It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Theory of the Universes Increased Rate of Expansion

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

Photons have no mass. Therefore they can emit no gravity.

There is one thing that I remembered, and this might help your theory, what about Gravitons? Gravitons have not been proved yet, but I sure you are aware of them.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:57 AM
Another suggestion I'd have is to cross-reference your theory. In other words, find other behavior that would also be explained by this theory. Linking it to more and more actions can only help it in the long run if it is indeed correct.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:23 PM
I do not like the idea of "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". As far as I can tell they are implying that EVERYTHING can have a "Dark" opposite.
Dark Electrons. Dark Photons. Dark Elements?
Dark Quarks? Dark Hydrogen? Dark Gold?
Are there Dark Stars and Dark Planets that are formed from Dark Gravity?
Dark Galaxies flying around our Universe?

I mean come on where does it end?!?!?!?! Lets put this sham to bed once and for all.

They were doing so good until they got to something that they could not figure out and started to make crap up to slap in like putty and fill in the gaps.

No one has found dark matter or dark energy yet. They have observed a strong gravity from something that they cannot identify. Which unfortunately some genius decided to name "Invisible Matter" or "Dark Matter". Invisible UFO's are unrealistic but there are invisible Galaxies flying around out there? RIIIIIGHHHHHTTTTT. If you believe that I have a bridge for sale with your name on it.

What I need to do is to figure out the Galaxy Rotation Problem.

From what I understand of this problem is that in a Galaxy the stars are expected to orbit the center of the Galaxy like Planets do in our Solar System. That is to say that the closest planets have a faster orbit around our Sun and the farthest planets have the slowest orbit.

I think (I am not positive) that stars in Galaxies do NOT orbit the center like this. I THINK (not sure) that the outermost stars orbit the center of the galaxy at the exact same speed as the closer stars do. Like you could draw a line from the outside to the middle and that is how the galaxy rotates. Like a windmill.

If anyone knows if I described the problem wrong let me know. It might just be in SOME galaxies I am not entirely sure. It is kind of hard to figure out. I could not find a video model to show exactly what they mean and I am a very visual person.

If you know anything about dark matter or have a visual reference to describe this problem post it. Thanks.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:35 PM
The NASA program "Ask an Astrophysicist" responded to my second email.

Remember that, according to General Relativity,the spacetime curvature that we experience as gravity is generated by energy. Rest mass is just a special case of energy; other forms of energy, like electromagnetic fields, also contain energy and hence generate curvature. So the statement that "No MASS = no gravitational force exertion" is not true. The amount of energy in a single photon is so small that the gravity it creates is extremely tiny. We are unable to measure this in the laboratory but there is some hope that we may be able to observe this effect in powerful astrophysical systems known as Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs). In a GRB, the photon density is so high that we may be able to see a "self-gravity" effect causing a bunching of the photon pulse. Hope that helps!

I thought that the space time curvature we experience was CAUSED by Mass?

Black Holes have Gravity SO STRONG that nothing can escape it.
Because it has all of it's mass mushed down into a small density? Am I wrong on that? Same amount of gravity because it still has the same mass but because the mass is more concentrated the gravity is more concentrated?

The Reason that the Earth orbits the Sun is because the sun has more MASS not because it is bigger or spins faster?

That the Moon orbits the Earth not because of it's size or how fast it rotates but how much MASS it has?

Or am I missing something? Is the current theory that gravity is just like existing out there and mass just happens to affect the existing amount of gravity or something?

I am not sure how my theory does not work.

Less Mass Less Gravity? Right? Or not?

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:33 PM
Energy of a photon is E = hc/wavelength

The wavelength can vary quite a bit, but say for something like 600nm which is in the visible light range, you'd have:

E = (6.626068 × 10^-34 m2 kg / s) * (299 792 458 m / s) / (600 x 10^-9 m)

E = 3.31074 x 10^-19 J

Now, energy is equivalent to mass by E=mc^2, or m = E/c^2 Note that this is not saying that the photon has mass, but that its energy is equivalent to the same amount of mass. If the photon suddenly disappeared and were replaced by an equivalent mass, the gravity wouldn't change, if I understand the theory correctly.

m = 3.31074 x 10^-19 J / (299 792 458 m / s)^2

m = 3.68370 x 10^-36 kg

I did another quick calculation, and an electron has about 247293 times more mass than this, and an electron doesn't have much gravitational pull :p

The gravitational pull is dependent upon a second mass in the system, but suffice it to say, it would be extremely small, but not zero. The formula would be F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, and m1 and m2 are the masses of the two things, G is gravitational constant, and r is the distance between the masses.

There might be some quantum or relativistic effects I've ignored, mostly because I don't know how to do them, but it still won't be zero, I think.

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by DragonsDemesne

But don't the rules change once the speed of light is reached?

Something about in special relativity an object with Mass takes INFINITE energy to reach the speed of light?

So if the Photon had ANY mass that could exert ANY amount of Gravity it could NEVER reach the speed of light?

I is confused.

I also figured out a new way to give an image of how I am picturing Gravity working in my theory but I am going to have to make a video I think.

Actually I will just try and find a link to another video that describes how Einstein says gravity warps space time. All that I think is missing are a few extra variables that I will insert and show you how my magical alternative theory actually works. This will be pretty cool and I think yall will like it!

Well I cannot find the video so once I find it I will post it and show you how it is really supposed to work and how we are missing some key plot twists to the Script of Gravity.

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:26 AM
Ok here is how Gravity really works. The Mass of an object DOES warp space but it warps it all the way to the edge of the Universe.

Ok here are some links that explain how an object with mass warps space. Not size but mass. The more mass an object has regardless of its size the more it warps space.

What is missing is the fact that space exists out until the edge of the expansion of the Universe. There IS a "Edge" to space. It is not that the vacuum of space goes on forever. That is incorrect. The Vacuum of space or space time or whatever you call it extends not for infinity but for a certain distance.

I am not sure if you have ever seen the example where a giant sheet of rubber is stretched out on a frame and then a heavy ball is rolled onto it?

Well the Frame that the rubber connects to would represent the edge of the Universe.

When you put a heavy bowling ball onto the sheet it will pull the ENTIRE sheet downwards. It does not just warp a small portion of the sheet and the rest stays perfectly flat. That is not what is happening. It warps it all the way to the edge. It is just not as visible as the area closest to the bowling ball. The same thing if you put a marble onto the rubber sheet. It is only visible warping a smaller portion of the space. BUT it STILL warps it ALL THE WAY to the edge!

When Matter/Mass warps spacetime it warps it all the way to the edge. ALL THE WAY. Not just a portion of the area near it. That is just what is the most visible. It is still warping it till the edge of the Universe. It just gets harder and harder to see the warping.

Well that is how I believe it works. I will try and find the video I saw of a guy doing the "Rubber Sheet Bowling Ball" example if I can find it online.

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:06 PM
Well relativity says that an object with nonzero mass needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. Also, I didn't say photons had mass, I said that photons had energy which is gravitationally equivalent to a mass. (an incredibly tiny mass) That's if I understand it correctly, which may not be so :p

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Well relativity says that an object with nonzero mass needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light. Also, I didn't say photons had mass, I said that photons had energy which is gravitationally equivalent to a mass. (an incredibly tiny mass) That's if I understand it correctly, which may not be so :p

Energy itself does not exert gravity. Photons have energy and speed but NO MASS.

Mass cannot exist without energy but energy CAN exist without mass. Photons exist. They have no mass. They have energy. They do not warp space/time. They exert no gravity.

Just because it has energy does NOT mean it warps space/time. You need a MASS to warp space/time. Photons would not be able to exist and move at the speed of light if they had a mass! Finding mass and gravity in a Photon would mean that the photon does not travel at the speed of light which would mean....that we have some serious math to work out. Photons have no mass. If you are waiting for science to prove that a photon has gravity you might as well keep waiting.

It is ridiculous to say that it has energy so it automatically gets a mass. IT HAS NO MASS. It is moving at the speed of light. It does not have any gravity. This is the "Dark Matter" that scientists are looking for. Photons.

A HUGE portion of the mass of the Universe is tied up in Photons. Stars have been converting mass to Photons for many Billions of years. All that mass is not MISSING or HIDDEN in "Invisible Matter". It is just not visible. We cannot measure photons without directly measuring them. If a photon does not hit a detector then we cannot measure it.

Like Einstein says in E = MC2

When Mass disappears the energy must appear in some other form. In the case of photons the mass is being converted into speed. The speed of light. No more mass. No more warping space time. No more gravity.

And if my theory about how gravity works is correct than every single individual photon would have an effect on the expansion rate of the Universe.

I just think our current model for the spacetime continuum is flawed.

The current model says that Space/Time can only be warped a certain distance and then space/time is hunky dory like nothing ever happened. I believe that Space/Time is affected all the way to the edge of the vacuum. The amount of the warping of space/time is still the same amount as the object with mass warping space time but the amount is just being stretched out to a less and less noticeable amount because the circle gets larger and larger so the warping is harder and harder to detect. It does not magically disappear though, it just spreads out.

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by jankopernik

I offered the theory that the universe is not infinite and is in fact contained within another 'object'. The gravitational attraction of the mass outside our universe's bubble is what is causing the increase in rate of expansion of our universe.

Interesting, that is actually similar to a real theory. Have you heard of hyperspace or bubble nucleation? This is also what I believe too, our universe is one of many 'floating' around in hyperspace(11 dimensional space in the theory I subscribe to). I also think that the Universe is a open system, not closed. That is just a theory though, but it does account for some inflationary, age and other issues. I also think the Universe is super-symmetric.

Good thread OP, I love these cosmological questions and theories!

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
i think that accelerated Inflation is proof of existance of anti-gravity

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

I realize it's not a perfect source, but a few minutes on wikipedia suggests that photons do contribute to the mass of a system.

There are also a few other terms, like relativistic mass and so on, so it might be wise to clarify just what you mean, since it would have implications on your theory.

posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

I realize it's not a perfect source, but a few minutes on wikipedia suggests that photons do contribute to the mass of a system.

There are also a few other terms, like relativistic mass and so on, so it might be wise to clarify just what you mean, since it would have implications on your theory.

If you could show the place where it mentions ANYTHING about a measurement taken of a photon having mass (and therefore gravity) I would be more than excited to see it. It would destroy my theory instantly.

Unfortunately that is NOT THE CASE. As you can see from my correspondence with the NASA space center there exists no such measurement.

MANY MANY MANY experiments have been performed in an attempt to determine if Photons do indeed have mass (gravity).

Every experiment results in the conclusion that the amount of Mass of a Photon must be significantly smaller than previously thought. At what point are we going to say "Yes Photons sacrifice Mass to achieve light speed, therefore they have no gravity"?!?!?

Here are some experiments that have been performed in an attempt to determine the Mass and the gravity of a Photon.

"An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10-16 eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10-17 eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10-27 eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method."

Taken from "What is the Mass of a Photon?" at

Here is another example where the limit of the mass of the photon is changed to be even higher up the table

Mass of photons

Q: Do photons have mass? If not, why does the gravitational field of a star bend passing light?

A: No, photons do not have mass according the present definition of mass. The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity, says Dr. Matt Austern a computer scientist at AT&T Labs Research. Under this definition, mass is proportional to the total energy, Eo, of the object at rest.

"A particle like a photon is never at rest and always moves at the speed of light; thus it is massless," says Dr. Michael S. Turner, chair of the Department of Astrophysics at the University of Chicago.

What about experimental evidence? Experiments don't determine exact quantities because of small errors inherent in making measurements. We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results.

This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner.

You ask how a star's gravitational field can bend the path of a massless photon. This takes us into the realm of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The mass of the photon isn't attracted to the star's mass under Einstein's theory. Rather, the star's mass distorts space and the photon's path changes because the space is curved, says Paul Hewitt in his book Conceptual Physics.

General relativity uses a geometry that is extremely difficult for we humans who live in three-dimensional space to visualize. This geometry describes not only a curved space but also a curved time. It's a geometry of curved four-dimensional space-time. Gravity is nothing but the bumps, depressions, and warpings of geometrical space-time.

We three-dimensional beings, says Hewitt, can glimpse this distortion by considering a simplified analogy in two dimensions: Think of a heavy, black bowling ball resting in the middle of a king-size water bed. (See the image to the right.) The more massive the ball, the more it dents or warps the bed.

Roll a marble across the bed, well away from the bowling ball. It rolls along a path that's pretty straight. Now, roll the marble across the bed but nearer the bowling ball. It curves in towards the ball as it rolls past it. That's how photons bend as they pass a star. Not because of their mass but because the star has warped the four-dimensional space-time they travel in and we all live in.

Also an even higher upper limit is given here at the "American Institute of Physics"

A new limit on photon mass, less than 10-51 grams or 7 x 10-19 electron volts, has been established by an experiment in which light is aimed at a sensitive torsion balance; if light had mass, the rotating balance would suffer an additional tiny torque. This represents a 20-fold improvement over previous limits on photon mass.

Photon mass is expected to be zero by most physicists, but this is an assumption which must be checked experimentally. A nonzero mass would make trouble for special relativity, Maxwell's equations, and for Coulomb's inverse-square law for electrical attraction.

The work was carried out by Jun Luo and his colleagues at Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China (, 86-27-8755-6653). They have also carried out a measurement of the universal gravitational constant G (Luo et al., Physical Review D, 15 February 1999) and are currently measuring the force of gravity at the sub-millimeter range (a departure from Newton's inverse-square law might suggest the existence of extra spatial dimensions) and are studying the Casimir force, a quantum effect in which nearby parallel plates are drawn together. (Luo et al., Physical Review Letters, 28 February 2003)

[edit on 27-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

If you could show the place where it mentions ANYTHING about a measurement taken of a photon having mass (and therefore gravity) I would be more than excited to see it. It would destroy my theory instantly.

The energy of a system that emits a photon is decreased by the energy E of the photon as measured in the rest frame of the emitting system, which may result in a reduction in mass in the amount E / c2. Similarly, the mass of a system that absorbs a photon is increased by a corresponding amount. As an application, the energy balance of nuclear reactions involving photons is commonly written in terms of the masses of the nuclei involved, and terms of the form E / c2 for the gamma photons (and for other relevant energies, such as the recoil energy of nuclei).[78]


Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime, as in gravitational lensing, and their frequencies may be lowered by moving to a higher gravitational potential, as in the Pound-Rebka experiment. However, these effects are not specific to photons; exactly the same effects would be predicted for classical electromagnetic waves.[80]
(edit: external source = the wiki link in my last post that apparently wasn't read)

[edit on 29-7-2009 by DragonsDemesne]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by DragonsDemesne

You are right I missed it! It was not intentional. Give me a little bit of time to read this and do some cyber research on exactly what it means. I will post either a retraction to my Theory or a rebuttal to this claim.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:06 AM
What if human consciousness is causing space to expand out at an accelerated rate?

This thought occurred to me a few years ago when I was waking up from a dream. It somehow felt like an insight into an aspect of this universe we haven't even begun to understand.

I mean, think about it. Big bang, expansion goes fast, getting slower and slower....

Then humans appear, causing a gentle movement, and humans begin to grow in number, and develop astronomy and peer deeper into space, they see that the universe is expanding. Then technology/consciousness really gets more powerful over the course of a century, and the humans begin to see that the universe is expanding faster than they ever observed/imagined.

Just a thought...

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by DragonsDemesne

Ok I am starting to understand the passages you linked. What they are talking about is a method for doing something called "Renormalization".

In renormalization they use the "mass contributions of virtual photons.

There is NOTHING in those passages that mentions a measurement taken of a Photons Mass.

It DOES mention Gravitational Lensing (which is totally awesome!) but that is NOT an example of Photons actually having mass and causing a warping of spacetime/Exertion of Gravity or whatever is the actual way that it works.

It is just showing how objects with Mass can cause the direction of the Photon to be altered. Gravitational lensing does NOT show us how a Photon causes a warp of spacetime/exertion of gravity or whatever it actually is.

My theory still stands woot!

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by TurkeyBurgers

I have a question... Do the photons produced by stars actually reduce the stars mass? If so wouldn't that put an end to the debate on whether photons have mass and therefore have gravity?

As for your theory it seems plausible that a loss or conversion of mass, or just a restructuring of the mass, might speed up the Universe's expansion.

Maybe something like the Universe growing fat in one place, the mass shifts and maybe the expansion at one end speeds up while at another slowing down. Honestly I don't think we really know enough about the Universe or Big Bang to figure out why is appears to be expanding so fast rather than slowing down. Maybe the Big Bang is a much longer event, after all if the Universe is still expansion than the BANG is still more or less happening, maybe the Universe happens in pulses or stages, like ripples, everything would slow down and then BOOM another wave takes place, perhaps driven by dark energy, that causes it to speed up again..

The Universe is truly mind boggling

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Yes Photons do reduce the Mass of Stars. That would remain the same if the Photon had a Mass or if the Photon did not have a mass.

As per the The law of conservation of energy it has to.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system).

[edit on 29-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:09 PM
Yeah, after rereading the initial post I'm pretty sure I understand your theory now. I had thought photons exerted gravity even when massless (due to their energy), but I could be wrong, since gravitation is an area of physics I haven't studied much beyond the basics. A quick trip to the library or browsing through online scientific journals should determine at least what the mainstream scientific consensus is on the matter.

It is also possible that even if your theory is 100% correct, that it is not the ONLY cause of the universe expansion acceleration. There could be other contributing factors that we have not yet conceived of. Perhaps one of the other fundamental forces somehow has an additional influence on top of gravitation, (electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force) or an as yet undiscovered force or source of one of those forces.

Hopefully I didn't come across as being personal in attacks. I was challenging the theory because that's a necessary part of science, to question everything, and see if it stands up to scrutiny. If not, we move on; if it does, we build on top of that knowledge.

Now that I understand what you're talking about in the original post, it actually sounds like a really interesting idea, but yeah it does rely on photons exerting zero gravitational force, or at least a different strength of force than if their energy were converted into mass with a gravitational pull.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in