1
   

Dark Energy and Gravity

 
 
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 03:30 am
I have formulated a new theory which unites Dark Energy with Gravity. Here it is:
Isaac Newton said that ‘Every force has its equal opposite force.’ Therefore, there must be an equal opposite force to gravity. This reasoning leads the author to conclude that the centripetal force of gravity has its equal centrifugal force throughout the universe.
Therefore, I propose that this centrifugal force is the force that pushes all matter outwards and is the reason why the universe is expanding = Dark Energy. I believe that the two entities of Gravity and Dark Energy are related. A description of both concepts follows:
Dark Energy – The main constituent part of Dark Energy is anti-matter i.e. anti-particles. These anti-particles will be mostly of the same negative charge (probably mostly consisting of anti-protons), therefore, they repel each other. Therefore, the Universe is expanding due to this phenomenon = Dark Energy.
Gravity – Gravity is an attractive cohesive force, therefore, this author proposes that these negatively charged anti-particles are united with their relative positively charged particles e.g. anti-protons will be united with protons. Their opposite charge means that they are attracted to each other.
We know that through Einstein’s famous E=mc2 equation that there is energy-mass equivalence. Therefore, this will affect the above phenomenon.
When a particle meets its antiparticle then annihilation occurs – releasing the amount of energy needed to produce the two masses in the first place. Therefore, when the particle meets its antiparticle then this annihilation consists of producing a pair of photons (electromagnetism).
However, this electromagnetism produced bears a strong correlation with gravity itself, because gravity as well as electromagnetism are inversely proportional. Crucially, however, is the fact that their strength both work by an Inverse Square Law i.e. their strength is inversely proportional to the square of their distance. Therefore, electromagnetism and gravity can be seen to be mathematically similar and work by the same principles.
Therefore, this author concludes that gravity will bear a strong correlation to the electromagnetism produced and that they will both be subject to each other.
Please forward your responses and ideas.



 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 06:46 am
@LorrettaOShea,
Even though gravity is often referred to as a force it is actually a distortion of Spacetime, and as such, doesn’t fit into the Newtonian equation the way you are using it.
0 Replies
 
Jewels Vern
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 05:06 pm
You have not learned what the words mean.
~ Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.
~ There is no unit called "energy". It is a philosophical concept.
~ The universe is not expanding. That is an assumption that red shift is caused by doppler effect, when no other possible causes were considered.

When speaking of math principles you need to remember that math is valid only when it describes reality. Math alone does not prove anything.

The scientific method starts with an observation and leads to a theory. You are trying to start with a theory and then go looking for an observation. That is a very common blunder in modern science, but it is still a blunder even if everybody does it.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 May, 2019 05:24 pm
@Jewels Vern,
Let's be responsible and put the disclaimer: This is a bunch of people with no knowledge of science pulling stuff out of their asses. There is NO actual science being discussed on this thread.

(Now that we have gotten that business out of the way... Jewels Vern wins the prize for most goofy pseudo-science, so far.)


fresco
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 12:18 am
@maxdancona,
With the exception of rosborne, you are correct. But more interesting, to me at least, is whether 'picturing' is still a valid basis for scientific paradigm shift. It seems to me that in modern times, it is the elegance and coherence of applied mathematical structures and their predictive power which provides that basis, rather than 'pictureability'. And this is why naive attempts at 'new pictures' or claims about 'rsality' are doomed from the outset.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 04:31 am
@fresco,
Quote:
‘Every force has its equal opposite force.’ Therefore, there must be an equal opposite force to gravity


Do you want to comment on this, Fresco? (It made me laugh).

This is a comical misunderstanding of the science my daughter learned in middle school.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 07:48 am
@maxdancona,
I was taught 'action and reaction are equal and opposite' which 'explains' simple situations like gun recoil or mattress distortion. But this begs the question of an implied intentional agent aspect of 'action'.
This is of course transcended by rosbourne's citation of the relativistic view of gravity.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 08:07 am
@fresco,
What you are blathering about has nothing to do with science.

Newton's third law is well understood by third graders. The science isn't that difficult.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 08:17 am
@maxdancona,
Yes. I have taught Newton's Laws to 3rd graders with excellent results. Have you ? The 'blather', as you call it, is part of the pedagogy.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 08:31 am
@fresco,
If you used the phrase "intentional agent aspect" in a third grade science class (or any other science class) you have done your students a disservice.

That absurd nonsense has nothing to do with science.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 08:53 am
@maxdancona,
No of course I did not use such a sophisticated phrase ! Kids want to know who or what 'did' the action which caused the reaction. Similarly, when teaching Archimedes principle, we say a body 'experiences' an upthrust. Anthropomorphic language is a feature of simple 'explanation'.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 09:04 am
@fresco,
None of this nonsense is science.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 May, 2019 09:14 am
@maxdancona,
Laughing
As one Brit once put it, "What do they know of England who only of England know ?"
0 Replies
 
Jewels Vern
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 08:14 pm
@maxdancona,
Science is full of goofy pseudo-science, even according to the scientists' own estimates. In any case, pseudo-science is not refuted by name calling. It has to be refuted by better science.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
Speed of gravity - Question by kbp
A new way to describe gravity - Question by worbort
I don't understand how gravity works - Discussion by dyslexia
Gravity nuances - Discussion by frag971
Theory of Gravity - Discussion by edgarblythe
Pressure, water and gravity - Question by Jonraabe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dark Energy and Gravity
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 03:52:17