--quote,Magnus Another line of thought is what Horse mentioned the other day. If gravity comes from space, and space is expanding, then it should get weaker with time. If we can find evidence that gravity was higher when the sun and our planets formed, then that could be a smoking gun. But I doubt anyone has searched for such evidence
Yes , the universe is speeding up and cooling down at the same time, there is evidence for the cooling down and sedating. This is not in conflict with accelerating speed. 2010/9/5 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > Hi John > > > On 2010-09-05 07:30, John Carl wrote: > >> Magnus, >> >> My wondering is much like yours, in that the current models of >> understanding >> were somehow missing the picture - stuck in a wrong mindset. Maybe the >> ancients weren't so far off just dubbing it all aetherially! And yeah, I >> made that word up, but you get the point. >> > > Not sure, so probably not. :-( > > > Our one conclusion is that the relationship of space and gravity needs >> revision. Gravity and Space functions of one thing, rather than an >> intersection of two independent entities reacting to the other. Your >> speculation about space "pushing" and matter interfering, rather than >> matter sucking, and space passively observing, seems a very likely and >> interesting hypothesis. >> >> How do you test it? >> > > I have no idea. Or rather, I have a bunch, but none ready enough for > execution. > > For example, if you want to show that it pushes instead of pulls you can > start by showing that it comes from the other side than thought. In the case > of the Earth you should show that it comes from all directions *but* the > sun. But as Adrie said, we can only see the effects of gravity, and the > effects *does* come from the sun because that's the objects that is > interfering with the gravity "zero level". > > Another line of thought is what Horse mentioned the other day. If gravity > comes from space, and space is expanding, then it should get weaker with > time. If we can find evidence that gravity was higher when the sun and our > planets formed, then that could be a smoking gun. But I doubt anyone has > searched for such evidence. Perhaps we could find it on earth, or by looking > outward for some tell-tale sign in the sky. But with things like these, what > you see is very influenced by the system of thought you assume to begin > with. If your assumption is that gravity pulls and space are warped by it, > then that is probably the answer you'll get. > > > Yes, so there must be something within that empty space that is able to >>> push space and galaxies apart, right? >>> >>> The question is, is it more logical to invent some new patch like dark >>> energy that nobody knows what it is? Or, explain it using a push-gravity >>> model that more or less does what dark energy is supposed to do, plus >>> does >>> what what the current model of gravity does? >>> >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by what dark energy is supposed to >> do. How exactly do they relate? If you don't mind my asking. >> > > In the current model, gravity pulls together planet systems, galaxies and > also the entire universe. And that works in the smaller scale like planet > systems, but to be able to explain the rotation of the outer regions of > galaxies, scientists need to invent dark matter to add matter (i.e. pulling > gravity), otherwise the model says that the outer regions should spin much > slower (like pluto does compared to inner planets), or get expelled from the > galaxy. > > If we expand the scale to inter-galactic space, we suddenly see that > galaxies are speeding away from eachother, *and* that the speed is > increasing. So, for this scale, the scientists need to *remove* matter (i.e. > pulling gravity), but since there's no matter to remove, they invent a new > force they call dark energy which is pushing galaxies apart. > > But what I think is that the dark energy is really gravity itself, and that > the dark matter needed to keep the outer layers of galaxies together or > really the effect of that inter-galactic gravity pushing harder on those > outer layers of the galaxy. Inside the galaxy, that inter-galactic gravity > has been dispersed and is where we can use the pulling gravity model without > problems. > > We should also remember that when Einstein made that theory about gravity, > he thought the universe was static. Not sure he even knew there were other > galaxies? > > And actually, the shape of galaxies presents another way to possibly show > that gravity has been decreasing since the big one. Many galaxies are spiral > shaped, but nobody seems to know how that shape came to be. I think the > every decreasing gravitational pressure from inter-galactic space is causing > it. As the pressure decreases, the galaxy expands bit by bit and the > outermost layer slows down like a spinning figure skater expanding her arms. > > Perhaps Horse's friend could comment on that? > > > Magnus > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > -- parser Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
