The Gravity Model vs Big Bang Theory

[kmarinas86]

Well it's been a while since I posted here, but anyway :lol:

 

 

 

The idea you give here is in contrast with two observations concerning the expansion of the universe.

First of all: The observation that the expansion is isotropic and homogenous. This means nothing more then -on the avarage- the expansion is the same in every direction, as seen from any reference point.. Your idea would create a preferred direction (namely in the direction of the massive object). In fact your idea would mean a clustering of matter around the massive objects instead of an expansion of the distances between the objects.

secondly your idea is in contrast with hubble's famous observation that the velocity at which we see stars and stuff going away from us grows linear with the distance to these objects. this linear relation will not be obtained by your model (instead probably quadratic)

 

Bo

 

Redshift, in fact, is not proportional to velocity. Redshift can be 1000 or more, but a redshift of 1000 does not mean 1000 times the velocity. A relativistic speeds, the redshift approaches infinity. Also, reasonable redshift/light-time-travel-distance curves can be obtained with very large objects. The curve is linear at low v, but at high v, it is still a bit similiar. See the image below (one-body example).

[IDMclean]

"When the universe was between 10 to the minus 35 and 10 to the minus 32 seconds old it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit".

 

I would concour that this is non-sense. How and why would the constant (that is unchanging) speed of light change in this example? I smell mystism here.

 

I don't nessarily agree that your, Davidson, model is any better.

 

Funny note:

This idea allowed for two opposing possibilities. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other possibility was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time[6]. It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a program broadcast on March 28, 1949 by the BBC Third Programme. Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a series of five lectures entitled The Nature of Things. The text of each lecture was published in The Listener a week after the broadcast, the first time that the term "big bang" appeared in print. [2]

[W.Davidson]

W.D., in order to confirm your theory, how many super bodies would have to be placed where, and composed of what mass to produce the effects you

propose? whereas there may be some difference in measurements as you suggest, your theory would lend itself to chaos rather than order and eventually result in a disordered, lopsided universe. i do congratulate you on independent thinking.

 

In the model I propose, there is only one Great Body influencing the motions of the galaxies in the observable universe. It will be much more ancient than the galaxies that are being drawn towards it, and will have been accreting galaxies into its mass for aeons. It will be travelling at great speed through the hydrogen field, influenced by the gravity of similar very distant Great Bodies. It is therefore conceivable that they might occur in 'clusters', and it cannot be ruled out that the observed motions of galaxies are due to the gravitational influence of more than one Great Body. However, I have proposed just one Great Body, as that is the simplest model which could produce the observed motions.

 

Beyond the finite system we call the 'observable universe', there could be billions of similar Great Bodies, creating galaxies within the hydrogen field and drawing the galaxies towards them. We can probably never know about them, and they have no significant influence on our local system. A previous poster asked where these black holes (if that's what they are) come from. They are a natural consequence of the gravitational attraction between atoms in the hydrogen field. They are travelling through the hydrogen field at great speed, and would therefore attract matter preferentially in their direction of movement. This might result in the observable universe of galaxies having a rather bizarre shape. Whenever I try to visualize it, the image of a 'twisted shuttlecock' comes to mind.

[questor]

W.D., if there is only one giant body, then the galaxies would all follow the direction of movement of that body, meaning that all bodies are moving in one direction. whenever there is dissatisfaction or refutation of the science of a certain position, it does little good to argue an even more untenable position. if you would describe the predictions of your theory, perhaps the strong and weak points could be argued to a conclusion.

[W.Davidson]

W.D., if there is only one giant body, then the galaxies would all follow the direction of movement of that body, meaning that all bodies are moving in one direction. whenever there is dissatisfaction or refutation of the science of a certain position, it does little good to argue an even more untenable position. if you would describe the predictions of your theory, perhaps the strong and weak points could be argued to a conclusion.

 

That's right, Questor. In the proposed model they are all heading in one direction. And this results in an anisotropic redshift. I've explained it as best I can in my original post, but it's highly counter-intuitive, which is probably why you're having such trouble visualizing it. I don't know what I can add to what I've said already. You either see it or you don't. Words have limited power to enable someone to visualise something like this. All I can suggest is that you re-read my original post, and if you have any specific questions, I'll try to answer them.

 

The key point is that whatever your position in the universe, any galaxy you view will either be closer to, or further away from the Great Body than yourself, and this results in a redshift. I think you may be having trouble with the idea that a redshift does not necessarily mean that the galaxy is moving DIRECTLY away from you.

[IDMclean]

Question, what about Galaxies in retrograde? What if a galaxy is to move counter to this massive body? Is their evidence under your model that this does not occur?

[W.Davidson]

Question, what about Galaxies in retrograde? What if a galaxy is to move counter to this massive body? Is their evidence under your model that this does not occur?

 

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, KAQ, but ALL galaxies move towards the Great Body and merge with it eventually. Galaxies form originally due to the gravitational influence of the Great Body drawing hydrogen towards it from the hydrogen field. The Great Body creates and destroys galaxies.

[IDMclean]

As in, most moons move Prograde to the planet they orbit, however a number of moons, and even planets move in retrograde, that is opposite to what would be expected.

 

Also does the great body rotate? Prograde and retrograde are based on the spin of a massive body. retrograde means that the sub body (a galaxy) moves counter to the spin of the main body (great body).

[W.Davidson]

The galaxies are not orbiting the Great Body. The way I see it, they are all spiralling towards it. However, this spiralling motion might be described as 'quasi-orbital' and could have some of the characteristics of orbital motion, such as striation effects. It is known that the galactic superclusters exist in long filaments separated by great voids. These could be striation effects caused by the quasi-orbital motion. The rings of Saturn and spiral galaxies are orbitting systems exhibiting striation effects.

 

As for whether the Great Body is rotating, I really hadn't thought about it. Interesting thought, though.

[IDMclean]

Important thought, Do you know of the differences of a Rotating blackhole versus a Stationary blackhole? There are others but I'm rather lazy and I awoke only a little bit ago.

[W.Davidson]

No I don't.

[IDMclean]

Gravitation

General Relativity

Special Relativity

Einstein's Tensor, and the Field Equations

 

Black holes:

Rotating Black Holes

Charged Black Holes

Still Black Holes

 

Also are you aware of multi-mutial Gravity models? A simple example is Binary Star systems. Where you get systems rotating about each other in an almost spiral like pattern...

 

Some more food for thought, Did you know that not everything that begins to fall into a blackhole gets eaten? Some things will "slingshot" at luminal or near luminal speeds. This isn't significant I think for most things however for your theorm it is, as I must ask. What happens when a major portion(s) of a galaxy(s) decides to take off in a direction with near light speed acceleration?

[Little Bang]

W, the observable universe is expanding like a balloon being blown up. A large mass would simply pull everything toward it not make it expand, The only way that gravity could cause this observation is if it is as I suggest, there is a large amount of mass in all directions.

[W.Davidson]

LB,

 

This topic is an alternative to the expanding universe model

[HydrogenBond]

It is difficult to definitively determine what went on in the beginning. The best we have are educated guesses.

 

Here is a new twist to the BB. The conditions of the primordial atom are very close to a blackhole. This has resulted in many looking elsewhere for universe theories due to the postulated stability of such a blackhole. If we look at the BB blackhole assumption a little differently something useful results. A universal magnitude BB blackhole is different than the blackholes we currently find in the universe. One difference being the small blackholes exist with matter and space all around the universe. The BB blackhole is all inclusive in a point. What this means, is that if the BB blackhole was to create a whitehole (wormhole), the only place it could go would be as a superimposition onto the BB blackhole. The result will be a BB grayhole, i.e, tight recycle of white (worm) and blackhole. This is the primordial atom. It contains two universal extremes.

 

The grayhole is a delicate balance between the expansion capability of a whitehole (worm) and the contraction singularity of the blackhole. Energy and mass can not escape a blackhole, while both can excape and expand via a whitehole. It just needs a little push.

 

If a little bit of energy was to escape during an irregular pulse white cycle, for the energy to continue to propagate, space would have to expand. This tips the scales toward the BB grayhole expansion since entropy potential is created by expanding space. An entropy expansion is endothermic. For example, if we expand compressed gas it will get cold. The entropy potential, due to the expansion of space, will draw energy from the grayhole and induce it into a lower energy state.

 

One such state which could help maintain the consistency of the blackhole and whitehole duality and the entropy potential is a split into two. Mass is still confined to point size and energy is still contained. While being two allows it to define a lower potential state that can also lower the entropy potential.

 

The continued entropy potential, will induce smaller and smaller grayhole singularities until they finally condense into matter and energy. The final step is due to entropy potential of space increasing by the third power of radius (rapidly increasing spherical volume) as light propagates. The subdivision can not longer keep up with the entropy potential requiring billions of mini BB's into upteen little particles.

[W.Davidson]

The Gravity Model: Some Further Thoughts.

 

The Gravity Model creates a cosmos with two regions - the region closer to the Great Body than the observer, and the region farther away from it than the observer. For brevity's sake, I will call these regions 'inside' and 'outside'. One might expect that the galaxies in either region would exhibit subtle differences, either individually or collectively. Galaxies old and young coexist in the same regions in space, but it is tempting to think that there would be a statistically significant excess of old ellipticals 'inside', and younger galaxies 'outside', although I am not aware of any research that indicates this.

 

Galaxies 'inside' would be travelling at greater velocity, and would be pulling away from their neighbours to a greater degree than galaxies 'outside'. This might result in there being fewer galaxies per square degree 'inside' than 'outside'. At the same time, galaxies 'inside' would be converging towards the Great Body and this could produce the opposite effect. The Great Body will have an enormous influence on galaxy formation, but this influence will be weaker 'outside', and this too, could result in subtle differences between the two regions.

 

It has been a long standing puzzle that there is a statistically significant difference in the number of galaxies in each square degree of the northern and southern skies. This cannot be accommodated within the Big Bang model, and is something of an embarrassment, so little is heard of it. A possible explanation for it could be found in the differences between the two regions.

 

Orbiting systems, such as the rings of Saturn, or the arms of a spiral galaxy, often exhibit striation effects. The galaxies are not orbiting the Great Body, but their spiral path towards it could be described as 'quasi-orbital' and might exhibit similar striation effects. The large scale structure of the observable universe seems to consist of very long filamentary superclusters of galaxies and enormous voids. It is hard to envisage how this could come about in a Big Bang universe, but is consistent with the idea that striation effects might exist in the Gravity Model.

 

Big Bang theory also creates problems for itself with regard to the 'age of the universe paradox' and the 'light horizon' problem. To solve the latter, 'inflation theory' was born. This tells us that when the universe was between 10 to th -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a superluminal 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit.

 

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS:

 

CMBR (BB) Relic radiation from the Big Bang (GM) Hydrogen field.

 

EXISTENCE OF GALAXIES (BB) Big Bang density fluctuations (GM) Condensate from hydrogen field.

 

REDSHIFT OF GALAXIES (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

 

INCREASING REDSHIFT WITH INCREASING DISTANCE (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

 

ACCELERATION OF GALAXIES (BB) 'Dark energy' (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

 

REDSHIFT ANISOTROPY (BB) Not explained (GM) Galaxies at the same distance from the observer in different directions are at different distaces from the Great Body.

 

DIFFERENCES IN NUMBER OF GALAXIES IN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SKIES (BB) Not explained (GM) Observable universe in the direction of the Great Body different from opposite direction.

 

PECULIAR MOTION (BB) Undiscovered 'Great Wall' (GM) Tranverse component of spiral path of galaxies towards Great Body.

 

'LIGHT HORIZON PROBLEM' (BB) Inflation theory (GM) No explanation required.

 

'AGE OF UNIVERSE PARADOX' (BB) Not explained (GM) No explanation required.

 

OLBERS' PARADOX (BB) Expansion of the universe dims light (GM) Observable universe finite and light from other finite systems screened by hydrogen field.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Davidson

 

I do not think that the BBT or the expanding universe has a leg to stand on.

I know there are positives and negatives for all theories. But the BBT has had a false run financed by the political, religious and educational systems. So be it and time will correct the decades of time wasting.

 

 

I'm interested to find out more about your theory.