"Newton's law of universal gravitation" made literal?

v. 5 n. 24

Between the previous article ** and this it would seem the proposal of a fundamentally repulsive gravity was abandoned, and the wind has completely changed in favor of the conventional notion of universal attractive gravity. There is a catch though.

The Universe can be seen to accelerate in opposite directions at the same time, toward and away from visible matter, but at different scales. When the acceleration is toward matter, gravity appears attractive, and when acceleration is away from matter, proposed gravity appears repulsive.

The transition between attractive and proposed repulsive gravity, perhaps requires further explanation. "Repulsive gravity" is usually associated with negative mass, where there is no evidence of such mass. This is not the case at present; the mass in either instance is the same type of normal matter; only the scale is different in each case.

Aside from general relativity, the convention that gravity as always attractive stemmed from Newton's conception, and the idea of attraction is retained in general relativity as originally conceived, because the theory was made to reduce to Newton's view at small scales and low accelerations. However, the original general relativity breaks down at its two limits -- the very small (quantum) and moderate scale (above clusters of galaxies). Contemporary general relativity is made to fit observation at the moderate to large scales by introduction of a factor that allows for repulsion among visible matter, termed the cosmological constant. But still, gravity is commonly considered always attractive, regardless of this observational evidence. The notion of gravity as always attractive has that strong a grip on the academy as well as popular culture. The acceleration of the Universe is not conventionally associated with gravity per se. Throughout these Letters, it has been attempted to reverse this conception, and to propose that the acceleration of the Universe IS gravity.

The axiom of general relativity is the equivalence of acceleration and gravity, but departs from the axiom right off the bat because of the exception of the acceleration of the Universe. Why this exception? And not a small exception either, most of the "known" Universe, unknown at the time of the formulation of general relativity. Rather than taking the hint from observation that gravity might be repulsive in this instance, a new "constant" is introduced. An observational patch for the familiar mathematical equation, which is based on a more familiar empirical equation, Newton's view (that conventionally holds only within the Solar system, for the most part).

Clarification could lie in the transition from the apparently attractive effect on smaller scales to the repulsive effect otherwise. Astronomically, this transition is between the "cluster of galaxies" and "galactic supercluster" scales. At the cluster of galaxies scale the individual galaxies within orbit around one another and never leave the cluster, don't take part in the accelerated Hubble expansion; they are gravitationally stable units; the cluster does not itself expand along with the Universe.

At the galactic supercluster scale, clusters of galaxies separate from other clusters of galaxies, and the clusters accelerate away from one another. The acceleration of the Universe is first apparent at this transition zone among clusters of galaxies. Why this transition from attractive to proposed repulsive gravity?

The transition in the present thesis is from one view of gravity to another, a difference within the concept of gravity itself. But if in this zone, there is a transition from gravity (in the clusters) to acceleration of the Universe because of the "dark energy" of the cosmological constant, there is a difference in kind introduced with the latter. An entirely new unknown actor is introduced into physics, dark energy. Which is more conservative, to work within the concept of gravity, or to abandon gravity and introduce an arbitrary concept? At the very least, not considering the acceleration of the Universe as associated with gravity in some way is contradictory to the axiom of general relativity -- the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. The introduction of the cosmological constant or dark energy into general relativity is a serious foundational contradiction. It might work to some extent, but anyone with a conscience about the purity, internal logic, of the discipline should feel uncomfortable.

There are two ways of considering the transition zone between the attractive view at small scales and proposed repulsive gravity at the large scales:

1. Qualitatively. a) Noting that when there is much less accelerated expanding space (or space that is attempting to expand) [1] between two particles than about these particles, then the accelerated expansion of the larger space about the particles dominates, and gravity appears attractive between the particles. b) When the accelerated expanding space between these particles is comparable in extent to the accelerated expanding space about the particles, the transition zone between attraction and repulsion is reached. (Onset of the galactic supercluster scale.) c) As the distance between particles still increases, all visible matter is accelerating away from all other visible matter. d) Attraction thereafter is not observed. e) Repulsion is apparent in some 93 billion light years of the "known" Universe. f) Attraction in ever reducing amounts from the small scale up to the transition zone is apparent only within the cluster of galaxy scale of some 3000 to15000 light years. [2] Obviously, repulsion dominates the Universe. In Section 2, Newton's gravity is applied to this dominant accelerated expanding space with the hypothesis that gravity is fundamentally repulsive and identical to this acceleration condition, such that gravity is only apparently attractive at the smaller scales.

2. Quantitatively. a) If the acceleration of the Universe and gravity are identical, Newton's gravity can be made scale-invariant by reseating it from the Solar system scale where traditional gravity appears attractive to the galactic supercluster scale where proposed gravity could be repulsive, so that the so-called cosmological constant is implicit. [2] b) When the expanding essentially spherical cosmic voids are overlapped to any extent, they should appear to attract one another, subject to observational evidence of various stages of overlap. [3][4] Then unmodified Newtonian gravity may be applicable at all scales, and Newtonian gravity would be universal, as originally intended, but now with the maintenance of locality. c) Recall that unmodified Newtonian gravity in conjunction with special relativity was used at the quantum scale as well, and also employed to derive natural constants and fundamental particle masses in terms of natural constants at small and large scales. [5]

** The inertia of space | LinkedIn

[1] (4) Does space ever stop expanding, or trying to, regardless of scale? | LinkedIn

[2] (2) An explanation of dark matter and dark energy from unmodified Newtonian gravity* | LinkedIn

[3] (2) A rationale for large scale dynamics and structure | LinkedIn

[4] Suggested simulation experiment for large-scale structure, with reference to the cosmological principle | LinkedIn

[5] (2) Natural constants from one source | LinkedIn

* Cover image and caption credit: https://www.biography.com/scientists/how-isaac-newton-changed-our-world

Original cover image caption: Sir Isaac Newton and his telescope.; Photo: Getty Images

RELATED ARTICLES

(2) Large-scale structure and dynamics | LinkedIn

(2) An equivalence (but not identity) of attractive and proposed repulsive Newtonian gravity | LinkedIn

(2) The two faces of Newton's gravity, and extending the cosmological principle | LinkedIn