General consensus among scientists is that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. Many scientists believe the universe began in a Big Bang, and that the expansion is being accelerated by the mysterious dark matter, while Creationist scientists (probably just lost some of you there--eh, tough) meanwhile generally don't believe in a Big Bang, while acknowledging the expansion of the universe.
 |
| Is the universe in a massive gravitational vortex? |
Anyway, have a tendency to relate physics to a bathtub, when applicable. Moving a hand relatively fast through the water creates a vortex which draws soap bubbles together into something resembling a 'galaxy.' (The drain vortex is similar to a black hole, of course ;-)). The vortices represent gravity, drawing things together. The 'physics' occurs on the two-dimensional surface of the water, so is not completely accurate for a three-dimensional (spatially) universe. As a vortex loses its strength, its galaxy goes from small to bigger, and expands.... and the expansion is an accelerating expansion. Plus, the edges appear to expand faster than the part deeper in the vortex.
If you see where getting at, what if the universe is in some type of gravitational vortex (dimensionally modified), and the vortex is weakening? The result would be that the universe expands (as the vortex 'flattens out,' with something [dark matter?] taking the place of water pressure; the universe could be repellent--fast moving massive bodies are supposed to repel--so the vortex is compressing the universe?) and the expansion would be accelerating even if the weakening was at a constant rate (though the rate wouldn't necessarily have to be constant).
That scenario would also entail that as the gravitational vortex the universe is in weakens, time would progress faster. The higher the mass (hence higher gravitation), the slower the passage of time. (As with those hypothetical scenarios of an astronaut traveling almost at the speed of light an barely aging while people on Earth grow old--because the closer to c, the closer to infinite mass, the closer to infinite gravitation, the closer to no passage of time). The lower the gravitation (and a lower mass, incidentally), the opposite, a faster passage of time.
So reports that light could have been faster long ago could be the other way around. c could be constant, but time could be changing, and therefore light seems to be slowing? While long ago it took light nine years to get from one point to another, now it takes ten, not because light is slowing, but because the passage of time is getting faster?
Now, not qualified to make such an argument convincingly, but this is just some little thing that have been pondering about after the idea popped up while trying to sleep this morning. In other words, this is just an extremely amateurish hypothesis--but still airing it because can. Feel free to dismiss this as a stupid idea.
| Tag this post with: | |||||||
 Delicious |
 Digg |
 Technorati |
 reddit |
 Facebook |
 StumbleUpon |
 Furl |
 blinklist |
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.
Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.
