## Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

Raw unfiltered musings. Critiques may not be for the faint of heart.

### Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

My favourite own pet theory is reversed gravity in great distances.

We learned in school that gravity decreases in force proportionally to the inverse of the square of increased distance between two objects. We are taught that this extends to any length of distance.

My pet theory says that the equation has some parts missing; the force does not decrease approaching zero as the distance between objects approaches infinity. My theory says that in a finite distance, the gravitational force does reach zero, and then it flips into negative therritory: it acts as a repulsive force, instead of acting as a cohesive force.

Therefore, if this distance at which gravity is equal to zero, is the distance L, then two objects being at a distance L1 from each other, where L1 is greater than L, will repulse (push away) each other. The greater the L1 distance beyond L, the stronger the repulsive force.

This would explain why our known universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. The only knowledge (or assumed knowledge) you need would be to know that the diametre of the observed universe is greater than L, and bangggggg, the outer edges of the known observed universe would be explained why they accelerate outward.

It would also explain why our world inside the outer edges, or inside the event horizon, is also accelerating outward. It's because either L is half the diametre of the known observed universe, or else or and or there is matter beyond the event horizon.
-1-
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

Edward Harrison published a theory similar to yours back in the late eighties. His theory was that the universe is several times larger and more massive than our estimates and therefore our calculations for the age, expansion rate, and size of the universe are in error.

Harrison arrived at the theory by reverse calculating the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric. Instead of plugging in the “known” density value for the universe, he tried guessing different values and plugging them in to see which one gave the best observational fit and he found that a density value for a larger, older universe fit all the observe parameters.

I watched for follow-ups to Harrison’s theory as later observations appeared to confirm his speculation that galaxies beyond our observational event horizon could account for a greater expansion rate for the universe than what we observe locally but I could not find a single word of follow-up from Harrison or others in the years that followed.

I have a hard copy of Harison’s publication and a short summary of the same from “Sky and Telescope” somewhere in my boxes of “archives” if I can find them again. I am quite certain I can find some reference dates if nothing else. Harison’s theory is not a theory of “reversed gravity” but if the majority of the mass of the universe lies beyond our event horizon it could have the observational effect of a negative gravity.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

bangstrom » October 28th, 2018, 2:50 pm wrote:Harison’s theory is not a theory of “reversed gravity” but if the majority of the mass of the universe lies beyond our event horizon it could have the observational effect of a negative gravity.

I find your article reference fascinating, as it has come up in my thoughts more than once; and it is obvious to most thinkers, that the even horizon is the VISIBLE event horizon not necessarily the edge of the universe that was borne out of the big bang.

I just have one question: how would the mass accelerating away from us and outside of the visible world act as negative gravity, i.e. a pushing out force while it is actually a pulling force?

I can only see that happen as the mass of the matter from our bing bang already outside of our visible space, is pulling the visible space apart. This is fine, this makes sense. But what made the "outside" by us invisible mass accelerate outwardly? If it was pushed out at a great speed by the initial force of the big bang, then it ought to be further away than it could have an effect on us by classical understanding of gravity.

Think about it, with only four things in mind: 1. the highest attainable speed is the speed of light, 2. the age of the universe counting back to the big bang is older than the conventionally thought 14-point-something billion years 3. whatever is speeding away from us at light speed, can't be seen by us, and 4. The diameter of our seen universe is 14 billion years. I also assume that the outer layer is not pulled outward by some outer-outer layer of mass.

Given the restrictions in the above, we must conclude that the outer layer started to speed away at light speed from the big bang material right off the bat. Then adding the fact that the universe is 14+X billion years old, the outer layer has to be 14+X billion light years away from us.

This outer layer could be so far away, that its gravitational pull would be negligible. In fact, this outer layer is 14 Billion light years plus X billion light years more away (depending on the size of X) from the centre of the universe, the location of the big bang.

Because the average speed at which the KNOWN outer layer (the event horizon) has been travelling away from the point of the big bang, is half a light year per year. It started at zero displacement, it attained 7 billion light years distance in 14 billion (or 14 + X billion) years, so the average speed of the outer layer is 7 billion light year per fourteen billion years, that is, half a light year per year. The "outer layer" has started off at light speed, so it is 14 billion light years away. If the universe is older, then it's (14 plus X) billion light years away where X is the extra age of the universe.

This means that they "outer layer" of invisble mass is at least 7 billion light years away form the event horizon.

This is such a great distance, that the outer layer has a snowball's chance in the centre of the Sun to have any effect on our universe by gravity.

That can only be negated by the fact if the outer layer has incredibly, inhumanly huge mass. if you do the calculations, you can actually calculate the size of this mass, form the equation
F=(M1+M2)/D^2
Where F is the gravitational force,
M1 is the mass of the event horizon's applicable part
M2 is the mass of the outer layer
and D is the distance of the outer layer from the event horizon.

I only know the D, from the above, which is 7 billion light years.
For F to be large enough to have a pulling effect the size it is, then EACH PORTION of M1 has to be way larger than roughly 5.0 times 10^19 Kg. By portion I mean the section in the sphere of the outer layer that is closest to a section in the sphere of the event horizon, which have a gravitational pull effect on each other.

I am sure I have made a mistake in the calculation. That goes without saying, because my equaltion of gravitational force is false; it needs a constant multiplier, which I long ago have forgotten. So the 5x10^19 Kg is most likely a child-like estimate compared to the real value, when one also considers the gravitational coefficient in the equation.

Aside from that, I was unable to define "section" more precisely.

So while my math is way out of kilter, it is also rather meaningless. All I wished to show with it, is that the outer layer, which is invisible, is at least 7 billion light years more away from our event horizon, and as such, it must have an enormous mass (which is nevertheless not impossible) to exert a pulling effect on our known, visible universe.
-1-
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

Hahaaah!! If the outer layer is pulling our world apart, then our world is slowing down the outer layer.

The outer layer and the event horizon will eventually collide.

What then? Will that even take place so far in the future that all the matter in our known, visible universe will be contained by the "event horizon" mass of matter together already?

As the outer layer speeds toward the centre by now also pulled by its own gravitation, will the universe implode into a thimble-sized space, full with the densest ever matter?

Or will this outer layer, having collided and sucked into itself the event horizon, continue to expand at whatever speed, and perhaps collide with other matter in the vast expanse of infinite space?
-1-
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

So far I see similarity between your idea and Harrison’s but apparently his theory never caught on and eventually it was quietly discarded and I have my doubts as to why. The problem is that, if the universe is a great deal older than some 14 billion years, we should see evidence of star clusters that took more than 14 billion years to form but by present estimates there are none. I have little confidence 14 billion age estimate but that is another matter.

At the time of Harrison’s writing, there were estimates of star clusters with ages in the range of 25 billion years old and this prompted Harrison to look for another method of determining the age of the universe which led to his theory.

I haven’t found either of my old references to Harrison’s theory but there is a note in the September 2018 issue of Sky & Telescope that is a clue as to where they they can be found. The original article in S&T was published in September 1993 which was exactly 25 years ago so this appeared in the page 7 of S&T 70, 50, & 25 Years Ago

https://psv4.userapi.com/c848328/u42342 ... Q7eBguQAt7

“September 1993
Alternate Universe
“With the enormous successes of Big Bang cosmology and inlationary-universe theory, the ‘standard model of the universe’ goes almost unquestioned by cosmologists these days. In this picture...the Big Bang happened around 10 or 15 billion years ago, and, very early
in the Big Bang, inflation gave the cosmos precisely the right density to balance it forever between rapid expansion and recollapse.…

“Or maybe not. As an exercise, cosmologist Edward Harrison (University of Massachusetts,
Amherst) tried to devise a radically different universe [and] succeeded surprisingly well. In Harrison’s most extreme model...the expansion is very slow [and] the density of the universe today is about 10 times greater than needed to halt the expansion....Harrison’s universe is 35 billion years old. ...The universe will cease expanding in another 22 billion years, then begin recollapsing toward a Big Crunch 79 billion years in the future.”

Harrison’s cooked-up model passed all the major observational tests — without the need to invoke unknown types of dark matter.”
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

-1- » October 29th, 2018, 5:18 am wrote:

I just have one question: how would the mass accelerating away from us and outside of the visible world act as negative gravity, i.e. a pushing out force while it is actually a pulling force?

If the mass of the universe is much greater than what we calculate it to be, this should be apparent as a greater than expected attraction away from the Earth for galaxies at an extreme distance or as a “pull from the beyond.” This is just gravity attracting distant objects the same way it attracts objects locally.

As for the rest, I don’t know if it is your unconventional explanation or a misunderstanding but the following is essential to understanding the Big Bang theory

The universe has no identifiable center or edge and the distant galaxies are not moving away from us in the usual sense of moving through pre-existing space like ejecta from a giant explosion.

The “center” of the universe is wherever an observer happens to be and the “edge” of the universe is always an unreachable nowhere. The distant galaxies can be considered as essentially at rest while the space between them and us expands giving us the appearance that they are moving away but the recessional velocities are apparent and not actual motion through space. In theory, the most distant galaxies can have recessional velocities greater than c which means they will be invisible to us. This is not a violation of SR because space itself is expanding but the galaxy is not necessarily moving through space.

There is no center or edge or outer layer to the universe. A galaxy that appears to be near the “edge” of the universe is at the “center”of the universe from the perspective of the distant galaxy and we are at the “edge.” The entire universe is the center origin of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the whole Shebang as Timothy Ferris says.

The old model of the universe as an expanding balloon with buttons on the surface to represent galaxies applies here. The buttons aren’t moving but the distances between the galaxies is increasing because the space (the balloon surface) between them is being “stretched out.” This is a very hard idea to get one's head around but it is essential.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

-1- » October 29th, 2018, 5:29 am wrote:Hahaaah!! If the outer layer is pulling our world apart, then our world is slowing down the outer layer.

The outer layer and the event horizon will eventually collide.

What then? Will that even take place so far in the future that all the matter in our known, visible universe will be contained by the "event horizon" mass of matter together already?

As the outer layer speeds toward the centre by now also pulled by its own gravitation, will the universe implode into a thimble-sized space, full with the densest ever matter?

Or will this outer layer, having collided and sucked into itself the event horizon, continue to expand at whatever speed, and perhaps collide with other matter in the vast expanse of infinite space?

You appear to be talking about the Big Crunch and a rebound which could happen if the universe is massive enough. And no one can fault your logic that the expansion of the universe should be slowing if gravity really works but this is no longer the conventional view. Something is wrong with this picture. In a closed universe of curved spacetime, all motion away from a central point is simultaneously motion back to the origin.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 497
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Reversed gravity -- would explain dark energy easily

bangstrom » October 30th, 2018, 3:43 am wrote:
-1- » October 29th, 2018, 5:29 am wrote:You appear to be talking about the Big Crunch and a rebound which could happen if the universe is massive enough. And no one can fault your logic that the expansion of the universe should be slowing if gravity really works but this is no longer the conventional view. Something is wrong with this picture. In a closed universe of curved spacetime, all motion away from a central point is simultaneously motion back to the origin.

My problem is that I am hopelessly retarded in my view of physics and never got out of Newtonian static and dynamics. I sorta understand the specific relativity theory, and have a very, very vague understanding of the general relativity theory, and I tie both of them to Newtonian physics. For instance, even as a child, I could not understand how waves (radio waves if you like) can travel in empty space -- now they tell us in GRT that space is not empty, but it is an "ether" type substance.

So much for laughing at and disparaging a little boy-child with his incredulous physics insight at the age of 11 or 12.

Same when I was back in college. I took math, physics and comp sci, which curriculum was heavy on computers, not at all heavy on physics, and a little more involved in math. My first language was PL/1. We then in latter years of college had to study LISP and PRG, and I was hopeless at incorporating the concepts that these two languages promoted. I wrote basically PL/1 programs using a list processing language that ought to have used AI paradigms, and I wrote PL/1 programs in PRG, which ought to have done immense number of matrix calculations.

Same in physics. I am so seeped in the beauty, logic and causality of Newtonian physics, that more modern physics just don't turn me on.

And if it don't turns you on, then it ain't worth a wooden nickle to a-worry 'bout it. (Mark Twain.)
-1-
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: 21 Jul 2018