Explanation for gravity and mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the relationship between gravity, mass, and the universe's expansion. It highlights that galaxies are not moving away from a central point but that space itself is expanding, complicating the understanding of the big bang's origin. The conversation also addresses the concept of dark matter and its potential connection to objects moving faster than light, which cannot be observed. Additionally, it clarifies that while relativistic mass increases with speed, it does not affect gravitational force, which is influenced only by rest mass. The search for the Higgs particle is mentioned as a key to understanding how particles obtain mass, linking back to Einstein's equation E=mc².
IvorGeorge
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Facts
• Speed of light = 300,000 km/sec
o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
• Furthest observed galaxy = 13 billion light years away
o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
• the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years
o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Deduced facts
• Furthest observed galaxy is close to the origin of the big bang, or be at close to right angle to it
o Therefore we on Earth must be traveling through space at a speed relative to the big bang origin at close to speed of light
• Majority of objects moving away from us have relative speed > speed of light – therefore they can not be observed
o Explanation for missing 'dark' matter?
• E=mc2 sees mass approaching infinity as speed approaches light speed
o Explanation for gravity?
• Hunt is on for the Higgs particle that will explain how most of the known elementary particles obtain their masses
o Is it possible that E=mc2 explains this already?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums IvorGeorge!

You have some interesting ideas, and I can't fully explain/endorse all of them because I don't have a complete knowledge of all of this, but I think I can talk about some of these.

One thing that is apparent in some of your points is the 'origin of the big bang'. Now my guess is that you are aware that all galaxies are moving away from each other, and you logically deduce that they are all moving away from the initial point. However it's a bit more complicated than that, it's not that all objects are moving away from each other, but that space itself is expanding. So they are not moving away from a central point, but rather the big bang happened everywhere at once, but while the universe was a much smaller place. So while everything is moving away from each other, they are not moving away from a central point.

As for the others, I only have 2 minor points. The first is that while it can be assumed that a large percent of the universe is farther away than the observable universe and therefore cannot be observed, the gravitation force is not instant, but rather moves at the speed of light, therefore if we can't see it, we can't feel it. The second is that Mass in the classical sense does not increase as velocity increases. Rather the relativistic mass increases as velocity increases, but Relativistic Mass does not influence gravity, only the rest mass does. I believe the fact that a object gets heavier as it's speed increases is a common misconception that is the root of a lot of misunderstanding.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top