The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?  (Read 2091 times)

greg plithides

  • Guest
Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« on: 14/01/2010 23:30:02 »
greg plithides asked the Naked Scientists:
   
This has really, really, really, been bothering me for the last several days, and I believe I have finally gotten it after saying it aloud to my wife this evening.

Anti-gravity does exist and it exists everywhere.  The effect of anti-gravity is not a repulsive force, it is the energy content of empty space that makes the empty space volume increase to the Planck Distance, a.  Occupied space is actually smaller due to the effect of gravity on quantum space-time.  Unoccupied space is not defined as "space which is not occupied", or by its proximity to occupied space.  Rather, it is defined as "space that has a zero probability of ever being occupied".  Here, when we speak of "occupied" we mean by any form of matter or energy.

This expansion of space-time in intergalactic regions justifies the observed rapid expansion of the universe, and perhaps the theorized inflation of the early universe.  It also defines the relationship between space-time and energy-mass.  In its simplest terms, it suggests that gravity and anti-gravity have additive effects, and that the rest state of space-time may not be zero.

Is something missing?

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 14/01/2010 23:30:02 by _system »


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« Reply #1 on: 14/01/2010 23:44:24 »
Frankly I just do not understand what you are trying to describe or how it explains what you are trying to suggest,  It is quite probable that you have missed out describing some important stages in your thinking.  Maybe you should try to express the idea again by starting from a different point and using different words.  This might then allow us to analyse how it fits into the vast range of ideas on this subject
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« Reply #2 on: 15/01/2010 00:32:03 »
I think we should move this to New Theories. OK Greg?

 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« Reply #3 on: 15/01/2010 11:18:21 »
It's a bit garbled, geezer, but it isn't entirely wrong. Einstein talked about stress-energy, and stress is essentially pressure. So space has this innate "pressure" that makes the universe expand. Einstein introduced it as something to stop the universe collapsing together, because he thought the universe was static. It was his "greatest blunder". If he'd thought a bit more about it, he could have predicted the Hubble expansion.

Greg: I wouldn't call it anti-gravity, or to do with space being "occupied". It's more like something associated with the "energy density" of space. Gravity is due to a gradient in this energy density, typified by Einstein's guv. The rest state of space is not thought to be zero, and it appears to have considerable vacuum energy. So much so, that the "vacuum catastrophe" indicates that this is hugely bigger than is required to cause the expansion of the universe.       
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« Reply #4 on: 16/01/2010 18:08:47 »
Anti gravity? Makes me anty :)

So space expands due to anti gravity? But space doesn't have any 'gravity'. It's per definition 'nothing at all' Or are you thinking of 'potential energy'?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is this a good hypothesis for anti-gravity?
« Reply #4 on: 16/01/2010 18:08:47 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums