Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity Vs O-Force

  1. May 7, 2009 #1
    As we know that gravity “accounts for the very existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe”. Nearly every current theories relating to Cosmology are still based on the study of gravity that Newton had studyed three centuries ago, although lots of remedies had been made.

    Since Big-Bang theory comes out the original force generated by Big-Bang (I call it O-Force) should have existed in every corner of the universe for billions of years and still driving the universe to continually expand. The power of the O-force is obvious.

    I even imaged that this force are preventing our universe from the start of the Big Crunch and being crushed by other universes!

    I can also see that the characters of the O-Force are opposed gravity. It comes from a single source where it has no mass. The direction of the force is pointing away from the source. (Check with the characters of Gravity)

    However it appears that nobody noticed this and no study on this had been done.

    Can any body tell me why it is not as, if not more, important than gravity in terms of Cosmology?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 7, 2009 #2
    Well for starters there is no source because the big bang did not happen at a particular point in spacetime, it happened everywhere. It was an explosion OF space not an explosion IN space.

    Secondly this o-force you talk about sounds a lot like dark energy, perhaps read up on that?
  4. May 7, 2009 #3
    We would have to agree with the concept of multi-universe if we agreed with Big Bang theory—another “big bang” could create another universe which would be the same or similar to our one’s.

    The big bang did happened at a particular point somewhere in the multi-universe and then started our spacetime.

    As soon as the explosion started and the expansion continued it must have some kind of force there to drive it, isn't it? When we have a force, naturally we would ask: where is the source of the force? What is the characaters of the force? What is the role of the force in study of Cosmology?

    I believe that dark energy and dark matter are part of O-Force.
  5. May 8, 2009 #4
    I don't see why that needs to be the case.

    I meant you can trace the spot where the big bang happened in our universe. Whats outside, well thats anyones guess really =)

    I don't think we yet know enough about 'outside the universe' if such a place exists to be able to answer these questions properly. In terms of higher dimensions its 'easier' but multiverse theories are fundamentally difficult to examine properly.

    Whats your evidence for this? Dark matter and dark energy are fundamentally different things. Dark energy is a cosmological 'fudge factor' (kind of) needed to explain the observed expansion of the universe. Dark matter is used to remedy an entirely different problem, mainly that of rotation curves in galaxies and strange behaviour like in the bullet cluster.
  6. May 8, 2009 #5
    Did you mean "I meant you can "not" trace the spot where the big bang happened in our universe?

    Think about the gravity. Can we trace the spot where the gravity started?

    We may have to start guessing based upon the evidence available before making any further development, I think.

    This is the basical reasone why, I rekon anyway, there is no much improvement in the study of cosmology since big-bang theory comes out. If we don't know enough about the Moon, the Sun, The Solar system even Milky way I do not think that we would know our earth as we know her now.

    Why do we call it "Dark energy and dark matter"? Because we do not understand them simply because they are "invisible or undetectable" at this stage.

    O-force I mentioned her would be the combination of dark energy and dark matter.

    If we consider it as some kind of "Force" that was generated by Big-Bang with the characters I mentioned (It comes from a single source where it has no mass. The direction of the force is pointing away from the source.) would be defined differently from dark energy and dark matter.

    For example the air around us is invisible. Can we call it "dark matter" and can we call the wind caused by the air as "dark energy" before we really understood them?

    I have a feeling (no evidence though) that O-Force would play the role in Cosmology the same as Gravity in physics.

    The reason why O-Force was ommitted simply because whenever the O-Force arrived at a mass matter the direction of the force would be the same as gravity, with which would be easily mixed up. Plus the similar O-Force that comes from different neighboring universes from different directions counteracts each other’s influence. So wherever you are, even you are facing the source of the O-Force or, standing at any point of the universe, it would be very difficult to feel it or detect it.

    However as long as the universe is expanding or shrinking the force difference must exist then we would be able to detect it one day after we really understood it. Then we would know what the mixture of the O-Force would be like we know that the mixture of the air is oxygen, nitrogen and so on. Then we would understand what we are breathing and why we are having wind.

    Of cause all of those were guessing based upon the theory that multiverse was created by Big-Bangs during the different "universetime" not spacetime.
  7. May 8, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you have a place for inertia in your o-force? Once a force has been imparted to create a motion, then the body will, like, keep moving.

    The expansion of the universe was modelled as an inertial deal until "dark energy" acceleration forced itself into the equation.

    Of course, it is spacetime itself that is doing the "moving" (and cooling) in an expanding universe story.
  8. May 8, 2009 #7
    yeah sorry typo.

    Dark matter is indirectly detectable and has all but been directly observed, dark energy well thats a whole other can of worms.

    Unfortunately you cannot publish a paper based on feelings =)

    I dont understand this statement.

    Correct but that is currently, sort of, explained by normal cosmological expansion as predicted by unperturbed general relativity plus the dark energy term. Youre trying to invent something that is already there.
  9. May 9, 2009 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    The whole premise is highly speculative and unsupported by data.
  10. May 9, 2009 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Thread locked due to overly speculative nature.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook