A new theory on gravity

Presumably the world of conventional cosmological academia has rejected the controversial theories of FrankG and we in PA, a humble music appreciation site are the dubious beneficiaries of this dubious parting off the ways?

Blow it out your ass baldies

Padraic wrote: Where's the paper?

I laughed for about two minutes straight at this for some reason.

Yes this is what I've been saying.

FrankG wrote: I don't know what you mean by that. He introduced the constant because his equations predicted the universe to expand, which he could not believe. When the red shift was detected he took that constant out of his equations.

I'm sorry but this is the opposite of what occurred.

The solutions to his field equations indicated that if we had a static universe, which Einstein so dearly wanted, then it would eventually contract. The cosmological constant was added to stop the universe from contracting (he did a poor job incidentally because he created an unstable equilibrium which would be destroyed by quantum effects).

What he referred to as the greatest blunder was his inability to correct predict an expanding universe via his equations.

Just out of curiosity, because I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it through glazed over eyes , how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler? 

Slartibartfast wrote: Just out of curiosity, because I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it through glazed over eyes , how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler?

It kinda depends on what you mean by time. Essentially, you asked the equivalent of saying what happens if you take the third spatial dimension out of the picture. As I understand what you're asking, it would simplify the picture but remove the mechanism through which we can effectively talk about the interactions we're arguing over.

I'm honestly not sure how that's determined from astronomical observations. I'm guessing the fact that no matter seems to be present at all. Or do they use gamma ray observations from predicted annihilation? It's inconsequential though. My knowledge of their abilities doesn't change the fact that none has been observed.

I'm not sure what you mean about the CP-symmetry. The violation can account for the universe's accumulation of matter over anti-matter. The lack of observation of anti-matter in our visible universe would just be accounted to the time in which it disappeared due to this effect after the Big Bang, thus being spread to the extremities via inflation.

FrankG wrote: Gerinski wrote: Dark energy is nothing new, it was predicted by Einstein and given the less fancy name of cosmological constant but he dropped the idea when Hubble confirmed that the universe is expanding.   The problem with the recently observed expansion data is that the expansion is accelerating. This does not seem compatible with your idea, if we assume that the big bang is correct all the stuff in the universe was closer to eachother in the past. If there was a proportional mix of matter and antimater and gravity between them was repulsive, the repulsion must have been stronger in the past and getting milder as the blobs of matter and antimatter get further apart. The expansion would be decelerating and not accelerating. Maybe your idea could be used to explain inflation but not the current accelerating expansion.   Wrong, it does confirm. It would only NOT accelerate if the forces suddenly stopped. Right? What we would expect though is that the acceleration slowly decreases. This is actually pretty basic; as long as there is a force there is an acceleration.

 

FrankG wrote: Would you care to explain to me how you would tell matter from anti-matter?

Measurement of anything involves comparison to a known standard, either directly or indirectly - indirect measurement is by effect - we measure the mass of an object by weighing it. Therefore to detect anti-matter we would need to measure it by effect, which the most obvious method would be by mutual annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairing, since we cannot observe any such annihilations (as gamma rays) we must assume that none are occurring and thus there is considerably more matter than anti-matter in the observable Universe. In the cosmos we cannot see matter, we can only see the radiations emanating from it (or reflected off it) - from that we can calculate size and mass. The other method by which we can "see" cosmological matter is by gravitational lensing - here we are not seeing the object but are making an indirect observation of the effect that object has on radiation passing by it - by this method we can "see" and therefore measure dark matter. If, as you are assuming, anti-matter repels matter then its anti-gravitational lensing would have different properties to gravitational lensing so therefore not only would anti-matter be readily observable, we would be able to tell it from normal matter.

Edited by Dean - June 15 2012 at 18:47

You educated people make my brain hurt!

I'm just a novice at this (quantum mechanics, relativity, astrophysics and cosmology are hobbies, not something I've studied in depth), so be gentle. 

I have a few questions about your theory.  At very small distances (the atomic level), electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravity, so at the subatomic level, it seems to me the attractive force of electromagnetics would be much stronger than the repellant force of anti-gravity between particles and their relevant anti-particles.  So what would have been the initial cause of separation of particles and anti-particles at the subatomic level which would have given us the universe we see today? 

Would the effect of gravity on anti-particles be the same as the effect on regular particles?  That is, would gravity tend to attract anti-particles together?  If so, wouldn't we see an attraction between anti-particles that matches what we observe of the attraction between particles, i.e. wouldn't we see anti-galaxies, anti-clusters and anti-super-clusters?  Would we not then see the universe splitting into two parts, matter and anti-matter, instead of the observed isotropic expansion of the universe?

I think you've been asked this before, but how do you account for the observed increasing acceleration?  Your theory would seem to indicate that there should be a dropping acceleration.  I think vacuum energy and virtual particles requires less in the way of complications and needed additions.