The expansion of universe?

[Almehdi]

I got an idea after have watched a documentary of the expanding universe. The scientist said that dark energy took hold of universe after 5 billion years after the big bang and thus the universe expands faster and faster. To me it sound more like they don't know why it is expanding but needed a hypotes to explain it. So they invented dark energy.

 

But what if Dark Energy acctually is Gravity?

 

If the universe was a football and the big bang a foot. Wouldn't that do the same? If you put 10 billion years force behind a kickof a fotball.. wouldn't it first rise a bit and then go down and accelerate cause of gravity before it hitts the ground.. Especially when taking in count that the galaxies are gaining mass?

 

So could it be plausable that dark matter doesn't exist and that the expansion would be gravity?

 

 

[between3and26characterslon]

I got an idea after have watched a documentary of the expanding universe. The scientist said that dark energy took hold of universe after 5 billion years after the big bang and thus the universe expands faster and faster. To me it sound more like they don't know why it is expanding but needed a hypotes to explain it. So they invented dark energy.

 

But what if Dark Energy acctually is Gravity?

 

If the universe was a football and the big bang a foot. Wouldn't that do the same? If you put 10 billion years force behind a kickof a fotball.. wouldn't it first rise a bit and then go down and accelerate cause of gravity before it hitts the ground.. Especially when taking in count that the galaxies are gaining mass?

 

So could it be plausable that dark matter doesn't exist and that the expansion would be gravity?

 

 

 

I watched a lecture by Leonard Susskind on youtube, do a search on relativity on youtube and you will find a series of 8 lectures of about 1h30 each, in it he said, "the expansion was due to a property of gravity, but we'll come to that later" I never got that far though. The maths is too complicated for me to follow so I'm trying to learn a bit first. Also Krauss (youtube him) explains a bit but yeah I had the same thought myself, gravity causes the expansion of the universe.

[Almehdi]

I watched a lecture by Leonard Susskind on youtube, do a search on relativity on youtube and you will find a series of 8 lectures of about 1h30 each, in it he said, "the expansion was due to a property of gravity, but we'll come to that later" I never got that far though. The maths is too complicated for me to follow so I'm trying to learn a bit first. Also Krauss (youtube him) explains a bit but yeah I had the same thought myself, gravity causes the expansion of the universe.

 

Thanks will do that. I just don't get the dark energy. Why invent something new when you could explain it by using current knowledge. Those more knowledgable at this must know something i don't

[between3and26characterslon]

Thanks will do that. I just don't get the dark energy. Why invent something new when you could explain it by using current knowledge. Those more knowledgable at this must know something i don't

 

I know what you mean but like you that is because of my lack of knowledge.

[Spyman]

Gravity is acting in the opposite direction of expansion.

 

Gravity should cause Universe to contract but instead recent observations reveals that it is expanding with an accelerated rate, so there must be an opposing force stronger than gravity acting on Universe on large scales.

 

-----

 

Dark Energy is a hypothetical explanation of recent observations that the Universe undergoes an accelerating expansion. We currently don't know the cause or origins of this force.

 

If we use the analogy with the football then the ball rises fast first but eventually start to slow down and eventually starts to fall back down towards the ground with accelerating speed. So the Universe would start with rapid expansion which slows down and eventually the Universe starts to contract with accelerating rate.

 

The problem is that the slowing down of the expansion stalled after billions of years and is now on the contrary speeding up. The football did not reach the expected turning point but instead it is now accelerating away from the ground with higher and higher speed. Gravity is no longer able to cause the ball to return to the ground.

 

-----

 

Dark Matter is a different phenomena that is about matter we can't observe directly but we know something is there because we can observe the effect of its gravity on the surroundings.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Spyman

[Almehdi]

 

The problem is that the slowing down of the expansion stalled after billions of years and is now on the contrary speeding up. The football did not reach the expected turning point but instead it is now accelerating away from the ground with higher and higher speed. Gravity is no longer able to cause the ball to return to the ground.

 

-----

 

Dark Matter is a different phenomena that is about matter we can't observe directly but we know something is there because we can observe the effect of its gravity on the surroundings.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

So you mean that dark energy pulls us faster than gravity could? How is that? Gravity also pulls faster depending on the mass that pulls...

 

If you sat on the "ball" and it breaks you would probably see the sourounding parts going faster too when it starts to fall towards the ground especially if it gains weight. It's like kicking a ball that gradually turn in to iron and let's say the ball was kicked in the air and not from the ground. That should make us increasingly go faster. This theory don't need dark energy. Also.. we don't know in what direction we are going.

 

The mass of the "ground" would be a lot more masive than anything else so it would have a pull greater than ever imagined before.

[Spyman]

So you mean that dark energy pulls us faster than gravity could?

No, gravity pulls objects together but dark energy seem to push objects apart by increasing/rescaling the distance between them.

 

 

If you sat on the "ball" and it breaks you would probably see the sourounding parts going faster too when it starts to fall towards the ground especially if it gains weight.

If gravity was pulling on a group of balls or parts of one ball such that the distance between them would increase, then an observer on one of the balls/piece in the middle could measure his speed relative the surrounding balls/pieces an know in what direction his ball/piece where going.

 

 

Also.. we don't know in what direction we are going.

But we should if we where pulled by gravity, where is the source of gravity pulling the Universe apart located?

 

 

AFAIK we are able to measure our individual speed and calculate that we will collide and perhaps merge with Andromeda in about ~4.5 billion years and that our galaxy, the Milky Way is together with all the other galaxies in the Virgo Super Cluster, pulled towards the Great Attractor but we will never reach it because the distance is increasing much faster.

[Almehdi]

No, gravity pulls objects together but dark energy seem to push objects apart by increasing/rescaling the distance between them.

 

This made it clearer.. but that must be if you thinking gravity as a spot. Like a black hole. I am thinking it like the "ground" or as a "flor". If the ball breaks, the pices would not contract to eachother. They would extract due to speed and land far from eachother. The earlier the brakage where the further from eachother the parts will land.

 

If gravity was pulling on a group of balls or parts of one ball such that the distance between them would increase, then an observer on one of the balls/piece in the middle could measure his speed relative the surrounding balls/pieces an know in what direction his ball/piece where going.

 

true.. but are the universe moving up, down, left or right? Right now we just know we are the ball.

 

But we should if we where pulled by gravity, where is the source of gravity pulling the Universe apart located?

 

In my theory.. below us. Gravity are weaker on the sides why the "pieces" move apart from eachother.

 

AFAIK we are able to measure our individual speed and calculate that we will collide and perhaps merge with Andromeda in about ~4.5 billion years and that our galaxy, the Milky Way is together with all the other galaxies in the Virgo Super Cluster, pulled towards the Great Attractor but we will never reach it because the distance is increasing much faster.

 

This is another thing i have been wondering about... it seams like gravity works in different entities. Like our solar system, or galixy and so on. So this should probably apply on our universe too. Its like gravity and speed keeps this different entities intakt. Gravity and speed have concluded to what we see to day.. As this things have been developed under a hugh amount of time it has stabilized on it's path.

 

 

edit: Also.. right now the universe is like a gas giant. The longer the time goes the colder the gas will be and the heavier it will become.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Almehdi

[between3and26characterslon]

Here's where I heard it but there is a lot more to it than I got round to watching

 

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8UrYIZhm60&p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D&playnext=1

 

Copy and paste into your address bar and remove the spaces, I've done this because there are 12 lectures in this series and this is lecture 2. He says in the first few minutes that the repulsive force is a component of gravity.

Edited October 20, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[Almehdi]

Here's where I heard it but there is a lot more to it than I got round to watching

 

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8UrYIZhm60&p=6C8BDEEBA6BDC78D&playnext=1

 

Copy and paste into your address bar and remove the spaces, I've done this because there are 12 lectures in this series and this is lecture 2. He says in the first few minutes that the repulsive force is a component of gravity.

 

Thanks! Will look it up.

[Spyman]

This made it clearer.. but that must be if you thinking gravity as a spot. Like a black hole. I am thinking it like the "ground" or as a "flor". If the ball breaks, the pices would not contract to eachother. They would extract due to speed and land far from eachother. The earlier the brakage where the further from eachother the parts will land.

If the gravity of the pieces is strong enough compared to the exraction speed they will contract before they reach the ground but even if not their separation speed would still decrease due to gravity slowing down the extraction.

 

 

true.. but are the universe moving up, down, left or right? Right now we just know we are the ball.

If all the pieces in the Universe where moving uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground we would be able to notice.

 

 

In my theory.. below us. Gravity are weaker on the sides why the "pieces" move apart from eachother.

If gravity was stronger below us and weaker on the sides we would be able to observe this difference.

 

 

If all objects in the Universe where pulled by gravity towards a gigantic ground below us, with such strength that objects closer to the ground than us would accelerate away from us and objects at our distance would accelerate away from objects further from the ground, then we would be able to confirm the existence of this ground, even if it was beyond our observational range, by observating our neighbours and measuring their acceleration and uniform direction of movement.

 

 

According to our observations all very distant objects, in every direction around us are moving away from us equally, except for our local velocity towards the Great Attractor.

 

Our observations of the Universe does not match your model of all objects falling uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground.

[Almehdi]

If the gravity of the pieces is strong enough compared to the exraction speed they will contract before they reach the ground but even if not their separation speed would still decrease due to gravity slowing down the extraction.

 

 

 

If all the pieces in the Universe where moving uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground we would be able to notice.

 

 

 

If gravity was stronger below us and weaker on the sides we would be able to observe this difference.

 

 

If all objects in the Universe where pulled by gravity towards a gigantic ground below us, with such strength that objects closer to the ground than us would accelerate away from us and objects at our distance would accelerate away from objects further from the ground, then we would be able to confirm the existence of this ground, even if it was beyond our observational range, by observating our neighbours and measuring their acceleration and uniform direction of movement.

 

 

According to our observations all very distant objects, in every direction around us are moving away from us equally, except for our local velocity towards the Great Attractor.

 

Our observations of the Universe does not match your model of all objects falling uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground.

 

 

So you mean that our observations say that some parts are going backwards.. toward the big bang? In what direction according to the big bang are we moving? I thought everything was moving away from the big bang.

[between3and26characterslon]

This is quite interesting and Krauss talks about the cosmological constant

 

 

 

Susskind (in those other lectures) says that there is a small repulsive component to gravity and whereas gravity follows the 1/r² rule the repulsive component is constant albeit miniscule. This means that eventually you are far enough away from a mass that its gravitational force of attraction is less than the repulsive force.

 

BTW not sure I understand the ball analogy, I don't think it's correct to think of the universe as a ball, the over simplification leads to problems. Also gravity is stronger below us than it is at the sides (that is it has direction) that's why we stick to the planet. Maybe I'm wrong but there seems to be the suggestion that there is a universal ground which everything is being pulled towards. If that were the case then on a rotating and orbiting planet we should fall of it.

Edited October 21, 2010 by between3and26characterslon

[losfomot]

So you mean that our observations say that some parts are going backwards.. toward the big bang? In what direction according to the big bang are we moving? I thought everything was moving away from the big bang.

There is no 'backwards' direction. The Big Bang happened here, there and everywhere... we were all in the same place, and now we are all expanding away from each other. Things are moving away from us in every direction equally... and if we were in some other galaxy (far, far away) we would see the same thing. The only way to go 'backwards' would be if everything started moving toward each other.

[Almehdi]

This is quite interesting and Krauss talks about the cosmological constant

 

 

 

Susskind (in those other lectures) says that there is a small repulsive component to gravity and whereas gravity follows the 1/r² rule the repulsive component is constant albeit miniscule. This means that eventually you are far enough away from a mass that its gravitational force of attraction is less than the repulsive force.

 

BTW not sure I understand the ball analogy, I don't think it's correct to think of the universe as a ball, the over simplification leads to problems. Also gravity is stronger below us than it is at the sides (that is it has direction) that's why we stick to the planet. Maybe I'm wrong but there seems to be the suggestion that there is a universal ground which everything is being pulled towards. If that were the case then on a rotating and orbiting planet we should fall of it.

 

Yeah, the over simplification was not good... but it was the only thing i could think of that would explain what i was thinking. Maybe a cylinder with small metal balls inside it would have been better..? The earths spinning negates that gravital pull.. in the same way why we don't fall into the sun eventhough the sun has a much greater mass than the earth.

 

There is no 'backwards' direction. The Big Bang happened here, there and everywhere... we were all in the same place, and now we are all expanding away from each other. Things are moving away from us in every direction equally... and if we were in some other galaxy (far, far away) we would see the same thing. The only way to go 'backwards' would be if everything started moving toward each other.

 

One bang would send the "football" in one direction.. another one would send a "fotball" a different way. If the bang happened inside the "football" it would send the pieces in all directions (but probably not from the balls center).

 

 

How did the spinning occur? Pretty much every thing with enough mass spins..

Edited October 22, 2010 by Almehdi

[between3and26characterslon]

Yeah, the over simplification was not good... but it was the only thing i could think of that would explain what i was thinking. Maybe a cylinder with small metal balls inside it would have been better..? The earths spinning negates that gravital pull.. in the same way why we don't fall into the sun eventhough the sun has a much greater mass than the earth.

 

 

 

One bang would send the "football" in one direction.. another one would send a "fotball" a different way. If the bang happened inside the "football" it would send the pieces in all directions (but probably not from the balls center).

 

but you're still thinking of the universe as being something spherical expanding into space whereas it's something of unknown shape that is an expansion of space.

 

 

Imagine this;

 

picture a circle with a point at its centre, this represents the centre of the universe and the edge of the observable universe.

 

now stretch this into a cylinder with an axis, the centre is no longer a point but a line

 

bend the ends round so they meet and you have a torus

 

stretch this torus top and bottom so that it starts to look like a cylinder again and the 'centre' is now 2 dimensional (maybe even 3 dimensional)

 

with imaginary lines connecting the torus to the centre hold the centre still and rotate torus around it (ie looking directly above a doughnut turn it clockwise) the lines connecting the centre of the torus to the outside are stretched.

 

you can now imagine that the elongation of the torus into a cylidrical shape is the direction of time and the stretching of the lines connecting points is the expansion of space.

 

 

I'm not in any way saying that the above is correct just that if you think about it you can imagine something that makes some sort of sense.

 

 

How did the spinning occur? Pretty much every thing with enough mass spins..

 

Two ice skaters skate past each other and as they pass they grab hold of each other they will naturally spin

[Spyman]

So you mean that our observations say that some parts are going backwards.. toward the big bang? In what direction according to the big bang are we moving? I thought everything was moving away from the big bang.

The Big Bang did not take place at a special location, instead the Big Bang theory is about all space being located inside a smaller and denser Universe where the space rapidly expanded, bringing matter apart very fast. Nothing is going away from the Big Bang since the Big Bang happened everywhere inside the Universe, to all of space in all directions. From our perspective here on Earth the Big Bang happened all around us and is still happening. There are no parts moving backwards, all parts are moving outward, away from each other, the only direction pointing backwards toward the ignition of the Big Bang is backwards in time, towards the distant past. The direction we are moving in according to the initial time of the Big Bang are thus into the future.

 

The Big Bang

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

"The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface."

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

Edited October 22, 2010 by Spyman

[Almehdi]

but you're still thinking of the universe as being something spherical expanding into space whereas it's something of unknown shape that is an expansion of space.

 

 

Imagine this;

 

picture a circle with a point at its centre, this represents the centre of the universe and the edge of the observable universe.

 

now stretch this into a cylinder with an axis, the centre is no longer a point but a line

 

bend the ends round so they meet and you have a torus

 

stretch this torus top and bottom so that it starts to look like a cylinder again and the 'centre' is now 2 dimensional (maybe even 3 dimensional)

 

with imaginary lines connecting the torus to the centre hold the centre still and rotate torus around it (ie looking directly above a doughnut turn it clockwise) the lines connecting the centre of the torus to the outside are stretched.

 

you can now imagine that the elongation of the torus into a cylidrical shape is the direction of time and the stretching of the lines connecting points is the expansion of space.

 

 

I'm not in any way saying that the above is correct just that if you think about it you can imagine something that makes some sort of sense.

 

Two ice skaters skate past each other and as they pass they grab hold of each other they will naturally spin

 

You are taking it too litterally.. the shape doesn't actually matter. It was just one way to express my thoughts. You have an outer shape which is the universe, and many small inside it which are galaxies, stars and planets. The kick where to represent the force (big bang) that slung this away. They are slung forward not backwards thus expanding and speed rises due to it getting closer to a gravital ground.

 

The Big Bang did not take place at a special location, instead the Big Bang theory is about all space being located inside a smaller and denser Universe where the space rapidly expanded, bringing matter apart very fast. Nothing is going away from the Big Bang since the Big Bang happened everywhere inside the Universe, to all of space in all directions. From our perspective here on Earth the Big Bang happened all around us and is still happening. There are no parts moving backwards, all parts are moving outward, away from each other, the only direction pointing backwards toward the ignition of the Big Bang is backwards in time, towards the distant past. The direction we are moving in according to the initial time of the Big Bang are thus into the future.

 

The Big Bang

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

"The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface."

http://www.mso.anu.e...rDavisSciAm.pdf

 

Little what i have been trying to say although "kick" is the wrong word for it. It's was more to represent the force of big bang. My post was actually more about dark energy than the big bang. I don't see why it is needed. It's like... first we thought the earth was flat, then we knew it was round.. then we discovered it was not the center.. then we understod the sun was not the center.. and so on. We adapt our science after what we can see and calculate. If you add a different variable the previous could all be wrong/faulty. We can not see the borders of our universe.. who can say that our universe is the only? Our universe could be a "galaxy" of many universes. Something out there could have a greater gravital force..

[pioneer]

There is action and equal and opposite reaction. The action of gravity is to collapse matter, an equal and opposite reaction means to expand.

 

If you look at it logically, the universe expands relative to the galaxies. The galaxies just so happen to be the strongest zones of accumulative gravity action. The universal reaction will occur relative to this action.

 

One possible study is to do a star count as a function of time to see if the number of stars increased over time. This makes sense if second generation stars get to use heavier elements to begin their centers of gravity, making the formation of stars faster and faster.

 

Our sun gives off more energy than its original cloud of gas and debris.

[Almehdi]

There is action and equal and opposite reaction. The action of gravity is to collapse matter, an equal and opposite reaction means to expand.

 

If you look at it logically, the universe expands relative to the galaxies. The galaxies just so happen to be the strongest zones of accumulative gravity action. The universal reaction will occur relative to this action.

 

One possible study is to do a star count as a function of time to see if the number of stars increased over time. This makes sense if second generation stars get to use heavier elements to begin their centers of gravity, making the formation of stars faster and faster.

 

Our sun gives off more energy than its original cloud of gas and debris.

 

Yes, galaxies are the strongest zones of gravity that we can see. But could there be something outside of our view that are stronger and thus explain the increase of speed of the expansion?

[Spyman]

Little what i have been trying to say although "kick" is the wrong word for it. It's was more to represent the force of big bang. My post was actually more about dark energy than the big bang. I don't see why it is needed. It's like... first we thought the earth was flat, then we knew it was round.. then we discovered it was not the center.. then we understod the sun was not the center.. and so on. We adapt our science after what we can see and calculate. If you add a different variable the previous could all be wrong/faulty. We can not see the borders of our universe.. who can say that our universe is the only? Our universe could be a "galaxy" of many universes. Something out there could have a greater gravital force..

Sure thing, our models will change and adapt to new discoveries and observations.

 

But the Universe is by definition the totality of everything that exists. If there is something outside of our visual range then it is also included to the Universe as whole. Our observable universe on the other hand, is likely only a very small portion of the Universe but everything outside it, known or unknown, belongs to the Universe by current definition.

 

Something out there could have a greater gravitational force but it would not be able to pull our visible universe apart according to observations, since every distant object are receding from us equally in all directions. If there where something out there able to act on objects inside our visible part of the Universe it would pull those objects in its own direction and not in every possible direction away from us.

 

Dark Energy is needed to explain why all very distant objects are moving accelerating away from us, which they do equally in every direction we look.

(Edited to fix I ME's remark below.)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Spyman

[IM Egdall]

Sure thing, our models will change and adapt to new discoveries and observations.

 

But the Universe is by definition the totality of everything that exists. If there is something outside of our visual range then it is also included to the Universe as whole. Our observable universe on the other hand, is likely only a very small portion of the Universe but everything outside it, known or unknown, belongs to the Universe by current definition.

 

Something out there could have a greater gravitational force but it would not be able to pull our visible universe apart according to observations, since every distant object are receding from us equally in all directions. If there where something out there able to act on objects inside our visible part of the Universe it would pull those objects in its own direction and not in every possible direction away from us.

 

Dark Energy is needed to explain why all very distant objects are moving away from us equally in every direction we look.

 

 

I don't think the last statement is quite correct. Einstein's original 1905 field equations of general relativty predict that a universe with matter/energy could not be static. In other words, the universe had to be expanding or contracting. But prevaliing belief was that the universe is static. So he added a fudge factor, his cosmological constant, in 1907 to model a static universe.

 

In the 1920's, Hubble discovered the existence of other galaxies and that in general the further away they are, the more they are red-shifted. And Lemaitre and Friedmann independently modeled the expansion of the universe using Einstein's original equations ( no cosmological constant). But per these models, all very distant objects are not moving away from us; it is space itself between galaxies which is expanding. And also please note that there is no "dark energy" in these models of our universe.

 

In 1998 physicists discovered that this expansion of space is accelerating! The term "dark energy" is used to account for the unknown cause of this acceleration. It is modeled by adding back a cosmological constant into Einstein's equations. So Einstein's original equations predict the expansion of the universe. An added dark energy term is needed to model the observed acceleration of this expansion.

[Spyman]

Dark Energy is needed to explain why all very distant objects are moving away from us equally in every direction we look.

 

 

I don't think the last statement is quite correct. ... An added dark energy term is needed to model the observed acceleration of this expansion.

Yes, I worded that sentence badly, Dark Energy is only needed for the acceleration and not for the expansion itself.

(Have edited my post to correct the last statement.)

Edited October 22, 2010 by Spyman

[DanielC]

Almehdi,

 

This is a general comment for the whole thread: You need to realize that there is no "down" in space. You are imagining that gravity accelerates things "down". In space, gravity as you know it would accelerate things toward each other, meaning that either the expansion is slowing down or the universe is contracting at increasing speed.

 

Dark energy is the name we give to the phenomenon that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating away from each other, opposite to our regular notion of gravity. Dark energy is just a name we give to something we do not understand. One possible explanation is simply that gravity is repulsive at large distances. This is the famous cosmological constant. But that is not the only possible explanation.

 

Next, I must point out that dark energy and dark matter are not the same thing. You have confused the two terms in your post. Dark matter refers to the phenomenon that the rotation speed of galaxies is higher than what can be accounted by the matter that we can see in them. Thus the idea that there is a very large amount of matter that we cannot see which is responsible for the increased gravitational attraction in galaxies. This has nothing to do with dark energy.

[awlaskov]

ok ya mahdi , i dont know if what u are stating about gravity being the only force in the universe is right but i know that it has been provin in labs that we can create a force that opposes gravity and that gravity is accualy a very complex concept that scientists understand so little about acculay i would like to ask daniel how is gravity created is with the magnatic field of a rotating object ? probably not. and if gravity is at its largest in a black hole can this dark energy dissasemble a black hole ?