Gravity and expansion

Jzz

May 10, 2021
106
53
660
When Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, he realized that gravity is always attractive. Every object in the universe attracts every other object. If the universe truly were finite, the attractive forces of all the objects in the universe should have caused the entire universe to collapse on itself. This clearly had not happened, and so astronomers were presented with a paradox.

On the other hand, it is manifest that atoms, which are also subject to the laws of gravity do not fall in on themselves. In the case of atoms there is obviously an opposing force to gravity that allows atoms to maintain their shape, but in this case too, it is calculated that electrons being charged particles in an accelerated state as they rotate around the nucleus, must radiate away all their energy and fall into the nucleus in a few pico seconds. The quantum mechanics explanation for the existence of atoms is that electrons are part wave and part particle, since a wave cannot radiate it follows that the electrons do not fall into the nucleus. The Gestalt Aether Theory explanation is that electrons as they orbit the nucleus are constantly experiencing self-interaction by emitting and absorbing virtual photons, thus self-regulating their energy and enabling them to both maintain their solid (particle) property and avoid falling into the nucleus.

The question is what force prevents the Universe from falling in on itself? The obvious answer is energy. How much energy? Expansion of the Universe indicates a lot of energy but then again how is this expansion measured? If as the theory states: Everything that is not gravitationally grounded is expanding, what does it mean? It means that atoms, solar systems and galaxies maintain their shapes while the space around them is expanding at the speed of light. Is this idea feasible or even defensible? If only gravitation plays a role, why isn't the space around atoms, planets and galaxies also expanding?

The question then arises that since gravity is the weakest force in the Universe being 10^-40 times weaker than the electrostatic force. How much weaker than gravity is dark energy? If it is weaker than gravity how can it force the expansion of the Universe? A possible explanation is to ditch the idea of dark energy altogether and go with the original explanation, rather than to make assumptions that the Universe is expanding at several times the speed of light: namely why doesn’t gravity cause the Universe to collapse in on itself. The most acceptable explanation in this case is that even if gravity does cause the eventual collapse of the Universe, it will take a lot of time to do so. Just as it is known that eventually the moon will break away from the influence of the earth and the sun will gradually lose energy and turn into a red giant and so on. Why haven’t we seen the effects of gravity pulling objects closer together? The answer would again be energy, the kinetic energy of objects to which a rotational movement has been imparted by the original drawing in by gravity of objects into a tightening spiral. For instance if the sun did not eventually burn up all of its hydrogen what would happen, would the earth eventually slow in its orbit and fall into the sun?

For an explanation of GAT (Gestalt Aether Theory) see: https://www.academia.edu/37258409/The_Electromagnetic_Universe_docx
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
"How much weaker than gravity is dark energy?"
There are a local Group of Galaxies not projected to red shift in the future. Estimate the weight of the galaxies, include dark matter. The rest of the universe for the most part will redshift away. This is where dark energy wins. Divide the weight of the Local Group of blueshifting galaxies by the volume of the region and that is the force where dark energy equals matter and dark matter. The average volume of space has been estimated to have 3 hydrogen atoms per meters cubed or something. Presumably the energy in the meter that is dark matter is orders of magnitude more an E=mc^2 total. The matter is only a few atoms volume and the dark energy affects the whole meter, is why locally weaker dark energy wins over gravity.
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
106
53
660
"How much weaker than gravity is dark energy?"
There are a local Group of Galaxies not projected to red shift in the future. Estimate the weight of the galaxies, include dark matter. The rest of the universe for the most part will redshift away. This is where dark energy wins. Divide the weight of the Local Group of blueshifting galaxies by the volume of the region and that is the force where dark energy equals matter and dark matter. The average volume of space has been estimated to have 3 hydrogen atoms per meters cubed or something. Presumably the energy in the meter that is dark matter is orders of magnitude more an E=mc^2 total. The matter is only a few atoms volume and the dark energy affects the whole meter, is why locally weaker dark energy wins over gravity.
An interesting take. Unfortunately, gravity, as I think I had mentioned , is 10^40 times weaker than the electrostatic force! That being so, the energy contained in a single atom per metre by volume would far exceed the gravity in that region. Since, it is manifest that galaxies and matter, (i.e., atoms) are not moving apart and expanding, it follows that dark energy is weaker even than gravity. It appears that in some strange way, very much in the manner you suggest, that there are vast areas of space devoid of matter that enable the expansion. In the end whichever way it is looked at, it is not a very satisfactory explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
"Since, it is manifest that galaxies and matter, (i.e., atoms) are not moving apart and expanding, it follows that dark energy is weaker even than gravity."

They are moving apart. Everything we look at far away is red-shift. Doppler Effect. Dark energy doesn't oppose gravity in matter, it affects the very vacuum of space. Nietzsche assumed a closed topology (Eternal Return). Einstein postulated a Cosmological Constant. Hoyle and Hubble saw how big the universe is. And in the late nineties everything nearly was found to be red-shifting away from us. At some point if expansion accelerates indefinitely, atoms will rip apart, but other effects are postulated to happen first (Big Rip, atoms decay).
1997 was the last year you could ignore red-shift and still be scientific.
 
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
A one angstrom cube is 10^30 times smaller a volume than is one cubic meter. You don't know the volume of the electroweak force that is 10^40 greater than its own volume in gravity. Volume of atom does not equal volume of electroweak force. And if you mean electrostatic, there are no charged particles being assumed on average. The universe is not charged matter on average.
 
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
The last paragraph mentions the late 90's nailed down the Hubble Constant. I went on vacation and read the Scientific American with a closed universe cover. It was redacted in a later issue and my chemistry teacher set me straight they had just discovered it is an open universe for sure. You could maybe halt the expansion with effort if you want to make bubble universes or something. I got a mail-order book as a kid:
"Einstein's 101 things everyone should know about science", and Hawking's books are an easy intro into global general relativity theory. We might want black hole stuff is the nearer term application.
 
Feb 7, 2022
166
106
260
So, we seem to have a disagreement here about whether 'inflation" is expanding all space equally at the same rate, including inside atoms and maybe even inside subatomic particles, or, on the other hand, atoms, the solar system, the galaxy, even our local group of galaxies is not expanding while the distance between different groups of galaxies is expanding.

What is the actual observational evidence that space is currently expanding uniformly everywhere? Or, even that it is expanding here at all?

I don't think we can assume that two galaxies colliding prove that space between them and within them is not expanding. It just shows that they must be moving toward each other through space faster than the expansion of space is working to move them apart. We are just observing that gravity dominates the relative motions of those galaxies, compared to whatever inflation is.

On the other hand, we don't seem to have any idea what is causing inflation or how it can "move space", so it seem to me that any assumption that it is doing the same thing everywhere could only be an assumption at this point.

Maybe someday soon we can make something large enough to see if the rate of inflation we infer from the Hubble Constant is, in fact, also occurring inside our solar system. If not, then assuming it is occurring in atoms would not be supportable. But, if it is the same in our solar system as in the overall galaxy, then there would still be a question about whether individual atoms area actually expanding.
 
It seems only distant places reveal expansion. Seems a bit ironic for science.

The predicted CMB was the icing on the cake since it gives that “freezing” moment when atoms form, and like water, at a given temp. A great deal more was revealed by the CMB, especially isotropy.

The early Doppler view of Slipher’s redshifts, combined with Hubble’s distances, is how Lemaitre formulated the BBT. GR revealed only expansion or contraction was possible. The ad hoc addition of the cosmological barely made it meta stable. Lemaitre could see this in his GR solution, but he was the first to exploit the evidence. [Others had a different view of redshift (e.g. deSitter).]

I doubt we will find evidence that matter expands. Doubling the dimensions of a cube while doubling the length of a ruler gives no new change at all, if one isn’t thinking outside the box. 😀

iPhone
 
Feb 7, 2022
166
106
260
I agree that it is hard to measure changes caused by inflating space by using an ruler that is inflating at the same rate.

Yet, we are claiming to see observable effects of inflating space. If the space within atoms is expanding, wouldn't that alter the energy levels of the electrons, and thus the wavelengths of emitted photons? But, we would not know things were changing if it also altered our detection apparatus energy calibration the same amount. On the other hand, if only the space outside of atoms is being inflated, then maybe we could detect that using the unchanging atoms as the fixed ruler.

BTW, you say that i the CMB we are seeing the effects of cooling in the ions to form neutral atoms. But, aren't we actually seeing the moment when those atoms reionized due to radiation from the first stars? I thought the neutral atoms blocked light passage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
If the space within atoms is expanding, wouldn't that alter the energy levels of the electrons, and thus the wavelengths of emitted photons? But, we would not know things were changing if it also altered our detection apparatus energy calibration the same amount.
I’m guessing there are too many non-linear requirements that would prevent us being fooled. [I’ve used emission freq. in asking this same question with Dr. Joe. He seems convinced all expands, but I doubt this is true. Local forces are free to overcome the wimpy local expansion rate, IMO.]

On the other hand, if only the space outside of atoms is being inflated, then maybe we could detect that using the unchanging atoms as the fixed ruler.
Yep, this explains a near perfect bb for the ~3000K for freezing hydrogen (atom formation) though we see this bb at 2.73K.

BTW, you say that i the CMB we are seeing the effects of cooling in the ions to form neutral atoms. But, aren't we actually seeing the moment when those atoms reionized due to radiation from the first stars? I thought the neutral atoms blocked light passage.
It can be confusing since the very first bonding of the electrons (ie atom formation) is call Recombination. But they are simply using this same term they are accustomed for atom formation.

Once hydrogen cooled due to expansion and reached ~ 3000K, the electrons were no longer free to scatter light, thus liberating light to travel forever.

It was much later that those atoms collapsed to form stars, which gave us that ionization era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"I agree that it is hard to measure changes caused by inflating space by using an ruler that is inflating at the same rate."

Surely if ruler inflation is the same, it is not hard, but impossible to detect?

Please pardon a naive question. If large masses cause the familiar depression in spacetime, and spacetime is expanding, does spacetime carry the depression with it as it expands (which is contrary to observation) or does spacetime flow past the depression in itself?

Cat :)
 
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
One paper suggested interactions between atoms I think, and dark energy are just angels on a needle guessing with our present Century's observatories and metrology. The forces affecting atoms presumably outweigh dark energy by alot for a long time. Presumably the atoms would eventually be sheared if you had a bubble universe to set it up. You don't ditch the red-shift evidence because no one can presently define just how dark energy affects matter over time.
I'm sure given quantum uncertainty space-time sometimes expands FTL. I assume two vacuums on top of eachother explode within a few planck seconds and the explosion terminates the FTL. Whether macro effects can do FTL...space-time is mass/energy. I suppose it can lose it here and there to worm-hole stuff and so on. But after a millionth of a second, I'd assert the energy in this universe has been about constant. Circa 2002 bubble universes can suck away our universe's mojo. I'm no longer a Many Worlder, and it would be difficult for me to define the topology of what a causally around bubble universes.
 
Jan 29, 2020
92
5
1,535
...new atoms and atoms disappearing. Quantum uncertainty permits them to disappear/reappear. At some high mismatch it becomes the path of least resistance to get rid of them or make the raisins in the bread.
 
Surely if ruler inflation is the same, it is not hard, but impossible to detect?
Correct, if we are only using that ruler to measure everything. :) What happens, however, to the strength of an electric field if the space and the ruler doubles in all directions? How can we say it simply grows 8x as well? If so, where does that energy come from?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
As an extension, if spacetime expands so quickly early on, does it leave all the mass/energy behind it, or does it expand FTL?
Expansion, as well as, Inflation carries everything with it. Just like the dots on the balloon analogy.

But do the dots also expand? Inflation Theory's purpose is to address an overly lumpy universe due to quantum fluctuations. So, back to our ruler doubling question, what good would it do to offer an inflation where everything, rulers and particles, grow larger? How would that smooth anything?
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Correct, if we are only using that ruler to measure everything. :) What happens, however, to the strength of an electric field if the space and the ruler doubles in all directions? How can we say it simply grows 8x as well? If so, where does that energy come from?
Cortrect. But I thought we were measuring linear dimensions.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Expansion, as well as, Inflation carries everything with it. Just like the dots on the balloon analogy.
Yes, I remember the balloon bit. So the energy comes from the BB? There is something bubbling in my head. I'll keep thinking about it :)

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
From BBII, If spacetime expands, the depression (object) gets dragged along with it. If they are close, gravity drags the spacetime, along with objects together?
So does spacetime get thinned out (stretched) beyond the two objects and compressed between them?

Cat :)
 
From BBII, If spacetime expands, the depression (object) gets dragged along with it. If they are close, gravity drags the spacetime, along with objects together?
That's how I see it, but Dr. Joe may not see it this way, and he is smarter than I. But I suspect this isn't something he necessarily has considered. It's not mentioned much in the literature I've read, and I have read several books.

IOW, it is spacetime that is expanding by some mysterious force acting upon it. But the local strength of DE is very small relative to the strength of gravity, say, in our solar system. But I am treating DE and gravity as two distinct forces, which makes my logic valid, but if this is a stretch (pun intended) then the logic may not be "sound", as defined in logical syllogisms.

So does spacetime get thinned out (stretched) beyond the two objects and compressed between them?
Good question. Maybe it gets fatter. ;) I imagine space oozing up from the virtual universe world, but not with any degree of confidence. If so, then it can be seen more as a pushing force rather than a stretching force.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts