The repulsive force that Mr. Larson talks about might actually have a logical derivation. I have been trying to understand the reason for the expansion of the universe for a long time and one very interesting possibility seems to arise that the vortex might wish to give some thought.
In my model, I begin by assuming that the initial universe is 'loaded' with a slightly non uniform distribution of hydrogen throughout. The gravitational energy of the original distribution can be calculated based upon each small volume of mass in space being attracted to all the others according to the usual inverse square law. As a dense region tends to condense into a larger mass collection, obviously the gravitational strength within it rapidly increases and more adjacent material collects into the growing region. An interesting thing happens as the material for the large mass is extracted from the initial near uniform distribution. The inverse square law acts strongly toward the collection of dense material forming the new bodies pulling them ever tighter together to form the galaxies that we see today. At the same time, the material that is outside of the main reach of the galaxy fields finds that it is no longer attracted in the direction of the denser galaxy regions as strongly as it is in the opposite directions. All of this behavior is due to the effects of attraction caused by the nonlinear inverse square law. The material outside of the galaxies thus appears to be repelled ever faster and stronger as the distance increases. I have long wondered if this effect is the root for the expansion of the universe. Instead of being some form of negative energy, maybe it is just the reduction in the gravitational energy present within the original mass distribution. A simple linear model was constructed where I placed uniform masses along a straight line. Each was attracted to all of the others by an inverse square law and a perfect balance was initially obtained in forces as would be expected. This distribution represented the uniform matter within the universe before gravity began to pull things apart. Then, I moved different numbers of the masses toward a center one and recalculated the resultant forces operating among them. In my model, the masses outside the original grouping are pulled in a direction away from the center. To an observer located on the central mass collection, these masses would be moving away similar to the the Hubble effect. The masses within the central region are attracted together according to the usual laws. It certainly would be advantageous if the expansion of the universe were due to normal gravitational effects instead of some unseen negative energy. I think of it as a reduction in a positive energy field instead of a new negative energy field. I suspect that the total universal behavior would be similar. Give my 'out of the box' thought some consideration. The concept is new to me, but may have already been rejected by more in dept study within the scientific circles. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Jun 3, 2012 9:57 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision Hoyt, Interesting. I am glad you remind us of Dewey Larson's physics. It is omewhat ironic that Larson is “too far out there”… even for those of us who re already on the "fringes" of mainstream physics. The “45.6 nm” dimension should be amenable to some kind of proof, if it is ccurate… something like a MEMS or AFM cantilever should show a gravity nomaly. Has this been done? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_force_microscopy If there was one shred of proof for something so earth-shaking as this, it ould make all the difference. Larson is one of those thinkers (like R. oot) who are compelling on some details of a broad theory … but in the end re too far removed from the mainstream, at least presently, to justify iving full consideration (unless you have tenure). Nevertheless, it is not asy to write-off his ideas, and who knows that parts of it could appear in he next "standard model"... ----Original Message----- rom: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. In Dewey Larson's Reciprocal system of physics there is an effective ~15 emtoG repulsive acceleration throughout the universe ( it's a fundamental roperty of the universe ). Gravity acts against this, so when the ravitational pull of star at some distance away reaches 15 fG, the stars epel instead of attract ( The gravitational limit ). That's on the order of light years away for out sun, so stars generally won't get closer than hat ( to simplify ). http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/cwkvk/gravlim.htm ttp://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/satz/cluster.htm ( Also, below unit distance, 45.6 nm, gravity repels and the "expansion" of he universe attracts! That accounts for chemical bonding and may also ccount for the Casimir force. ). Hoyt Stearns cottsdale, Arizona US ----Original Message----- rom: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] ent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 6:11 PM o: [email protected] ubject: RE: [Vo]:Milky Way and Andromeda collision ost of the comments thus far assume that both galaxies are composed of ormal matter and have no prior "history" together. NASA has no way of nowing this, nor do they know other relevant details - like the 'type' of atter. One simply cannot discuss this subject intelligently without reference to he disputed work of R. Foot, who is kind of the R. Crumb of cosmology. http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Foot_R/0/1/0/all/0/1 ...
