metacogitans Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) I originally wrote all this back in March, but earlier tonight I found an article by chance from 2006 where physicists had proposed this exact same thing. And if you look at this link, it looks like they even have a working model and set of equations for it. Here's the link: http://phys.org/news77190620.html%29./ This gravitational hypothesis explains the phenomenon which 'dark energy' is popularly used to explain as just a geometric consequence of gravity at the macroscopic scale of superclusters, and the math involved particularily with gravity at this scale had always been overlooked. Another noteworthy point about this gravitational hypothesis is that there's no longer any need for dark energy or dark matter in explaining anything. Basically, all that's left is getting people to break away from the 'dark energy' bandwagon preventing this gravitational hypothesis from gaining more recognition. So now, here's my post I wrote in March which also has some assumptions and predictions of mine I think would be implications of the gravitational hypothesis: Assuming that galaxies were more or less evenly dispersed after the early aggressive expansion of the universe following the 'big bang', small variations in their dispersion eventually caused galaxies to begin gravitating towards each other, starting the formation of superclusters.Vacuoles in space between super-clusters where galaxies are absent kept growing. As the spaces between superclusters becomes larger, the escape velocity required for a galaxy to leave a supercluster and cross the vacuole to a neighboring supercluster becomes greater and greater until its impossible.We can deduce how the shape of the universe would continue changing next simply by following General Relativity: the lessening gravitational influence between superclusters across the vacuoles between them would cause the vacuoles to accelerate in their growth; the galaxies in superclusters would begin to gravitate into larger galactic rivers, and superclusters would start becoming less branched out in shape. This likely would be the point in the process that our universe is at if correct.As the branches of superclusters continue to merge into central rivers, they acquire a general uniform momentum, as the net gravitational influence on the centralized branches is more exclusive to its own gravitational influence on itself. Due to the vacuoles between superclusters accelerating exponentially in growth, the overall shape of the universe is seemingly expanding. The shape of the universe changing in the described way fits with all observations consistently, without anything left out still needing an explanation.The observed "expansion" of the universe is then simply a result of entropy in its shape due to gravity - without inventing or assuming the existence of new concepts like "dark energy" to explain-away things that aren't understood.--That's not all though; we can keep going in our explanation and roughly predict how the shape of the universe would continue to change from gravitational entropy. The galactic rivers of superclusters that are farthest out, would flow out deeper into empty space, and although the shape of the universe would still be generally expanding, the galactic rivers of the superclusters wouldn't keep going off out into empty space but would arch back in towards the rest of the universe due to gravity -- this restriction for any object to permanently maintain a trajectory away from the rest of the universe's contents out into empty space is simply a mathematical limitation involved with the physics: no matter how great the velocity of the object might be, the velocity is only constant, while gravity's influence exhibited on the object, no matter how weak it may be, accelerates. Thus, even with incredible velocity, the velocity can only decrease, eventually causing the object to gravitate back towards the rest of the universe. Even though the nearest massive object may be light years away, the distance of gravitational pull's influence is infinite with dwindling intensity - and since an object subject to gravity is accelerating, there is no such thing as a true escape velocity. Because of this, the farthest out superclusters will curve in their trajectory back towards the rest of the universe. This also implies that, regarding the changing shape of the universe, the accelerating expansion of the universe is only temporary and will eventually start to slow down.With the trajectory of far out superclusters being curved, the universe will eventually start to develop a spin/rotation, with the rivers of galactic superclusters flowing spherically around the universe in a prevailing direction. The superclusters in the inner region of the universe will all eventually join the outer sphere of superclusters, and the shape of the universe will resemble an interweaving web of supercluster rivers forming a hollow rotating sphere. During this stage, expansion of the universe's contents will peak off -- the due to the inner region of the universe becoming vacant, the effect of gravity will be lessened in the direction of the approximate center of the universe, resulting in profound expansion. With distances from galaxy to galaxy and supercluster to supercluster at their greatest, the gravitational influence of galaxies and superclusters on each other is at its minimal. Superclusters's galactic rivers start slowing down. The stage of the universe at this point is a plateau of mildness with not much going on. Eventually, however, the calmness starts to come to an end; due to the rotation of the universe, superclusters near the center on both sides of the hollow sphere which weren't experiencing much rotation began to gravitate out to other parts, flattening the shape of the universe slightly. With the added mass from those superclusters, gravity starts pulling together superclusters and merging them together -- the universe now consists of giant rings of superclusters that have merged together; the mass of these superclusters is not evenly distributed, causing the rings to start to twist and fluctuate - the twisting causes sections of the supercluster rings to stall in their rotation; the resulting offset distribution of mass and momentum causes sections of the rings of superclusters to build up an enormous amount of mass, which is then followed by sides of other nearby rings getting pulled in by the immense gravity and crashing into it. A high number of super-massive black holes are formed, which start to merge together and begin assimilating entire galaxies - eventually they are so massive that they are able to pull in super-clusters and start sucking up the contents of the entire universe and end up triggering another big bang, starting the universe anew. Edited May 1, 2015 by metacogitans
Mordred Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 The universe doesn't have a rotation, a rotation also implies a center, and preffered location and direction. Measurement disagree with this hypothesis, with the huge number of galaxies and super clusters we have mapped thus far there is no discernable nor detectable preffered direction or rotation. Another evidence supporting no rotation is Ray casting from the CMB. Scientists are currently mapping today's structures to the CMB. No rotation is detected however slow. "The spherical map matter projection, in both the Born approximation and ML imple- mentations, can be particularly useful in cross-correlation studies between the CMB with other tracers of mass and foreground sources, for characterizing the simulation of mock cat- alogues of observables built from N-Body simulations. The tomography of LSS, which is an intrinsic feature of the two lensing approaches analysed in this work, can be exploited to investigate different cosmological scenarios, looking at the effects of different DE models on small scales as well on the whole evolution of the matter in Universe. These feature will be of great importance for upcoming projects such as the Euclid satellite that can fully exploit the capabilities of cross-correlation as cosmological probe." http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7680 Black holes will never suck the entire universe up. After all this time you still have no mathematic support for your personal model?
Recommended Posts