# Dark Energy and Gravity

#### binbots

Why do you see gravity (contraction) and Dark energy (expansive) as two different things? Aren’t they just two sides of the same coin? For example, instead of saying the milky way and andromeda galaxy are gravitational bound together couldn’t we also say that they have more dark energy around them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. Or an apple is attracted to the earth because there is more dark energy surrounding them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. You can picture it as the universe is a crumpled-up piece of paper unfolding. Places where the folds face each other we get galaxy clusters and places where the folds face away from each other we get vast voids of space where dark energy prevails.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"they have more dark energy around them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them."

Isn't this just playing with words - semantics?

Can you quantify it in an equation like N's LoG?

Cat

binbots

#### binbots

"they have more dark energy around them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them."

Isn't this just playing with words - semantics?

Can you quantify it in an equation like N's LoG?

Cat

Yes it may just be semantics but it is semantics I have never heard before and I find it to be an interesting point of view. No I can not quantify it in an equation but if anyone else wants to try go right ahead.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I am just trying to be open handed here.

Gravity has an equation to quantify it. (Two including Einstein as well as Newton).

Does not give this an advantage?

Cat

#### Curiosity killed the cat

Why do you see gravity (contraction) and Dark energy (expansive) as two different things? Aren’t they just two sides of the same coin? For example, instead of saying the milky way and andromeda galaxy are gravitational bound together couldn’t we also say that they have more dark energy around them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. Or an apple is attracted to the earth because there is more dark energy surrounding them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. You can picture it as the universe is a crumpled-up piece of paper unfolding. Places where the folds face each other we get galaxy clusters and places where the folds face away from each other we get vast voids of space where dark energy prevails.

You are talking about Le'Sages theory of gravity albeit with what we now refer to as dark energy replacing what Le'sage thought were particles and referred to as ultra mundane corpuscles. He proposed that the ultra mundane corpuscles acted like an expansive force and that objects with mass could alter the geometry of the space surrounding them with their pseudo shadow. In his theory, objects with mass would be pushed together by the stronger force surrounding them being greater than the weakened force between them caused by that shadowing effect.

I don't believe in gravitons, or dark matter and the argument for their proposed yet unproven existence evaporates, if gravitation is actually caused by the push effect of dark energy rather than it being an attractive force ,( Which is not what Einstein actually proposed it to be.) I believe it is time that those of us who believe in science, realised that the cause of gravitation is not what many of us mistakenly believe it to be.

#### Atlan0001

There is no such thing as push gravity. There is such a force as outland rim gravity that is the total mass of the Universe and opposes, in displacement, each and every inland island gravitational field of force that makes it up. It would create an observable redshift effect, particularly between galaxies, impossible of ever actually parting the works to infinity. It would ultimately result in a finely balanced gravitational nature always.

The disks of galaxies, those not in an Armageddon of collisions and disruptions (though those are probably not exempt), are probably titanic magnetic disk fields (titanic connecting magnetic filaments). Gravity doesn't cause the effect and look of flattening or the observable light shows of stars and galaxies. In other words, the observable effects of an observable universe probably do not come solely from within (probably do not come entirely from the most local quantum fields inside out). If that other field, the macro magnetic field, goes missing in places for whatever reason, things locally -- probably -- do not light up. Gravity would have nothing to do with it if such is the case.

Last edited:

#### Curiosity killed the cat

There is no such thing as push gravity. There is such a force as outland rim gravity that is the total mass of the Universe and opposes, in displacement, each and every inland island gravitational field of force that makes it up. It would create an observable redshift effect, particularly between galaxies, impossible of ever actually parting the works to infinity. It would ultimately result in a finely balanced gravitational nature always.

The disks of galaxies, those not in an Armageddon of collisions and disruptions (though those are probably not exempt), are probably titanic magnetic disk fields (titanic connecting magnetic filaments). Gravity doesn't cause the effect and look of flattening or the observable light shows of stars and galaxies. In other words, the observable effects of an observable universe probably do not come solely from within (probably do not come entirely from the most local quantum fields inside out). If that other field, the macro magnetic field, goes missing in places for whatever reason, things locally -- probably -- do not light up. Gravity would have nothing to do with it if such is the case.

You seem very confident that push gravity doesn't exist, but your argument supporting that assumption is certainly unconvincing. You don't have to support any particular theory, but in order to debunk a theory, you need to provide convincing evidence proving it to be incorrect. Simply putting forward your own opinions or beliefs is insufficient.

Catastrophe

#### Atlan0001

I am very confident that push gravity doesn't exist. As to the arrogance of the rest of your attempted lecturing I will say this: That I know of, this is supposed to be a give and take forum, for the most part, of ideas and countering ideas, not demands for proofs. "Simply putting forward your own opinions or beliefs is" (herein regarding 'Cosmology') quite sufficient.

I know what I want to call your arrogant attempt at lecturing me, thus arrogantly trying to prevent me expressing my views, but it might not be allowed.

Oh to heck with it: In arrogantly attempting to lecture me, all you are doing is simply putting forward your own opinion, your own belief, and in my opinion, my belief, your lecturing couldn't be more deficient. Hmm, this is quite sufficient.

Once more I couldn't be more confident that push gravity doesn't exist.... and that 'background', infinite background, background including background gravity, does exist. And going into the second paragraph of post #6 I had just read an article, on 'SCIENCEalert', concerning astronomers' probable viewing within the Milky Way of "giant magnetic" "filaments", "fields", and "tunnels" (yes, "tunnels"). Then I went and stretched to larger possibilities -- as probabilities -- that kind of discovery a bit. That is my privilege -- all of our privilege so far -- on the forum to do so.

Gloria

#### Curiosity killed the cat

Not agreeing with your opinion is not at all arrogant. You are welcome to express your own opinions, and so am I. It seems to me that you are the one attempting to lecture me for not agreeing with your opinion. I enjoy constructive criticism, because being shown to be wrong about something, helps my own endeavor to understand the universe. However, I find hubris very annoying, so unless you have some constructive critIcism please keep your views on my beliefs to yourself.

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
It is okay to attack ideas, with facts, sources, and alternate views.

It is NOT okay to attack people.

Just a reminder. Thank you.

binbots

#### Jameylynne

I had a thought; what happens to the energy released by the collision of virtual particles and anti-particles in the quantum foam? It seems to me to be a good candidate for ever-increasing dark energy.

#### Atlan0001

No can do, in fact. It is my opinion from all I've read that particles and anti-particles actually come in internalized symbiote-like pairs, so both already exist universally despite the claims of some physicists who've either forgotten or never knew it to be the case in the first place. You have to realize that ultimately the Universe -- I say the infinite Multiverse Universe -- never loses nor gains anything, including anti-matter which, again, is integral to all matter at the particle level. Matter will go cross-eyed when smashed in any particle coliider natural or artificial, springing the two twins out from a single internalized particle unity. There are of course other results but this is the only one relevant. Again as I see it, every particle has its anti-particle twin indistinguishably built right into it, not so much hidden as simply unrealized until there is a smashing cataclysm for the particle that splits and births out the internalized twins -- as cataclysmic mirror opposite twins.

The energy released when matter and anti-matter particles come back together from the splits of any single penultimate -- if not ultimate -- unity into two ultimate opposites with just one, and one only, difference between them (left handed and right handed, so to speak) is energy already long, long, realized to the Universe in the Planck Big Bang Horizon. Even in a particle -- every particle instance -- the Universe abhors Utopia and will spring the Utopian into universes ready made for cataclysm at every Armageddon-like crunch time -- every attempted merger carried too far.... short of a blackhole singularity, maybe(!). All we do in our colliders, to a certain degree and for a time, is put a hold on the inevitable cataclysmic event.

As I see it, there is no such thing, never was such a thing, as a separate anti-matter universe since it already exists, always has existed, always will exist, twinned internal, integral, to the matter particle universe. It will remain so in the nature of universe with the springing into being of each and every possible particle from the "fabric", or "aether", or "vacuum", or void", or "quantum field", (whatever you might wish to call it) of space in the Planck Big Bang Horizon.

#### Atlan0001

Sorry, but I didn't go far enough in how i see it above in my post #12. Ultimately matter / anti-matter is a matter of "causality violation prevention" universally built in to the sheer existence of each and every particle instance existing and that should have been right up front. I danced around it to actions, and so on, and should not have. It is quite possible, as I see things to be, that an anti-matter particle instance is in fact a built in (left handed) tachyonic instance of / to a (right handed) particle instance -- or vice versa, whatever, as to handedness. So there will be no possibility of causal flow reversal to any universe.... outside (maybe!), that is, of blackholes of course.

I was tired and at the same time I was dealing in what I was writing #12, I had a few family matters on my plate to do. to go around the core feature, the core importance, to the Universe concerning matters matter / anti-matter and their cataclysmic energy releases.... well here it is added as I see it to be.

Last edited:

#### binbots

Let’s look at this idea another way. We can view our universe like a sponge. Which is fitting because on the largest of scales the matter in our universe looks like a sponge. Dark matter can be seen as the sponge soaking up water. This causes the sponge (universe) to expand while the matter itself contracts and stretches out. Dark energy is what causes gravity.

#### Sohaib iqbal

Why do you see gravity (contraction) and Dark energy (expansive) as two different things? Aren’t they just two sides of the same coin? For example, instead of saying the milky way and andromeda galaxy are gravitational bound together couldn’t we also say that they have more dark energy around them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. Or an apple is attracted to the earth because there is more dark energy surrounding them pushing them together than there is dark energy between them. You can picture it as the universe is a crumpled-up piece of paper unfolding. Places where the folds face each other we get galaxy clusters and places where the folds face away from each other we get vast voids of space where dark energy prevails.
Dark energy is Ultimate Energy which Is Responsible For Sun Shine Beacuse HeLium And Hydrogen are in Molecular Form .There must Be some energy to Ionize hydrogen And Helium so Dark energy basically resoponsible for that if We see from One Angle The Darkness Increasing between Glaxies (Much bigger than solar Galaxy) day by day creating momemtum(p=mv) and Responsible For Ionizing the Hydrogen And Halium and Sun shines 24 hours . But the Universe is Fix so At One Day after end point of universe these Glaxies will begin to Come Close to each other Causing for decreasing in Chemical reaction on Sun And This will going to Reduce sun light and one day the Sun light totallY Finish.

#### Atlan0001

Let’s look at this idea another way. We can view our universe like a sponge. Which is fitting because on the largest of scales the matter in our universe looks like a sponge. Dark matter can be seen as the sponge soaking up water. This causes the sponge (universe) to expand while the matter itself contracts and stretches out. Dark energy is what causes gravity.
Not bad if you could define the "water."

You are aware I deal in the infinities of the Universe, therefore a unification of all infinities of gravity tied to background infinity ('1'). If you've heard of spin gravity, you might think rim gravity, the rim gravity of the infinity in the collapsed horizon of infinity. An opposed background pull of gravity to the usual foreground pull of gravity; but being the non-local set of all local constituent gravity. The background gravity's interaction (outside in) with the foreground could be construed to be creative of a push gravity (inside out).

One would have to realize, though, when talking gravity, that the Planck horizon (collapsed) farthest inside every universe and everything else of every universe is exactly the same horizon as the horizon (collapsed) farthest outside. Gravity is the fundamental force, and then would be the cause of either the push of dark energy; or to a dark energy-like look to push between gravity sets (within identically the same overall -- or superposition -- set). Whatever, as I see it, in the broad and deep of all local universes it's the reality and quality of inertialessness (and eventually, again as I see it, to be found an accessible and/or usable quality).

Last edited:

#### Sohaib iqbal

Not bad if you could define the "water."

You are aware I deal in the infinities of the Universe, therefore a unification of all infinities of gravity tied to background infinity ('1'). If you've heard of spin gravity, you might think rim gravity, the rim gravity of the infinity in the collapsed horizon of infinity. An opposed background pull of gravity to the usual foreground pull of gravity; but being the non-local set of all local constituent gravity. The background gravity's interaction (outside in) with the foreground could be construed to be creative of a push gravity (inside out).

One would have to realize, though, when talking gravity, that the Planck horizon (collapsed) farthest inside every universe and everything else of every universe is exactly the same horizon as the horizon (collapsed) farthest outside. Gravity is the fundamental force, and then would be the cause of either the push of dark energy; or to a dark energy-like look to push between gravity sets (within identically the same overall -- or superposition -- set). Whatever, as I see it, in the broad and deep of all local universes it's the reality and quality of inertialessness (and eventually, again as I see it, to be found an accessible and/or usable quality).
The Whole universe Is Nothing But made of Water.

#### Sohaib iqbal

Not bad if you could define the "water."

You are aware I deal in the infinities of the Universe, therefore a unification of all infinities of gravity tied to background infinity ('1'). If you've heard of spin gravity, you might think rim gravity, the rim gravity of the infinity in the collapsed horizon of infinity. An opposed background pull of gravity to the usual foreground pull of gravity; but being the non-local set of all local constituent gravity. The background gravity's interaction (outside in) with the foreground could be construed to be creative of a push gravity (inside out).

One would have to realize, though, when talking gravity, that the Planck horizon (collapsed) farthest inside every universe and everything else of every universe is exactly the same horizon as the horizon (collapsed) farthest outside. Gravity is the fundamental force, and then would be the cause of either the push of dark energy; or to a dark energy-like look to push between gravity sets (within identically the same overall -- or superposition -- set). Whatever, as I see it, in the broad and deep of all local universes it's the reality and quality of inertialessness (and eventually, again as I see it, to be found an accessible and/or usable quality).
Now if We Think 1 as Energy And Some Of Its energy Comes out To ObServe 1 in Rim Gravity then if we consider 1day of our world time is equals to 1000 light years to that place then That Extrat enegy would have been in rim gravity for 1000 light years At One Place and Then 1000 lights years another place. After That process That ExtracT Energy will Distributed into 4 part of energy. Now If We Think what would Crated first then i think The Sky is first Created Then if We Think What would be after that then i think that 4 part of Exteact energy must Divide in to 3 ,3,3,3 parts each Then first should created : Mind knowledge Feelings Like Love And The Sence oF Bad think and good think ..Can Some One suggest The Next Thing?what Was Created?

#### Atlan0001

I am very confident that push gravity doesn't exist. As to the arrogance of the rest of your attempted lecturing I will say this: That I know of, this is supposed to be a give and take forum, for the most part, of ideas and countering ideas, not demands for proofs. "Simply putting forward your own opinions or beliefs is" (herein regarding 'Cosmology') quite sufficient.

I know what I want to call your arrogant attempt at lecturing me, thus arrogantly trying to prevent me expressing my views, but it might not be allowed.

Oh to heck with it: In arrogantly attempting to lecture me, all you are doing is simply putting forward your own opinion, your own belief, and in my opinion, my belief, your lecturing couldn't be more deficient. Hmm, this is quite sufficient.

Once more I couldn't be more confident that push gravity doesn't exist.... and that 'background', infinite background, background including background gravity, does exist. And going into the second paragraph of post #6 I had just read an article, on 'SCIENCEalert', concerning astronomers' probable viewing within the Milky Way of "giant magnetic" "filaments", "fields", and "tunnels" (yes, "tunnels"). Then I went and stretched to larger possibilities -- as probabilities -- that kind of discovery a bit. That is my privilege -- all of our privilege so far -- on the forum to do so.
Quoting myself for a reason. I've since realized the gravity of the background (infinity) set versus the foreground (finite) constituency of that background set, just may, possibly, form the look, and even a superposition physic, of "push" between them . . . altogether, in the universal blending of the two, an effect somewhat likening to the 'Casimir Effect'.
-----------------------------

** Correction **
Albert Einstein is said to have once pleaded, "Please don't hold me to things I said before I knew better."

Last edited:

#### Sohaib iqbal

The Reason is that look if we ThinK for any phenomena we have to think simple even for first created thing or last the Simple and accurate Philosophy. Even Now When we Think to make some thing . First We Thinkh Then we Observe then we Do practical many times for its Accuracy Even for this Practice We must Have MinD Sense Knowledge and Critaria to do it then we Think observe and do repeated Experiments to make it so We Have to think the whole universe through this pattern first ..other wise we only have confused Distrations into space

#### Greenlight

Why do you see gravity (contraction) and Dark energy (expansive) as two different things?

What if Dark energy is actually a constant loss of gravity?

Einstein demonstrated a length contraction along the radial direction of the field and that contraction increases when the rod is nearer gravitational mass.

so the more mass the more the gravity and so more contraction, or if you go the other way , the less mass = more expansion.

The Sun is shining and losing mass constantly so wouldn't this present itself as constant expansion?

binbots

#### Helio

What if Dark energy is actually a constant loss of gravity?
If this were true, then the strength of gravity would have been much higher in the distant past, which would be easily seen, I think, when observing those hi z galaxies.

But something weird like this might still be correct since no one has any real idea what DE is, unlike DM where we can at least quantify a lot about how it behaves.

The Sun is shining and losing mass constantly so wouldn't this present itself as constant expansion?
The Sun seems to obey the Ideal gas law so that it will expand as the core gets hotter, which it is as more helium is converted from hydrogen. The annual mass loss at > 1E20 g/year is, surprisingly, trivial for its total mass of over 1E33 grams.

#### Greenlight

The Sun seems to obey the Ideal gas law so that it will expand as the core gets hotter, which it is as more helium is converted from hydrogen. The annual mass loss at > 1E20 g/year is, surprisingly, trivial for its total mass of over 1E33 grams.
the earth also loses a bit of distance in its orbit because of the loss of mass so the effect is ^2

#### Helio

the earth also loses a bit of distance in its orbit because of the loss of mass so the effect is ^2
Yes. In about 4 billion years or so, we will be much farther out and beyond the outer diameter of the Sun when it reaches maximum diameter (red giant phase). Of course, that want make life anything but toast, but it is interesting.

Replies
0
Views
393
Replies
4
Views
622
Replies
4
Views
571
Replies
0
Views
424
Replies
2
Views
860