heres my theory on everything. enjoy

[anonymousone]

Hi i am going to unite the 4 forces today and im going to start by explaining 3. I think that protons and neutrons are miniature universes which do big bangs and big crunches. Which means that the strong force is gravity and the weak force is caused by the big bangs of these wave particle duality universes. Now, with this said its time to incorperate the electromagnetic force into the theory by postulating a new theory on gravity. It is that gravity is caused by dark energy which is released from stars during nuclear fusion. And after that it makes gravity stronger which is why a core of a star shrinks over time. Also, this explains why universal expansion accelerates over time since this released dark energy also expands the universe when it orbits the star/object as a whole. The theory is that energy forms bonds and proof that energy forms bonds in this universe is that whenever a bond is broken energy is released. So isnt it logical to think gravity is caused by energy too? i think so. So now, how magnetism is related to gravity is that its also caused by energy. And proof for that is that during electromagnetic induction electrons are stolen from a magnet according to my theory. They were orbiting the magnet generating forces and similiarly dark energy orbits stars and causes gravity(a force). Also all somebody has to do is look at iron fillings effected by a magnet and it can be seen how the energy orbits in a pattern which encapsulates the magnet there. These are called force vectors and i think force vectors are caused by orbital electric energy. And so thats it, i chose to publish this theory anonymously because i want to help the planet in a way that doesnt profit me at all. Its all about helping without recieving anything in return for spiritual purposes. I do hope you like my theory here, and if you do, spread it arround to those you know. THANKS

Edited May 22, 2014 by anonymousone

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We put speculative hypotheses in the Speculations section, so students understand that these are not the mainstream answers they're looking for. I've moved your thread there.

 

Also, be prepared for criticism and review, in spite of your selfless generosity, since this is science and that's what scientific methodology demands. Your idea will be attacked, but not you personally, so please keep this in mind. Thanks for posting!

[Ophiolite]

Imagination is good. Thinking up new ideas is good. Sharing your ideas is good. So, your post is a good post.

 

What is even better is having a deeper understanding of current theory before you propose a new one.

What is even better is knowing that a theory is an intricately described concept with mountains of evidence in support of it and no significant observations that contradict it.

What is even better is accepting that any theory dealing with fundamental forces has to be expressed in mathematics.

 

I look forward to the better posts you will make one day when you have that understanding, knowledge and acceptance.

[anonymousone]

ahh i see i look forward to debating and defending my ideas in a way that isnt agressive or rude. because if somebody can prove my ideas are stupid somehow ide like them do so so i can modify my theory and/or come to the conclusion that its bunk. thanks

Edited May 22, 2014 by anonymousone

[pwagen]

It is that gravity is caused by dark energy which is released from stars during nuclear fusion.

Are you saying gravity is only produced inside stars? If so, how does it interact with other bodies (planets and the like)? Also, how come we're attracted to Earth and don't fly off?

 

Also, this explains why universal expansion accelerates over time since this released dark energy also expands the universe when it orbits the star/object as a whole.

Gravity attracts. How does an attractive force push the universe apart?

[anonymousone]

Are you saying gravity is only produced inside stars? If so, how does it interact with other bodies (planets and the like)? Also, how come we're attracted to Earth and don't fly off?

 

Gravity attracts. How does an attractive force push the universe apart?

 

i think that the energy that causes gravity is mainly produced in stars and blackholes. But when a hydrogen bomb goes off some dark energy is released for example and so gravity increases because that energy somehow incorperates itself into orbiting arround the cosmological object it was near. also, I think that since energy forms bonds and dark energy causes gravity, that the moon is held in orbit by this energy and it encapsulates earth and the moon at once. And u say how come we dont fly off earth? well thats because somehow this invisible energy that orbits in a spherical configuration makes matter move from areas of higher dark energy density to the lower areas. like a slope the slope being lower areas have less dark energy in that area of space. Also i think this energy orbits faster than light because that way it can organize galaxy clusters.

 

Yes u say gravity attracts that is true, and the way dark energy can cause attraction(gravity) and repulsion(antigravity universal expansion) is that it orbits stars and galaxies in spherical configuration shapes. And these shapes gain size over time like balloons inflating and this pushes objects apart. While at the center of these spherical dark energy configurations the energy is arranged in a way that causes matter to be crushed. hope this helps

[pwagen]

Let's assume you're right, and gravity does orbit galaxies (correct me if that wasn't what you meant). Since gravity is presumably responsible for the expansion of the universe, this would make it a mostly repulsive force, correct? Wouldn't it, then, be easier to say that while gravity orbits the galaxies, it creates some form of pressure which "sticks" to mass (which is what I think you were saying with "...that energy somehow incorperates itself into..."), charging them with attraction? Is there any way to know whether that's the correct explanation? After all, it seems to get rid of the paradox of having a force that is both repulsive and attractive at the same time, wouldn't you say?

 

Now, regardless of my interpretation of your theory (which, I'm sorry to say, I still don't quite fully understand), how would you go about proving it wrong, falsify it? What can it explain which the standard models of gravity can not?

 

Edit: Fixed formatting errors.

Edited May 22, 2014 by pwagen

[anonymousone]

the dark energy configurations that orbit galaxies according to my theory are massive and that's how they generate all the forces that smash and repel matter. But its all dark energy moving the matter and how the dark energy is arranged is what matters, not how space and time curves. Technically, its possible to harvest dark energy and use it as a way to travel via gravity and this would be a way to go millions of miles per hour possibly because u wouldn't get crushed by g's. Also, I think that dark energy does stick to massive objects and cause gravity, why this is could be due to some kind of dark energy particle properties im not familiar with because it hasn't been studied yet. It seems though that energy orbits and makes force vectors in iron filings. So dark energy probably orbits massive cosmological objects for the same reason.

strong force = gravity inside of protons and neutrons

weak force = big bangs in protons and neutrons

gravity = orbital energy

magnetic forces = orbital energy

excellent questions by the way sir.

Edited May 22, 2014 by anonymousone

[Phi for All]

if somebody can prove my ideas are stupid

 

They may try to show that your ideas are wrong. Wrong ≠ stupid.

 

somehow ide like them do so so i can modify my theory and/or come to the conclusion that its bunk.

 

This is the perfect attitude to take. Most ideas are wrong, but if we approach them correctly, we can know how and why they're wrong, and learn where we need to learn more.

 

And as Ophiolite mentioned, in science we don't start out calling an idea a theory. It's a hypothesis until it's been examined, tested, reviewed, discussed, supported, and so on until we can see that nothing refutes it. Only then is it referred to as a theory.

[Klaynos]

Welcome anonymousone, I have a standard question for people claiming to have a theory of everything.

 

Using your idea, can you numerically show what the altitude of a geostationary orbit around the earth would be?

[swansont]

The theory is that energy forms bonds and proof that energy forms bonds in this universe is that whenever a bond is broken energy is released.

 

Backwards. Energy is released in forming bonds. So, idea falsified?

 

 

So isnt it logical to think gravity is caused by energy too? i think so. So now, how magnetism is related to gravity is that its also caused by energy. And proof for that is that during electromagnetic induction electrons are stolen from a magnet according to my theory.

Is there some mechanism that makes the conclusion follow from the premise? Any experimental evidence for these "stolen" electrons?

 

Does your theory make any verifiable, specific predictions at all? (Klaynos gives a reasonable example above).

 

 

[Mordred]

Hi i am going to unite the 4 forces today and im going to start by explaining 3. I think that protons and neutrons are miniature universes which do big bangs and big crunches. Which means that the strong force is gravity and the weak force is caused by the big bangs of these wave particle duality universes. Now, with this said its time to incorperate the electromagnetic force into the theory by postulating a new theory on gravity. It is that gravity is caused by dark energy which is released from stars during nuclear fusion. And after that it makes gravity stronger which is why a core of a star shrinks over time. Also, this explains why universal expansion accelerates over time since this released dark energy also expands the universe when it orbits the star/object as a whole. The theory is that energy forms bonds and proof that energy forms bonds in this universe is that whenever a bond is broken energy is released. So isnt it logical to think gravity is caused by energy too? i think so. So now, how magnetism is related to gravity is that its also caused by energy. And proof for that is that during electromagnetic induction electrons are stolen from a magnet according to my theory. They were orbiting the magnet generating forces and similiarly dark energy orbits stars and causes gravity(a force). Also all somebody has to do is look at iron fillings effected by a magnet and it can be seen how the energy orbits in a pattern which encapsulates the magnet there. These are called force vectors and i think force vectors are caused by orbital electric energy. And so thats it, i chose to publish this theory anonymously because i want to help the planet in a way that doesnt profit me at all. Its all about helping without recieving anything in return for spiritual purposes. I do hope you like my theory here, and if you do, spread it arround to those you know. THANKS

oh my, OK where do we start. LOL some of the repliers have already started. So lets start with a couple of key questions with the asumption your model is correct.

 

1) How do you explain the gravitational attraction between asteroids in the Oort cloud?

2) How do you explain how we do not detect increased gravity or dark energy in nuclear reactors here on Earth?

3) How do you explain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion ? according to your model any relevant math, would show that the rate of expansion due to dark energy would be stronger near the galaxy centers and radiate outward, it would follow that larger galaxies would have a stronger repellent force than smaller galaxies, in other words the rate of expansion between any 3 galaxies would depend on their overall size and number of stars in a given region. So I cannot see how you can have a cosmological constant. It would entail a cosmological variable, that depends on location. Ie localized preferred locations and direction.

4) if gravity was similar to magnetism via a polarity, why do we not detect gravitational polarity curves such as we do with magnetism? For example the radiation belt surrounding Earth due to Earths magnetism. Why isn't there similar waves around gravitational bodies? We do analyze the same spectrums used to detect the Earths magnetosphere, when we look at stars and other large bodies.( it would follow that matter would follow similar pathways in much the same way as iron filings)

5) How would stars form in the first place without gravity? According to you model gravity is due to the collapse of stars, What about when there is no stars? The strong force is extremely short range compared to gravity.

6) How would you explain the universe expanding at a time when the temperatures was far hotter than any star, how did inflation work in this circumstance? Ie hotter than when protons and neutrons could form be stable (quark/gluon plasma).

7) Can you describe you model in terms of the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics? with relevant phase transitions?

8) How would nucleosynthesis work in this model?

9) can you show the particle interactions within the precepts of your model with the relevant Lie algebra, and guage symmetries?

10) Can you describe GUT, starting from Planck time forward in the thermodynamic and quage symmetry steps? Ie when each particle species would drop out of thermal equilibrium (after all your claiming to have solved GUT. lets see the full model)

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

 

Backwards. Energy is released in forming bonds. So, idea falsified?

 

 

Is there some mechanism that makes the conclusion follow from the premise? Any experimental evidence for these "stolen" electrons?

 

Does your theory make any verifiable, specific predictions at all? (Klaynos gives a reasonable example above).

 

 

i think during fusion when a bond is formed less energy is needed to hold the particles together and so extra energy is released. energy that was being used to crush two seperate nuclei together is more than whats required to hold together one larger nucleus. also during electromagnetic induction the magnet loses strength because the energy that was orbiting the magnet generating forces there is gone. while the electrons can be measured in volts according to my theory. and alot of the predictions this theory can make arent really determinable such as the size of the universe being symetrical to protons and neutrons. with this said though my theory indicates that there will be anomalies in how stars orbit galaxies because of how the dark energy configurations cause gravity and repulsive forces which cause universal expansion...and these anomalies are known as the galaxy rotational curve. the best way to visualize this is to imagine that orbiting stars are inflating balloons swirling arround a supermassive blackhole. and these inflating balloons represent the increasing size of the dark energy configurations that cause gravity and antigravity simultaneously. in other words what is causing the galaxy rotational curve is also causing accelerating universal expansion. my theory matches data more than it predicts you all see?

Edited May 22, 2014 by anonymousone

[Mordred]

no unfortunately you would need to show the math as they say. A simple verbal explanation isn't sufficient to understand what your describing.

 

Particularly since you didn't answer the 10 questions I posted

 

also a rotating universe is not homogeneous and isotropic

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

oh my, OK where do we start. LOL some of the repliers have already started. So lets start with a couple of key questions with the asumption your model is correct.

 

1) How do you explain the gravitational attraction between asteroids in the Oort cloud?

- these asteroids orbital patterns are influenced by their dark energy the suns and the galaxies dark energy forces also

2) How do you explain how we do not detect increased gravity or dark energy in nuclear reactors here on Earth?

-this dark energy increased gravity very very slightly almost unmeasurably small

3) How do you explain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion ? according to your model any relevant math, would show that the rate of expansion due to dark energy would be stronger near the galaxy centers and radiate outward, it would follow that larger galaxies would have a stronger repellent force than smaller galaxies, in other words the rate of expansion between any 3 galaxies would depend on their overall size and number of stars in a given region. So I cannot see how you can have a cosmological constant. It would entail a cosmological variable, that depends on location. Ie localized preferred locations and direction.

-the supermassive blackhole at the center of galaxies gravity powers hold all the orbiting stars and their dark energy together which is what causes the stars in a galaxy to remain in orbit. instead of these orbiting stars repelling each other away and this pattern repeats itself throughout the universe

4) if gravity was similar to magnetism via a polarity, why do we not detect gravitational polarity curves such as we do with magnetism? For example the radiation belt surrounding Earth due to Earths magnetism. Why isn't there similar waves around gravitational bodies? We do analyze the same spectrums used to detect the Earths magnetosphere, when we look at stars and other large bodies.( it would follow that matter would follow similar pathways in much the same way as iron filings)

-the configuration of the orbital energy energy isnt even arranged the same with gravity compared to how a magnets orbital electric energy is configurated. but theyre both configurations of orbital energy causing forces

5) How would stars form in the first place without gravity? According to you model gravity is due to the collapse of stars, What about when there is no stars? The strong force is extremely short range compared to gravity.

-i think cumulative attraction forms gas clouds early in the universe and this is caused by dark energy that exists in matter. for some reason it begins to orbit large numbers of atoms to organize clouds but i can only theorize why that is.....

6) How would you explain the universe expanding at a time when the temperatures was far hotter than any star, how did inflation work in this circumstance? Ie hotter than when protons and neutrons could form be stable (quark/gluon plasma).

-expansion is due to an event that happens at the main central universe blackhole which releases even more types of energies which displace and destroy this main black holes dark energy configuration which causes gravity. if it werent for the dark energy being displaced during this event then the bigbang would never happen. and i theorize that the dimension cracks or spacetime breaks to release this energy.....

7) Can you describe you model in terms of the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics? with relevant phase transitions?

-im not exactly a college graduate but i tought myself physics and i think it works out in a computer simulated universe although i dont have the math for this yet i do think it exists and can be made to symetrically match the universe exactly.

8) How would nucleosynthesis work in this model?

-after the bigbang causes energy to be released this stuff innitially forms from very large hadrons that were kept stable by the blackholes gravity forces at the central universe blackhole...without this gravity there these larger hadrons cant exist anymore like that so they convert to ones millions of times as small. also some of the energy converts to mass.

9) can you show the particle interactions within the precepts of your model with the relevant Lie algebra, and guage symmetries?

10) Can you describe GUT, starting from Planck time forward in the thermodynamic and quage symmetry steps? Ie when each particle species would drop out of thermal equilibrium (after all your claiming to have solved GUT. lets see the full model)

-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet.

Edited May 23, 2014 by anonymousone

[swansont]

i think during fusion when a bond is formed less energy is needed to hold the particles together and so extra energy is released.

And you would be wrong. If there is an attractive force, no energy is required to hold particles together. Energy is released in the formation of the bond. You must add energy to break the system apart.

 

energy that was being used to crush two seperate nuclei together is more than whats required to hold together one larger nucleus. also during electromagnetic induction the magnet loses strength because the energy that was orbiting the magnet generating forces there is gone. while the electrons can be measured in volts according to my theory.

Has anyone ever objectively observed this energy "orbiting" a magnet?

 

Has this energy reduction of a magnet been measured? Why do motors work for such a long time if this is what happens?

 

and alot of the predictions this theory can make arent really determinable such as the size of the universe being symetrical to protons and neutrons. with this said though my theory indicates that there will be anomalies in how stars orbit galaxies because of how the dark energy configurations cause gravity and repulsive forces which cause universal expansion...and these anomalies are known as the galaxy rotational curve. the best way to visualize this is to imagine that orbiting stars are inflating balloons swirling arround a supermassive blackhole. and these inflating balloons represent the increasing size of the dark energy configurations that cause gravity and antigravity simultaneously. in other words what is causing the galaxy rotational curve is also causing accelerating universal expansion. my theory matches data more than it predicts you all see?

 

Of what value is a theory that makes no predictions that can be confirmed? How can you call it a theory of everything?

[anonymousone]

And you would be wrong. If there is an attractive force, no energy is required to hold particles together. Energy is released in the formation of the bond. You must add energy to break the system apart.

-energy is released during fision when bonds are violently broken because energy forms bonds and energy is required to break those bonds i think so we agree. and heat energy is needed to fuse atoms together which releases even more energy and this released energy comes from somewhere. according to my theory this energy comes from the energy that was being used to hold two nuclie together which is more than whats required to hold one nucleus together and so the leftover extra energy is released as heat light and dark energy.

 

Has anyone ever objectively observed this energy "orbiting" a magnet?

-there is evidence to support this idea that im not going to present again sir. it is up to you whether you consider this conclusive or not though.

 

Has this energy reduction of a magnet been measured? Why do motors work for such a long time if this is what happens?

-if somebody measures a magnets strength according to my theory the magnet will weaken more and more the longer it is used in electromagnetic induction because those volts didnt come from nowhere they came from the magnets energy configuration that causes magnetic forces and this weakening is probably very slight.

 

Of what value is a theory that makes no predictions that can be confirmed? How can you call it a theory of everything?

-i think ill predict some data correctly but theres so much data thats been collected and no theories to match all recorded data which is a major problem that needs a major answer which i think is valuable

[Mordred]

you need to reply outside the blue box when quoting lol. I had to cut and paste your reply out of the qoute of my post.

 

"-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet."

 

Not really, I can construct a mini universe out of N-body codes or using similar relations although due to computing power the number of particles is greatly reduced. I do own an N-body code textbook.

 

Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms.

by Sverre J Arseth.

 

A simple 250 particle N-body code done properly takes over 3 days to show a mere 1 million years of development, on an average desktop computer.

 

Do you honestly think you can compete with this Virtual universe? in detail?

 

http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10

http://www.illustris-project.org/

 

this took the fastest supercomputer 3 months to perform, on a desktop it would have taken roughly 2000 years.

 

You claim to have a program that covers the entire Universes history? and yet you cannot even post a simple mathematical relation to show your model???

What do you take us for?

 

You need the mathematics to write the program in the first place. Post the math you used. I'm not that gullible

here is a simple point to point algorithm

 

grr can't get it to latex properly

 

equation 2.1

http://www.usm.uni-muenchen.de/people/puls/lessons/numpraktnew/nbody/nbody_manual.pdf

page 8

 

that's just a P-P gravitational code between two particles, now repeat that for 250 particles with interactions with each other, and keep track of each location using memory stacks and indirect addressing via pointers

 

you have a program PPFFFTTT you do.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

you need to reply outside the blue box when quoting lol. I had to cut and paste your reply out of the qoute of my post.

 

"-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet."

 

Not really, I can construct a mini universe out of N-body codes or using similar relations although due to computing power the number of particles is greatly reduced. I do own an N-body code textbook.

 

Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms.

by Sverre J Arseth.

 

A simple 250 particle N-body code done properly takes over 3 days to show a mere 1 million years of development, on an average desktop computer.

 

Do you honestly think you can compete with this Virtual universe? in detail?

 

http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10

http://www.illustris-project.org/

 

this took the fastest supercomputer 3 months to perform, on a desktop it would have taken roughly 2000 years.

 

You claim to have a program that covers the entire Universes history? and yet you cannot even post a simple mathematical relation to show your model???

What do you take us for?

 

You need the mathematics to write the program in the first place. Post the math you used. I'm not that gullible

while i cant simulate every single particle i can make each aspect of our understanding of the universe more logical than now and i do this with metaphors diagrams graphs and rationals for why something is more logical. not everything is math when it comes to problem solving anything including math although i do want math to backup my rationals because math cant be refuted. thats just one piece of the puzzle because math needs to be about stuff that makes the most logical sense.

[Mordred]

Math is the basis of science. You cannot model any scientific principle without math. Now I'm confused you purport to model how GUT works without including particle interactions? Then you model is incorrect and so is your so called program

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

so this got me thinking outside of the box about math which is great because i consider this something gained from this conversation...im going to make a math equation which shows correlations exist between fusion ammounts in the universe, net gravity strength in the universe, the total ammount of universal expansion thats taken place, and the galaxy rotational curve along with some other variables hopefully... the goal is to show mathematical connections between these variables and dark energy to prove dark energy vortex configurations(orbital energy) causes gravity and to prove that forces can be made by orbital energies so that my hypothesis/theory about electromagnetism is also strengthened. to support my theory on everything. now i need to teach myself more about math.

Edited May 23, 2014 by anonymousone

[Mordred]

right you need to understand the math inside the box and why that math works before you can reinvent the wheel as they say. If you want to prove your theory you need to compare it to existing theories with the mathematics. As well as show where the existing mathematics is in error or how your mathematics is an improvement. Then when you have your model with the mathematics. the next step is to find observational evidence to support it, then the next step is to try and prove your model wrong, with existing models or scientific evidence. I know that last step doesn't sound good but any good model is subject to being proved wrong or undergoes those tests to prove it wrong

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

so this got me thinking outside of the box about math which is great because i consider this something gained from this conversation...im going to make a math equation which shows correlations exist between fusion ammounts in the universe, net gravity strength in the universe, the total ammount of universal expansion thats taken place, and the galaxy rotational curve along with some other variables hopefully... the goal is to show mathematical connections between these variables and dark energy to prove dark energy vortex configurations(orbital energy) causes gravity and to prove that forces can be made by orbital energies so that my hypothesis/theory about electromagnetism is also strengthened. to support my theory on everything. now i need to teach myself more about math.

my hypothesis is that these variables i mentioned here are connected mathematically and this is because dark energy is released during fusion where it then causes gravity, accelerating universal expansion, and the galaxy rotational curve...

[Mordred]

right but in order to understand that you need to understand the math relations behind the cosmological constant, what is its value? why is it constant no matter where you measure it. Why does all the galaxies move away from each other at the same rate without a change in the angles? In your model why is Earths gravity not weaker when a satellite is between the Sun and the Earth? as opposed to that same satellite being on the other side of the planet, if gravity comes from the suns fusion. The Earth has no fusion process in its core.

 

trust me once you study the math of current science it won't take you long to see where the problems your model will have to prove

 

this post above is well written

 

but I would include, show you understand the current theories before you claim they are wrong.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/?p=309694

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mordred

[anonymousone]

right but in order to understand that you need to understand the math relations behind the cosmological constant, what is its value? why is it constant no matter where you measure it. Why does all the galaxies move away from each other at the same rate without a change in the angles? In your model why is Earths gravity not weaker when a satellite is between the Sun and the Earth? as opposed to that same satellite being on the other side of the planet, if gravity comes from the suns fusion. The Earth has no fusion process in its core.

 

trust me once you study the math of current science it won't take you long to see where the problems your model will have to prove

 

this post above is well written

 

but I would include, show you understand the current theories before you claim they are wrong.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/?p=309694

well i think that when mass coalesces dark energy in that mass somehow goes to orbit that object/body as a whole. and this dark energy in the mass can be released during fusion for example in stars where itll increase that stars gravity/antigravity power. so in other words earth gets its dark energy from its own mass because that mass has coalesced. just like how coalesced mass formed hydrogen clouds and stars early on in the universal cycle....also you say that all galaxies are moving away from each other at the same rate even though theres clusters of galaxies and they form all kinds of shapes...and if this is sorta true then thats because theyre all about the same size fusing about the same ammount of matter every day. and so it would be expected that a relatively equal ammount of universal expansion take place between all galaxies and galaxy clusters...if indeed my theory is true that universal expansion is caused by fusion/dark energy associated with galaxies.

Edited May 23, 2014 by anonymousone