The Gravity Model vs Big Bang Theory

[W.Davidson]

I'm interested to find out more about your theory.

 

That's all of it, Harry. I'm a layman, so no maths.

[CraigD]

Thanks, W.Davidson, for your thought-provoking ideas concerning the formation of the observable universe (and beyond). As an aficionado of Occam’s razor (or “keeping it simple”), I appreciate a cosmology that dispenses with many of troubling and difficult ad-hoc appendages that seem to have grown out of prevailing scientific models. Though I’m reluctant to join you in branding them “nonsense”, I think I share your desire for a simpler, more elegant model.

 

I tried your model in a simple numeric gravitational simulation, experimenting with various values for the mass and velocity of the Great Body. After several trials with various values, it became apparent that the simulation scales well – that is, can be made to make useful prediction regardless of the absolute mass of the Great Body and size of the “universe”, as long as the mass/distance ratio is appropriate to the constant one’s trying to generate. I was attempting to get the model to generate Hubble constant (H0), a well established and observationally verified constant relating relative velocity of distant objects in space to the distance between them.

 

I encountered the following problems with the model

• The resulting H0 is highly directional. No matter what speed the Great Body passes through the hydrogen field, after it has passed, objects (hydrogen molecules) separated by one another by a line parallel (the “x” coordinate in my system) to the one followed the GB have nearly zero relative velocity, regardless of the distance between them. No such effect is observed in the actual visible universe.
  
• Although it’s easy to obtain an H0 matching the actual observed value in the “y” direction (for a galaxy-size, 10^44 kg GB moving at a fast .5 c, this occurs at a distance of about 400 light-years – recall that this can be scaled easily to a much greater GB mass and distance) , this value is local only, varying by about 2.5%/1% change in distance from the path of the GB. No such effect is observed in the actual visible universe.
  
• Objects close (with 5 LYs in the same example given above) to the path of the GB recede at a very great speed, while nearby (5 LYs), they approach at a slightly greater velocity. This predicts that we should observe in the most distant objects both high redshifts (which we do) and also high blueshifts (which we don’t). This problem can be addressed by scaling the universe very large, and placing some limit on the maximum distance that light can travel (eg: “tired light”, or absorption by the hydrogen field), but such adjustments are unsatisfying
  

In short, the simulation supports the objection Bo raised in post #15.

 

Although an impressive work of speculation by a self described “layman”, I can see no way to make W’s “Gravity Model” work, without resorting to ad-hoc adjustments and introduction of strange forces worse than those cluttering the most current “Big Bang” model.

 

Simulation code (pretty terse and easy to read) and data (ugly, text only) available on request.

[kmarinas86]

Thanks, W.Davidson, for your thought-provoking ideas concerning the formation of the observable universe (and beyond). As an aficionado of Occam’s razor (or “keeping it simple”), I appreciate a cosmology that dispenses with many of troubling and difficult ad-hoc appendages that seem to have grown out of prevailing scientific models. Though I’m reluctant to join you in branding them “nonsense”, I think I share your desire for a simpler, more elegant model.

 

I tried your model in a simple numeric gravitational simulation, experimenting with various values for the mass and velocity of the Great Body. After several trials with various values, it became apparent that the simulation scales well – that is, can be made to make useful prediction regardless of the absolute mass of the Great Body and size of the “universe”, as long as the mass/distance ratio is appropriate to the constant one’s trying to generate. I was attempting to get the model to generate Hubble constant (H0), a well established and observationally verified constant relating relative velocity of distant objects in space to the distance between them.

 

I encountered the following problems with the model

• The resulting H0 is highly directional. No matter what speed the Great Body passes through the hydrogen field, after it has passed, objects (hydrogen molecules) separated by one another by a line parallel (the “x” coordinate in my system) to the one followed the GB have nearly zero relative velocity, regardless of the distance between them. No such effect is observed in the actual visible universe.
  
• Although it’s easy to obtain an H0 matching the actual observed value in the “y” direction (for a galaxy-size, 10^44 kg GB moving at a fast .5 c, this occurs at a distance of about 400 light-years – recall that this can be scaled easily to a much greater GB mass and distance) , this value is local only, varying by about 2.5%/1% change in distance from the path of the GB. No such effect is observed in the actual visible universe.
  
• Objects close (with 5 LYs in the same example given above) to the path of the GB recede at a very great speed, while nearby (5 LYs), they approach at a slightly greater velocity. This predicts that we should observe in the most distant objects both high redshifts (which we do) and also high blueshifts (which we don’t). This problem can be addressed by scaling the universe very large, and placing some limit on the maximum distance that light can travel (eg: “tired light”, or absorption by the hydrogen field), but such adjustments are unsatisfying
  

In short, the simulation supports the objection Bo raised in post #15.

 

Although an impressive work of speculation by a self described “layman”, I can see no way to make W’s “Gravity Model” work, without resorting to ad-hoc adjustments and introduction of strange forces worse than those cluttering the most current “Big Bang” model.

 

Simulation code (pretty terse and easy to read) and data (ugly, text only) available on request.

 

How about making 3 pairs of these large objects (like three groups of two side by side spheres) and distribute them evenly in the sky. Then put our galaxy in the sweet spot where gravitational potential is highest, then measure the results. Then compare the results with the previous results of one object. Give us an idea of how the larger bodies interact with each other.

 

If this simulation is in graphical form, it would be very appreciated if you also provide a picture.

 

Thank you!

[W.Davidson]

CraigD,

 

Thanks for taking the trouble to do an analysis. I envisage that that which we call the 'observable universe' exists only on one side of the Great Body - in the direction it's heading towards. Anything 'behind' the Great Body will have been 'hoovered up' and become part of it. The observable universe is created by its gravitational effect on the hydrogen field as it approaches. Whenever I try to visualize it, the image of a 'twisted shuttlecock' comes to mind (the Great Body being the heavy end of the shuttlecock).

 

The point Bo made is based on an assumption that the Hubble flow is isotropic. I disagree with this and research backs me up. However, I would agree that in the model I propose with a single Great Body causing the cosmological redshift, the degree of anisotropy that has been detected does not seem nearly enough. I have already said that this represents the Gravity Model's most serious challenge.

 

Imagine a straight line stretching from the Great Body through the Milky Way and beyond. I call this the 'red line'. The redshift of galaxies of a given intrinsic luminosity near this line would be greatest. Now imagine any number of lines through the Milky Way galaxy at right angles to the red line, like spokes in a wheel with the Milky Way as the hub. I call these the 'blue lines'. A galaxy near this blue line at a given distance from the observer ought to have a redshift value that is only a small percentage of a galaxy at the same distance on the red line. I think we're all agreed on that. The problem is that the research indicates minimum redshift values at 66% of the maximum value, when one would intuitively expect some galaxies to have values less than 10%. It is a problem, but it's the only problem I can think of, and given the amount of 'fudge factors' that have been introduced into Big Bang theory, it shouln't be regarded as fatal, particularly as the Gravity Model effortlessly explains many observations about the universe which Big Bang theory fails to explain.

 

Possible explanations for the observed redshift anisotropy not being as great as the Gravity Model would predict:

 

1. The Milky Way galaxy may be lying 'face on' to the Great Body. This would mean that the blue lines would all be in the direction of the galactic plane, and this may be a direction in which galaxy surveys have not been carried out.

 

2. The proposed model, with just one Great Body influencing the observable universe may be wrong. There may be more than one Great Body exerting an influence.

 

3. Anomalously low redshift values, consistent with the Gravity Model, may have been discarded by researchers. This research is controversial, so researchers may unconsciously filter out extreme values. This does happen in science. NASA failed to notice ozone depletion over Antarctica because the instruments on their satellite were programmed to discard anomalously low values.

[EWright]

WD,

 

You are very close to a concept that occurred to me in the mid 90s on which I wrote a paper for a college libral arts science course (ie, a quasi-science course with an instructor who knew little about science). I still believe its a highly plausible theory, although I have more-or-less abandoned it in favor of another idea regarding the origins and evolution of the universe.

 

The errors people are pointing out to you should be taken into consideration, and try not to lock yourself too tightly into your current concept. Allow the idea to breathe and evolve and think outside the box. There is a solution that would resolve their concerns.

[EWright]

One month later... any new ideas pertaining to your theory? I'll share my own laymans theories here shortly, keep an eye open.

[W.Davidson]

One month later... any new ideas pertaining to your theory? I'll share my own laymans theories here shortly, keep an eye open.

 

All quiet on the gravity front, EW. I first came up with the idea in 1994 and wrote to around 20 cosmologists about it. About a quarter of them replied, one or two taking the trouble to write quite lengthy replies. In that respect, I was quite pleased with the response, but a bit bemused by the fact that they weren't exactly doing handsprings.

 

It's a 'natural prediction' of the Gravity Model that the galaxies would be accelerating - exactly the opposite of what Big Bang theory predicts. When Perlmutter et al. discovered the acceleration in 1998, I actually expected to get a letter of congratulation or two! Naive, I know. But I'm learning.

[DarkColoredLight]

You say, and have, alot of words that I can't yet comprehend. Which makes your idea ungraspable to my tiny earth hands.

 

 

This much I can understand:

I'm a layman with a lifelong interest in science and one of the subjects I'm particularly interested in is alternatives to Big Bang theory. I came up with a theory of my own some years ago and sent copies to around 30 cosmologists. However, the reaction I got was pretty lukewarm, probably because they were all 'committed' to the Big Bang, so I thought I'd condense it to the bare essentials and post it on an Internet science forum to see what kind of reaction I'd get Okay? Here goes.

 

Which can be translated to me, the wisdumb, as: Listen closely, for I have a thought. Which was brought here because it was not accepted as the alternative to committed Big Bangests. Reason being you spoke their language and said "FYOUck!"

 

You are not speaking my language right now, which should have me saying something along the lines of "FYOUck!" Enough gibba gabba. I'll get to my point.

 

What you say?

 

 

 

 

 

Here ends the wisdumb of DarkColoredLight; Chaper GMvBBT, Verses I Am That I Am.

[EWright]

You say, and have, alot of words that I can't yet comprehend. Which makes your idea ungraspable to my tiny earth hands.

 

 

This much I can understand:

 

Which can be translated to me, the wisdumb, as: Listen closely, for I have a thought. Which was brought here because it was not accepted as the alternative to committed Big Bangests. Reason being you spoke their language and said "FYOUck!"

 

You are not speaking my language right now, which should have me saying something along the lines of "FYOUck!" Enough gibba gabba. I'll get to my point.

 

What you say?

 

 

 

 

 

Here ends the wisdumb of DarkColoredLight; Chaper GMvBBT, Verses I Am That I Am.

 

Wake up drunk this morning? Or just feel like calling the kettle black? The subject at hand makes much more sense than the gibba gabba you just spewed.

[DarkColoredLight]

Wake up drunk this morning? Or just feel like calling the kettle black? The subject at hand makes much more sense than the gibba gabba you just spewed.

 

 

I didn't wake up this morning. I'm a night owl. Sleep would help though.