The Theory of Universal Force

[grimmy]

I have devolped this theory based on my interrpretation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, along with other theories involved with this area of space. I welcome any comments regarding it to see what you all think and how i may improve/elaborate upon my theory.

 

Here it is:

 

I would like to take this time to introduce my newest theory. This theory not only states that the outer edge of the universe is expanding, but that it’s core is pulling it in. To understand this, we must first understand how the outer edge of the universe operates. In theory, whether through a “big bang” or otherwise, the universe is expanding. I agree with this theory. There is ample evidence to support it. Telescope images have shown galaxies, stars, etc. to be moving apart. However, my theory uses this as a base, as well as Newton’s third law of motion.

 

According to Newton’s third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Now, if we give the outward momentum of the name of “m”, we must conclude that, as is stated in Newton’s third law of motion, that an equal and opposite movement, which we shall refer to as “-m”, must exist.

 

What might cause such a force? There are several options. One is, as is widely believed, that there is a massive black hole at the center of any given galaxy, holding it together. This belief may also be applied to the universe. There may well be a massive black hole at the core of our universe. It does not, however, pull the universe against the force of “m”. It actually “blocks” the force of “m” from expanding the universe to the point of “stretching” or “breaking”, in which case it would be no longer inhabitable. This black hole protects the inhabitants of its universe by holding it together, mush like the rotation of a star’s core keeps the star from falling apart.

 

Also, this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. Not only is “M” the total momentum of the universe (0), but it is the variable which, if changed even the slightest bit, may have dire repercussions on the universe. If the force of “M” raises to “M>0”, it may result in the expansion of the universe to becoming an uninhabitable area. It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true. This would result in the universe’s central black hole possibly “sucking in” the universe.

 

Out of all the forces known to man (and even of those not known), “M” (the result of the equation “’m’ + ‘-m’ = ‘M’”) is the most important due to the significance it plays it keeping the universe inhabitable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your time.

 

JC "Omega" Alz

[Klaynos]

To be a scientific theory it has to make mathematical predictions.

 

Would this be better placed in speculations?

[grimmy]

"Also, this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. Not only is “M” the total momentum of the universe (0), but it is the variable which, if changed even the slightest bit, may have dire repercussions on the universe. If the force of “M” raises to “M>0”, it may result in the expansion of the universe to becoming an uninhabitable area. It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true. This would result in the universe’s central black hole possibly “sucking in” the universe."

 

I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "mathematical predictions," but it does present these situations using mathematical reasoning.

[Mr. Mido]

the concept of the universe expansion is a well known concept but it is directly related to the big bang theory. i myself find the big bang theory the most wise theory ever created concerning the origin of the universe.

However the great "crunch" is another concept which says that after the universe expands to a certain "lets say volume" it will stop expanding and at that very moment the forces acting on its "edges" will redirect themselves towards its center ( the point from which the big bang started) and crunch the universe back to its original state. ( an extreeemly massive point).

 

ur theory is different as it assumes that the both effects are acting at the same time. well thats cool but remember one thing

 

when it comes to the "Universe stuff" i recommend using quantum physics and the general realativity instead of the classical mechanics.

 

AS newton's first law contradicts with the big bang theory itself ( the extreemly dense point didnt need any forces to act upon).

 

But then the question remains, why did this point of origin lost it and blow off, i think we will never know...... at least in this life:-)

 

Mohamed leila

Cairo

[Klaynos]

No it's not, saying

 

"This would result in the universe’s central black hole possibly “sucking in” the universe."

 

Is not mathematical reasoning.

 

This is not a theory.

[grimmy]

That's not the mathematical reasoning i refered to. This is:

 

 

"this action/reaction relationship of “m” and “-m” produces a force that we shall call “M”. "

 

"if the force of "M” raises to “M>0”, it may..."

 

"It could also have the opposite effect should the equation “M<0” become true."

 

I also refered to "M" as "the result of the equation “’m’ + ‘-m’ = ‘M’”"

 

 

Please take this into consideration>

[the tree]

O.k. so your taking the conversation of momentum to an extreme and deciding that the total universes sum of momentum in nil. That's fine, I can work with that, what the hell has this got to do with black holes?

Every action has an equal and opposite re-action, that's simple, that's easy, that's kiddy physics. What causes the reaction? The action does! There is nothing complicated about it.

 

Let's get a few things straight:

• The universe does not have a centre, a middle, a heart, a point furthest from the non-existent edges, or a core.
• The universe is not a latex balloon, it is not going to stretch or break, it will merely reach thermal equilibrium and die.
• Meaningless equations are not mathematical reasoning.

[grimmy]

For one thing, I believe we have an issue as to what "reasoning" means. Reasoning is using a thought, true or otherwise, to 'reason' until you arrive at an answer. Mathematical reasoning uses math. I did exactly that.

 

Secondly, maybe it's not a black hole. Maybe it's something else. Either way, there is a force in the center of the universe that is keeping your so-called universal thermal equilibrium from occuring.

 

Third, kiddy physics? Is that the techical term? Newton's laws are in effect at the universal level. Remember, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. The universe is an example of that. Is that "kiddy physics?" If so, why does one of Newton's laws apply but the other does not?

 

Finally, non-existant edges of the universe. That would make the universe an infinate object, whereas I believe (though I might have heard wrong, but I still believe it) that nothing at all is infinate. I have seen no proof of anything in the universe being infinate, why should the universe itself be aby different?

[insane_alien]

newtons laws are inaccurate. it's still taught because they are extremely simple and allow an easier transition to einsteinian mechanics later on.

 

Thigs don't need an edge to be finite, like the surface of a sphere or taurus.

 

reasoning in science is always a combination of thought experiments and mathematics. it must make sense(doesn't mean it has to be intuitive) in both methods for it to be correct.

[the tree]

For one thing, I believe we have an issue as to what "reasoning" means. Reasoning is using a thought, true or otherwise, to 'reason' until you arrive at an answer. Mathematical reasoning uses math. I did exactly that.

If "math" is merely stating equations taking no regard as to how much sense they make then I wouldn't have anything to do with it. But the fact is that your premise of a force being created out of nothing is a false premise, this makes any "reasoning" useless, or it would if it made sense in the first place.

 

Secondly, maybe it's not a black hole. Maybe it's something else. Either way, there is a force in the center of the universe that is keeping your so-called universal thermal equilibrium from occuring.

Do you have any quantitative evidence suggesting this? Considering that according to standard models that don't involve this force, it's not supposed to be happening for a few million years.

 

Third, kiddy physics? Is that the techical term? Newton's laws are in effect at the universal level.

Yes I know that. That's kiddy physics, Newtons laws are taught to kids and kids understand them ergo it is kiddy physics.

 

Remember, an object in motion tends to stay in motion. The universe is an example of that. Is that "kiddy physics?" If so, why does one of Newton's laws apply but the other does not?

The Universe is not an example of that because the universe is not, in any sense, in motion.

 

 

Finally, non-existant edges of the universe. That would make the universe an infinate object,

No it would not. There is nothing wrong, or even counter-intuitive with the universe being edgeless and bound.

[NeonBlack]

Newton's laws are "inaccurate"?

[grimmy]

To my statement that the universe would never reach thermal equilibium, you said:

 

"Do you have any quantitative evidence suggesting this? Considering that according to standard models that don't involve this force, it's not supposed to be happening for a few million years."

 

My question for you is, does a model make it true? Guess what? Before the 1500's so-called models "proved" the Earth to be flat. That turned out wrong. I'm just using the way I interpret science (which is just as good as any other way, at least in this field) to propose a theory so others can see things my way. Maybe your models are wrong. Maybe mine is wrong. Isn't that what science is about? Testing theories?

[grimmy]

"Thigs don't need an edge to be finite, like the surface of a sphere or taurus."

 

Is an edge only a sharp corner? On a sphere, the outer layer is still an edge. It's just a flat edge.

[grimmy]

"newtons laws are inaccurate. it's still taught because they are extremely simple and allow an easier transition to einsteinian mechanics later on."

 

One question: if these laws are in any way, shape, or form inaccurate, why would they still be taught? It cannot be for the sole purpose that they are simple. If they are still taught, then there must be at least some truth to them.

[the tree]

To my statement that the universe would never reach thermal equilibium, you said:...

Actually, I said that in regards to your claim that there is a force originating from the "centre" of the universe. You'll be able to note that from what I quoted.

My question for you is, does a model make it true?

No, a model is a tool used to make predictions. Models are based on evidence, logic, testing, Occam's Razor and review.

Guess what? Before the 1500's so-called models "proved" the Earth to be flat.

For starters, that's complete bollocks. Pythagoras used a spherical model 6 centuries BC.

And no, the flat earth idea was not used to make predictions so it was not used as a scientific model.

I'm just using the way I interpret science (which is just as good as any other way, at least in this field) to propose a theory so others can see things my way.

Science is there to be used, as a tool for expanding knowledge and understanding, it is not there to be interpreted. And you have not yet proposed a theory.

Maybe your models are wrong. Maybe mine is wrong. Isn't that what science is about? Testing theories?

Only vaguely. But the fact is you haven't presented anything that can make predictions so you have not presented a model or a theory.

[the tree]

Is an edge only a sharp corner? On a sphere, the outer layer is still an edge. It's just a flat edge.

No a corner is a corner is a corner. On the surface of a sphere, there is no edge. The surface may be an edge in of itself but that isn't what Alien said.

 

One question: if these laws are in any way, shape, or form inaccurate, why would they still be taught? It cannot be for the sole purpose that they are simple. If they are still taught, then there must be at least some truth to them.

Yes, they are taught and used because they are simple. The predictions they make a inaccurate but very very very close. The affects of relativity on a train is almost unobservable so it is a lot more efficient to use Newtonian classical mechanics when building one.

[grimmy]

OK, you say that science is not there to be interpretted. But, to question this, I'm actually going to go against my theory, just to get an answer from you that I must say I'm very curious to hear.

 

How do we know that the universe is actually expanding? Maybe it's shrinking. Maybe it's stationary and the motions we see in the celestial bodies are merely them revolving around another celestial body. These are all subjective arguement. None are objective seeing as no matter how hard we try, until we go out there, we cannot prove or disprove any of these ideas. That means that science, or at least this area of it, are open to intrepretation.

 

What would your thoughts be on that?

[NeonBlack]

Once you have any experimental data, the data are useless without some interpretation.

grimmy has taken some observations and interpreted them.

As far as I know, the theory of evolution is not predictive and involves no math. It's not a very good theory in my opinion, but it's the best we have.

Instead of saying "you are wrong," we should say "here's what you need to do to improve your theory."

What you need for your theory is some numerical data. Then you have to interpret this data mathmatically and develop a theory consistent with your data. Then you can use your theory to make a prediction that can be tested. If your predictions are consistent with the new experiments, then you make another prediction and test it. If you do this a bunch of times, and everything work out, then you're in good shape.

 

oh, and as far as I know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of Newton's laws.

[the tree]

I'm actually going to go against my theory,

What theory?!

How do we know that the universe is actually expanding? Maybe it's shrinking. Maybe it's stationary and the motions we see in the celestial bodies are merely them revolving around another celestial body.

We take evidence such as red shift which suggests that certain sources of light a moving away from us. Originally we thought that the universe was expanding at a constant rate but gathering more evidence showed less red shift than we were expecting from really distant galaxies so we had to refine the model and consider that the universe's expansion was accelerating. When the evidence changes, so must the theory" -- Gil Grissom, but we haven't yet seen anything to suggesting entire galaxies move nearer us. As for it being stationary but everything moving away from us and some mechanism to make that make sense, Occam's Razor says otherwise.

 

until we go out there, we cannot prove or disprove any of these ideas.

How would "going out there" help? Terrestrial and orbiting telescopes don't show anything different, except that terrestrial ones tend to get air in the way.

 

That means that science, or at least this area of it, are open to intrepretation.

 

What would your thoughts be on that?

Evidence is open to interpretation. Science is how we interpret evidence.

[the tree]

(sorry about the successive quotes guys)

oh, and as far as I know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of Newton's laws.

There isn't. But they don't take into account relativity or subatomic forces, they don't apply at all at a sub atomic level and they are gravely inaccurate on a large scale. This isn't something wrong with them, they just don't describe the universe in such an accurate way as more recent theories.

[grimmy]

Ok you said, "they don't apply at all at a sub atomic level, " refering to Newton's laws, However isn't it apparent that our subject is not anything on the sub atomic level; we are talking about to universeal level.

 

Also, thanks to neonblack for giving me constructive critizism instead of not even giving what I have to say a chance.

 

Finally, just because an imperfect, doesn't-know-everything human says that we need to eliminate some theories when we have too many already, doesn't change the fact that you have not yet given me sufficient evidence to prove to me that the universe may actually be stationary. Yes, this may mean that i need to revise my theory, however shooting down an idea without finding some way to test it, as I recall, is not science.

[Klaynos]

Ok you said, "they don't apply at all at a sub atomic level, " refering to Newton's laws, However isn't it apparent that our subject is not anything on the sub atomic level; we are talking about to universeal level.

 

Also, thanks to neonblack for giving me constructive critizism instead of not even giving what I have to say a chance.

 

Finally, just because an imperfect, doesn't-know-everything human says that we need to eliminate some theories when we have too many already, doesn't change the fact that you have not yet given me sufficient evidence to prove to me that the universe may actually be stationary. Yes, this may mean that i need to revise my theory, however shooting down an idea without finding some way to test it, as I recall, is not science.

 

He also said that newtonian mechanics is invalid at large scales, we need to modify the equations using special or general relativity.

 

"The universe may actually be stationary" is an invalid statement as there is nothing for it to be stationary relative to. It is expanding, there is significant evidence for this, red shifting for example.

 

It is not a theory, you mathematically predict nothing, therefore there is nothing to test, it is not science, in that you are correct.

[the tree]

the fact that you have not yet given me sufficient evidence to prove to me that the universe may actually be stationary.

Well duh, there isn't any evidence, that's why nobody suggested such a thing.

this may mean that i need to revise my theory,

It is not possible to revise your theory because you have not presented a theory.

[grimmy]

Let me say these things:

1. I meant that no one has given me evidence AT ALL that the universe is NOT stationary. I apologize for the screw-up in my typing. I will accept INDISPUTABLE evidence to counter this.

2. I do not accept "redshift" as a reasonable counter to that "fact" that the universe is stationary, as one may use redshift to explain that when we see a planet, star, etc. moving away (hence observing redshift), it is merely moving away from us in its cycle of revolution. It will, in time, be moving towards us again during the course of the revolution.

3. After reading neonblack's post that explains what I must do to indeed make my statement a true theory, I am not only drawing back on the concept that it is a theory, but am also questioning the mere fact that the universe is expanding, thanks to the information provided to me by a friend who is heavily into science. I know that this renders my idea nule and void, but this "stationary idea" seems like something worth investigating.

4. Though the universe may not be stationary with the fact that it may well be moving through "space" which is not an actual part of the true universe, my definition of stationary (in this context) is that it is neither contracting nor expanding.

[Klaynos]

1. If you are prepared to say things like "well they could just all be spinning together" then this is NOT science and nothing is indisputable, nothing is really indisputable in science that is not how it works.

 

2. Just because you don't accept it and make up some random rubbish that is discussed above and why that is not accepted is discussed does not mean we are going to listen to you or give you more evidence, we are FAR more likely to lable you as an idiotic troll and move on without wasteing our time posting again.

 

3. It's not worth investigating, as people used to believe that and they it was shown to be wrong. Not only is the universe expanding but the expansion is speeding up.

 

4. The universe cannot be moving through something it is everything. See my answer to 3.

 

5. Use blank space to your advantage to make your posts more readable else people will no reply.