There are a lot of people who are giving comments and criticism about my idea of an “expanding earth”. It s just a petty idea, a dimensional projection or illusion ( if you want to call it that way) but the question is, “ how can one compromise that intriguing conflict between Newton’s attracting force and Hubble’s discovery of an expanding Universe?" Today’s scientists are focusing on the possibility of a similar anti-force, that is, an anti-gravitational force with related ideas about anti-matters, dark matters and dark energies and all of them are accepted as scientifically viable. So, I will not argue on the nature that this literary work is a science theory but merely fictional without an approved scientific substance. Therefore, simply consider these materials as one’s “view of a different kind of gravity”. Thanks

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

But, unfortunately, it can be proven to be wrong through a simple observation.

I am afraid that your theory falls at the first hurdle. To make this crystal clear, in light of your seeming refusal to acknowledge it, your theory would not allow anything to orbit the earth. It would send all satellites crashing down, rather than going round in neat ellipses.

I think that you are uncomfortable with the idea of action at a distance, but this alone is not reason to reject it.

Remember, the universe is not only stranger than you can imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.

As an attempt to provide a picture of how gravity works, the rubber sheet analogy (with dips, and dents, etc.) is usually misinterpreted. If you say that gravity is just because things roll down the slopes on the rubber sheet then you are stuck with explaining why the roll down. In GR, gravity is not due to things rolling downhill in curved spacetime. If you use the rubber sheet analogy and turn the sheet upside-down, so that the dips are now hills, you should see the same effects as before. The reason is that particles want to follow the curved surface equivalent of straight lines, i.e geodesics. It is this behaviour that is the origin of the apparent force that we call gravity, not things rolling down a hill.

At least Newtonian gravity works pretty well to explain the behaviour of objects in the vicinity of the Earth, e.g. satellites, and Einstein's GR does even better. I do not see, however, how your model can even match that.

How are satellites in geostationary orbit explained in your model?

"If you say that gravity is just because things roll down the slopes on the rubber sheet then you are stuck with explaining why the roll down."

Explain the roll down or even why there is a down.
It is because the rubber sheet is accelerating upwards.
The inertia of masses, in resisting accelerating, push into the rubber sheet.
Masses accelerate towards each other depending on the gradient of the distorted rubber sheet.

"The reason is that particles want to follow the curved surface equivalent of straight lines, i.e geodesics."

Sounds right for moving masses but why do non moving masses accelerate
towards other masses.
Geodesics may explain orbits but how do they explain things falling straight down?.

A satellite can orbit at 400km.
A very fast moving mass can pass by in almost a straight line at 400km.
Why doesn't it follow the geodesic and orbit as does the satellite?.
I know it passes because of its speed but doesn't the geodesic theory say that space/time itself is curved.
How can a fast mass almost ignore the curve or even be less affected than a slow mass such as a satellite?.

It's following a geodesic in spacetime.

Conditions:
1) Let T represent time in seconds
2) Let A the point on the surface of the earth at T = 0
3) Let B another point on the surface of the earth at T = 1
4) Let P the earth’s central point
5) Let PA = PB
6) Let C the “assumed point” on the surface of the expanded earth at T = 1
7) Let PC = PB + BC
8) Let D the point on the surface of the earth at T = 2
9) Let PD = PB = PA
10) Let DE = BC
11) Let E a point between D and F
12) Let DE = BC
13) Let FD = DE + EF
14) Angle APB = Angle BPD

Given data for the Earth
1) Angle APB = 1/240 of a degree angle (in 24hrs)
2) AP = 6,378,000 meters (Radius of the earth)
3) BC = 4.9 meters (Assumed growth of the earth’ radius in the first one second )
4) EF = 9.8 meters (Assumed growth of the earth’ radius in the next second )

Given data for the moon
1) Angle APB = 1/7200 degree of an angle ( in 30days)
2) AP = 1,738,000 meters (Radius of the moon)
3) BC = 1.225 meters (1/4 of the earth’s growth)
4) EF = 2.45 meters

Observation:
The earth’s rotation seems preventing the earth to expand, AC (using earth’s data)
is near zero degree inclination. AC, I suspect has a mathematical relation to a certain force ( this time, my suggestion of a pushing force from the earth’s center). I suspect that although the gravitational force on the moon is 1/6 of the earth’s gravitation, AC (using moon’s data) is almost at 90 degrees inclination, keeping the moon’s expansion rate much faster, compare to the earth. While the earth’s rotation seems to be getting faster too, am I right? I am having hard time cataloging the results because I’m dealing w/ seconds of a time. Maybe, if given T is at hours or in years, the result would be more reliable and can give us a better conclusion. I think I need the help of the math wizards out there. PLEASE HEEELP!!!

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

On the first point, you seem to have just pulled this assertion from nowhere. In what was does it "seem" that the earth's rotation is preventing the earth from expanding?

This is about analagous to my noting that the cars passing by outside are passing along a vector that as a closest approach of 100m from my desk, and concluding that this distance is what is stopping them from exploding.

Seriously, what leads you to believe that the earth [i]should[/] be expanding, or that its spin is stopping it?

And secondly, no, the earth's spin is not getting faster, it is getting slower. Here's a link to an article that discusses this.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html

You seem to now be arguing both that the earth is expanding, and that it is not. I think that these two views are contradictory...

Finally, the force which the earth exerts on the moon is identical to the force which the moon exerts on the Earth, as both are given by

F = GMmr^-2

Another issue is, of course, explaining the 1/r² behaviour of the gravitational force law. For multiple objects, at different distances, at the same time.

Any thoughts?

Still another issue is that there are small variations in Earth's (and other world's) surface gravity. See here, for example, for a world gravity map:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030723.html

which, by the way, was made using satellites. The expansion idea would have to account for both the variations of Earth's gravity at different locations, and how a satellite could map this.

The idea seems to be a non-starter.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Ok thanks for enlightening me. But I have another question. It is related to centrifugal force - assuming a bucket of water w/ a rope. Of course the water inside the bucket will not spill out as you spin the bucket but I am interested to know, what would happen to the man (hypothetical situation only) on the outer side of the bottom of the bucket? Would he feel a pushing force? Second question: What if the spin is getting faster and the rope getting longer as it spin, is there a pushing effect on the surface where that man is standing?
Pls. don't be angry w/ me. I am just thinking only of a situational condition "if" gravity is not an attracting force. Just deal it as a philosophical experiment only, of that sort... Thanks guys.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Maybe, you interpreted me wrong (communication barrier) Maybe bec. of my English, "the earth is not expanding the way it should be because of its rotation"... is what I mean. It does expands but limited by its rotation.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

I will not retaliate on this, bec. what I might say is against "the experts" true knowledge and scientific facts. I am thankful that my idea is being talked about by the number of threads coming in. Again, I wish to emphasize this is not a "claim". This time, deal is a situational condition, "What if gravity is not a force of attraction". I realized through those comments w/added facts that yes, in a way, my views are wrong but if comments like these, "that I should stop"...Sorry... I know when and where to stop and only if my doubts about Newtonian gravity is satisfied. But I am now limiting myself on questions and not insisting on my " personal views", they are fictional as I noted them (and corrected myself) in a certain blog.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Thank You! I've always been troubled by this analogy, because it presumes a gravitation force that causes the rubber to dip in the presence of an object, thus it presupposes the very thing it's trying to analogize!

Rob

I based it on that simple geometry, isn't not valid?... just for the sake of presenting some "high school" mathematics to answer the question about the moon's size in relation to earth? Now, "the earth could be expanding..." is an alternate "assumption", only and only if Newton's idea of gravity as an attracting force is false. Do not argue to me that Newton is correct, I will believe you, bec. it is an accepted fact but I think scientists are still finding a compromise solution between Hubble's discovery and Newtonian's gravity. If you can satisfy me w/ an answer to that conflicting issue, pls. do so and I will appreciately dearly and surely, it will satisfy my doubts!

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

No, not at all.

You have not yet presented any argument at all as to why it should be expanding. "Based it on that simple geometry" is meaningless. You need to explain, why do you think that the geometry of the object explains that it "should" be expanding.

You really ought not to even use words like "should". What dos that even mean? You are claiming that the geometry is in some way creating a force on the surface, and that the moon is then somehow giving an opposing force?

Please, explain yourself.

I guess a typo in 3? Why on T = 1 and not on T = 0? Because on 6 you say expanded Earth on T = 1

so far so good, except for the typo

Okay Earth expanded in 1 time step by a radial distance of BC

Impossible! at T = 2 the Earth has expanded once more and thus PD can NEVER be equal to PB, because PB was at time T = 0 (or 1 according to your typo) and PA was at T = 0. So, unless you let your ruler grow too, and thus cannot measure the growth of the Earth your kite does not fly.

Can you get any more convoluted? Sheesh! Note that 10 and 12 are the same! E must be a point between D and F, but F has not been defined yet. Can't you just draw a picture to show what you try so impossibly to describe here?

I think basically you have three points on the expanding Earth, making an equilateral triangle, is that what you want to say here??????????

Why the (in 24 hrs) at point 1? Does not compute. You just assume APB to be 1/240 for some reason.
The other two values in 2,3,4 are okay.

Once more, what are you talking about with your angle APB 1/7200 in 30 days? Why this number, why this time interval, why why why

Whatever gives you that idea? This is an assumption of your model or what?

Well, excuse me, it is us who should call PLEASE HELP. Your text does not make ANY sense. Your just presumet values of the angles APB etc. The zero inclination, the 90 degrees inclination, and lots of other stuff.

My advise? Just dump this stuff in the waste basket, or totally rewrite it in understandable language.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

You're welcome.

It's probably one of the most mis-leading analogies in the whole of modern physics. If the surfaces were drawn with the dips pointing upwards, then it would emphasise that the "force" is due to curvature and not to rolling downhill.

Is 360degrees/24hrs = 1/240 degree incorrect, that is the earth's angle of rotation in a second of a time since let T the time in seconds? How about 1/7200degree? I got it, it should be 1/240 degree per second and 1/7200 degree per second of time...30 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 2592000? Then 360 degree/2592000 seconds = 1/7200 deg per sec? . Points A at T = 0, B at T = 1 while D at T = 2 are on the same semi-circle that represent the equatorial line (w/o the earth expanding). P is the central point of the earth. Therefore, AP = PB = PD. C is the assumed point w/c is above point B, at T = 1, where PB + BC = PC are straight lines connected at T = 1. E is above D, which is in-line w/ C on a semi-circle as the equatorial line as the earth expanded at T = 1. Therefore DE = BC. F is the assumed point at T = 2 (expansion of the earth at T = 2). F is above E, where PD + DE + EF = PF. Now triangle APB and triangle BPD are isosceles triangle. If "r1" represent the earth's radius, line AB = 2(r1)^2 (1-cos 1/240) is that correct? To get angle ABC, it is important to know angle ABP first, w/c is slightly less than 90 degree. therefore angle ABC is about 90.5 degree. My calculation is that AB is about 500m (rounded estimate). Since BC=4.9 m only, I presumed AC is almost equal to AB. The angle CAB is near zero degree. I did the same procedure to the moon using the same model and found out angle CAB near 90 degree. See next thread why I presented this computation

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Sirjon, please explain why you believe that the geometry means that the Earth "should" be expanding, and please also explain what you mean by "should".

Physics is the ultimate dictatorship, in that anything which is not mandatory is forbidden. There is no middle ground of "should".

The near zeo angle of CAB (earth) at T = 1, assuming gravity is a pushing force (just for the sake of argument) due to earth's rotation limits the earth's expansion. While angle CAB (moon) at T = 1 is almost 90 degree, w/c means much lesser limit to its expansion. Therefore, the expanding rate of the moon is much greater than the earth since its rotation is very slow compared to the earth even though the moon's gravity is only 1/6 of the earth . If both CAB angles (moon and the earth) are always at 90 degrees as time pass by, ofcourse, the moon will shrink. But the real test is the comparative expansion of both bodies at "T" not in seconds but in hours or year... then there would be a better conclusion. I'm not saying I am right, I am also curious to know it and forget that blog...its only fictional!

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Communication barrier again, I have hard time using can, could, shall, should, may, might and others. I'm working on it too...Thanks NorthernBoy

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Why do you assume this?

You previously wanted to assume that there was no gravity at all, and that we are stuck to the earth by the surface's acceleration. Have you discarded that idea now?

Could you PLEASE use a more readable layout for your text? Sheesh!

It seems you might have wanted to EXPLAIN that in your first message, that you let the Earth rotate for 1 second. But you did not, you just came up with those values and no one had any idea how or what.

I understand now that you work on the equator of the Earth, however, for some reason you let the points move in time (T=0,1,2) and there is NO expansion. Why not just say that these points are there, spaced in your 1/240 along the equator, WITHOUT changing the time.

correction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, this is incorrect. The curved line AB = r α with α in radians and there are 2 π radians in 360 degrees.
Compare this with just the circumference of a circle of radius r which is 2 π r.

Why don't you make a drawing of the whole process, that would explain so much more than all the convoluted text that you are writing here.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Reply to Fortis #66

Following?.
I said a mass not moving.
Why does it accelerate?.

If geodesic is a geometric concept then the CURVE of an orbiting mass is explained but NOT the acceleration from stand still.

Geodesic seems to be as usefull an idea as gravity.Just a word.Not an explanation.

It accelerates because it is following a geodesic in spacetime.

We know that you said it was not moving initially, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that part.

This explains perfectly why the mass will accelerate in a straight line, perhaps it would be helpful if you could explain why it does not.

"thus it presupposes the very thing it's trying to analogize!".

NOT so.
Gravity acting on the mass to make a dip is the very simple understanding of the rubber sheet analogy.
Smart of you to see the self reference in the analogy.

The dip is caused by the inertia of the mass.
The rubber sheet is accelerating upwards.(towards where?.)

Next question.

sirjon is wrong about the earth expanding.
Gravity is an inertial effect ,not a force.

It is very simple. Sirjon's idea just doesn't hold up once you leave the surface of the Earth. It doesn't address blue shift and red shift of light in and out of a gravity well. Finally his discriptions of his idea are not consistent with what we see.

"address blue shift and red shift of light in and out of a gravity well."

Photons do not change frequency.
The frequency observed depends on the position of the observer.
A high observer and a low observer will see different frequencies for identical photons from the same source.
Put the observer next to the source and there is no shift either way as the observer and source fall or rise together.

sirjon does not mention this and you seem to not understand it.
It is just GR.Time runs slowly in a G well.1 part in 10^9 for Earth.
The photons that an outside observer sees as red are at that frequency when they are emitted.
The clock of a local observer also runs slower by the same amount so the photon looks normal to a local observer.

I search in google and your right, there is such a band and products for children etc., but I found interesting and funny enough is that "guy" who thought the idea of of fith dimension much as related to behavioral philosophy of life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G6C7eF_re4

But the most interesting and related to science is this -

Livio told SPACE.com. "In particular, there have been theories with modified gravity."One example, he said, is to confine all the forces of our universe to a four-dimensional plane known as a membrane, or "brane," which is sandwiched between other branes. Then let gravity escape to a fifth dimension that's perpendicular to the plane, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._020115-1.html

Now whose talking that a 5th dimension may not exist? If you are unaware of that, check it out...it giving me more confidence that Newtonian's gravity is wrong.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...