THEORY ON GRAVITY

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Gravity is the recoil of energy to it's source. Things of the earth or any object of the universe, may leave it's source. However, the object/energy, can only escape but so far, before it's connection to it's source, acts upon it. Pulling it back to it's itself, since it's energy and its connection with it's source is stronger, then the distance it can escapes too. Electric magnetic radiation generally escapes gravity, so light is not effected by gravity, unless it's captured by a black hole, whose gravitational pull is strong enough to effect even light. All other energies recoil back to it's source, and that recoil is what we call gravity. Think of it like a compressed spring, void the compression and the spring escapes wait a while and the spring recoil back to it's original parameters (Source of energy). Pull the spring and its escapes in accordance with the source pulling it, let it go and it recoils back. The Key here is it's connection to it's source. Source should be taken litereally.

 

Dr. Funkenstein think on his own. Fire away.

[andrewcellini]

have you conceived of an experiment to test these ideas? to be honest it seems like a very incomplete thought.

 

what do you mean by energy?

[md65536]

But all evidence is consistent with "universal gravitation", that all masses attract each other. If you introduce another massive body, a test mass will gravitate toward it the same as it would to any other similar mass. Does your speculation predict that a mass will gravitate differently to its "source", contrary to universal gravitation? If not, how do you differentiate a "source" and everything else that effects gravitation?

[swansont]

Energy isn' a thing unto itself, so what is recoiling?

 

Electric magnetic radiation generally escapes gravity, so light is not effected by gravity, unless it's captured by a black hole, whose gravitational pull is strong enough to effect even light.

 

That doesn't follow. Gravity affects light in a very predictable way, including bending and changing the frequency.

[Dekan]

Gravity is the recoil of energy to its source. Things of the earth or any object of the universe, may leave its source. However, the object/energy, can only escape but so far, before its connection to its source, acts upon it. Pulling it back to its itself.

 

This seems a logical argument for the "Big Crunch" theory. That the Universe started with a source, a kind of original particle. This particle then exploded in a "Big Bang", which flung its constituent matter apart in all directions. Thus creating all the stars and galaxies, that we see today. All rushing dramatically outwards, as a result of the impetus they got from the original explosion. But the outward impetus is being gradually restrained by Gravity.

 

Gravity may seem undramatic and weak, but it operates constantly. Always trying to pull matter back, inwards, towards the source. Eventually, ever so gradually - it will slow down the Universal expansion, and bring it to a stop.

 

Then, Gravity's inward pull will take over the situation. It'll start pulling all matter in the Universe inwards, towards the original central source point. Slowly at first - then faster and faster, as the inverse square law takes increasingly powerful effect. Until all matter arrives together at the centre. There, it will form a new "original particle", which will explode in a new "Big Bang", and throw matter outwards to create a new Universe.

 

Like a "recoiling spring", to use the simile in Dr. Funkenstein's excellent OP

Edited August 11, 2014 by Dekan

[Ophiolite]

Gravity may seem undramatic and weak, but it operates constantly. Always trying to pull matter back, inwards, towards the source. Eventually, ever so gradually - it will slow down the Universal expansion, and bring it to a stop.

Except for the fact that the evidence shows that the expansion is accelerating and that the universe will not collapse on itself at some future date.

[Dekan]

Except for the fact that the evidence shows that the expansion is accelerating and that the universe will not collapse on itself at some future date.

The evidence may seem to show this, as at 2014. However, such evidence is based on difficult and tricky observations. They may not stand up to later research.

 

Let's wait and see. The view may be quite different in a few years' time.

[Ophiolite]

Agreed, but it is misleading to present a currently discredited alternative, view as if it is a likely possibility. This may be the speculations sub-forum - but you would need to offer more convincing evidence to support your assertion than you have. Or, you could have simply added your caveat to the original post and we could have avoided this interchange.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Ophiolite

[Bignose]

The evidence may seem to show this, as at 2014. However, such evidence is based on difficult and tricky observations. They may not stand up to later research.

 

Let's wait and see. The view may be quite different in a few years' time.

This is somewhat prudent. Fairest would be to say that the current best observations support a slight acceleration in the expansion.

 

And then this comes back to the OP that if he wants his model to be taken seriously, then he needs to demonstrate to us that his model makes predictions that agree with the observations. Right now there is a story with nothing to back it up. What I'd always like to see is a graph with 3 data sets: the current best observations, the current mainstream best predictions, and the newly presented model's predictions. In many years of asking for this I have seen exactly 0 graphs presented, though. Hopefully this will be the first!