The ‘Naked’ Gravity Driven Universe?

New Scientist:

It’s the force we all know about and think we understand. It keeps our feet firmly on the ground and our world circling the sun.

Yet look a little closer, and the certainties start to float away, revealing gravity as the most puzzling and least understood of the four fundamental forces of nature.

Michael Brooks investigates its mysterious ways


What is gravity?

 The Newtonian idea of gravity was nice and simple, then Einstein turned things upside down, and even that isn’t the end of the story


Why does gravity only pull?

 All the other forces in nature have opposites – so what makes gravity different?


Why is gravity so weak?

 Gravity is the weakling among the fundamental forces – what makes it such a misfit?


Why is gravity fine-tuned?

 If gravity were a tiny bit stronger, the universe as we know it would not exist


Does life need gravity?

 From plants to quail, life of all stripes seems to need gravity to work properly


Can we counter gravity?

 People have long dreamed of building a shield against gravity, but no one has managed to do it – yet


Will we ever have a quantum theory of gravity?

 Quantum mechanics and relativity, our two best theories of how the world works, seem strangely at odds with the world as we experience it – and with each other.
Hmm, maybe it’s because gravity might not control the Universe as the mainstream scientists have theorized?
Speaking of the gravity driven Universe, here’s’s Wallace Thornhill’s take on it:
In my news of April 21st I wrote, “we are so far from understanding gravity that we don’t know the right questions to ask.” There I proposed “Electrically Modified Newtonian Dynamics,” or “E-MOND,” as the solution for solar system stability. However, the problem involving the dwarf companion galaxies is more fundamental to cosmology. The first problem in physics is to choose the correct concepts to apply to our observations. That determines which physical laws to apply. But that’s not the end of it. We must remain aware that all laws are man-made and provisional – they are subject to modification on appeal. Historically, cosmologists have denied that electricity has any relevance in space. They have refused to consider how the laws of plasma physics might apply to their otherwise incomprehensible observations. Provisionality is a formalism to mask dogma.

Richard Feynman, lecturing his students on how to look for a new law in physics, said, “First you guess. Don’t laugh; this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Read the above articles and you decide which one might belong in the Land of Woo.
The ‘Naked’ Singularity?
… A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity.But is this picture really true? The known laws of physics are clear that a singularity forms, but they are hazy about the event horizon. Most physicists operate under the assumption that a horizon must indeed form, if only because the horizon is very appealing as a scientific fig leaf. Physicists have yet to figure out what exactly happens at a singularity: matter is crushed, but what becomes of it then? The event horizon, by hiding the singularity, isolates this gap in our knowledge. All kinds of processes unknown to science may occur at the singularity, yet they have no effect on the outside world. Astronomers plotting the orbits of planets and stars can safely ignore the uncertainties introduced by singularities and apply the standard laws of physics with confidence. Whatever happens in a black hole stays in a black hole.

Yet a growing body of research calls this working assumption into question. Researchers have found a wide variety of stellar collapse scenarios in which an event horizon does not in fact form, so that the singularity remains exposed to our view. Physicists call it a naked singularity. Matter and radiation can both fall in and come out. Whereas visiting the singularity inside a black hole would be a one-way trip, you could in principle come as close as you like to a naked singularity and return to tell the tale.

But isn’t that one of the problems of the concept of a black hole anyways, if an object gets sucked in, the ‘information’ gets lost forever and that’s one of the big no-no’s of one of the Laws of Conservation?

The event horizon is supposed to contain some of the information that gets sucked into the hole and when it ‘evaporates’, the information is released back into the Universe?

I think the Electric Universe folks have a case against the gravity-driven universe after all!

Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?


7 responses

  1. Could it be that gravity exists in the atomic makeup of matter as well as in what we
    call the cosmos, and by the same logic, can it be that the cosmos are megamatter with planetary systems acting as atoms belonging to molecular entities that make up the whole burrito that we see as the universe. This of course, doesn’t consider the multiverse, which could be a scene of diverse matter and scenarios such as we enjoy our existence in, or more probably something that is as completely different as a Democrat from a Republican.

    The gravity that exists in the atomic world would not exist in the cosmos except as a reflection of the agragate mass of the matter concerned in the entire entity, yet would keep things in harmony and balance within that entity. In the cosmos that we witness, our galaxy resembles a red corpuscle with a heavy concentration of matter and gravity at the center with entire galaxies spiraling inward. At the fringes of this galaxy there could be matter forming at the same time as matter is compressed to a singularity at the center.

    I think that in INdia they call this the microcosm, mesocosm, and macrocosm.
    At which point I get to mention the Pet Milk can, which is about the only thing that I can begin to understand, and microcosm’s that extend into infiity as well as macrocosm’s that do the same…G%~

  2. oops, I better correct this…

    “In the cosmos that we witness, our galaxy resembles a red corpuscle with a heavy concentration of matter and gravity at the center with entire galaxies spiraling inward.”

    In the cosmos that we witness, our galaxy resembles a red corpuscle with a heavy concentration of matter and gravity at the center with entire solar systems etc. spiraling inward.

    1. You and the Indians aren’t the only ones who think we’re just atoms and molecules making up a larger entity, I’ve heard this most of my life.

      The resemblance between planets, stars and galaxies to living creatures is being expressed now, read my new post ^^^.

      A biological Universe might be true, but I think more evidence should be looked at.

  3. The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe

    The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

    Astronomically there are two physics, a classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

    The onset of big-bang’s inflation started gravity, with formation – by dispersion – of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original
    pre-inflation masses back to energy, and with endless quantum intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to delay-resist this reconversion.

    Dov Henis
    (Comments from 22nd century)–?cq=1
    Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
    EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200

  4. On Energy, Mass, Gravity And Galaxies Clusters,

    A Commonsensible Epilogue, And A Prologue To Life Evolution
    Origin Of Gravity And Formation Of Life

    **The onset of big-bang’s inflation started gravity, followed by formation of galactic clusters that behave “classically” as Newtonian bodies while continuously reconverting their shares of pre-inflation masses back to energy, and of endless intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to resist this reconversion.

    Astronomically there are two “physics”, a “classical physics” behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a “quantum physics” behaviour within galactic clusters.**

    A. “Heavyweight galaxies in the young universe”, at
    New observations of full-grown galaxies in the young universe may force astrophysicists to revise their leading theory of galaxy formation, at least as it applies to regions where galaxies congregate into clusters.

    B. Some brief notes in “Light On Dark Matter?”, at

    – “Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration”
    – Introduction of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
    – “Dark Energy And Matter And The Emperor’s New Clothes”
    – “Evolutionary Cosmology: Ordained Or Random”
    – ““Movie” Of Microwave Pulse Transitioning From Quantum To Classical Physics”
    – “Broken Symmetry” Is Physics’ Term Of Biology’s “Evolution”
    – “A Glimpse Of Forces-Matter-Life Unified Theory”

    C. Commonsensible conception of gravity

    1. According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs — or proving it does not exist — has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.

    However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
    E=Total[m(1 + D)], this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.

    2. Thus gravity is simply another face of the total cosmic energy. Thus gravity is THE cosmic parent of phenomena such as black holes and life. It is the display of THE all-pervasive-embracive strained space texture, laid down by the expanding galactic clusters, also noticed within the galactic clusters in the energy backlashes into various constructs of temporary constrained energy packages.

    3. “Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense “Big Bang” phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold.”

    At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
    The increase of D is the inflation, followed by expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

    At 10^-35 seconds, D in E=Total[m(1 + D)] was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the “space texture memory”, gravity, that may eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.

    D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity

    The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution within the galactic clusters:

    The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

    The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.

    E. PS to “On Cosmic Energy And Mass Evolutions”

    As mass is just another face of energy it is commonsensible to regard not only life, but mass in general, as a format of temporarily constrained energy.

    It therefore ensues that whereas the expanding cosmic constructs, the galaxies clusters, are – overall – continuously converting “their” original pre-inflation mass back to energy, the overall evolution WITHIN them, within the clusters, is in the opposite direction, temporarily constrained
    energy packages such as black holes and biospheres and other energy-storing mass-formats are precariuosly forming and “doing best” to survive as long as “possible”…

    F. From “Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot”

    “Perfect liquids suggest theory’s math mirrors something real.

    When the universe was very young, and still superhot from the aftermath of the Big Bang, plasma should have been the only state of matter around. And that’s what scientists at Brookhaven expected to see when they smashed gold ions together at 99.99 percent of the speed of light using a machine called RHIC (for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). RHIC physicists thought the ion collisions would melt the gold’s protons and neutrons into a hot plasma of quarks and gluons at a temperature of a trillion kelvins, replicating conditions similar to those a microsecond after the birth of the universe. But instead of a gaslike plasma, the physicists reported in 2005, RHIC served up a hot quark soup, behaving more like a liquid than a plasma or gas.”

    G. The expectation of Brookhaven scientists was a bit unrealistic

    The “aftermath of the Big Bang” lasted much less than 10^-35 seconds. This is evidenced by the fact that “Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm”:

    With all respect due to the scientists at Brookhaven it is unrealistic to expect that they can recreate the state of pre big-bang energy-mass singularity. Commonsense is still the best scientific approach.

    H. PS To “Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot”: Our Inability To Create Singularity

    a. From “Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot”

    A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,” the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. “If it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.”

    b. IMO gravity is attempted reversal of inflation

    To me, a simple uninformed one, E=mc^2 is a derived formula, whereas E=Total[m(1 + D)] is a commonsensical descriptive concept.

    I intuitively regard both the ultracold and superhot liquids as being in a confined space and “striving but unable” to overcome D, to render D=0.

    I also intuitively regard our accelerated collisions smashups as attempted “reverse inflations” in the sense that Newton’s law of universal gravitation seems to me as “reverse inflation”.

    I. An epilogue and a prologue

    Here ends the basic story of Energy, Mass, Gravity and Galaxies Clusters. For us, humans, this is the prologue to the story of Life’s Evolution, briefly presented in “Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009”.

    Dov Henis
    (Comments from 22nd century)–?cq=1
    Updated Life’s Manifest May 2009
    EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200

  5. But what of Harp’s observation of disproportionate red-shifts between galaxies and quasars?

    That makes our idea of measuring intergalactic distances wrong, thus the rate of expansion, if any, wrong also.

  6. “(A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,” the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. “If it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.”)”

    Sometimes the scientific viewpoint is a little egocentric when it comes to discoveries. Max is mentioning a new truth because he now understands it while,of course, it is unchanging and has always existed.

    I believe that gravity pretty much qualifies as a truth that has been discovered many times through the eons, but we still can’t fully describe it in the here and now, while antigravity is merely a concept of man. I would compare it to anti vacuum or maybe anti infinity…G:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: