The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Should we consider revising gravitational equation to compensate for dark energy
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Should we consider revising gravitational equation to compensate for dark energy

  • 2 Replies
  • 2685 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline impyre (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
Should we consider revising gravitational equation to compensate for dark energy
« on: 31/05/2016 08:05:38 »
I'm just going to go ahead and apologize if my ignorance is showing.

I've had an idea about gravity for a while now.
What if it weren't limited to pull forces only, but included a push force as well?
My hypothesis is that the "push" force associated with gravity is negligible with small distances and becomes great at large distances. This would explain why the largest empty spaces have the greatest concentrations of dark energy.

I was thinking something like this: Gm1m2 * (3c5f118d45d3bc6e02d66baee59a8043.gif)

Where A and B affect the distance at which the push force becomes significant.
While this does produce discrepancies between forces predicted by this equation and the original equation, they could be made arbitrarily small. The real question is how could this hypothesis be tested in that case? Since making the discrepancy arbitrarily small would likely make confirmation of a push force through experimentation equally small.

I look forward to feedback, suggestions, and/or correction.
Thanks.
« Last Edit: 31/05/2016 08:08:00 by impyre »
Logged
 



Offline impyre (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Should we consider revising gravitational equation to compensate for dark energy
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2016 13:28:57 »
I think I have a way to potentially disprove this hypothesis. For A or B there is a finite range of reasonable values if at least one is fixed given systems we know are stable (or at least stable up to this point). This creates bounds on acceptable "system density", with any system of bodies beneath this density beginning to break up, and those below it potentially stable. In practice it should be fairly easy to spot systems that shouldn't appear stable but do.
Logged
 

Offline impyre (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 42
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Should we consider revising gravitational equation to compensate for dark energy
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2016 12:30:57 »
I eventually came to the conclusion that this is a seriously flawed hypothesis.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 29 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.