expansion of the universe is cause from a strong gravitational pull. - Page 2

captain swoop · #31 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 09:40 PM

Tommac, I think the time has come to support this ATM idea of yours. Point me to some evidence that gives some support.

tommac · #32 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Well, now you are essentially questioning the observations that the Universe is expanding; which pretty much negates your own explanation of why it expands!

Not at all. Well sort of . I am saying the universe doesnt expand but things move away from everything else producing a redshift almost everywhere and where it doesnt or it is weaker it is hard to detect .

In this model the universe would not be expanding ...

but almost all galaxies would be moving away from each other.

tommac · #33 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Tommac, I think the time has come to support this ATM idea of yours. Point me to some evidence that gives some support.

The proof is in the pudding!

I am not saying that this is why we percieve the universe to be expanding ... however I am saying that this could explain it.

captain swoop · #34 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 09:51 PM

So you are saying that all the evidence for expansion is evidence that we are moving to a single point?

north · #35 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Could what we interpret as the expansion of the univers ( universal red shifting ) be cause from everything in the universe being pulled towards one gravitational point?

but how is gravity , alone , strong enough too do any such thing though ?

gravity can't do so

it just can't

gravity is such a weak force , we all know that

and have you thought in three dimensional terms ?

tommac · #36 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 10:38 PM

What if there was a universe that was made up of pre-bigbang universes ... imagine that our entire universe was bubbling with black holes ...

basically lots of gravity sufficiently far enough away.

Someone do the math here.

Take the size of our visible universe ... multiply it by lets say 20 ( arbitrarily )

Then use the gravity formula to calculate how much mass would be needed to have the mass at 20 VUs away provide say the gravity we feel from jupiter here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by north

but how is gravity , alone , strong enough too do any such thing though ?

gravity can't do so

it just can't

gravity is such a weak force , we all know that

and have you thought in three dimensional terms ?

north · #37 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

What if there was a universe that was made up of pre-bigbang universes ... imagine that our entire universe was bubbling with black holes ...

basically lots of gravity sufficiently far enough away.

Someone do the math here.

Take the size of our visible universe ... multiply it by lets say 20 ( arbitrarily )

Then use the gravity formula to calculate how much mass would be needed to have the mass at 20 VUs away provide say the gravity we feel from jupiter here.

tommac

do you really think that what you propose is possible ?

if so why ?

captain swoop · #38 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 11:03 PM

If there was a pull from one source wouldn't the universe be sausage shaped?

pzkpfw · #39 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Could what we interpret as the expansion of the univers ( universal red shifting ) be cause from everything in the universe being pulled towards one gravitational point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I am saying the universe doesnt expand but things move away from everything else producing a redshift almost everywhere and where it doesnt or it is weaker it is hard to detect .

It seems you just make this up as you go along.

tommac · #40 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

If there was a pull from one source wouldn't the universe be sausage shaped?

Could be ... question is bratwurst or chorizo.

tommac · #41 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

It seems you just make this up as you go along.

I definitely do ... all of my thoughts are spontaneous.

The point is you can have MOST galaxies moving away from each other without having an expanding universe.

stutefish · #42 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

The point is you can have MOST galaxies moving away from each other without having an expanding universe.

Aren't you supposed to be arguing that MOST galaxies are converging on a single gravity source--i.e., moving TOWARDS each other?

tommac · #43 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stutefish

Aren't you supposed to be arguing that MOST galaxies are converging on a single gravity source--i.e., moving TOWARDS each other?

converging to a single point but away from each other.

speedfreek · #44 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

converging to a single point but away from each other.

con·verge (kn-vûrj)
v. con·verged, con·verg·ing, con·verg·es
a. To tend toward or approach an intersecting point
b. To come together from different directions; meet

undidly · #45 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 10:01 PM

An observer anywhere sees space type things moving away (because the universe is expanding) towards a POINT exactly on the other side of the universe from the obvserver.
They never collide at this point because the universe is expanding just enough so that does not happen.
As objects move away the gravitational force dragging them back gets less and less
(faster than inverse square) because the same G source is attracting them from the other direction all the way around the universe.
Halfway around, the forces are equal but in opposite directions so cancel exactly.
The objects are not being pushed away from the observer by DARK ENERGY.
They are attracted away by gravity that has gone more than half way around the universe.

Hornblower · #46 (**permalink**) 06-January-2009, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

converging to a single point but away from each other.

The geometric argument against this remark is almost absurdly simple.

If we are moving along a line toward a point, and a galaxy alongside is moving toward the same point, we will converge with it. No fancy calculation is needed to show this. A simple sketch will do.

In your model a galaxy out in front would be pulling away from us and would be redshifted. One behind us would be lagging and also redshifted. The ones abreast of us would be blueshifted, with the more distant ones more strongly so.

The multitude of galaxies would be "spaghettified" upon approaching your reputed gravitational attractor.

If I am not mistaken, much the same thing has been said earlier in this thread. I recommend that you slow down, take a deep breath, and pay better attention to what is being written by a lot of well-informed people.

undidly · #47 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

The geometric argument against this remark is almost absurdly simple.
If we are moving along a line toward a point, and a galaxy alongside is moving toward the same point, we will converge with it. No fancy calculation is needed to show this. A simple sketch will do.

Your understanding is too simple.
If I (the observer ) am on Earth and everyone is moving away then they will meet at a point on the opposite side of the Earth to me.
I know they are moving away because of Doppler shift,radio or light.

If I (the observer ) am on an expanding Earth then everyone is moving away
but each says everyone else is moving away.
We all know others are moving away because of Doppler shift,radio or light,
and in the same direction and maybe at the same speed as in line 3,4,5.
Each may say that the others will collide at a point on the opposite side to where they are.

We may think we can calculate when the collisions will start but by then the
distance will be great enough that ever more time is needed.

The collision point is always on the other side (from the observer) and is always too far away.

speedfreek · #48 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undidly

Your understanding is too simple.
If I (the observer ) am on Earth and everyone is moving away then they will meet at a point on the opposite side of the Earth to me.
I know they are moving away because of Doppler shift,radio or light.

If I (the observer ) am on an expanding Earth then everyone is moving away
but each says everyone else is moving away.
We all know others are moving away because of Doppler shift,radio or light,
and in the same direction and maybe at the same speed as in line 3,4,5.
Each may say that the others will collide at a point on the opposite side to where they are.

We may think we can calculate when the collisions will start but by then the
distance will be great enough that ever more time is needed.

The collision point is always on the other side (from the observer) and is always too far away.

Your understanding is too simple, as you are neglecting the Copernican principle, even if you think you aren't. If all observers think everything is diverging, then no observer will ever see everything converging.

In your example where the Earth is expanding and that expansion causes all coordinates to become more distant from their neighbouring coordinates, then no coordinate ever gets closer to another and none will ever "collide". If it looks from this side like everything is moving towards the other side, but from the other side everything looks like it is moving towards this side, but on no side does any coordinate actually converge towards another, then there is nothing but an apparent illusion of convergence that does not really exist.

bigsplit · #49 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 04:17 PM

A universal attractor will work with a funnel shaped universe, which has been look into by the steiner group (the geometry not the great attractor). I have argued for this many years now. It will work in this case, but I know of no other situation where a red shift would be produce.

tommac · #50 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

So indeed I was wrong, and it makes sense that I was wrong in the observation that We would be the centre of the universe otherwise. My Bad!!.

Please retract your statement above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

You are incorrect here, what I drew was correct, and apparently you have not learned much through the zillion Q&A threads you started. .

I was mearly correcting a minor mistake of yours ... and you got nasty.

tommac · #51 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedfreek

con·verge (kn-vûrj)
v. con·verged, con·verg·ing, con·verg·es
a. To tend toward or approach an intersecting point
b. To come together from different directions; meet

Again:

Converging to a single point ...

However, because of acceleration differences, moving away from each other.

x--x--x
-x--x----------------------P
x--x--x

--x----x----x
---x----x------------------P
--x----x----x

All converging to P but away from each other

I know that some of the xs dont move away from each other ... but see my argument above.

tommac · #52 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedfreek

Your understanding is too simple, as you are neglecting the Copernican principle, even if you think you aren't. If all observers think everything is diverging, then no observer will ever see everything converging.

In your example where the Earth is expanding and that expansion causes all coordinates to become more distant from their neighbouring coordinates, then no coordinate ever gets closer to another and none will ever "collide". If it looks from this side like everything is moving towards the other side, but from the other side everything looks like it is moving towards this side, but on no side does any coordinate actually converge towards another, then there is nothing but an apparent illusion of convergence that does not really exist.

How about the observer that is on the gravitational source?

captain swoop · #53 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 06:32 PM

OK if you have a single gravitation source that is pulling the Universe towards it.
If I went out tonight according to your decription, I would see that (for example) in the North the stars moving towards it would be red shifted.
In the South stars further away being less strongly attracted than ourselves would also be red shifted. What about the stars to the East and West? or those directly above? they would be converging with us onto the distant point so they should show blue shift, not a red shift like the stars to the N and S.

tommac · #54 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

OK if you have a single gravitation source that is pulling the Universe towards it.
If I went out tonight according to your decription, I would see that (for example) in the North the stars moving towards it would be red shifted.
In the South stars further away being less strongly attracted than ourselves would also be red shifted. What about the stars to the East and West? or those directly above? they would be converging with us onto the distant point so they should show blue shift, not a red shift like the stars to the N and S.

Well I dont think the angle of convergence would be enough to blue shift them. Approximate the angle of convergence to 0 ... lets say we converge on an angle of .0000000000001 degree. so basically 0. yes slight blue shift due to convergence.

Now that would ONLY be for those that are in a (nearly perfect ) plane tangent to the direction of gravity.

x

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------GS

x

However anything not directly in that plane would also have the same red shift to it. There is also the latency issue with light travelling from distant galaxies to us as they were moving and we are moving. So in short yes there will be some galaxies that will be slightly blueshifted ... but not many.

captain swoop · #55 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 06:54 PM

So we should see less of a redshift on a lot of them then, how do we see the same redshift in all directions if everything is going in the same direction?

tommac · #56 (**permalink**) 07-January-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

So we should see less of a redshift on a lot of them then, how do we see the same redshift in all directions if everything is going in the same direction?

I realize that I lost this argument ... but will continue to argue it.

To the E / W the further away the galaxies are the older the light and the point where that galaxy was it was moving much slower than it is now. In fact maybe it has already hit the gravitational source.

north · #57 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I realize that I lost this argument ... but will continue to argue it.

To the E / W the further away the galaxies are the older the light and the point where that galaxy was it was moving much slower than it is now. In fact maybe it has already hit the gravitational source.

what of though N/S ?

gzhpcu · #58 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Why is a shell needed? Lets say that there is just a HUGE gravitational source outside of our visible universe. ( Maybe another brain in a pre-big-bang state ).

We are all being pulled to that brain. the things that are closer to that area of the universe are being pulled faster ... the things that are farther from that point are being pulled slower ... both are being pulled away from us because of this gravitational force.

Just a nit-pick: not "brain", but rather "brane". You are (knowingly, unknowingly?) referring to a M-theory based cosmology (for example like the Ekpyrotic model). Not aware of any inter-brane gravitational force being stipulated, however.

gzhpcu · #59 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

What if there was a universe that was made up of pre-bigbang universes ... imagine that our entire universe was bubbling with black holes ...

What BB model are you basing your statements on? The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. How do you come up with black holes in this context? Are you equating pre-bigbang universes with black holes? (you can't!)

tusenfem · #60 (**permalink**) 08-January-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

converging to a single point but away from each other.

My goodness, this is starting to sound like astrocat and his vacuum cleaner theory Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Universe Expansion	earthman2110	Astronomy	109	13-April-2008 03:45 AM
Is the universe accelerating or decelerating?	snowflakeuniverse	Against the Mainstream	125	27-July-2004 08:55 AM
Alternative Cosmological Model	heusdens	Against the Mainstream	90	17-January-2003 05:51 PM
magnetic rocket creates wormhole theory	uralph	Against the Mainstream	9	15-June-2002 01:37 PM