# What if.

1. Jun 24, 2004

### Pietro

What if.......

Gravity is the consecuence of mass deforming space-time. But why mass deforms space-time?
What if gravity is the consecuence of mass inertia in an accelerated universe. I can imagine a universe expanding at an accelerated speed that is being deformed by the inertia of the objects with mass. So gravity depends on acceleration of expansion and could be different at different stages of the evolution of universe. For instance, what if quasars are supergigantic stars at a moment in what gravity had other value smaller than the current value (because smaller acceleration value) and a supergigantic star could exist without transforming into a black hole. Why there are not supernovas nor galaxies at same distance than quasars?
Can anyone calculate the acceleration needed to achive current velocity of expansion considering the universe an hypersphere? (This is for a constantly accelerated universe)
Can anyone calculate the slope of acceleration needed to achive current velocity of expansion considering the universe an hypersphere and a start of almost zero for acceleration at the beggining and the messured current acceleration at end?

2. Jun 24, 2004

### big-egg

Pietro,
I like your questions. They show the absurdity of the current picture
of the universe. You may not lose your time to explore it anymore. You should rather look
for alternatives. One day you may have a good theory of your own.

Last edited: Jun 24, 2004
3. Jun 24, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

The problem with discarding our current model of the universe, big-egg, is it makes testable, highly accurate predictions about a very broad variety of phenomena. Any replacement will naturally need to be equally (or more) accurate/useful.

4. Jun 25, 2004

### Rahmuss

Does space-time slow it's expansion when "dragging" more massive objects? Also, if gravity depends on the acceleration (or the velocity more likely here) of the Universe, then there may be areas of the Universe where a black hole is created, and then... all of a sudden there wouldn't be enough gravity to keep the black hole, and then what would happen? Would it pop back out as a star again?
I guess really in a sense you could view the "warping" of space-time as due to inertia; but you would be using a lot of the same units and measurements for your calculations, so I think you would just end up with very similar results.

5. Jun 25, 2004

### dedaNoe

You know what?

I can figure out why are you all so concerned about space-time?
You cannot relate the two without some velocity and if so
than what velocity it will be and more what would the relation BE?

I can tell you that this relation is only X=VT.
There is no other way to relate space, time and velocity if you're not making mistake.

Am I in TD where I can speak free my mind?

6. Jun 25, 2004

### Pietro

Rahmuss, you need acceleration to obtain a result similar to gravity. If you have constant velocity, then you can´t have visible efects. Is similar to what happens in regular physic problems. About "dragging" you are right, I think if we have an accelerated universe then we have a force driving the expansion and of course a work (or energy to use a more general term) that can be calculated. This energy must be obtained at expense of something, can anyone tell me at expense of what this energy is obtained?
I enjoy this discussions a lot
Thanks

7. Jun 30, 2004

Pietro,