[Q] Gravitation Limit?

[Michael Mooney]

Is it possible that our observed accelerating rate of cosmic expansion is caused by surrounding mass beyond our event horizon?

 

As I understand the universal law of gravitation, all masses pull on all other masses without a distance limit. I also understand that gravity is propagated at lightspeed. But it is steady (like sunlight on Earth), so, while changes in gravitational force (as with the alignment of Sirius A and B every 50 years effecting Earths rate of rotation) travel at lightspeed (with the visual alignment in the above case,) the pull of gravity among all masses remains steady throughout the visible cosmos and beyond... tho diminishing with distance.

 

If, however, mass surrounding our event horizon is pulling our cosmos outward, the distance between our event horizon and this possible mass beyond could be diminishing and an eventual re-union of our cosmos with matter beyond could happen.

 

Is this possible or not?

 

(Since this discussion was gagged with the lock-down of the "Bang/Crunch Revisited" thread, I hope to resolve this question here before I leave the forum... which will be very soon.)

 

Michael

[modest]

I'd be very appreciative if others added their opinion, but I will answer.

 

Is this possible or not?

It is impossible by Newtonian laws of gravitation.

 

If you consider earth to be the center of a sphere denoted "the visible universe" and the distance to the edge of that sphere to be D(t) as shown here:

 

 

Then the mass beyond D(t) can have no gravitational affect on the mass inside D(t). The reason for this is that the mass beyond D(t) (i.e. outside our visible universe) makes a hollow shell. Whatever its density, so long as it is symmetrical, it cannot affect the contents of the shell's interior. This was known by Newton himself and is proved on this page:

 

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell

 

It is applied to the acceleration of the visible universe on this page:

 

Cosmology Tutorial - Part 2

 

I'll quote (notice the picture above coincides with this description):

 

We can compute the dynamics of the Universe by considering an object with distance D(t) = a(t) Do. This distance and the corresponding velocity dD/dt are measured with respect to us at the center of the coordinate system. The gravitational acceleration due to the spherical ball of matter with radius D(t) is g = -G*M/D(t)2 where the mass is M = 4*pi*D(t)3*rho(t)/3. Rho(t) is the density of matter which depends only on the time since the Universe is homogeneous. The mass contained within D(t) is independent of the time since the interior matter has slower expansion velocity while the exterior matter has higher expansion velocity and thus stays outside. The gravitational effect of the external matter vanishes: the gravitational acceleration inside a spherical shell is zero, and all the matter in the Universe with distance from us greater than D(t) can be represented as union of spherical shells. With a constant mass interior to D(t) producing the acceleration of the edge, the problem reduces to the problem of a body moving radially in the gravitational field of a point mass. If the velocity is less than the escape velocity, the expansion will stop and recollapse. If the velocity equals the escape velocity we have the critical case. This gives

 

v = H*D = v(esc) = sqrt(2*G*M/D)

H2*D2 = 2*G*(4*pi/3)*rho*D2 or

 

rho(crit) = 3*H2/(8*pi*G)

 

For rho less than or equal to the critical density rho(crit), the Universe expands forever, while for rho greater than rho(crit), the Universe will eventually stop expanding and recollapse.

 

If the visible universe is surrounded by a thick shell of high-density, high-mass space, it can have no gravitational affect on anything we observe.

 

~modest

[TheBigDog]

From the title of the question I might suggest this thread as well... http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-and-cosmology/5294-maximum-gravitational-force.html

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

If an object is 10 billion light years away, we can see its reaction to a gravity source that influenced it ten billion years ago.

 

Say that there's another object a billion light years years towards the far side of the object we observe, that's pulling on it. Light from the galaxy that's being attracted will propagate towards us at the same speed as any information coming from the object. Which means if we can see any object interacting with any other object, be it gravitationally or any other way, both objects must exist inside the limits of our visible horizon.

 

That same galaxy also has a visible horizon of about fifteen billion light years. Which means that there must be stuff it can see on the far side that we can't. But we observe that galaxy in the past. That galaxy might be attracted to stuff that we can't see now, but we cannot see that galaxy's reaction to it now. The moment we see the galaxy's reaction, we will also see the stuff it's reacting to. So there is no way that anything beyond our visible horizon can account for the Hubble Flow.

 

I hope that this question has been settled, and that we're not going to have to repeat ourselves like we did in the old thread. By the way, the explanation I put here is exactly the same as in my final post in the locked thread. Which merely tells me you didn't read it.

[Michael Mooney]

TheBigDog,

Thanks. I read the thread you linked and many of the links from that thread.

The following two quoting Tom Van Flandern are especially interesting:

First:

Possible New Properties of Gravity... (Maximum Gravitational Force Thread, post 8 by Harry Costas, first link)

 

"

Another (property of gravity) is the seemingly infinite range of gravitational force."

 

I had thought this to be true as I asked the opening question.

But then the following with gravity as propagated instantaneously contradicts the Homman observations of The effect of the Sirius A and B alignment on earth's rate of rotation , as above.

The Sirius Research Group

 

But, in contradiction to gravity propagation at lightspeed , from the last link in above post:

The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say

In

"The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say"

An abstract of Van Flandern says:

 

Abstract. Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action,....

 

I don't know if Van Flanderen is considered a "crackpot" or not by staff consensus here, but I obviously agree with the first statement above and disagree with the latter comments, based on the Homann observations.

 

Of course there are no delays between gravity waves It is steady (like sunlight) but I agree that if the sun magically disappeared, Earth would continue in its present orbit for over eight mor minutes.

 

As per the "seemingly infinite range of gravitational force"... this more in reply to Modest's post...

 

(I read the links. The math of course loses me, but the concept of "infinite range" seems allowable because of the following standard presentations on the universal law of gravitation):

 

 

From Wiki on "Newton's law of universal Gravitation":

 

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses...

 

No limit to that distance is mentioned.

 

From "the Physics Classroom Tutorial ("Universal Gravitation"):

 

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

 

But Newton's law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton's law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton's place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

 

Again no limit on the distance.... just force diminishing with the square of the distance.

 

You conclude:

If the visible universe is surrounded by a thick shell of high-density, high-mass space, it can have no gravitational affect on anything we observe.

 

Yet if it is truly a universal law pertaining to all masses in the whole universe whether visible or beyond our horizon then indeed "all masses pull on all other masses" without a distance limit or a problem reaching across empty space whatever the configuration of "stuff" in space.... on whatever scale... including beyond our "sphere of visibility."

 

PS to Boerseun:

The question is not about what we on Earth can *see* and when but

about the extent or limit (if there is one) of gravitation as a *universal force.* Your animosity toward me colors your every reply.

 

Michael

[TheBigDog]

A unique hypothesis, but doubtful. I floated a similar idea once that the Big Bang produced a shockwave that was moving out in all directions. The crest of that expanding wave created a phenomena that prevented observation of the outside from the inside. As the shockwave encounters objects in space it rushes over them and gives them an inertial force similar to expansion. All of the universe that we see would be what is visible inside the bubble of the blast. If we could observe the edge of the expanding bubble we would see galaxies appear as from nowhere as they moved from the outside space to the inside space. Because this is such a remote observation we have simply not had the longevity of capability to observe it happening yet.

 

Of course this is purely a fantasy hypothesis with no math other than some graphical simulations which appear only in my imagination. When I first saw your theory the similarity was astonishing.

 

I don't think Boerson is being mean, I think he is saying that the math does not support your theory, and the fact that you don't understand that yet is not going to change that fact. I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is to be asked a question, spend your good time providing an answer, just to have it sluffed off and asked again and again as though the answer will somehow change.

 

Math is not personal.

 

Bill

[modest]

As per the "seemingly infinite range of gravitational force"... this more in reply to Modest's post...

 

(I read the links. The math of course loses me, but the concept of "infinite range" seems allowable because of the following standard presentations on the universal law of gravitation):

 

 

From Wiki on "Newton's law of universal Gravitation":

 

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses...

 

No limit to that distance is mentioned.

 

From "the Physics Classroom Tutorial ("Universal Gravitation"):

 

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

 

But Newton's law of universal gravitation extends gravity beyond earth. Newton's law of universal gravitation is about the universality of gravity. Newton's place in the Gravity Hall of Fame is not due to his discovery of gravity, but rather due to his discovery that gravitation is universal. ALL objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

 

Again no limit on the distance.... just force diminishing with the square of the distance.

 

You conclude:

If the visible universe is surrounded by a thick shell of high-density, high-mass space, it can have no gravitational affect on anything we observe.

 

Yet if it is truly a universal law pertaining to all masses in the whole universe whether visible or beyond our horizon then indeed "all masses pull on all other masses" without a distance limit or a problem reaching across empty space whatever the configuration of "stuff" in space.... on whatever scale... including beyond our "sphere of visibility."

 

I was hoping someone else would explain this. I think there's a kind of communication gap between us, Michael.

 

My post has nothing to do with a distance limit for gravity or the speed at which gravity propagates. Your idea fails for a far easier to understand and far easier to prove reason.

 

If you are anywhere inside a spherically symmetric shell of mass then the mass of the shell can impart no gravitational force on you. You seem not to understand this or perhaps not understand how it relates to your idea, so I will do my best to explain.

 

A shell is a hollowed out sold sphere. If, for example, we hollowed out the core of the earth so that there were a cavity in the middle of our planet then we would have a spherically symmetric shell of mass. If you then went anywhere inside that shell you would float weightless. You would feel no gravitational acceleration toward the sides or in any direction. The gravitational force inside a symmetric shell of mass is zero.

 

Your idea suggests that our visible universe is surrounded by such an arrangement of matter. Essentially, that our visible universe is the hollowed out part of a shell of matter. You then expect the shell to cause accelerated motion toward the shell. This doesn't work because there is no gravitational acceleration contributed by a spherical shell of mass on anything in its interior.

 

The accelerated expansion of the universe cannot be caused by an excess of mass beyond our visible horizon. Such an excess of mass would have to be spherically symmetric because the accelerated expansion (indeed, the expansion itself) that we observe happens equally in all directions we look. You're describing a shell of matter and saying that it is causing acceleration in its interior. By Newtonian laws of gravity that just can't happen.

 

This is proved on the link I gave. Here are some other sites if that one didn't sit well:

• Gravitation Inside A Uniform Hollow Sphere
  
• Gravity Inside a Sphere
  
• Newton's Law of Gravity
  

It was Newton who first figured this out and it's true of all theories of gravity as far as I know.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

You wrote:

My post has nothing to do with a distance limit for gravity or the speed at which gravity propagates. Your idea fails for a far easier to understand and far easier to prove reason.

 

If you are anywhere inside a spherically symmetric shell of mass then the mass of the shell can impart no gravitational force on you. You seem not to understand this or perhaps not understand how it relates to your idea, so I will do my best to explain.

 

My opening question had nothing to do with all possible geometries of the whole universe in relation to our visible cosmos within *whatever lies beyond.* (Having abandon the atom in a balloon membrane metaphor for reasons already repeatedly explained.)

 

It is true that the communication gap between us precludes mutual understanding. All you ever do is presume to "correct" my (perceived) misunderstandings. This without ever understanding what I mean in my presentations. For this reason I have asked you many times to "get off my case" but you refuse and continue always with the above agenda. I was sincerely hoping for replies from others here who are not habitually prejudiced against me, most especially you and Boerseun.

 

Those links I quoted spoke of the universal law of gravitation without a distance limit on the force of gravity but only its diminishing over distance, and the fact that all masses attract all other masses has nothing to do with spherical geometry or distance limits.

 

Again I invite response to these specific points.

Does distance matter? Does the configuration/geometry of how cosmic "stuff" is distributed in space matter?

 

The side issues include the speed of propagation of the force of gravity. But even with a time delay for changes in that force effecting masses over distance (the speed of light seems well established for that propagation)... from the very beginning of this cycle (Bang or whatever) gravit has been a steady pull on all matter from whatever origin even as the outward force (of whatever dynamic) apposes gravity... and presently overcomes it in accelerated outward expansion. So changes in this force require time to propagate at lightspeed. But gravity remains a steady force from whatever explosive/expansive cosmic origin outward.

 

This view of gravity is not limited to distance or lightspeed as it would be a universal constant from the "beginning"... whether "the beginning of this "bang/crunch" cycle or "the absolute beginning" of

"Cosmos out of nothing" as some believe... (quite similar to creationism, as I see it.)

So, then as SMBH's coalesce, maybe the dynamic of the reversal of the expansion could happen... if gravity is indeed universal and unlimited by distance.

 

It is my hope that this clarifies the context of my question.

If it is seen as just another stupid misconception, I will be leaving.

 

If the math is the explanation (see "the place of math in physics" thread) and the geometry of spheres/shells of matter are seen as making gravity's reach limited, then,that math and geometry contradict the *universal law of gravitation* which posits that all matter attracts all other matter without those conceptual limits of math and geometry which Modest and others insist upon.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

If the math is the explanation (see "the place of math in physics" thread) and the geometry of spheres/shells of matter are seen as making gravity's reach limited, then,that math and geometry contradict the *universal law of gravitation* which posits that all matter attracts all other matter without those conceptual limits of math and geometry which Modest and others insist upon.

 

Michael, you have missed the point in your usual fashion. There is a universal law of gravitation, this is true.

 

However, if we have a spherical shell of matter, anywhere inside the shell THE FORCE PULLING TO THE RIGHT IS EQUAL TO THE FORCE PULLING TO THE LEFT, and so there is no net force. This is true in any direction. There is no force of gravity from the shell of matter inside the shell.

 

This cannot contradict Newton's gravity simply because it is derived FROM Newton's gravity. The mathematical argument is IF gravity follows 1/r^2 force law, THEN there is no force anywhere inside a shell of matter.

[Boerseun]

Michael, it is clear that you're either not reading the answers to your question, or you're not understanding the answers.

 

If there is something ten billion light years away from us, it might very well be reacting to some massive gravitational pull now, but we will not be aware of it for another ten billion years. The Hubble Flow is reaction to something that either exist (if mass, like you propose) or happened (like the Big Bang), both of which must exist within our horizon of fifteen billion years. If it's anywhere outside of that horizon, we would not have seen any object react to it yet - which is not to say that they haven't, we'll just have to wait ten billion years to see it and enumerate the objects they are reacting to.

 

On another note:

 

...before I leave the forum... which will be very soon.

and

...I will be leaving.

The above from your last two posts. Most of your prior posts contained similar lines of self-pity. Quit the melodramatics already. Look at the evidence, and try to objectively and dispassionately understand what it tells you without resorting to visions and similar bullshit. But for the love of God, either quit the forums or quit threatening to do so. What are you attempting to achieve through that? Is it like a suicide case looking for sympathy by hanging out the twentieth floor window saying "I'm gonna jump if you don't listen!"? I saw a guy in Johannesburg try that, once. All that happened was that a crowd gathered on the pavement, with a universal chant saying "jump... jump... jump...!" That's about how much pity you can expect, if that's your motive.

For the love of God, jump, or don't. It's all the same to me. But quit threatening.

[Michael Mooney]

Erasmus,

No I did not miss the point which Modest beat to death and you reiterated as:

"However, if we have a spherical shell of matter, anywhere inside the shell THE FORCE PULLING TO THE RIGHT IS EQUAL TO THE FORCE PULLING TO THE LEFT, and so there is no net force. This is true in any direction. There is no force of gravity from the shell of matter inside the shell."

 

Just in case you missed it, I will again redundantly repeat and reiterate :lol: the universal law of gravitation, which states:

"**ALL objects attract each other** with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

 

I am left wondering what part of the above y'all don't understand.

 

So, therefore, *if* there is matter beyond our cosmic sphere of visibility (regardless of how it may be distributed) *then* it (every part thereof and in total) *is exerting gravitational force on the mass of our visible cosmos* (every part and in total.)

 

Boerseun,

You keep hammering away on what we can see and when we can see it, but you seem to be able to successfully ignore or dismiss the above two paragraphs. It will not help for me to say it again or for you to again repeat:

 

"If an object is 10 billion light years away, we can see its reaction to a gravity source that influenced it ten billion years ago.

 

Say that there's another object a billion light years years towards the far side of the object we observe, that's pulling on it. Light from the galaxy that's being attracted will propagate towards us at the same speed as any information coming from the object. Which means if we can see any object interacting with any other object, be it gravitationally or any other way, both objects must exist inside the limits of our visible horizon."

 

Again, this is not about the delay of the force of gravity as it travels at lightspeed and what different observers at different locations can see and when. (Why do I repeat? Because you simply don't get the gist of it the...OP in this case... the first several times I say it.)

 

And incidentally, there is absolutely no "self pity" in me. I express my intent with radical honesty in the moment. If no one here understands the universality and limitless reach of gravitation, as stated yet again above, it is futile for me to hang out here arguing in the manner of the last few posts if y'all continue to clearly miss the whole point of the *UNIVERSAL* law of gravitation (*ALL* masses pulling on "All* other masses)...

 

And, yes, that includes all the mass beyond our cosmic event horizon pulling outward on all the mass we can see.

 

Your dogma about 'no net gravity within a sphere/shell' simply denies the universal law which applies to all matter everywhere.

Michael

[TheBigDog]

I believe the issue is that everyone you are asking feels the question has already been resolved. This means that either you are asking folks who need to learn from you, or you are failing to get the lesson.

 

Why don't you give it a day or two of reflection before you continue down a path that multiple rather expert folks have already indicated as flawed.

 

Bill

[modest]

Just in case you missed it, I will again redundantly repeat and reiterate :lol: the universal law of gravitation, which states:

"**ALL objects attract each other** with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

 

I am left wondering what part of the above y'all don't understand.

 

So, therefore, *if* there is matter beyond our cosmic sphere of visibility (regardless of how it may be distributed) *then* it (every part thereof and in total) *is exerting gravitational force on the mass of our visible cosmos* (every part and in total.)

 

Anywhere inside a spherically symmetric shell of mass a particle is pulled with equal force in every direction. The forces cancel such that there is no net force—no acceleration. In other words, the shell gives the test body gravitational potential, but no force. You float weightless in a spherical shell of mass. You cannot be accelerated toward the shell no matter where you are inside it.

 

This is true because of the Newtonian law of gravity which you keep quoting, not despite it.

 

And, yes, that includes all the mass beyond our cosmic event horizon pulling outward on all the mass we can see.

 

Your dogma about 'no net gravity within a sphere/shell' simply denies the universal law which applies to all matter everywhere.

 

The link and quote I gave to Ned's cosmology tour refutes this directly. Do you have a link or reference supporting your claim that mass beyond our cosmic horizon can pull outward on mass within the horizon despite the arrangement of such matter?

 

~modest

[Erasmus00]

"**ALL objects attract each other** with a force of gravitational attraction. Gravity is universal. This force of gravitational attraction is directly dependent upon the masses of both objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates their centers.

 

Yes, this is a true statement. As has been repeatedly said. Now, imagine three objects in a line as such

 

A---B---C

 

A and C are fixed in position (by some force other than gravity), and B is free to move. Which way does it go, left or right? All objects are attracting all other, BUT B will not move, its being pulled equally in both directions.

 

Now, inside a sphere of mass, no matter where in the sphere you are, you are being pulled equally in all directions. From this, you can prove that isotropic expansion cannot be caused by matter outside the visible universe. While some of the extra matter pulls outwards, more of the extra matter pulls inwards. The force of more matter further away exactly cancels the force of less matter closer.

[modest]

You might also consider that accelerated expansion is something we observe relatively near our galaxy. The further away we look the less we see the effects of accelerated expansion. This plot demonstrates nicely:

 

-

source

 

which was discussed in the SNe Ia, Implications, Interpretations, Lambda-CDM thread. This data makes sense if expansion is speeding up everywhere equally and simultaneously. Only recently in the history of the universe has this speeding up started so only nearby supernova show its effects (because light takes time to get here).

 

This data would not make sense if distant galaxies were greater affected by the presence of mass pulling them outward. In that scenario we wouldn't expect nearby galaxies to show the greatest affects of accelerated expansion.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

This will be a quickie for lack of time and without specific quotes and replies to them.

The OP question has not yet been addressed. If all matter attracts all other matter (and it does) then these spherical scenarios with essentially no gravitational effect within the sphere are still in total denial of the fact that every bit of matter in the universe does in fact attract every other bit of matter.

 

The side issue of equal attraction in all directions... resulting in no movement... is not the issue here. The issue is that overall, a lot of matter beyond our visible cosmos... if it exists... and why wouldn't it?... would be attracting all the matter in our visible cosmos outward toward the matter beyond. The force of all gravitational attraction diminishes with distance, of course... but never zero, according to the universal law. And the closer our visible cosmos gets to the matter beyond attracting it, the stronger the force will be among all masses involved, and that would account for the increasing rate of expansion we observe.

 

I really wish the "know-it-all" staff here would unplug their ears and hear what I just said, yet again. A reply directed to the above (rather than the sphere with no gravitational effect within) would be very much appreciated.

 

All I've heard so far is about the equilibrium of equal forces pulling omnidirectionally and therefore negating outward expansion. This neglects the over-all picture of mass "out there" pulling outwardly on all the mass we can see as "our cosmos."

 

There can be no magic barrier within the sphere of our cosmic event horizon which prevents matter beyond visibility from pulling our visible matter toward it.

That which might be out there must, theoretically be pulling on the matter we can see.

 

Maybe, if anyone here is capable of thinking for themselves, the trance of "our sphere" as unaffected by all mass beyond... can be broken. Maybe, but from all feedback so far I doubt it.

Will anyone address what I have been saying without the dogma of "Our sphere is unaffected by matter beyond?"

Every thing attracts everything else. "That is the Law." Get over the dogma of the sphere in which gravity from mass beyond has no effect.

Our cosmos is not a "hollow sphere" anyway. This was posited by Modest to refute something I was not saying... as always!

(I *envision* many bangs and crunches "locally"... the "cosmic juggling act I have outlined many times... with no one apparently "getting it.")

Michael

[Boerseun]

Michael:

 

Your question have been answered. We are right back at the prior thread, where you firmly plug your fingers in your ears and yell "You haven't answered my question until you've said what I want you to say!"

 

Once more, dear friends, into the breech: This time I'll make it real easy (I'll even type slower):

 

Forget about the "hollow shell" of mass. Even though true, I think it might just complicate matters for you, for now.

 

Let A be us.

Let B be some distant object, ten billion light years away.

which is affected by an even further gravity source, C, another ten billion light years away from B..

 

In a linear path, "line-of-sight", if you will, the configuration would be like this:

 

A.....(10bly).....B.....(10bly)....C

 

You with me so far?

 

Okay. Let B be at the furthest end of our visible universe. Let's say our horizon stops at 10 billion light years. Keep in mind that gravity is propagated at light speed. B reacts to C's gravitational pull when C gets to be within B's horizon. The wavefront of information of C's presence is presented by |. Thus, as time flows, before B can react to C, it will progress like this:

 

1. - A.....B....|C

2. - A.....B..|..C

3. - A.....B|....C

4. - And only here will B be able to react to the gravitational pull of C.

5. - A....|.B....C

6. - A..|....B...C

7. - A|........B.C

8. - And only here will we be aware of B's reaction to C, when the wavefront of both C's mass and B's reaction thereto reaches us. There is no way for B to react to anything that is outside of our "visible universe" with the only evidence being us looking at it through a telescope. Because we're seeing it in the distant past, when the wavefront of information of everything around it has crossed our "path", too. This is the preservation of causality. Reams have been written about this, amongst others, the theory of relativity.

 

This is not to say that those very same galaxies we're seeing doing the Hubble Flow isn't reacting to something else's mass now, but like points 4,5,6 & 7, we won't know about it, in any way or form, for many, many years to come. It simply won't be included in our current data set.

 

The above just to illustrate to you that you're wrong from a causality point of view. The prior objections to your proposal that gravity from a spherical shell cannot be perceived inside that spherical shell, also holds true. It's a pity you never did some math, because that is a classical first-year calculus demonstration. We actually have a thread here about a "hollow earth" theory, where Pyrotex neatly did the math for us. But be that as it may, we're not clinging to any particular dogmas or theories, we're merely following the evidence and the proper understanding thereof.

 

Once again, sit back for a second and try to understand our objections.

 

But your question in this thread has now been thoroughly answered. If you raise any objections which ask the same question again, then it will be clear as daylight that you're not reading our responses, and that our hard work in trying to help you amounts to nothing. We hold no grudges here, we don't hate anybody, we don't team up to collectively clobber anybody over the head with dogma, but all things being equal, we don't suffer fools gladly, either.