Gravity Control Idealism

Gravity Control Idealism attempts to understand the underlyiing dynamics of Universe, whereby it might be possible to control gravity and electromagnetism in a manner allowing for the needs of our planet.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

The Expanding Universe

Up until 1999 it was believed that the universe was expanding, but at a decelerating rate of expansion, meaning that the expansion was slowing due to the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe.

Then in 1999 it was discovered that the expansion of universe was in fact accelerating, but what exactly causes this acceleration is not known, but whatever it is, is not presently considered to be within the realm of Standard Model Physics.

That the universe could expand at a decelerating rate of expansion seems to defy logic, but this was the case up until 1999.

To understand this more clearly we must realize that gravitational attraction decreases in proportion to the square of the distance.  Therefore, the mere fact that the universe is expanding would or should indicate that the gravitational attraction must be decreasing in proportion to the rate of expansion.  And this being the case, the rate of expansion would continue to accelerate.

It would be impossible for the expansion of universe to be deceleratively expanding; as the universe is either acceleratively expanding or it is not expanding at all.

Now, we are told that the universe has only been acceleratively expanding for the last 5 billion years, as prior to this it was deceleratively expanding.

This period of decelerative expansion occurred between the period of inflation associated with the big bang and 5 billion years ago, which could involve as much as 9 billion years of decelerative expansion.

However, in order for this to be considered possible or even rational requires a complete revision of the existing laws governing gravity, as the rules governing gravity must have been much different 5 billion years ago.  But I have yet to see any new rules for gravity dating back 5 billion years.

It is presently considered that dark energy is responsible for the accelerative expansion of universe, but no one knows exactly what dark energy is, what it would look like or if it even exists.

It would appear that the basic tenets of relativity are not very well understood by the majority of those individuals possessing a PhD in physics.

The idea of the universe expanding at a decelerative rate of expansion is either pure speculation or a creative idea intended to hold the rest of the puzzle together, but in order for decelerative expansion to be possible requires us to scrap our existing laws of gravity.

Gravity increases and decreases in proportion to the square of the distance and to date no one has found this statement to be in error.

Yet, it would seem that some of the rules can be ignored when it is convenient to do so, simply to maintain the appearance of a knowledgeable understanding.  But unfortunately such an attitude is less than logical.

Science is based on facts and not fantasy, yet it would seem that the idea of an expanding universe capable of maintaining a decelerative rate of expansion should be considered factual despite being routed in fantasy or drunken stupidity.

An expanding universe must be acceleratively expanding or it is not expanding.  You have two flavors to choose from, accelerative expansion or accelerative contraction, in relation to the condition of universe remaining relative to the system of reference.  There is simply no such thing as decelerative expansion or decelerative contraction.

© 2006 David Barclay


At 6:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may like to read the following web side

At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MY THEORY: Einstein showed that gravity and accelration are the same. Gravity (on Earth) is due to the *accelerating* expansion of the universe (and movement in spacetime), not to body mass/radius of the Earth (or other objects "attraction" - according to Newton).

There is only one "force" in the universe (still my theory): Movement. Planets have a gravitational "force" because there is movement (the acceleration of the expanding universe). Atoms/particals have "force" because there is movement. For me, this seems obvious, and all quantum calculations with X number of dimenions seem only to be a pathetic way of trying to mathematically describe the obvious.

Regards, A.K.

Why is gravity different on i.e Mars?
Conservative: g=G*M/r2 (based on radius and mass of the planets)

Theory: Gravity/acceleration is correctly calculated for Mars etc. in the formula above. But is Newtons formula merely a
mathematical *description* of gravity/movement? Could the difference be do to the *effect* on the planets/objects
moving in spacetime? And that this *effect* varies with to the mass/radius of the moving object, so that Newtons formulas fit?
If so, what is this "effect"? Dark matter?

At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree A.K. most people seem to think that the expanding universe meens that galaxies get further away from each other. It is the very fabric of space that is expanding. Not only do large objects in space get further away from each other but also the smallest of particles do. This expanding acceleration is where it all starts. Mr. Bodin

At 3:25 AM, Blogger ulf said...

The "To understand this more clearly ..." paragraph is not helping people to understand this more clearly. It's in fact even wrong.

Gravitation decreases with distance, yes, but it's still a positive force (not negative, which would result in acceleration), hard at work decelerating the universe. As long as there exist one measly "graviton" (made up word, but you know what I mean, right?) between two objects they will be attracted.

Analogy: Gun firing a bullit, no other objects in the universe, total vaccum etc. Eventually the bullet and gun will join again. Probably not at the point of their mutual origin, but they will most certainly join.

At 10:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with article (lots of years of scientific study myself); the commenters seem way off with fundamental misunderstandings, c'est la vie. Better luck next time ...


Post a Comment

<< Home