My hair-brained theory of the week: Gravity

[John21]

What if all matter was expanding? I'd assume from a relative standpoint we wouldn't be able to perceive it.

So imagine if you were next to a giant sphere in space, and that sphere started expanding - your perception would be the same as what we experience on earth i.e. it would feel like it was pushing on you or attracting you towards it. You would also be expanding so you wouldn't have any perception of the sphere getting larger. It would seem like the effect produced would be equivalent to what we experience with gravity.

I'd assume we'd have to add a variable and/or factor to the laws of motion to explain orbits and whatnot, and slightly redefine our conception of space, but that would be about it. The plus is, an idea at least similar to this, would explain why we can't find any gravitons and the real problem of not being able to produce any type of shield between objects to prevent what we call the forces of gravity from acting on them. We seem to have no problem creating shields to counter the other forces - so maybe it's not a force after all, but an effect with just a slightly different cause than curvature of space: Expansion of matter

[FortunaMaximus]

Oh, ok, a Carroll then.

Wouldn't your hypothesis basically debunk the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy? To expand, it would have to see a net gain in volume, even if it remains in a static ratio to space-time? And where would this volume increase be coming from?

[madnak]

I doubt it but I love the idea.

[MelchyBeau]

expanding volume wouldn't necessarily violate laws of conservation, because this expansion doesn't necessarily change mass

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd assume we'd have to add a variable and/or factor to the laws of motion to explain orbits and whatnot, and slightly redefine our conception of space, but that would be about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL GROSSLYUNDERSTATINGTHEHOLESINYOURTHEORYAMENTS

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
expanding volume wouldn't necessarily violate laws of conservation, because this expansion doesn't necessarily change mass

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

As I said, a Carroll.

[Kimbell175113]

It's "hare-brained."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
It's "hare-brained."

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I think it really is hairbrained.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's "hare-brained."

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I think it really is hairbrained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny stuff...

Q: Does the fact that the effect of gravity is limited by c force the existence of gravitons, or no? (god i need to learn relativity).

[Skidoo]

A periodic orbit would be an "expansion" in a non-spatial dimension?

[evank15]

[ QUOTE ]
(god i need to learn relativity).

[/ QUOTE ]

GR is hard. Really hard. I think it's the hardest (at least up there) of the UG physics courses at my school. It's taught here by a guy who has co-authoured two books with Stephen Hawking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Israel (for those interested and those who may have heard of him).

Anyways, very demanding material. You don't just wake up one day and say "I feel like learning GR today".

[John21]

I realize that the idea of expanding matter is a little unorthodox. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif But honestly if you were looking at the situation from a blank slate would it be that much more bizarre than curved space? However, it would seem to produce the same perceived effects.

As near as I can understand Einstein, he was saying that an object moving in a straight line in his 4th dimension of space/time would appear to be following a curved path in our 3 dimensional perspective. So what if we substituted his space/time flowing through our 3 dimensions (which caused his gravity) for the expansion of matter? Wouldn't it seem to produce the same experienced effects?

I guess it would be like saying that the dimension of space/time that we are incapable of perceiving could be substitued for an expanding dimension of matter: a dimension we are relatively related to, because we're all expanding at the same rate, and hence incapable of objectively perceiving it - only experiencing its effects.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
A periodic orbit would be an "expansion" in a non-spatial dimension?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking if you shot an arrow in a straight line in space/time the earth moving up to it would produce the appearance of an ellipse.

Now say you shot that arrow to the edge of the earth's circumference at a 90-degree angle: as it travels past the earth, both it and the earth are expanding. But with the angles it would appear to pull away from the earth even though the earth was expanding, due to the earth's curvature. So even though the arrow was traveling in a straight line it would appear to us to be in orbit (following the path of an ellipse).

(As you can tell, I haven't completely thought through the whole concept, just tinkering.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
It's "hare-brained."

[/ QUOTE ]
Alternate theory = alternate spelling?

The sad part is, after reading your quote, I looked up the spelling - it gave both. I was thinking all along it was hair in the brain - never made the connection to rabbits.

I promise to pay more attention in the future. I can't imagine how much different the world would be today if it was the spatial theory of relativity.

[thylacine]

John21's[ QUOTE ]
Subject: My hair-brained theory of the week: Gravity

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations John21, you win the `most understated subject header of the year' award.

[oneeye13]

pauli might say "it is not even wrong"

[FortunaMaximus]

Heh, and Pauli might not even be wrong in making that statement.

Here's the thing though, I did consider something similar a few years ago and ran into this problem. Space is expanding relative to our apparent size.

While that isn't enough to refute your theory on expansion of matter, John, when you consider that factor, it does turn it into a very improbable solution.

[Kimbell175113]

Not to derail, but let me just say one more thing: the dictionary has both spellings because "hair" is an archaic way to spell "hare," from when "harebrained" became a word. Either way, it has nothing to do with hair and never has. Sorry, guys, I'm pretty sure I couldn't stop myself if I tried.

[JimNashe]

I had this idea as well when I was a young lad. Then I considered how the earth orbits around the sun, and how this wouldn't be possible using this theory so I dropped it again.

[John21]

bump

After searching the web, I found a book that incorporates the idea of expanding matter (he calls it the expansion theory) called "The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific Legacy. http://www.amazon.com/Final-Theory-Rethi...TF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Final-Theory-Rethinking-Scientific-Legacy/dp/1581126018/sr=1-1/qid=1165563597/ref=sr_1_1/002-2810031-3296818?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I also ran across a 70 page forum discussion of the book on the hypography science forum here (http://forums.hypography.com/books-movies-games/797-final-theory.html)

If anyone's read the book I'd appreciate feedback.

[JimNashe]

Seems like true bunk to me.

From wikipedia:

"Orbits within expansion theory may seem impossible, given the fact that it denies the existance of a gravitational force creating 'action at a distance'. If attraction were due to mutual expansion then objects should not circle one another, but Mark McCutcheon accounts for the discrepancy by introducing the following:

'The "New First Law of Motion"

Objects neither travel in isolated straight-line trajectories nor sit still in space, but rather, objects always either move towards each other or travel in curving or orbiting trajectories about one another due to their mutual expansion. '

No solid mathematical description of these curving trajectories currently exist within expansion theory. "