Gravity model

[Jacques]

The universe is expanding in all directions. It is not the galaxies that moves away from each other, but space itself who is expanding. Space is created between the galaxies. What was a million light years long is a million and one light year long. (You can use Hubble constant to know how long it takes)

Here on earth we don't feel this expansion and we have no clue that this expansion is happening in our galaxy. Why ?

 

Is it possible that is because the earth and all other masses in the milkyway "eat up" that space created by the expansion ?

 

Let suppose that's the case:

The universe is expanding and all masses eat up that space. The bigger the mass the more it can eat up space. Also the mass eat up the space all around it so the effect is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance. Now let see what happen if we have two mass: each eat up the space all around it slowing down expansion betwen them and if the masses are big enougth or close enought the distance betwen them will decrease.

 

Some observations:

1- There is no need for a medium or some kind of particule

2- The action is instantaneous

3- The action cannot be shealded

 

What are your thougth about that ?

Thanks

[Kygron]

Is this a new idea? It seems to fit in to what I know. Except #2. I don't think that's right.

[Jacques]

2- The action is instantaneous because there is nothing propagating.

Is this a new idea?

No it is not a new idea, but it is a new way to illustrate a concept from Larson http://www.rsystem.org/nbm/nbm05.htm

You can also make a parallel with the spacetime curvature of general relativity except that is a dynamic process.

[Ophiolite]

I don't understand what you mean by 'eat up'. Please clarify.

[Syd]

It's interesting, expansion of the universe. Space is not like a rubber, couse after 1000 years we'd be much taller. If it's beeing created more and more of it, to keep all sizes normal, what is it made of? I think both my suggestions are wrong, and there's some other way to explain it, but how??

[Jacques]

I know it is not a very scientific term

What I mean by eat up is space is absorbed or detroyed. It is the inverse of the expansion where space is created.

In more scientific term we need to define scalar motion:

Scalar motion is motion without direction like the expansion of space. The expansion of space occure in all directions at te same time. Scalar motion need only one value to be defined: magnitude.

A positive magnitude means an expansion, every locations are going away from each other. A negative magnitude mean every locations are going toward each other.

The expansion have a positive magnitude and the gravity a negative magnitude. Thay both are scalar motion.

[Sayonara]

Space is not like a rubber, couse after 1000 years we'd be much taller.

Except that we would not realise we were "taller", because everything expands at the same rate. So it doesn't rule it out.

[Syd]

yea, but using a magical mirror to see the future You'd see how we changed. Funny, couse the way we describe Universe depends so much on what we see.

[swansont]

Except that we would not realise we were "taller", because everything[/u'] expands at the same rate. So it doesn't rule it out.

 

But not everything scales linearly or depends on length (or distance) in a linear fashion.

[Jacques]

The idea here is that things that have mass doesn't expand because mass is the opposite of expansion.

[Sayonara]

But not everything scales linearly or depends on length (or distance) in a linear fashion.

You aren't supposed to catch the spanners before they get into the works

[Jacques]

I thougth that there would be more reaction on that model.

No more action at distance. No propagation delay...

I don't know if there are some professional astronomer here but I have a question for them:

When a new asteroid is discovered or to compute the trajectory of a new space probe do you use Newton equation or Einstein equation ?

[J.C.MacSwell]

I thougth that there would be more reaction on that model.

No more action at distance. No propagation delay...

I don't know if there are some professional astronomer here but I have a question for them:

When a new asteroid is discovered or to compute the trajectory of a new space probe do you use Newton equation or Einstein equation ?

 

How would orbits work in your model?

[[Tycho?]]

I thougth that there would be more reaction on that model.

No more action at distance. No propagation delay...

I don't know if there are some professional astronomer here but I have a question for them:

When a new asteroid is discovered or to compute the trajectory of a new space probe do you use Newton equation or Einstein equation ?

 

Einstiens. The equations are more accurate, which is required for something like a satellite.

[Jacques]

How would orbits work in your model?

The same way as with Newton equations except that at a great distance the expansion of space will get a bigger and bigger influence. The model doesn't change the equations of gravity it is just a conceptual difference. Newton didn't had any explaination of how gravity was working, Einstein explain it by the curvature of space-time.

[J.C.MacSwell]

The same way as with Newton equations except that at a great distance the expansion of space will get a bigger and bigger influence. The model doesn't change the equations of gravity it is just a conceptual difference. Newton didn't had any explaination of how gravity was working, Einstein explain it by the curvature of space-time.

 

So in this model the mass absorbtion of space creates curvature as well?

[swansont]

'']Einstiens. The equations are more accurate, which is required for something like a satellite.

 

Is this a guess, or from experience? Because I would think Newton's equations are sufficient for satellite calculations. GR is needed for some effects in strong fields, or some small effects, but I would guess that the perturbations from other bodies and the difficulty in calculating them would swamp any increase in accuracy or precision you might get.

[Jacques]

So in this model the mass absorbtion of space creates curvature as well?

The way I understand it I think so, but I cannot realy tell because it is not a model I invented. The difference with Einstein space curvature is, it is not a static curvature the space is constanly created by the expansion and the mass is constanly absorbing it.

 

My purpose to post that here is to see if that model make sense.

[J.C.MacSwell]

The way I understand it I think so' date=' but I cannot realy tell because it is not a model I invented. The difference with Einstein space curvature is, it is not a static curvature the space is constanly created by the expansion and the mass is constanly absorbing it.

 

My purpose to post that here is to see if that model make sense.[/quote']

 

Isn't this to some degree how GR works? GR proposes that if there is enough mass we can look forward to a "big crunch", an implosion of space as opposed to in space?

[Jacques]

Are you refering to black hole ?

In that theory space is quantized so atoms cannot go closer than the Plank length, but atom can look like they are closer than the Plank length because of some kind of time dispersion: atoms look closer in space but they are farther in time...

I find this theory have a lot of good idea but I don't know it enought to explain it very well. One of the interesting thing of that theory is the 3 dimentionals aspect of time.

They postulate that nothing but motion exist in the universe. Motion is 3 dimentional. Space and time are emergent from motion, so space and time are 3D.

There you will get an outline of that theory http://www.rsystem.org/ce/step/index.htm

If you can take a look and tell me your opinion on it, tell me if you find some value to it or none.

[whap2005]

Jac,

 

In my opinion your model is flawed. Your basing it on an unproven variable you call "Scalar motion" which can not be proven. The scalar motion you reference is actually similar to the "dark matter" theory which scientists use to convieniently to fill the unknown voids in our current model of the universe. What you've actually discovered is what we already know which is that we still don't know what the F@#$@%$K is going on lol.

[Jacques]

Scalar motion by definition a motion without direction. Maybe there are other definition, I would like to know.

The expansion of the universe is based on the redshift. Other explaination exist in other model like the gravity redshift... Good chance the simpliest explation, the Doppler shift is the good.

In that expanding universe there is 3 galaxies A, B and C, 100MLY apart.

A will see B receiding in the direction of C.

C will see B receding in the direction of A.

So B receding in two different direction at the same time and you can extend that to all galaxies outside our local group. Finally B is receding in all directions from all other. I take the jump all directions = no direction .

We can say that scalar motion exist. A scalar have magnitude only. A magnitude can be positive or negative. The expansion is positive, gravity is negative.

Does it make more sense ?

Dark matter is something else. It is used to explain how galaxies and galaxies clusters hold together. The gravity model is not develloped enought to explain that.