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

tommac · #1 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 03:07 PM

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?

The thought here would be that things that are closer to the object would be pulling away from us at a faster rate towards that object.

Things that are farther away from us would be pulling away from us at a faster rate as it is moving slower than us. Everything is pulling away from us the further away the bigger the difference in redshift.

tusenfem · #2 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 03:18 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?

The thought here would be that things that are closer to the object would be pulling away from us at a faster rate towards that object.

Things that are farther away from us would be pulling away from us at a faster rate as it is moving slower than us. Everything is pulling away from us the further away the bigger the difference in redshift.

As we see everything moving AWAY from us in ALL directions, this would mean that there would be a big "shell like" structure around the "universe". And it has certainly been mentioned to you in one of your countless Q&A threads only the mass inside a sphere adds to gravitation, not what is outside of the sphere.

Unless you propose us to live in a mirror universe (mirrored e.g. wrt. a black hole horizon) one point CANNOT make the expansion.

captain swoop · #3 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 06:09 PM

Identical thread Here

sebaslef · #4 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Identical thread Here

Gravity makes more sense than dark energy. glad to see I'm not alone

tommac · #5 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

As we see everything moving AWAY from us in ALL directions, this would mean that there would be a big "shell like" structure around the "universe". And it has certainly been mentioned to you in one of your countless Q&A threads only the mass inside a sphere adds to gravitation, not what is outside of the sphere.

Unless you propose us to live in a mirror universe (mirrored e.g. wrt. a black hole horizon) one point CANNOT make the expansion.

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.

pzkpfw · #6 (**permalink**) 31-December-2008, 09:14 PM

Why don't we see some directionality from that?

e.g. if it's a point source (of gravity) we'd see stuff coming closer together as it approaches that source.

We don't see that - everything is moving further apart.

(That some galaxies, under their local attraction, are getting closer is not a counter-example; examples of this are scattered about and don't indicate any common source).

Try drawing a picture of what you describe; it will help.

tusenfem · #7 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 01:11 PM

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).

Because we OBSERVE everything flying AWAY from us, the farther it is the faster is goes, and thus one HUGE gravitational source CANNOT be the reason, because that would give a UNIFORM DIRECTIONALITY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

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.

What BRAIN? Are you thinking of Magneto of Xmen? Pulling all matter to himself? Again, then there would be ONE SOURCE and thus everything would FLY TOWARDS THE SOURCE, which is something we DONOT observe. So the point is MOOT.

tommac · #8 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Why don't we see some directionality from that?

e.g. if it's a point source (of gravity) we'd see stuff coming closer together as it approaches that source.

We don't see that - everything is moving further apart.

(That some galaxies, under their local attraction, are getting closer is not a counter-example; examples of this are scattered about and don't indicate any common source).

Try drawing a picture of what you describe; it will help.

Why would things get closer together if everything is accelerating in that general direction?

Remember this thing would need to be super massive to effect our entire visible universe. If everything was accelerating at different speeds towards the source then things would get farther apart.

tommac · #9 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Because we OBSERVE everything flying AWAY from us, the farther it is the faster is goes, and thus one HUGE gravitational source CANNOT be the reason, because that would give a UNIFORM DIRECTIONALITY.

I dont understand can you show this?

Here is a simple 3 particle thing ... but it could me made as complex as you would like:

Before
A-------B-------C-----------------BH

After a gravitational pull
-A---------B---------C------------BH

Note that AB is longer and BC is longer.

tommac · #10 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Again, then there would be ONE SOURCE and thus everything would FLY TOWARDS THE SOURCE, which is something we DONOT observe. So the point is MOOT.

There is some evidence that everything in our visible universe is being pulled to one direction.

tusenfem · #11 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

I dont understand can you show this?

Here is a simple 3 particle thing ... but it could me made as complex as you would like:

Before
A-------B-------C-----------------BH

After a gravitational pull
-A---------B---------C------------BH

Note that AB is longer and BC is longer.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH groan!

Yeah, that is what one would see with a BH or another big mass somewhere and like I said THAT IS NOT WHAT IS OBSERVED!!!!!!!!!!!

What we see is the following (using your "drawings"):

Code:

              |
              F
              |
              E
              |
-- B -- A -- we -- C -- D --
              |
              G
              |
              H
              |

And then followed by:

Code:

                   |
                   F
                   |
                   |
                   |
                   E
                   |
                   |
---- B ---- A --- we --- C ---- D ----
                   |
                   |
                   G
                   |
                   |
                   |
                   H
                   |

And then PLEASE assume that the horizontal and vertical dashes are the same length!!!!!!!!!!! (unless you get to some weird ideas).

I hope this shows you what I tried to explain you in words in the previous messages, that there is a UNIFORM expansion, with everything MOVING AWAY from us in all directions (and yes you have to expand the figure to the 3rd dimension, which is a bit difficult to draw in "code mode").

So, in the end, there cannot be one big mass pulling at the universe, because it is a 3D expansion, and not a 1D like you drew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

There is some evidence that everything in our visible universe is being pulled to one direction.

You are probably thinking about the Great Attractor which is acting on our "local environment" and not on the whole universe.

pzkpfw · #12 (**permalink**) 01-January-2009, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Here is a simple 3 particle thing ... but it could me made as complex as you would like:

Before
A-------B-------C-----------------BH

After a gravitational pull
-A---------B---------C------------BH

Note that AB is longer and BC is longer.

Do this on paper. Make another line (x---y---z) also pointing to the black hole, but at an angle to A--B--C.

Again, you'll get: "Note that XY is longer and YZ is longer".

BUT, you'll also get CZ getting SHORTER.

tommac · #13 (**permalink**) 03-January-2009, 09:42 PM

Yes that looks OK ... I think this can be explained. I am thinking about 2 scenerios :

1) gravity with a different dimension ... this was asked about in my Q&A section post.
2) That if everything is accelerating ( including us ) but at different rates of acceleration based on position then everything would move away from everything else.
3) In the past all things were moving faster than they were now ??? just threw this one in there.

Drawings were good and clear and are more or less more or less what I am basing my ATM on.

However I question your drawings. You seem to show that

-- B -- A -- we -- C -- D --
turns into:
---- B ---- A --- we --- C ---- D ----

However this means that AB and CD grows quicker than Awe and weC

I dont think that is correct. As it would mean we are in the center of everything. The MS thought here is that everything is moving away from everything at the same speed.

So
-- B -- A -- we -- C -- D --
turns into:
---- B ---- A ---- we ---- C ---- D ----
not
---- B ---- A --- we --- C ---- D ----

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

What we see is the following (using your "drawings"):

Code:

              |
              F
              |
              E
              |
-- B -- A -- we -- C -- D --
              |
              G
              |
              H
              |

And then followed by:

Code:

                   |
                   F
                   |
                   |
                   |
                   E
                   |
                   |
---- B ---- A --- we --- C ---- D ----
                   |
                   |
                   G
                   |
                   |
                   |
                   H
                   |

And then PLEASE assume that the horizontal and vertical dashes are the same length!!!!!!!!!!! (unless you get to some weird ideas).

I hope this shows you what I tried to explain you in words in the previous messages, that there is a UNIFORM expansion, with everything MOVING AWAY from us in all directions (and yes you have to expand the figure to the 3rd dimension, which is a bit difficult to draw in "code mode").

So, in the end, there cannot be one big mass pulling at the universe, because it is a 3D expansion, and not a 1D like you drew.

You are probably thinking about the Great Attractor which is acting on our "local environment" and not on the whole universe.

pzkpfw · #14 (**permalink**) 03-January-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

There is some evidence that everything in our visible universe is being pulled to one direction.

Exactly what is this evidence?

Have you read post #12?

tusenfem · #15 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Yes that looks OK ... I think this can be explained. I am thinking about 2 scenerios :

1) gravity with a different dimension ... this was asked about in my Q&A section post.
2) That if everything is accelerating ( including us ) but at different rates of acceleration based on position then everything would move away from everything else.
3) In the past all things were moving faster than they were now ??? just threw this one in there.

Drawings were good and clear and are more or less more or less what I am basing my ATM on.

However I question your drawings. You seem to show that

-- B -- A -- we -- C -- D --
turns into:
---- B ---- A --- we --- C ---- D ----

However this means that AB and CD grows quicker than Awe and weC

I dont think that is correct. As it would mean we are in the center of everything. The MS thought here is that everything is moving away from everything at the same speed.

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

According to mainstream you can be anywhere in the universe and look in all directions. You will find that everything moves away from you (barring small local effects) and the further something is away from you the faster it moves. This would indeed imply that AB and CD grow faster than weC (as viewed from "we") and using the Hubble relation you might even calculate at what rate that is.

I would advise you to read some introductory books on astrophysics, so you might learn something.

tommac · #16 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Do this on paper. Make another line (x---y---z) also pointing to the black hole, but at an angle to A--B--C.

Again, you'll get: "Note that XY is longer and YZ is longer".

BUT, you'll also get CZ getting SHORTER.

Yes but C is outside of Zs visibe universe.

tommac · #17 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 03:55 PM

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.

According to mainstream you can be anywhere in the universe and look in all directions. You will find that everything moves away from you (barring small local effects) and the further something is away from you the faster it moves. This would indeed imply that AB and CD grow faster than weC (as viewed from "we") and using the Hubble relation you might even calculate at what rate that is.
.

Look I dont agree with your drawings at all. I was just correcting your error. so that your diagram matches what you were saying.

If AB grows faster than weA then from the vantage point of A ... B is moving faster away from A than WE is.
Here is your diagram from the point of view of A.

B--A--WE

B----A---WE

B----A
WE---A

So from the vantage point of A ... YOU are stating that even though they are equally as close B has moved away faster than A.
Please explain why you feel that objects act differently for A than they do for WE!!!!

This would seem to make even more spectacular conclusion that woud be deduced into WE is the center of the universe, which is very unlikely.

Again the change I made was to try to fix your graph to fit in with what YOU are saying.

tommac · #18 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Exactly what is this evidence?

Have you read post #12?

The thing is that the gravitational force is very far away and very powerful.
It is outside of our visible universe.

Our entire visibe universe is only a sliver

_____
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------GS
|____|
Vis Universe

So what #12 says is correct but we would not detect that.

There is a post on universe today that suggests that there is a direction that the entire universe is being pulled to.
Can someone please post a reference ... it was referred to about 2 weeks ago.

speedfreek · #19 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 06:00 PM

I think you might be referring to the very recent and tentative discovery of a "dark flow", where, as well as the overall expansion, there may also be some peculiar motion towards a specific part of the sky. The findings are unconfirmed so far, but have no great impact in the overall picture of expansion, as far as I can tell.

If there is a "dark flow", some speculative theories do indeed attribute it to a concentration of mass outside of our currently observable part of the universe, but within our particle horizon (our past light-cone).

But an unseen mass cannot be responsible for the overall expansion of the universe. The main problems you are having interpreting the diagrams presented to you is the failure to differentiate between a global and a local picture of what is going on.

I steer clear of diagrams myself, and use a conceptual 3D grid of coordinates instead to show the global picture, and then we do some maths within that grid to show the local picture.

So, imagine a 3D grid, and put an observer at every intersection point in that grid. Let's say we make each intersection point 1 meter apart, so wherever there is an observer, if they look along any axis, they see points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc meters away, receding into the distance as far as they can see.

Now we expand that whole grid to 10 times its original size, in 1 second (these figures make the maths easy). The whole grid expands at the same rate throughout, and after the expansion each intersection point is now 10 meters from its nearest neighbour along any axis.

The global view is that the whole thing expanded equally throughout, so hopefully you can see that no gravity from "outside" the grid could cause this kind of expansion.

But what of the view of an local observer? Well, in the space of 1 second, their nearest neighbouring point receded from 1 to 10 meters away, meaning it receded at 9 meters per second. The next point along receded from 2 to 20 meters away, meaning it receded at 18 meters per second. The fifth point moved from 5 to 50 meters away, receding at 45 meters per second! The further away a point is from an observer, the faster it recedes!

(A point 33,000,000 meters away will have receded to 330,000,000 meters away in one second, meaning it has receded at the speed of light)

And the view of an observer would be the same, wherever the observer was within that grid. In the context of a "dark flow", perhaps all the observers have been pulled a little bit off of their intersection points by a flow in a certain direction within the grid, but the grid still expands in the same way.

The problems we have in observing the overall picture are two-fold. We are limited to the speed of the light that we use to build up the picture, and the canvas has expanded at different rates throughout history. But the rate of expansion is a global effect, so those gaps between conceptual intersection points are always equal. As the rate of expansion changes, it changes throughout. But it affects our local picture, so we see the grid with different sized gaps, as we look back across time.

captain swoop · #20 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

I would advise you to read some introductory books on astrophysics, so you might learn something.

This has been posted in your threads so many times. Please take it to heart.

pzkpfw · #21 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 07:58 PM

Part 1:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Yes but C is outside of Zs visibe universe.

That's an assumption you can't necessarily make.

If you like, make the angle between the lines A-B-C and X-Y-Z smaller than 90^o; and the distances between letters "small enough" so that C-Z is within the visible universe. (It occurs that since C-Z gets smaller, Z comes into the visible universe anyway - we'd be seeing MORE as time passes).

The point is that objects moving towards a point source will get closer in the direction perpendicular to the direction to the point source.

Part 2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

The thing is that the gravitational force is very far away and very powerful.
It is outside of our visible universe.

Our entire visibe universe is only a sliver

So what #12 says is correct but we would not detect that.

What you are saying here is that the distance to the gravity source is so huge that we can't detect or measure the closing of objects as described in part 1.

That still doesn't work, as we'd still be detecting an order or direction to the expansion.

Code:

A B C
                                                            Point source
X Y Z

  A   B   C
                                                            Point source
  X   Y   Z

i.e. Distances between A-X, B-Y and C-Z are not increasing as do the A-B, B-C, ... distances.

Again, I do not believe this matches observation.

tommac · #22 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

This has been posted in your threads so many times. Please take it to heart.

OK swoop ;-)

tommac · #23 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Part 1:

That's an assumption you can't necessarily make.

Why not? It is my ATM! It is not that I believe this ... just bouncing something against the wall and trying to argue my way out of it.

So far I have not seen anything convincing to argue against it.

tommac · #24 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

If you like, make the angle between the lines A-B-C and X-Y-Z smaller than 90^o; and the distances between letters "small enough" so that C-Z is within the visible universe. (It occurs that since C-Z gets smaller, Z comes into the visible universe anyway - we'd be seeing MORE as time passes).

The point is that objects moving towards a point source will get closer in the direction perpendicular to the direction to the point source..

As you make the angles small enough at one point the hypotinuse becomes equal to the leg. All you need to do is make this far enough away that gravitational acceleration can make the difference in angle imaterial. and this would be in 3d.

tommac · #25 (**permalink**) 04-January-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Part 2:

What you are saying here is that the distance to the gravity source is so huge that we can't detect or measure the closing of objects as described in part 1.

That still doesn't work, as we'd still be detecting an order or direction to the expansion.

Code:

A B C
                                                            Point source
X Y Z

  A   B   C
                                                            Point source
  X   Y   Z

i.e. Distances between A-X, B-Y and C-Z are not increasing as do the A-B, B-C, ... distances.

Again, I do not believe this matches observation.

I think you are missing the point. But I do see yours ... you are saying that there is a plane that is tangential to the gravitational source where we would see distant galaxies not moving away from us. However because of the limitation of the speed of light this plane would make this plane difficult to determine. Now I think we would have also moved away from it if you take the angle of light that was shown from that galaxy.

If there was no speed of light latency ... then you would probably be right ... but the fact is that we would be pulling towards the gravitational source thus pulling away from where the light that is hitting us now but released way in the past.

pzkpfw · #26 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

... you are saying that there is a plane that is tangential to the gravitational source where we would see distant galaxies not moving away from us

If, that is, your idea were true that we were being attracted to some far distant point source.

[
My first point was that you'd see objects getting closer as they neared the point source.

You said you wouldn't, as the point source is too far away.

The counter to that, then, is that we'd then see expansion in only only direction.

Either way: if the expansion of the Universe were due to being attracted to a point source ("near" or "far"), we'd see evidence of that in the motion of the objects being attracted.
]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

However because of the limitation of the speed of light this plane would make this plane difficult to determine. Now I think we would have also moved away from it if you take the angle of light that was shown from that galaxy.

If there was no speed of light latency ... then you would probably be right ... but the fact is that we would be pulling towards the gravitational source thus pulling away from where the light that is hitting us now but released way in the past.

Surely, though, we could take this (latency) into account when observing far away objects, when we determine their location (then and now) and their directions of motion (with regards to the apparent expansion of the Universe)?

Do you think the scientists who study the expansion of the Universe don't or wouldn't include this kind of detail?

tusenfem · #27 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommac

Look I dont agree with your drawings at all. I was just correcting your error. so that your diagram matches what you were saying.

If AB grows faster than weA then from the vantage point of A ... B is moving faster away from A than WE is.
Here is your diagram from the point of view of A.

B--A--WE

B----A---WE

B----A
WE---A

So from the vantage point of A ... YOU are stating that even though they are equally as close B has moved away faster than A.
Please explain why you feel that objects act differently for A than they do for WE!!!!

This would seem to make even more spectacular conclusion that woud be deduced into WE is the center of the universe, which is very unlikely.

Okay, let's do some math then.
At instant 0:
We are here.
A is at 1 Mpc
B is at 2 Mpc.
distance We-A = 1 Mpc
distance A-B = 1 Mpc

The Hubble relation is v = 70 km/s/Mpc
1 Mpc = 3 10²² m

At instant 1 year (= 3 10⁷ sec):
We are still here
A is at 1 + year * v * 1 = 1 MPc + 2 10⁹ km
B is at 2 + year * v * 2 = 2 Mpc + 4 10⁹ km

distance We-A = 1 Mpc + 2 10⁹ km
distance A-B = 1 MPc + 2 10⁹ km

At instant 2 year
A is at 1 + 2 year * v * 1 = 1 MPc + 4 10⁹ km
B is at 2 + 2 year * v * 2 = 2 Mpc + 8 10⁹ km

distance We-A = 1 Mpc + 4 10⁹ km
distance A-B = 1 MPc + 4 10⁹ km

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!!

However, as this happens in EVERY direction, you cannot have on point pulling on you to get this effect. That, at least still holds.

tommac · #28 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Surely, though, we could take this (latency) into account when observing far away objects, when we determine their location (then and now) and their directions of motion (with regards to the apparent expansion of the Universe)?

Do you think the scientists who study the expansion of the Universe don't or wouldn't include this kind of detail?

Can you please let me know how you would be able to determine that? Currently we have a hard time just figuring out how far something is away from us. I believe we use the red-shift ( + brightness??? ) from standard candles. I am not sure if we would be able to determine the ones that are not receeding from us as they would be a very few scattered throughout all of the galaxies that we can see as they get farther away it would be even more difficult I would think.

pzkpfw · #29 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 08:00 PM

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

Wina · #30 (**permalink**) 05-January-2009, 09:04 PM

You've peaked my curiosity here on one fact where I would ask for some minor clarification if I might. Aside from the majority of Tusen's mathematical equations (which blew my mind and I gave up before I got a headache) I've been following the greater portion of this discussion pretty well I think.

So my question revolves around one point made by PZK. In the graph you "drew" you showed that there would be no measurable decrease in the distance between two stellar objects adjacent to each other while on a parallel course to a single point in space.

I am confused by this statement.

It seems to me that while perhaps such a convergence would take an incredibly long time to occur over such a vast distance and from such a distant source there would have to be SOME movement of these objects toward each other until they were finally within each other's own gravitational forces. At which point... you know... bang, they collide. So is it perhaps more accurate to say that from such an incredible distance we would not SEE their motion toward each other but it was still present in an infinitesimal portion?

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