Gravity and the big bang

I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?
In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

The big bang theory postulates the matter came into
being from a single point in space and is forever ex-
panding. I am unaware of any measurements
to prove that the gaps between stars are increasing.
Perhaps someone can help me with that one. Barring that,
imagine that a singular event was not the case for matter
in the universe, but rather many rips in the time/space
continuum, created perhaps by a vorti powered by some
unbeknownst celestial event in an alternate dimension.
Following this, logic, perhaps many of these events occured
and continue to occur (black hole?). It could be postulated
that many of the planets surrounding a star were chunks of
it flung off during its birth, dragging with it a remanant of
that rip in space fabric. Or the planets could be results of
their own births, traveling in close enough proximity to a
nearby star to get caught in its gavitaitional pull.

So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.

Phych wrote:

I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?
In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

At the centre of any body, moon, earth, whatever, the gravitational force is
zero. This has been known for over three hundred years. An elementary
textbook which discusses Newton's law of gravity should show why this
happens.

The big bang theory postulates the matter came into
being from a single point in space and is forever ex-
panding. I am unaware of any measurements
to prove that the gaps between stars are increasing.

The gaps between stars aren't increasing, but the gaps between galaxies are.
This has been known since the 1920's. An elementary textbook on astronomy
which discusses the cosmological red shift will give the details.

Perhaps someone can help me with that one. Barring that,
imagine that a singular event was not the case for matter
in the universe, but rather many rips in the time/space
continuum, created perhaps by a vorti powered by some
unbeknownst celestial event in an alternate dimension.

Hm. You could be thinking of the brane theories. If so Steven Hawking's
Universe in a Nutshell might give you a start. If you aren't, it looks as
if you have been watching too many third-class science fiction films.

Following this, logic, perhaps many of these events occured
and continue to occur (black hole?). It could be postulated
that many of the planets surrounding a star were chunks of
it flung off during its birth, dragging with it a remanant of
that rip in space fabric. Or the planets could be results of
their own births, traveling in close enough proximity to a
nearby star to get caught in its gavitaitional pull.

The first planets weren't formed until long after the first generation of
stars died, and that didn't happen until long after the big bang. The earth
wasn't formed until about 9,000,000,000 years after the big bang. Gamow
wrote a book entitled The First Three Minutes, a popularisation of the big
bang theory, published in the late 1940's IIRC. This gives half the story.
Fred Hoyle wrote a popularisation in the 1960's that give the other half,
but I can't remember what its title was. A textbook on cosmology will give
you the details, but it is unlikely to be elementary.

So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.

I don't think you know what a dimension is. I seem to remember something in
Twilight Zone like this, but that was 40 years ago and my short term memory
isn't what is was.

In article ,
Phych wrote:

I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?

At the center, there is no net gravitational attraction from the mass of
the Moon. In effect you are within a spherical shell, and inside a
spherical shell, it so happens that the mass on one side always cancels
out the mass on the other side is far as gravity goes.

One inch from the center, it would be similar -- you would experience
only the gravity of the 1-inch-radius sphere at the center; everything
outside of that counts as a spherical shell you're within.

In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

None.

The big bang theory postulates the matter came into
being from a single point in space and is forever ex-
panding. I am unaware of any measurements
to prove that the gaps between stars are increasing.

Really? I thought everyone was aware of those measurements. They're
very old, dating back to Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope).

So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.

Um, no. You can think of gravity as a dent in spacetime, but I don't
see how it could be described as a rip.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Phych wrote:
I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?
In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

As you descend through a homogenous spherical body, the gravitation
is equivalent to that of a body the size of the distance you are
from its center.
snip
So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.

Why might the moon have a space-time rip, and a tennis ball does not?

How do you account for the fact that the center of the earth is
liquid.
Any "rip" would over the many billions of years since the earth
coallesced have eaten it.

So when the space time rip finally closes gravity goes away?
Anything that gravity doesn't affect must have drifted away long ago. If we
can go find some of that stuff and build a space ship out of it it would
save a lot of trouble. It's my theory that the stuff exists.


"Phych" wrote in message
...
I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?
In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

The big bang theory postulates the matter came into
being from a single point in space and is forever ex-
panding. I am unaware of any measurements
to prove that the gaps between stars are increasing.
Perhaps someone can help me with that one. Barring that,
imagine that a singular event was not the case for matter
in the universe, but rather many rips in the time/space
continuum, created perhaps by a vorti powered by some
unbeknownst celestial event in an alternate dimension.
Following this, logic, perhaps many of these events occured
and continue to occur (black hole?). It could be postulated
that many of the planets surrounding a star were chunks of
it flung off during its birth, dragging with it a remanant of
that rip in space fabric. Or the planets could be results of
their own births, traveling in close enough proximity to a
nearby star to get caught in its gavitaitional pull.

So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004

JRS: In article , dated
Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:52:49, seen in news:sci.space.science, Keith Harwood
posted :
Phych wrote:

I do not know if this is an existing theory, I
only came up with it today, so please bear with
my ignorance. Consider the moon (since its diameter
is so much smaller than the Earth's and its gravity
is so much less). Lets say we were (hypothetically)
to send a drilling team up there and drill from
surface to the core. What would the gravitational
effect 1 inch from the center or even at the center?
In essence, what anomoly might we find period?

At the centre of any body, moon, earth, whatever, the gravitational force is
zero. This has been known for over three hundred years. An elementary
textbook which discusses Newton's law of gravity should show why this
happens.

To be elementary, the body must be spherically symmetrical, but need not
otherwise be homogeneous. It is, of course, the field of the body to
which you refer; the total field at the centre of a tennis ball is one
gee. In that case, symmetry alone is sufficient; any symmetrical law of
gravity would give the same result.

The interesting result, requiring the inverse square law and otherwise
only elementary arguments, is that the field *anywhere* within a
homogeneous spherical shell due to the shell is zero.

I lack an equally elementary argument for the field outside a spherical
shell; but I have Ramsey's version of Newton's.


ISTM that the self-field at the centre of gravity of an unsymmetrical
body is not in general zero. Consider the Earth and Moon to be a single
non-rotating body joined by a massless stick. It is well-known that the
centre of gravity is within the Earth; and the zero-field point must be
near L1, some 300,000 km or so away.



The first planets weren't formed until long after the first generation of
stars died, and that didn't happen until long after the big bang. The earth
wasn't formed until about 9,000,000,000 years after the big bang. Gamow
wrote a book entitled The First Three Minutes, a popularisation of the big
bang theory, published in the late 1940's IIRC.

Steven Weinberg wrote a book of that name and topic, in the mid-
seventies. Gamow had no such book in print in the UK in 1987.

This gives half the story.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Everyone else has pointed out problems with your idea, which I cannot add to,
but I will point out a fallacy in your thinking not mentioned. To whit:

Phych wrote:

[stuff deleted]

The big bang theory postulates the matter came into
being from a single point in space and is forever ex-
panding. I am unaware of any measurements
to prove that the gaps between stars are increasing.
Perhaps someone can help me with that one. Barring that,
imagine that a singular event was not the case for matter
in the universe, but rather many rips in the time/space
continuum, created perhaps by a vorti powered by some
unbeknownst celestial event in an alternate dimension.
Following this, logic, perhaps many of these events occured
and continue to occur (black hole?). It could be postulated
that many of the planets surrounding a star were chunks of
it flung off during its birth, dragging with it a remanant of
that rip in space fabric. Or the planets could be results of
their own births, traveling in close enough proximity to a
nearby star to get caught in its gavitaitional pull.

[rest deleted for brevity]

No, the big bang theory does not postulate that matter came into being from a
single point in space and is forever expanding. The big bang is the creation of
space and time. There was no preexisting void to fill as you imply. That
effectively negates the rest of your speculation, scientifically.

As to planet formation, look at the protoplanetary disks found in the Orion
Nebula to see that process (there are nice images of it at the Hubble Space
Telescope site). Planet formation seems to be the result of the collapse under
gravity of fragments of gas and dust within an even larger cloud, with disk
formation due to the spin of these fragments during collapse flattening the
fragments out.

If you really are interested in what the big bang theory does (and does not)
say, I recommend the following site:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Dr John Stockton wrote in
:



To be elementary, the body must be spherically symmetrical, but need
not otherwise be homogeneous. It is, of course, the field of the body
to which you refer; the total field at the centre of a tennis ball is
one gee. In that case, symmetry alone is sufficient; any symmetrical
law of gravity would give the same result.

The interesting result, requiring the inverse square law and otherwise
only elementary arguments, is that the field *anywhere* within a
homogeneous spherical shell due to the shell is zero.

I lack an equally elementary argument for the field outside a
spherical shell; but I have Ramsey's version of Newton's.




Are you saying that all spherical bodies have their
own gravitational field, simply based on their
spherical shape, and perhaps density and size?

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-AAC1C0.08561502092004
@comcast.dca.giganews.com:



Really? I thought everyone was aware of those measurements. They're
very old, dating back to Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope).

So, Perhaps what we would find at the center of the moon would be
space/time rip, in which case, anything not solid enough to
resist destruction might be sucked into an altenate dimension
with super-pressure. Thus, what we experience as gravity would
be the force of a space time rip trying to close itself.

Um, no. You can think of gravity as a dent in spacetime, but I don't
see how it could be described as a rip.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'


Thanks, wow, I've read in various science new stories that
their is some rough estimate of where the universe center
is located. Is this the method by which that estimate is taken?

Ian Stirling wrote in news:413737b5$0$73525
:



Why might the moon have a space-time rip, and a tennis ball does not?

How do you account for the fact that the center of the earth is
liquid.
Any "rip" would over the many billions of years since the earth
coallesced have eaten it.

Thanks to all for your well crafted responses.
My thinking is a laymans mix of reading discover
mag & a little sci-fi. Such things inspire the
imagination in well admimistered doses.

As for liquids, remember that a liquid is still
a liquid despite it viscosity, and a liquid of
dense enough viscosity will not pass through
a small enough opening, where pressure is not sufficient
to force it. In my scenario, the viscosity of the
liquid core of the earth would exceed the force to eat it.

As for the tennis ball, (I wrote also in another response) does
a tennis ball have gravity simply based on its spherical
shape, mass, and density? If true, I suspect measurements
have been taken on such isolated bodies. I would like
to read further on that subject. Any references?