Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: The Gravity Model vs. Big Bang Theory

  1. #1 The Gravity Model vs. Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, scientists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy'. This is because their thinking is constrained by their belief in an expanding universe caused by the 'Big Bang'.

    A more open minded observer might conclude that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature that could cause such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a supermassive non-luminous body in space (possibly a black hole) towards which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

    If such a body existed, it does not seem likely that it would be the only such body in the universe, just as the Milky Way is not the only galaxy. There might well be billions of such supermassive bodies, each drawing billions of galaxies towards them. This would mean that that which we call the 'observable universe' is merely a finite system of galaxies among many such finite systems in the universe at large.

    If such a model could explain other observations such as the fact that the galaxies were all moving away from each other, then would it not deserve to replace the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory which requires us to believe so many unorthodox and unproven assumptions about the universe? I believe it should.

    A simple 'thought experiment' reveals how the 'Gravity Model' would result in almost all the observable galaxies being redshifted. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by Jupiter's gravity into 22 discernible fragments up to 2km in diameter. The fragments were described as being like a 'string of pearls'. Imagine five of these 'pearls' in a line numbered 1 to 5, with 1 closest to Jupiter and 5 farthest away, with equal spacing between them. You, as the observer, are on number 3, the middle fragment. You have at your disposal the most exquisitely sensitive scientific instruments capable of detecting minute differences in redshift, velocity and acceleration. You would see that the other 4 fragments were all redshifted. Fragments 2 and 4 would have the same value. Fragments 1 and 5 would also have the same value, but the value would be higher than that for 2 and 4. In other words, the farther away a fragment is, the greater its redshift. This is not because the space between them is expanding, but because of the differential influence of Jupiter's gravitational pull with regard to the proximity of the fragments. This increasing redshift with increasing distance is exactly what we see when we look at the galaxies. Your instruments would also tell you that the fragments were accelerating.

    It could be argued that the galaxies are not a two dimensional string of pearls. This is true. But, in whatever direction you look, the galaxy you view will either be closer to or farther away from the 'Great Body' than the observer, and so will be redshifted. Nevertheless, this presents the Gravity Model with its most serious challenge. Big Bang theorists claim that the universe is isotropic. This means that galaxies at a given distance from the observer will be moving at the same velocity away from him in every direction. However, this idea that the universe is isotropic is simply not true. Various research groups have found that the recessional velocity of galaxies with similar intrinsic luminosities varies according to the direction in which the galaxy is to be found. One study adjudged minimum values to be around two thirds of the maximum. One might have expected a greater discrepancy. It may be that galaxies which lie in the direction of the Milky Way's galactic plane, and are therefore not seen, may provide more extreme values.

    Another observation which Big Bang theory cannot explain is the'peculiar' motion of galaxies. In the Gravity Model, the galaxies will not simply be travelling towards the Great Body in a straight line. They will be spiralling towards it and the 'peculiar' motion is the transverse component of their spiral path.

    The CMBR. I have read that the 2.7K temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be caused by hydrogen clouds, but that astronomers have not been able to detect enough clouds to account for it. If the observable universe is a finite system, as it must be in the Gravity Model, then the question arises as to what lies beyond it. The answer must be that it is a hydrogen field, since galaxies cannot condense out of nothingness. This hydrogen field envelopes the observable universe and presumably radiates at 2.7K. It is the source of galaxies and astronomers have observed huge, highly flattened 'pancakes' of hydrogen containing up to 10 to the power of 14 solar masses. These are believed to be the precursors of large clusters of galaxies.

    Hope that clears things up.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    The Gravity Model: 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 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 in 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 the difference between the two regions.

    Orbiting systems, such as the rings of Saturn, or a spiral galaxy, often exhibit striation effects. The galaxies are not orbiting the Great Body, but their spiral path towards it might be described as 'quasi-orbital' and could exhibit similar striation effects. The large scale structure of the observable universe seems to consist of very long filamentary galactic superclusters 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 would be evident in the gravity model.

    Big Bang theory also creates problems for itself with regard to explaining 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 the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 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, at different distances from the Great Body.

    DIFFERENCES IN NUMBER OF GALAXIES BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES (BB) Not explained (GM) Observable universe in direction of Great Body older than in opposite direction.

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

    AGE OF THE UNIVERSE PARADOX (BB) No explanation (GM) No explanation required.

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

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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    The apparent motion of galaxies as revealed by the redshift is simply not consistent with a single massive body causing the acceleration. We should see a significant proportion of galaxies - those 180 degrees around from the massive body, to be blue shifted. That is not the case.
    Unless you postulate a multplicity of massive bodies surrounding the visible Universe your conjecture dies stillborn. Do I hear the sound of William of Ockham sharpening his razor?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    No, you wouldn't see any blue shifted galaxies (except a few very local exceptions). The Great Body will be extremely ancient - much more ancient than the galaxies it is pulling towards it. It will be moving through the hydrogen field at great velocity due to the gravitational influence of other, extremely distant Great Bodies. The observable universe will be formed out of the hydrogen field IN ITS DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT. There may be nothing behind it as it will have 'hoovered up' everything on the other side. When I try to visualize it, the image of a 'twisted shuttlecock' comes to mind, the Great Body being the heavy end. And even if there were blueshifted galaxies on the other side, they could simply be too distant for us to observe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    It is entirely possible that there is more than one Great Body influencing the observable universe. However, since a single Great Body can explain observed phenomena, it seems sensible to stick with that model until it becomes necessary to invoke the existence of others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    W, [I hope I may call you W] a single body does not explain the observations.
    For sake of argument let us suppose the GB lies in the direction of the pole star. Therefore all galaxies should be moving in that direction (setting aside local movements). Therefore the galaxies that lie in the direction of our south pole should be advancing towards us. Therefore, they should be blue shifted. They aren't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    This is the counter-intuitive bit, and probably the reason why no one's thought of it. I refer you back to the thought experiment about an observer sitting on a fragment of comet Shoemaker-Levy in my original post.

    With regard to galaxies in the south pole direction, they are moving more slowly towards the Great Body than the observer. The observer's galaxy is therefore pulling away from them. This results in a redshift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    I ought to have made that clearer by adding that they are moving towards it more slowly because they are farther away from it than the observer's galaxy, and so less strongly influenced by the Great Body's grvitational pull.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: The Gravity Model vs. Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by W.Davidson
    In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, scientists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy'. This is because their thinking is constrained by their belief in an expanding universe caused by the 'Big Bang'.

    A more open minded observer
    This is a poor usage of the term "open minded observer". How could you possibly believe that you are more open-minded by closing your mind on a mainstream alternative hypothesis? I say closing your mind, because you seem to have come to a conclusion, rather than posing an alternative hypothesis.

    might conclude that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature that could cause such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a supermassive non-luminous body in space (possibly a black hole) towards which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.
    Open minded scientists do not come to conclusions, but to working hypotheses. Why would your idea about gravity, a reasonable one, REQUIRE your guess to be true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    Big Bang theorists are committed to the expanding universe model and are therefore not open minded to alternative explanations. They do not regard their theory as a 'hypothesis'.

    It is all based on unproven and unprovable assumptions, one on top of the other. It is a house of cards that will collapse eventually. Even the most basic assumption, that space can expand, is an unproven assumption.

    If someone had been able to come up with a Gravity Model explanation for the cosmological redshift in the 1920s, there is no way that Big Bang theory would ever have been born.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by W.Davidson
    Big Bang theorists are committed to the expanding universe model and are therefore not open minded to alternative explanations. They do not regard their theory as a 'hypothesis'.
    I must say that I am impressed at your ability to mind-read. I would not have guessed that you would know such much about the mental processes of so many people. Can you share with us how you know your statement to be true?

    It is all based on unproven and unprovable assumptions,
    I will let you in on a secret, if you promise not to tell anyone. Science is not about proof.

    It is a house of cards that will collapse eventually.
    Most likely so. If so, will this not disprove your generalization?

    Even the most basic assumption, that space can expand, is an unproven assumption.
    Can you offer an example of a proven assumption?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman weirdesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27
    It is all based on unproven and unprovable assumptions, one on top of the other. It is a house of cards that will collapse eventually. Even the most basic assumption, that space can expand, is an unproven assumption.
    You say that like yours is based on a proven assumption? Your hydrogen cloud is as unsubstantial as there darkenergy. One may be right, but both maybe wrong. Neither of you can prove it.
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
    It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
    The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
    Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
    The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    Hydrogen clouds exist. They have been proven to exist. Astronomers have estimated that some of the observed clouds contain as much as 10 to the power of 14 solar masses - enough for a large cluster of galaxies. It is not much of a jump to assume that they are drawn into the observable universe from the hydrogen field by the gravity of the Great Body. They have to come from somewhere.

    'Dark energy', on the other hand, is yet another bizarre and baroque appendage to Big Bang theory. No one has the slightest idea what the source of 'dark energy' is. It is not possible to even begin to speculate about what it might be. What kind of theory is it that requires these kind of 'fudge factors' to keep it alive?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman weirdesky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    27
    Then can you prove this "great body" thing
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when your flying with turkeys
    It's hard to be humble when your as great as I am.
    The world changes so fast, you couldn't be wrong all the time even if you tried
    Judging by the way some church members live, they need fire insurance
    The only thing in life acheived without effort is failure
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    I believe the observations add up to a body of evidence which is far more supportive of a Gravity Model than a Big Bang theory.

    It is up to the professionals to make predictions and test their predictions against the observations. I don't know at what point evidence becomes proof. I believe 100% in Darwin's theory of evolution, although I don't think it explains everything about evolution. However, it is still a theory, and I don't think I could say that it's been proved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,659
    I have moved this to the pseudoscience forum. I am wholly unconvinced, until you provide the math to demonstrate it, that a single giant body could produce the distribution of red shifts that are observed.

    Provide the math and this moves back to Astronomy and Cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    In that case, I request that the topic be deleted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The apparent motion of galaxies as revealed by the redshift is simply not consistent with a single massive body causing the acceleration. We should see a significant proportion of galaxies - those 180 degrees around from the massive body, to be blue shifted. That is not the case.
    Unless you postulate a multplicity of massive bodies surrounding the visible Universe your conjecture dies stillborn. Do I hear the sound of William of Ockham sharpening his razor?
    "The 'thump' of a great apple, in the stillness of a crisp October morn. Motivated, only by the mere necessity, of perfect ripeness." - Hawthorne

    (The more ripe fruit having an inclination to land nearer the source.)

    Is the clever flaunting of William of Ockam's razor strop, the most interrogatively audible resistance that can be offered to buttress the (latest, exemplary Big Bangologist) desperation (of 'dark matter'? Or appeased arms taken up against malaproposly employed, evasive chaff of plural or singular massive bodies?)? Haplessly conjuring vacuously witty incantations against the inescapably incumbent and simply consistent, historically echoing bite of Albert's double bit Lambda ( <> - the inescapable alliance - synonymity - of repelling with impelling gravitation): the vroomfondel of which so consistently and predictably leans at ready residential rest against the impeccably pruned and maintained Tree of Life, bearing Buckminster Fuller's 4-Dimensional Seed of Knowledge, and that of the Emperor's 5 & 6 Dimensional Electromagnetic Dragon?

    This distinctive vignette is archived and will be translated and understood now, or later. Whereas, it will be understood and translated. Within the legacy of 1905, 1916 and 1919 - it will not be effectively averted.

    Numerology and other false, strange, quarky and tyrannical charms will only count themselves further out. The math was long ago provided, whether - or not - you move this thread back to Cosmology, Trashcan it, or erase it - or myself and/or Mr. Davidson along with it - from your smoked salmon and Chardonnay, forum quaffing mind.
    (Ciao & Prego.)

    All things bright & beautiful All creatures great & small
    All things warm & wonderful The Lord God made them all
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior Vroomfondel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    234
    Well, i have some thoughts about your gravity model, and i will be very interested to hear how you resopond. After pondering this problem for a while, it seems to me that yes, all bodies between us and the "Massive body" will be red-shifted. It is also true that bodies behind us will also be red shifted by the differences in the pull of gravity. I will take some time this week to go through the math and see what i come up with for the amounts of red shift expected from your model. But my question is this: If all bodies are pulled towards this massive body, then all of the bodies can be thought of as in "free fall." the equivelence princeple tells us that we wont feel any forces, which is all well and good. But then simple logic tells us that all of the world lines of bodies in free fall will tend to converge to the world line of this "massive body," or that we will all eventually fall onto/into it. But simply looking at a graph of converging world lines will make it apparent to anyone that the world lines of bodies that are nearly the same distance from the "massive body" as we are will be getting closer and closer together. In other words, they are both falling into the "massive body," and as they do this they will get closer together. This causes a blueshift in the light sent between the galaxies.

    My other question concerns one of the other theories that you claimed, in which there are many massive bodies. For these bodies to not fall into each other, they would certainly have to be in motion relative to one another. The amount of motion required by such masive bodies to orbit each other would probably be enough to cause a noticable difference in the amount of acceleration in between the bodies. This is not observed, so the many body theory doesnt seem very probable either.

    Thats my 2 cents, im interested to hear your response![/img]
    I demand that my name may or may not be vroomfondel!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    11
    These are good points, Vroomfondel. There may well be slightly blueshifted galaxies among those that are at almost the same distance from the Great Body as ourselves. But I think they would constitute a very tiny fraction of one per cent of the visible galaxies, and would only be seen in very narrow windows along the 'blue lines'. It's possible that some might even have been detected by astronomers, but their anomalous (very small) blue shifts could have been put down to local gravitational effects within their clusters. It is known that some of the galaxies in the local Milky Way cluster are blue shifted due to this effect. What is less well known is that such blue shifts have been seen in galaxies in nearby clusters, although there is no way for me to tell if the 'convergence factor' is responsible for this. If it were, one would expect most, if not all, of the galaxies in the cluster to exhibit such a blueshift. Perhaps the blueshifted galaxies that have been detected beyond our local group do not actually belong to the groups they have been associated with. It may be they have been erroneously associated with clusters in the same line of sight.

    With regard to your other point about the attraction between Great Bodies, I believe that they must be moving towards each other, but they will probably be unimaginably distant from each other, so the rate of acceleration induced will be extremely small. That said, these bodies would also be unimaginably ancient - much, much older than the galaxies that are being drawn towards them - so they are probably moving through space at very high velocity towards each other. Logically, since I believe them to be black holes, one would expect them to merge eventually. I prefer the single Great Body hypothesis. I'm a fan of Occam's Razor, but multiple Great Bodies would certainly exist, and it cannot be ruled out that the observed motions of the galaxies might be as a result of the influence of more than one Great Body.

    If you're interested in the theory, I've posted it on some other forums, and you can view some of the points raised by googling the title of the thread 'the gravity model vs big bang theory'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •