I was thrilled when I heard that our spacecraft are slowing down as they travel further away from us, because this was one of the predictions from a model for the universe which I have thought to be true for years. The model predicted a slow-down, but the slow-down would be very small where the spacecraft are now. I did not expect that it would be observable in this way.

The model explains red shifts, the shape of galaxies, and might even account for observations that are currently attributed to dark matter.

For a model to be seriously considered, it must be compatible with what is observed in astronomy. Predictions based on the model should be consistent with observations which we can now make. If a model makes predictions which future observations show to be true, then the model gains credibility.

Please be patient with me as I explain the model. As I first start to explain the model, there will be some very obvious concerns, but these issues are addressed and the model does become consistent with itself and with observations. Please review the entire model before judging it.

I am familiar with special relativity and some of the basics of general relativity, and I have worked with tensor analysis many years ago.

Classical physics works very well to explain the orbits of planets and moons and our spacecraft, and to get us to the moon and back. Relativity refines our models, making them more accurate. As the distance between two objects is doubled, the gravitational attraction between them is one-forth. As two objects are moved further apart from each other, the gravitational attraction is greater than what existing models would expect.

Within our own solar system, existing models for gravity work very well, however, they become inaccurate as the distance increases between two objects. The greater the distance between two objects, the less accurate existing models for gravity become, and the greater the distance between them, the greater the disparity between the actual gravitational attraction between the objects and the attraction that is predicted by existing models.

By now, some serious concerns and objections are already forming in the minds of those who are knowledgeable in astronomy and physics. Wouldn’t that diminish or obliterate the possibilities of having a red shift if the gravity is too strong at a distance? Be patient with me. Wait until I have finished describing the model before judging it. These concerns will be addressed.

As distance increases, the gravitational attraction increases more and more over what is predicted by existing models, and over great distances, gravity may even become fiercely attractive.

The red shift, instead of being caused by galaxies receding from us, would be caused by the transverse Doppler Effect. The earth would be located near the center of gravity for the entire universe. The further the galaxies are from earth, the faster they would move in orbit around the center of gravity for the universe.

As the galaxies move, perpendicular to us, moving at great speeds causes time to slow down for the stars, resulting in a red shift which is observed on earth.

The speed of the galaxies at great distances, orbiting around the center of gravity for the universe, would be phenomenal, absolutely incredible. It would be far greater than what would be required for the galaxies to be simply receding.

In order for the galaxies to be in a stable orbit, it requires an incredible amount of attraction between the galaxies and the center of gravity for the universe.

For such an incredible amount of attraction to exist at such great distances, a small change in the percentage of the distance results in a considerable change in the attraction. Thus, circular orbits would be stable, but elliptical orbits would not. In fact, circular orbits become rather strictly enforced by gravity. One possibility is that gravity eventually increases with distance instead of decreasing. Maybe that happens, but maybe not. If so, as a galaxy would deviate from a circular orbit and come closer to the center, gravity would be reduced causing it to travel further out. If it deviates away from the center, gravitational attraction would increase causing it to travel closer to the center. Thus, circular orbits become the most stable, perhaps strictly enforced by gravity.

I do not know if gravity would change so much with distance that, over great distances, further distances would actually increase the amount of gravity or if the change in gravity would be less drastic than that.

Elliptical orbits, such as those of comets, can actually have two focus points, not at the center, but more towards the edges of the orbits. If changes in gravity were to start to show on a scale of a galaxy, then when looking at a galaxy with the plane facing us (not with the plane at an angle) a stable galaxy would be circular. An elliptical galaxy with an observable focus point not at the center of the galaxy probably would not be observed.

It actually is quite easy to build a chart giving some information about the strength of the gravity at different distances, based on observations. Assuming the earth is near the gravitational center of the universe, and assuming the red shift is due to transverse Doppler, use special relativity to calculate the speed of the galaxies at different distances. Take a look at the curve, showing the change in gravity with distance, and also take into account the slowing down of our spacecraft. Now there still is a huge gap of data in the middle, at the galactic level, but the chart can give us some ideas of the change in gravity at the galactic level. From there, it is possible to see if the changes in gravity could account for what previously has been attributed to dark matter.

Such a universe would actually have a boundary. At great distances, the speed of the galaxies orbiting the center would need to be so great that it would reach the speed of light. Since matter usually can not travel that fast, matter would not be expected beyond that boundary. But if matter would exist beyond that boundary, it would be strongly attracted towards us.

Obviously, this model conflicts with the big bang model. The question should not be whether the model conflicts with the big bang model, but rather whether it conflicts with observations we can make of the universe.

When two models conflict with each other, which model more closely matches what is observed? Sometimes, some models work in one situation and a conflicting model works in another. Sometimes one model would far outshine others, causing others to be disregarded. The model I have suggested is completely incompatible with the big bang model. The two can not be true at the same time.

I do believe that the only factor affecting the red shift is the motion of the galaxies. It is important, however, to consider another possibility. Time might slow down more the further a galaxy is positioned away from the center of the universe, even without the galaxy moving. I do not believe such is happening, but I do need to bring it out as a possibility.

How do you justify the notion that the Earth is at the exact center of the Universe?

The rest of this sounds like fitting the facts to a rather incredible hypothesis.

It also does not match all observations. Nor do you have any explanation as to how you think that gravity increases over distance.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

Question: How do you justify the notion that the Earth is at the exact center of the Universe?

Answer: The red shift is approximately the same in all different directions when viewed from Earth. One possible reason for this is that the Earth is in a special position in the universe, near the center. The big bang theory allows all points to be considered as the center. The earth is not at the exact center of the universe. It obviously is not the center of the solar system, or else we would all be dead. It is not the center of the galaxy, or else we would all be dead by now.

Statement: The rest of this sounds like fitting the facts to a rather incredible hypothesis.

Reply: Maybe you are right, but maybe not. It seems to me to be a reasonable model for what is observed. The real test of the validity of the model is if it matches observations.

Statement: It also does not match all observations. Nor do you have any explanation as to how you think that gravity increases over distance.

Reply: If it does not match all observations, that would certainly discredit the model. At least, that is true if reasons can not be found to explain it. I would like to know what observations do not match the model. You know much more about the observations than I do, and I would be interested in learning your thoughts about this. It is true that I have not given any equations to show how gravity increases over distance in this model, but I have described how to create a graph showing gravity over a distance. I have not explained why gravity would increase over distance, aside from observations, or possibly my incomplete knowledge of observations.

Does this take into account the power of the void as supposed by the Association of Eminent Scientists? They are a group researching alternative energy and are following up on a lot of what Tesla covered or is this a new geometry?

I guess put simply is this still 3D 1 time and 1 inner 4D inflation with dark energy and matter or something new?

Having worked with tensors puts you at distinct advantage here as compared to the bulk of alternate theorists. Perhaps some mathematics for the mainstream and for the rest of us looking at alternatives why does gravity start to increase beyond a certain distance please.

Cheers Michael

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

Unfortunately for your model, neither the science says that there is such thing in the universe as "gravitational attraction" nor it is detected observationally. This fact alone is enough to reject your model.

You might have been talking about the Newtonian physics which is about 300 years old and proved to be wrong. Even Newton himself didn't believe that it is right, so neither should you.

If you try to modify your model adjusting it to the contemporary gravitational theory (Einstein's) the bast approach seems to be to get acquainted with Einstein's gravitation first and then apply the knowledge to anything that you may come up with. You may start by reading my webpage http://geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski...ravitation.htm and notice that your idea that time runs slower at greater distances fits very well with Einstein's ideas and it has been proposed already. So this is something that you may start working with.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I appreciate the comments from Michael Noonan. There is much that I have not taken into account, not actually being in the field. While I have worked with tensors in the past, it has been many years ago. Because I have not worked with that type of math for a long time, I could not do it any more, and other skills have taken its place. Nevertheless, the experience and knowledge in the past helps with my understanding today.

As far as dark matter is concerned, attraction increasing over a distance may account for observations that are currently attributed to dark matter. I am not saying that it would account for it, but I am stating that it is a real possibility worth considering.

Why does gravity start to increase beyond a certan distance? I do not know why. The model I have proposed just seems like a reasonable explanation for what is observed. The slowing down of our spacecraft seems to be a rather weak confirmation of the idea. It is strong enough to bring up the model as a possible answer, but I suppose it is far too weak to cite it as a confirmation of the model.

Thank you too, Jim Jast, for your comments. By "gravitational attraction" I actually ment simply "gravity" or "attraction".

Michael Noonan asked if this was a new geometry. No, it is not. A new geometry requires a mathematical framework, which is lacking. It might be that a mathematical framework for this model would involve a new geometry, but I doubt it.

I am sorry I do not understand the question, “is this still 3D 1 time and 1 inner 4d inflation with dark energy and matter…”. Actually, the model I have described is close to Euclidian, but takes special relativity into account. I realize that is terrible for a description of a model, because our universe is definitely not Euclidian. Oh, yes, there is some acknowledgement of another geometry at work here, for example, at the high velocities required by the models, the mass of the stars and galaxies at great distances would increase. The Euclidian model does allow for simpler math, however.

Dark matter actually is not concretely addressed in the model, just by speculation. If gravity increasing over current models with distance happens to be observable at the galactic level, then the expectation would be that the increased gravity would cause faster rotations around the center of the galaxy. Faster rotations around the center of galaxies have been observed by red and blue shifts, and the explanation which has been given for this in the past has been the presence of dark matter. Some, maybe even all of the faster rotation might be explained by more gravity at greater distances than what current models reflect.

I agree that it would be great to have some mathematics to go with the model, but what I would have to offer is elementary and very well-known, and the actual math for the model would need to be built on observations. So the math has not been constructed to reflect the model. I can, however, provide some of the math necessary to build the chart for the gravity and distance from the center of gravity.

Start with a chart which shows the amount of red shift vs. distance from Earth. The spectrum lines show the amount of the red shift, and thus, the frequency for different spectrum lines can be known. From special relativity, when a red shift is due exclusively to transverse Doppler and the velocity is known, the ratio for the red shift is

C/√(C²-V²) = frequency of sun / frequency of star

Let su be used to represent the frequency of the sun
Let st be used to represent the frequency of the star or galaxy

c = (SU/ST)*√(C²-V²)
C/(su/st) = √(C²-V²)
(C*st/su)² = C²-V²
v = √(C²-((c*st/su)²))

Thus, the velocity can be determined, if it is due 100% to transverse Doppler. From there, a chart can be built showing the velocity of the galaxies vs. the distance from Earth.

Knowing the velocity, it is possible to determine the gravitational attraction, assuming the galaxy is in a circular orbit around the center of gravity for the universe, with Earth being near that center. Sorry, I do not know the equations for this.

After the chart has been built, there will be a huge gap for distances closer to the Earth. We can arrive at a range of values, but perhaps no great accuracy for these closer distances by attributing some of the faster rotation around the center of galaxies to be due to increasing gravity. How much of that should be attributed to increasing gravity and how much to the presence of dark matter? I do not know.

Also, in building the chart, take into account the slow-down in our spacecraft as they leave our solar system, along with the margin of error. We do not know if there are other explanations for the slow-down other than increasing gravity.

It is also important to show how the model could be discredited or gain credibility.

One of the challenges in discrediting the model is the inherent flexibility of the model. Since the model is based on the concept that gravity is different at a great distance, are there any other laws that could be different, such as time, with distance from the center of gravity of the universe? It might be that at some point, too many laws have to be bent too far that the model could become unacceptable to even its strongest advocates.

It seems to me that it is very difficult to disprove the model, but just because it is difficult to disprove it does not make it right. I know there are others who might have better ideas than I have on this, but I would like to give my thoughts.

It is possible to measure the velocity of a wide variety of stars and galaxies at different distances, based on this model, but even if a wide variety of pairs of galaxies could be measured, and the distance between them could be shown not to change over time, it simply could be argued that a pair was picked which happen to be traveling in the same direction.

It is not possible, with this model, the universe being spherical, for all the galaxies to be traveling in the same direction at every point and still have a fairly even distribution of galaxies at all distances and directions from the center of gravity for the universe. The high velocity of these galaxies should make it easier to detect when galaxies are traveling closer together or further apart.

I suppose that without exhaustive surveys, not being able to detect galaxies which are traveling closer together or further apart at great distances from us would not disprove the model. However, if a pair of galaxies were found at a great distance from us to be moving together or apart at great speeds, more compatible with this model than the big bang model that would tend to credit this model and discredit the big bang theory.

Another way is look at a distant star in a distant galaxy though a gravitational lens. A galaxy will not work. Maybe two gravitational lenses perfectly aligned would work. Account for any distortions in the lens itself. Is the resolution strong enough to measure the dimensions of the star? Is the star far enough way and the lens accurate enough (not too distorted)? Is the star shorter in one direction than in another direction? If, under these conditions, and within the margin of error, the dimensions are the same in all directions, then that would discredit this model and tend to confirm an expanding universe. On the other hand, if the star shows it is longer in one direction than another, shaped like a football, that would tend to confirm this model and discredit an expanding universe. The ratio of the lengths can be used as another measurement of the velocity, and it can be determined if that measurement of the velocity coincides with the measurement based on the red shift under this model.

Are there simpler observations at closer distances that could help? The best I could suggest would be dicey and hypothetical and with too wide a margin of error. See if our spacecraft continue to decelerate as they leave us. Can we account for the deceleration by other mechanisms? Decide how much of the faster rotation around galaxies can be attributed to dark matter and how much could be attributed to increasing gravity, as if it actually is our prerogative to make such a decision.

Others more knowledgeable than I may come up with other suggestions on how to test the model.

The idea of a co-moving expansion and all matter being central is due to it being in the big bang at the same point at one time. So the earth can be matter central but I guess if you are looking at center of universal gravity it gets more complex.

There 'appears' to be an anti-gravity effect at distance and mainstream has labeled it dark energy and it seems to increase with distance. The thing is that even though all might agree that gravity would be felt across the universe there doesn't seem to be any one suggesting that expanding space moving faster than gravity is in relative violation as we would also be in regard to the distant object (ie moving faster than light relative to the field of gravity from original sources).

Time could be local but needs higher structures in which case you see the universe based on an average or median time relative to yourself. Time is probably the hardest fight to take on so I certainly wish you all the best if you do take that path (higher spatial structures is an interest to me but this is clearly your idea and needs to be thought along the lines you have set out).

Presumed position and motion of the galaxies are being looked at with more data coming in all the time. Your mathematics well exceeds mine so I will keep reading with interest, cheers

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."