaxies' behavior, their rapid spin remains a mystery. I'd like to propose a new theory that might shed some light on all this. A study done several years ago showed that the universe's energy is decreasing. What if gravity, too, has been getting weaker? Not necessarily in lockstep or conjunction with the universe's energy, or, perhaps there is a connection. Regardless, a diminishing gravity scenario -- where gravity has been steadily declining since the beginning of time -- would explain what appears to be dark matter. How? When we look into the sky we see objects as they were many years ago. The additional gravity needed to hold a galaxy together actually was there at that time in the past. So when we calculate its gravitation pull based on today's gravitational strength we come up short and assume there must be some kind of dark, invisible matter. What's more, a diminishing gravity theory also explains another puzzle that presents itself with the dark matter theory. Different celestial objects seem to have a vastly disproportionate amount of dark matter. Pretty difficult to explain. With the diminishing gravity theory, however, even this problem disappears. Different celestial objects have different gravitational pulls because they formed at different times in the past and, therefore, actually had different gravitational strengths. Furthermore, there's an additional factor that would give heavenly objects greater gravitational pull than their sizes would suggest. Under a greater gravitational pull these objects would have coalesced with greater force and into more compact objects, giving them even greater gravitational pull than the same size objects compacted under weaker gravity. In this more compact form, these objects may very well exert greater gravity even today than other objects of the same size. This diminishing gravity theory is explained in more detail in "The V-Bang: How the Universe Began." What this boils down to is that older celestial objects will generally have greater gravity and therefore appear to have more dark matter. The relationship between distance from earth and age, however, is not as straightforward as current theory holds. This is also explained in detail in "The V-Bang."

Yes, it is supposed to be "billions of light-years," rather than just "light-years." I don't know how to edit the original post. But thanks for pointing it out.

Scientists have been discovering voids in space that are billions of light-years across. One huge void found in 2009 is a mystifying 3.5 light-years across. Now, this may not seem like a big deal. But when you consider that the visible universe stretches only 13.5 light-years in any direction, a void 3.5 light-years across is about a quarter of the visible universe. That's a lot of empty space. But, this may still not seem like a big deal to you. So here's the big deal, and the real deal: there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem. The mystery is described on NewScientist.com, April 4th, 2009, in an article entitled "New cosmic map reveals colossal structures:" Scientists "found some enormous voids -- regions of space that are relatively empty, including one that is about 3.5 billion light years across ... the newly found void is so large that it is difficult to fit into our present understanding of the universe on the largest scales. Computer simulations show that gravity causes galaxies and galaxy clusters to get closer together over time, with voids growing between the clusters. "But the finite time available since the big bang makes it difficult to explain a void as large as the one found in this survey ... It's not easy to make voids that large in any of the current models of large scale structure formation," said John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. So, what's the answer? Well, although scientists sometimes have a way of tweaking out an "answer" where there is none, like the against-all-odds inflation theory that is conjured up to explain inexplicable developments following the big bang, which is a whole other topic, there really is no answer to how the finite time since the big bang could have created such huge voids. But the voids are there and they're not going away. And the big bang is here, and it doesn't "get along" with huge voids. Houston, we have a problem. Well, if the voids aren't going away, is it possible the big bang may have to? That's a distinct possibility. The big bang may have to give way to my new theory called the V-Bang (V-Bang.org). My new book, "The V-Bang," resolves many of the greatest cosmological mysteries, including the great voids. It is an entirely new theory of how the universe began, and is supported by far more current and past observations than the big bang. The big bang has over the years presented us with more questions than answers. V-Bang.org presents the answers -- and leaves very few questions. V-Bang.org