The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The 'Gravity Model' - an alternative to Big Bang theory  (Read 2347 times)

Offline Yonza

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, an observation which is the opposite of what Big Bang theory predicted, cosmologists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy' which is drawing all the matter in the universe towards it. No explanation is given to explain what this newly postulated force of nature is, or how it exerts its effects. It is simply yet another 'fudge factor' that has been introduced to keep the Big Bang show on the road. However, an alternative explanation might be that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature capable of causing such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a super-massive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) to which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

If such a body existed, it seems unlikely that it would be the only such body in the universe, just as the Milky Way is not the only galaxy. There might be billions of such supermassive bodies, each drawing billions of galaxies towards them. This would mean that that which we call 'the observable universe' is merely a finite system of galaxies among many such finite systems in the 'universe at large'. The galaxies in our own observable universe might be under the influence of more than one 'Great Body', but their movments might equally well be caused by a single Great Body. So, in deference to Occam's Razor, I would propose a single Great Body.
If such a model could explain other observations such as the fact that the galaxies all seemed to be moving away from each other, then would it not deserve to replace the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory which requires us to believe so many unorthodox and unproven assumptions about the universe? I believe it should.
A simple 'thought experiment' reveals how the Gravity Model would result in almost all the observable galaxies being redshifted. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by Jupiter's gravity into 22 discernible fragments up to 2km in diameter. The fragments were described as being like a 'string of pearls'. Imagine five of those 'pearls' in a line numbered 1 to 5 with 1 closest to Jupiter and 5 farthest away, with equal spacing between them. You, as the observer, are on number 3, the middle fragment. You have at your disposal, the most exquisitely sensitive scientific instruments capable of detecting minute differences in redshift, velocity and acceleration. You would see that the other four fragments were all redshifted. Fragments 2 and 4 would have the same redshift value. Fragments 1 and 5 would also have the same redshift value but their redshift would be higher than that of 2 and 4. In other words, the farther away a fragment is, the greater its redshift. This is not because the space between them is expanding, but because of the differential influence of Jupiter's gravitational pull with regard to the proximity of the fragments. Increasing redshift with increasing distance - exactly what we see when we look at the galaxies. Your instruments would also tell you that the fragments were accelerating.
However, it could be argued that the galaxies are not a two dimensional string of pearls. This is true. But, in whatever direction you look, the galaxies you see would either be closer to or farther away from the Great Body than yourself, and so would be redshifted. Nevertheless, this presents the Gravity Model with its most serious challenge. Big Bang theorists claim that the universe is isotropic. This means that galaxies at a given distance from the observer would be moving at the same velocity away from the observer in every direction. However, this idea that the universe is isotropic is simply not true. Various research groups have found that the recessional velocity of galaxies with similar intrinsic luminosities varies according to the direction in the sky in which the galaxy is to be found. One study adjudged minimum values to be around two thirds of the maximum. One might have expected a greater discrepancy. It may be that galaxies which lie in the direction of the Milky Way's galactic plane, and are therefore not seen, would provide more extreme values.

Another observation which Big Bang theory cannot explain is the 'peculiar' motion of galaxies. Galaxies are not simply moving away from the observer, they are also moving across the sky. This transverse component of their motion is called 'peculiar motion'. The gravity of huge superclusters of galaxies has been suggested as an explanation for peculiar motion, but no such superclusters have ever been found. In the Gravity Model, the galaxies will not simply be travelling towards the Great Body in a straight line. Instead, they will be spiralling towards it, and the 'peculiar' motion is the transverse component of their spiral path.
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is explained as relic radiation from the Big Bang. I have read that the 2.7K temperature of the CMBR could be caused by hydrogen clouds, but that astronomers have not been able to detect enough clouds to account for it. If the observable universe is a finite system, as it must be in the Gravity Model, then the question arises as to what lies beyond it. The answer must be that it is a hydrogen field, since galaxies cannot condense out of nothingness. This hydrogen field would envelop the observable universe and presumably radiates at 2.7K. It is the source of galaxies and astronomers have observed giant highly flattened 'pancakes' of hydrogen containing up to 10 to the power of 14 solar masses. It seems likely that these are the precursors of large clusters of galaxies, and they are being drawn into the observable universe by the gravity of the Great Body. Thus, galaxies are being continously created.

 The Gravity Model creates a cosmos with two regions - the region closer to the Great Body than the observer, and the region farther away from it than the observer. For brevity's sake, I will call these regions 'inside' and 'outside'. One might expect that the galaxies in either region would exhibit subtle differences, either individually or collectively. Galaxies old and young coexist in the same regions in space, but it is tempting to think that there would be a statistically significant excess of old ellipticals 'inside', and younger galaxies 'outside', although I am not aware of any research that indicates this.
Galaxies 'inside' would be travelling at greater velocity, and would be pulling away from their neighbours to a greater degree than galaxies 'outside'. This might result in their being fewer galaxies per square degree 'inside' than 'outside'. At the same time, galaxies 'inside' would be converging towards the Great Body and this could produce the opposite effect. The Great Body will have an enormous influence on galaxy formation, but this influence will be weaker 'outside', and this, too, could result in subtle differences between the two regions.
It has been a long standing puzzle that there is a statistically significant difference in the number of galaxies which can be seen in each square degree of the northern and southern skies. This cannot be accommodated within the Big Bang model, and is something of an embarrassment, so little is heard about it. A possible explanation for it might be the differences between the two regions.
Orbiting systems, such as the rings of Saturn, or a spiral galaxy, often exhibit striation effects. The galaxies are not orbiting the Great Body, but their spiral path towards it could be described as 'quasi-orbital' and would exhibit similar striation effects. The large scale structure of the observable universe seems to consist of very long filamentary galactic superclusters and enormous voids. It is hard to envisage how this could come about in a Big Bang universe, but is consistent with the idea that striation effects would be evident in the Gravity Model.
Big Bang theory also creates difficulties for itself with regard to the 'age of the universe paradox' and the 'light horizon' problem. To solve the latter, inflation theory was born. This tells us that when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit. The Gravity Model does not create these problems.

CMBR (BB) Relic radiation from the Big Bang (GM) Hydrogen field.
EXISTENCE OF GALAXIES (BB) Big Bang density fluctuations (GM) Condensate from hydrogen field.
REDSHIFT OF GALAXIES (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.
INCREASING REDSHIFT WITH INCREASING DISTANCE (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.
ACCELERATION OF GALAXIES (BB) Dark energy (GM) Gravity of Great Body.
REDSHIFT ANISOTROPY (BB) Not explained (GM) Galaxies at the same distance from the observer in different directions are at different distances from the Great Body.
DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER OF GALAXIES BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES (BB) Not explained (GM) Observable universe in the direction of the Great Body is older than in the opposite direction.
'PECULIAR' MOTION (BB) Undiscovered 'Great Wall' of galaxies (GM) Transverse component of the spiral path of the galaxies towards the Great Body.
AGE OF UNIVERSE PARADOX (BB) Not explained (GM) No explanation necessary.
LIGHT HORIZON PROBLEM (BB) Inflation theory (GM) No explanation necessary.


The Naked Scientists Forum


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