Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC); a new expression of EU

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
User avatar
joebakhos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:03 am
Location: Big Bear Lake, California
Contact:

Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC); a new expression of EU

Unread post by joebakhos » Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:40 am

Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC) presents gravity as a special relic of the electromagnetic force. Since quarks are charged and since they are confined to the nuclei of atoms, their motions might be schematically represented as alternating currents. It would only take one part in trillions of these oscillations to be approximately in phase and approximately aligned parallel to fully account for the gravitational force.

This means that charge neutral masses might exert attractive or repulsive forces on each other. Please take a look at this paper for details: https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0032

CGC presents an eternal universe that alternates between eras of gentle expansion and contraction -- but this is in Euclidean space; under CGC space is not compressed or stretched. Objects are red shifted by a combination of acceleration in Euclidean space and/or tired light. There is no big bang, no inflation, no "black holes" in the traditional sense, no "singularities." The paper also adapts General Relativity such that a physical mechanism is given for time dilation.

This video playlist explains the theory in detail, while commenting upon how the recent James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) results disprove Big Bang cosmology.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 0X0c2X7M80

danda
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue May 26, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC); a new expression of EU

Unread post by danda » Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:53 pm

Interesting, thx for sharing. Before I dive in, a few q's to get the lay of the land...

Would you say this is an alternative to Wal Thornhill's theory of electrogravity (or whatever he calls it), or an extension of it, or....?
joebakhos wrote: Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:40 am Objects are red shifted by a combination of acceleration in Euclidean space and/or tired light.
Euclidean space, yay. I can't stand "space time curvature" nonsense.

Does the theory have anything to say about Arp's observations of intrinsic redshift, which iirc is also quantized?

Does the theory incorporate an ether or some kind of medium for light waves to travel through? If so, tired light seems obvious/required, as no medium is 100% perfect, so all waves lose energy and lengthen over distance.

Does the theory attempt a physical description of reality, or only a mathematical one?

User avatar
joebakhos
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:03 am
Location: Big Bear Lake, California
Contact:

Re: Cyclic Gravity and Cosmology (CGC); a new expression of EU

Unread post by joebakhos » Tue Mar 07, 2023 4:30 pm

It is an alternative to Thornhill's theory. There are similarities and differences. Similar in that both claim that gravity is a relic of the electromagnetic force. Here is the major difference: Thornhill posits that subatomic particles are microscopic dipoles, and a chain of lining up the dipoles positive to negative results in the gravitational force.

In my opinion, if subatomic particles were polar in this way, particle physicists would have been easily able to detect this.

In CGC, I claim that quarks' charges move back and forth at high velocity, but are constrained by the boundaries of the nucleus. Because they are constrained while moving, this back and forth motion might be thought of as an alternating current. Alternating currents that are in phase and aligned spatially attract one another. If they are anti-phase, they would repel one another. It would only take one part in trillions to be approximately in phase and approximately spatially aligned to fully account for the gravitational force.

This explains why we can have electromagnetic attraction or repulsion without charge separation or electrical currents that are detectable by current technology. The best hope for detecting what I am talking about would be tech similar to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMR), but it would have to be about 1,000 times more sensitive than current tech.

About intrinsic redshift there are also similarities and differences with Arp's ideas. They are similar in that both ideas reject the expansion of space itself. Both ideas reject non-Euclidean geometry. Both ideas accept the idea of tired light, but CGC does not present tired light as explaining all of the red shift, only part of the red shift.

CGC differs from Alp's ideas in that CGC says red shift is due to tired light plus galaxies' actual motion in Euclidean space. I.e. a galaxy is red shifted because light loses detectable energy over inter-galactic distances (tired light) AND a galaxy is red shifted if it is moving away from us.

Under CGC, gravity at the distances of most galactic clusters is repulsive because statistically one part in trillions of the before-mentioned fluctuations would be anti-phase at those distances. Because gravity is repulsive at those distances, most galactic clusters are accelerating away from each other. General Relativity mistakenly attributes this to some constant rate of universal expansion (meaning space itself is constantly being stretched), which in my opinion is absurd.

Under CGC, at some point most galactic clusters will arrive at distances bringing more of their nuclear fluctuations in phase again, and the universe will then enter an age of contraction. Under CGC, this does NOT mean space itself compressing. It means that galactic clusters will then start accelerating towards each other in Euclidean space. So under CGC, the universe is eternal, and eternally alternates between eras of gentle expansion and contraction. There is never anything universally catastrophic like a "big bang" or a "big crunch" -- just periods of gentle expansion alternating with periods of gentle contraction, and the universe eternally looking very roughly similar to how it looks now. (There are some cycles of gentle change going on, but nothing catastrophic)

CGC is agnostic at the present time as regards aether (medium for light waves) BUT CGC insists that there does exist a universal rest frame, and time passes quickest for an object at rest in this universal frame. This is the frame of reference wherein the CMB is not doppler shifted. This assumption along with the tired light hypothesis results in much the same outlook as assuming an aether -- but without needing to speculate about what that aether might be.

All of these things are explained in more detail in the paper: https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0032

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest