Hi dgrus23

Thank you for your response.

Should the effect of gravity be a constant, or can it change over time? Why should it be constant? Why should it change?

Could matter itself be expanding? How could you tell if all the rulers also expand?

According to the proposed uniform expansion theory, (which assumes that the expansion of space does not stop at the boundary of galaxies, but includes matter itself), gravity should be a function of time.

For example, If the Earth were to expand to twice it’s size, the surface gravity would be reduced by a quarter. According to the proposed theory, we are gradually losing weight.

If stars were twice as big, with the same amount of mass, the pressure within the stars would be less. This would dramatically reduce the rate of nuclear fusion.

If the theory predicts these things, then there should be evidence of this. I thought it would be interesting to apply the relationships to Jupiter and see what happens. About the time that Jupiter forms, (about 5.5 billion years ago (5.5 x 10^9)), the effect of gravity is so much greater that nuclear fusion could begin. This would provide a significant residual source of energy. Evidence of this residual heat is the atmospheric storms that ravage Jupiter.

Now that the effect of gravity is diminished, nuclear fusion could no long happen. The process of nuclear fusion could not continue very long since the effect of gravity would be diminishing substantially over time periods of millions of years. Now elapsed intervals of time of a million years have little effect on gravity. This was illustrated in the examples showing the increased effect of gravity for dates of formation of 1 million, 500 million, and a billion.

Regarding the date of formation of Jupiter issue, I think present models have a hard time explaining a 14 to 15 billion year old universe. If our solar system formed 5 billion years ago (plus or minus a half a billion) what happened in the previous 10 billion years?

In the proposed model since the effect of gravity is so intense so early in the evolution of the universe, solar systems and galaxies form right from the very beginning, there is no long big ball of gas phase. (Now it takes a long time for gas clouds to collapse into celestial structures, in the past this was not so).

This early formation of galactic structures is validated by observation. Quasars are tightly bound gravitational systems that exist only in the very beginning of our universe. Science news (January 25 2003) reports evidence of galaxy formations when the universe was less than a billion years old. If galaxies are observed to be formed this early in the evolution of the universe, shouldn’t other celestial structures such as solar systems be also similarly formed at about the same time? Should our solar system be assumed to dislike those observed in the past?

The 14/15 billion year old universe is based upon an assumed constant rate of expansion (Hubbell’s constant). The proposed model predicts that the rate of expansion is dependant upon Cosmic time. The expansion was greater in the past than it is now. This reduces the age of the universe to something substantially less than 14 billion years.

The real test of a theory is to see if it conforms to observation. This theory predicts the early formation of celestial systems. Observation substantiates it.

Thankfully Yours,
snowflake.