TED Conversations

David Hamilton

Foolish Marketing Solutions

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is it possible that gravity, is a persistent illusion, created by the constant expansion of mass in the universe?

I formulated this theory while reading Einsteins Theory of General Relativity, in which he suggests that it is at least possible that the earth is expanding at 9.9 meters per second squared, and we would have no way of telling the difference between that, and objects being pulled by gravity towards the earth at 9.9 meters per second squared.

He never refutes this theory, merely suggests relativity, the idea that it is impossible for a human being to tell the difference... This has troubled me for quite some time, because, if gravity doesn't exist, and is merely a persistent illusion... this would explain so much of what we don't know.

Dark Matter, and Dark Energy... Energy we can't see? How about the energy causing the expansion of mass? The accelerated expansion of the universe, despite the fact that gravity suggests that, if nothing else, expansion should slow over time. So much, would make sense, and so many useless hypothesis created over the last few decades could be thrown out the window.

Well... if all matter is expanding... How come at a certain age, human beings stop getting bigger? Because it's all expanding at the same speed, so relatively... Everything looks the same. You are, are almost infinitely larger than you used to be, but no one can tell the difference.

Wouldn't the sun be getting bigger? No, the heat generated by its expansion pushes us further away, so it looks like we stay the same size... Since the moon is smaller than the earth and has less particles of matter, shouldn't it look relatively smaller? It does! They only recently discovered that the moon appears to be shrinking over time.

How would some things float, while others sink? The mass is still the same, some things are lighter than others, but they are all constantly expanding at the same speed size wise.

Someone with a science background please, prove to me that this theory is nonsense... because it just seems so obvious to me, but no one supports it. What did I miss?

Related Talks:
Topics: The Universe expansion gravity light mass physics relativity the sun time
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • brian rasnow

    • 0
    Feb 23 2012: Einstein proposed that the force of gravity is indistinguishable from an acceleration, so we could not tell whether we were accelerating away from the a point at the earth's center that had no gravity. But if it were all acceleration, folks on the other side of the planet who also feel a force toward the earth's center would be accelerating away from us at 20 m/sec^2, and we are certain that's not happening.

  • Dylan Tilley

    • +1
    Jan 28 2012: It is possible to explain in simple isolation the effect of gravity relatively as expansion however there are many simple reasons why this theory is false; 1st the force of Gravity is not constant throughout space so objects would have to be accelerating at different rates to achieve the observable gravity fields, which would distort the stable geometry of the universe such as the relative distance between stars and planets second in order for the other forces in the universe to maintain their proportional balance as they have in nature for all of the history of the known universe the fundamental laws governing those laws would have to be in constant change to accommodate for the proposed continuous expansion. It is fundamental geometry that if you increase a linear dimension (lets say doubled) then the associated area goes up by that same scale squared (X4) and the volume by the same scale cubed (X 8) so phenomena that are proportional to the ratio of these quantities are limited to a particular scale. This is why cells only grow so large to maintain volume to surface area ratio for sufficient nutrient transport, or why dimensional analysis with Nondimensional numbers like Reynolds is so important in scaled models for testing like in windtunnel and tow tank tests. Therefore the uniform or even irregular expansion of space cannot explain gravity or other comoonly observed phenomena. I hope this answers your question. The simplest explanation is often the best one.
    • thumb

      David Hamilton 50+

      • 0
      Jan 29 2012: Interesting... I very much appreciate the time you took to answer, but I still find myself a bit confused.

      "the force of Gravity is not constant throughout space so objects would have to be accelerating at different rates to achieve the observable gravity fields"... Wouldn't it be just as likely that we are simply miscalculating the number of expanding particles in objects that are so far away? Gravity is stronger where there is more expanding mass? Also... hasn't the concept that gravity pulls objects towards one another virtually been disproven by the accelerating expansion of the universe? Don't you have to introduce un necessary variables that we don't understand in order to continue to believe in gravity nowadays?

      To your second point, I would just say, that in this weird theory I have, the expansion would be a steady constant in every particle of matter, including a single celled life form... So, how would we observe differences in geometry. Also, couldn't you theoretically argue, that we are seeing the obervable differences, but our brains make sense of their sensory input in a way that hides it from us? Couldn't we have built this flaw into some of our machines?

      As Neil De Grasse Tyson says "It doesn't make sense, is no longer a fair critique in science... You can't rely on your senses anymore"

      I think you're right... I just... I would like to see a way of proving that expansion isn't happening, through experimentation, and I can't think of one, even if I give up the idea that we've built flaws into our test systems.
  • thumb

    David Hamilton 50+

    • 0
    Jan 26 2012: Basically... the theory here is... that gravity, is actually the force mass uses to reproduce. If mass naturally expands, or reproduces, this would make the god hypothesis unnecessary. I believe Einstein knew that if gravity is a reproductive, and expansive force for mass... then if ever a particle of mass existed, the entire universe is a natural consequence. Being a religious man, I think he chose to abandon this line of reasoning... Despite the fact, that ultimately, in my humble opinion, one could still ask the question, "Why did a particle of mass ever exist?".

    I don't think this hypothesis in anyway discounts the existence of god, or purpose... but, I think Einstein thought it did. I think Einstein thought that any scientific evidence for natural reproduction among all particles of matter, would make humanity give up on god. I think he chose to ignore the hypothesis, he may have actually believed to be true, becaushe felt it was unpleasant.

    This may sound like a personification... In essence, I'm suggesting that mass is having sex behind our backs... The only defense I can offer to this attack, is that human beings have the exact same chemical composition of stars, save the helium... Maybe we are a personification of mass.
Showing all 5 comments