Negative Gravitational Force

[South-Titan]

An alternative theory to the Big Bang's propulsion mechanisms that expand the universe: What if there was a gigantic (like, thousands of times bigger than red giants) star that exploded? Since if you have less weight, you theoretically can jump higher before gravity catches up to you and drags you back down, right?

Well, if you're in zero-G, nothing's tethering you to the ground, so if you jump up, you either hit the ceiling or float away. Now, what would happen if you had a negative gravitational pull? It would repulse you off from the ground like when you stick two north-aligned magnets together, and they push off. Since there is evidence of negative gravity in exploding stars turning into supernovas, that matter is propelled away from any nearby object bigger smaller than it.

In theory, a negative gravitational pull bounces you off of anything bigger than you (with more gravitational pull) and smaller objects (with positive, yet still low gravitational pull) is also repulsed, and in a supernova, you're able to launch out into space like a Pachinko ball.

Maybe that's what caused the Big Bang's momentum and journey outward, and another reason why galaxies are so far apart? Consider it, it makes sense. A big explosion would set off the initial thing, but eventually, it'd slow down (but it wouldn't crunch up either, contrary to some belief). Negative gravity would send it off at the same speed, but they're all pointed off in different directions until the field is too far away and matter begins to group in clusters, many AU from each other.

So, maybe a god-fearing, physics-defying wave of 'boom' could have created a temporary negative gravitational field so strong that stuff is repelled away many thousands of light years away. What do you think?

 

[Whitesock]

That still doesn't explain how it got there.

 

[ElderKingpin]

why does it have to begin with "something exploded" is that the only way for stuff to be created? large booms?

 

[sqrage]

Something that is mobile remains mobile for eternity unless an outside force impends on it. So there is no need for negative gravity to be pushing it out. The bang itself started the initial expanding and from there it is neverending.

 

[Genkora]

Saying negative gravity doesn't make any sense, because gravity is a rather particular thing. That's like saying a black that's white, or a a ball that's square (ok, maybe those are bad examples, but I can't think of anything else). Might I suggest you look into dark energy? It is is a similar concept to negative gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

[South-Titan]

Something that is mobile remains mobile for eternity unless an outside force impends on it. So there is no need for negative gravity to be pushing it out. The bang itself started the initial expanding and from there it is neverending.

True, but negative gravity can do it just as fast AND be a partial explanatory factor in why galaxies are so spread apart.

Also, either could have happened anyways and I'm just putting up a new theory. And to my above poster, dark energy could exist. And scientists have found evidence of negative-gravity explosions in stars that go supernova.

 

[Cornface]

I'm having this hangover and I am trying to understand what you really try to say. Anyway, I came to think of these hypothetical "white holes", the reversal of black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holes

 

[South-Titan]

Could it possibly be a negative gravitational field created by a mega-white hole, then?

 

[Pineapple]

Sounds pretty strait forward to me.

 

[Varine]

Saying negative gravity doesn't make any sense, because gravity is a rather particular thing. That's like saying a black that's white, or a a ball that's square (ok, maybe those are bad examples, but I can't think of anything else). Might I suggest you look into dark energy? It is is a similar concept to negative gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Negative gravity is theoretical because everything has to have an opposite force. Dark energy isn't the same thing.

 

[uberfoop]

Negative gravity is theoretical because everything has to have an opposite force.

An equal and opposite force acting back from the second object onto the first, you mean. And gravity has it. Gravity from object a to object b forms an action-reaction pair with the gravity from object b onto object a.

By Newton's 3rd law, the oppositeness of the forces means that a pulled object gets pulled back on and a pushed object gets pushed back on. You can't have object a pulling object b and object b expelling object a as an action-reaction pair. By that logic, running into a wall head-on could cause you to gain forward velocity.




Unless you meant something else by 'opposite force' at which point I guess I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[phyrex1an]

The "big bang" effect than can be measured today is not from matter than expands into space, but from space that expands into itself (well...). An exploding red giant would be example of the first, "big bang" is a description of the latter.