
English__--->	Espanol____/	Deutsch____/	Francais____/	Italiano____/	Portuguese

......................................................................................... If the bottom of a page remains English, copy and translate HERE. gravity graphic

Gravity, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Expanding Universe

Homepage . Albert Einstein . Isaac Newton . Rene Descartes . William Gilbert .......... Blackbox Einstein ....... General Image Theory

That 'gravitational force' is produced by objects only proportional to their inertia or mass, seems proven by Galileo's on-Earth experiments, by Newton's proof that planet motions seem consistant with that, and it being demonstrated with laboratory masses by Cavendish in 1798 (see Vision Learning Gravity).

And that 'gravitational force' decreases with the square of the distance from a producing object seems proved by Newton's gravitational planet motions and by the 1798 Cavendish experiments.

Of course there are claims that this does not hold accurately always, mostly based on astronomical evidence of observed amounts of gravity and observed amounts of matter in space seemingly having both localised and universe-wide discrepancies. Some try to explain such apparant gravity discrepancies by assuming the existance of local Black Holes and universe-wide Dark Matter, though there may be little if any direct evidence for these.

Gravity and its causation

Applied external forces generally, including pushes, seem to accelerate bodies in inverse proportion to the mass of the body. That bodies response to gravity seems likewise inversely proportional to their inertia or mass, is consistent with Newton - and with Galileo demonstrating that all objects fall to the surface of the earth with the same acceleration, independent of the density or inertia or mass of the falling object. That applies to all kinds of force, but to date gravity is the only natural force with strong evidence of also being produced in proportion to a source objects mass.

Of course these facts are not proof that gravity is actually an external force pulling bodies, only that gravity works like there is an external attraction 'force'.

It is possible to build mobile robots that each emit signals proportional to their mass and each accelerate themselves towards another in proportion to the strength of its signals and in proportion to their own mass. Though such gravity-robots can be built and could be useful, it seems that no physicist has actually tried building them. Such 'gravity robots' would be dynamic gravity model mimic equivalents of William Gilbert's dynamic magnetic Terella models which he used for many of his interesting magnetism experiments. Of course such 'gravity robots' could only mimic gravity, while Gilbert Terella models involve actual magnetism. Gravity would have to be a much stronger force than it is to have useful 'Gravity Terella' models - small black holes might do well if they can exist !

That gravity production and response can be mimicked by robots emitting signals, is of course no real evidence on whether gravity is actually produced and actually works in such a manner or not.

Too much gravity.

Dark Matter ?

The motions of galaxies appears to some to require much more gravity than the visible components of such galaxies should produce. This has led some to conclude that there must exist some Dark Matter producing extra gravity, perhaps based on different neutrino-style atomic particles that interact little with normal matter and so will give little evidence of their existing. Of course dark matter can go with attraction theory physics which has no requirement that matter emit light, and indeed has no general requirement for light unlike Einstein's relativity theory. Dark matter could also go with some other theories.

Black Holes ?

Other regions of the universe that appear to produce much more gravity than their visible components are thought by some to be super-compressed matter called Black Holes, whose gravity is claimed to be extremely strong and to be able to prevent the emission of light or other radiation from itself. Of course this requires believing that light can respond to gravity. Of course in General Relativity gravity is only space curvature, so to confine emitted light would seem to need the spacetime continuum being 'closed down' locally - and in that case the gravity of a black hole should have no effect beyond it. A basic conflict with the evidence if General Relativity was true, so black holes certainly cannot be evidence for that theory. And black holes can go with attraction theory physics which can allow of light being attracted by gravity, with Newton giving possible explanations of the reflection and refraction of light by local gravity attraction. Black holes could also go with some other theories.

A simpler explanation of both dark matter and black holes might be that light emission and lower matter density is associated with charged particles. Uncharged particles and gatherings of them may be more common in the universe generally than apparant on earth. A gathering of neutrons would be both dark or black and dense, and need involve no strange theory. Neutrons look more like simple Descartes-atoms, and indeed it may be that charged particles and matter based on them actually are the somewhat stranger phenomenon.

Too little gravity.

Gravity being an attraction force, it perhaps should cause the universe to be contracting. And there does seem to be evidence of gravity contraction in that most galaxies seem to have a greater concentration of matter nearer their centers. However some claim that the universe is actually expanding and offer two types of explanation for such expansion ;

A. The universe began with an explosion and momentum maintains its expansion at some fixed velocity.
B. There is a stronger repulsive force working against gravity expanding the universe at some fixed acceleration.

The evidence for the universe expanding rather than shrinking, is largely Hubble light redshifts being greater for more distant galaxies. The Doppler Effect (apparant change in frequency and wavelength of a wave for relative movement between its source and an observer) if applicable to light seemingly supports a B type expansion rather than an A type expansion. However B needs a suitable repulsive force and there is little evidence for that. Of course there could seem to be other possibilities ;

C. The universe began with an explosion and momentum maintains its expansion at a fixed velocity but with centralised gravity decelerating bodies nearer the centre more strongly than bodies further from the centre. This should give Doppler red shifts that are stronger towards the universe centre than towards the universe edge radially, but with some blue shifting tangentially.
D. The universe is gravitationally contracting, with centralised gravity accelerating bodies nearer the centre more strongly than bodies further from the centre. This should give Doppler red shifts radially towards and away from the universe centre but with some blue shifting tangentially.

The explosion Big Bang explanation, A, alone should give no Doppler redshifts - while B, C and D explanations should give differing redshifts more radially than tangentially to different extents. Einstein time-dilation gravitation-redshifting predicts some redshifting from higher-gravity locations and blue-shifting from lower-gravity locations. Many current astronomers support a general space-expanding explanation, and some even a FitzGerald matter-shrinking explanation, giving Doppler-equivalent redshifts. What explanation, or combination of explanations, of apparant universe-expansion is more likely depends on having exact numbers for redshifts, distances, velocities and masses - and current astronomy numbers are maybe not very exact, but if the universe is expanding that does not itself seem to favour any of the general physics theories particularly.

Spherical Gravity ?

Newton showed that the strength of gravitational attraction seems to decrease in proportion to the square of the distance from a source object, and one explanation of that might be something emitted spherically from the source and diluting as the surface area of expanding spheres from it with zero attenuation. The surface area of spheres is proportional to the square of their radius.

Of course at present the only gravity detectors we have are other gravity sources responding to gravity, which perhaps cannot distinguish gravity being actually spherical from gravity being directed to other gravity sources ? The fact that bodies like galaxies and solar systems seem generaly to be flat discs, rather than being spherical, may cast some doubt on gravity being actually spherical and require another explanation for Newtons inverse square law ? Newton's inverse square law for gravity is of the form G(d) = Go/(d.d), in line with unattenuating spherically diluting signals, but may not precisely hold for all distance scales. Attenuating part-diluting signals should mean an equation form G(Xd) = (Go/(pie.((d.TanX).(d.TanX)))) - 10alog(d), which could possibly match Newton's law over some range of equation values and might have wider application also ?

At the atomic level, spherical non-discrete forces may seem to fit more with field, wave or space continuum ideas while non-spherical discrete forces may fit more with body-body digital signal ideas. The fact that electrons seem confined to very specific atomic orbits maybe better fits a non-spherical non-continuum force holding them, and if one force is non-spherical and digital then maybe all such forces are also.

If gravity basically involves straight-line body-to-body signals then part of signal dilution with distance could be due to relative body-body motion and might also include some movement anticipation as considered near the bottom of our main section on Einstein. Of course if that holds between two elementary particles, a large isolated body having vast numbers of such particles could be expected to leak some gravity signals spherically and that leakage might reasonably approximate to Newton's inverse square law with a little extra attenuation. The between two large bodies gravity would be leakage gravity plus some body-body gravity that might about balance any extra attenuation. Distinguishing and quantifying the various factors in such gravity would not be simple.

If bodies emit gravitons only in response to gravitons received, and if the probability of a body emitting a graviton in response to a graviton received is proportional to the mass of the body, then two isolated bodies at relative rest should maintain graviton emission intensities directed at each other proportional to their masses. And if there are also additional background random gravitons of some intensity then, in response to that, the two bodies should also maintain additional spherical graviton emissions with intensities proportional to their masses ?

An improved version of Descartes old particle push gravity theory propounded first by Fatio around 1690, and elaborated by Le Sage around 1780, was the push particle Shadow-Gravity theory. It requires space everywhere having lots of randomly moving fast particles (or maybe waves) of unknown origin, but it has been claimed that they would create excessive drag and heat that is not observed and may involve other problems ?

Newton raised the drag issue for gravity mechanisms that involve push - and the issue holds for any particle, quantum, field, ether, or continuum mechanism that works by push - since push should produce drag and/or heat and there is strong evidence that space produces very little drag or heat for planets or other bodies.

Of course some kind of push gravity may still be possible with the right mechanism, which might need most of the push to somehow convert to eg spin energy instead of drag or heat ? Maybe even some field-push or continuum-push theory not yet fully specified ? Of course that would seem to need a response mechanism and so favour an attraction gravity or signal-response gravity that seems more able to avoid the problem perhaps ?

For an overview of a 'Gilbert-Newton' view of gravity see The Attraction Theory of gravity.

Gravity and solar system instability

Newton showed that the orbits of planets and moons in our solar system under the Sun's gravitational attraction should have substantial stablity. But he did not consider the issue of the Sun's stability under the varying gravitational attractions of these orbiting bodies, which involves a number of factors ;

1. The total gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun.
2. The mean directionality of gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun being equatorial due to orbit planes.
3. The point gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun due to planets being discrete.
4. The time variance of point gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun due to planet orbit velocities giving varying degrees of planet conjugations.

These gravitation factors must be the chief causes of the observed instability of the Sun as shown by solar activity and its significant variation over time. This solar instability would be reduced if some of the planets orbited the Sun in a plane at 90 degrees to their present orbit planes. For more on this see our section on Solar System Problems.

Or you may want to learn a bit about How to kiss, how to date, love, marriage and more.

otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.

You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/johannes-kepler.html