This would also explain the 'flyby anomaly', the apparent acceleration of spacecraft near Earth, for as they neared our planet, the fabric of space in close proximity to Earth became ever-so-slightly stretched...and — to Earthside observers — accelerated more than expected. But as with the Pioneer craft, the spacecraft near Earth did not experience an unusual change in acceleration — instead, they were traveling just as many kilometers per hour as they should, but those kilometers of space were being stretched by their proximity to Earth.
Now here's where things get interesting...because if my "Elastic Space" theory (hereafter referred to as "ES") pans out, then the positions of visible stellar objects are as we see them, and are just as far away as they appear to be...but the light that traveled from those objects had to travel further (to the view of Earthlings in a gravity well) than we had previously understood, because while the light was still traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second, each kilometer was slightly shorter than we expect them to be. In other words, all interstellar light that reaches us here has traveled many more kilometers than we expect...and are significantly more redshifted than they should be.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble proved that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us. The farther away the galaxies are, the more quickly they are accelerating away from us. But ES shows that this is not the case after all, because the more distant the galaxy, the more 'shortened kilometers' the photons from that galaxy has had to traverse, and those photons will be significantly more redshifted than the apparent distance of that galaxy would warrant.
And there's another piece of the puzzle that I alluded to earlier — the observed Pioneer effect was numerically equivalent to the product of the speed of light and the Hubble constant. I think that fact has now become significant.
According to Wikipedia, "dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations and experiments that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate...In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe" The major proof of the existence of dark energy is the apparent acceleration of galaxies as evinced by the observed redshift of those galaxies. However, ES shows that the actual redshift of those galaxies is significantly less than the observed redshift.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
A necessary addendum - I don't think I explained the 'shortened kilometers' properly.
If one is traveling 60 kilometers per hour, he will travel one kilometer per minute. If the kilometer in space is stretched say, 10%, he will still travel the length of that kilometer in one minute, and so to an outside observer seem to be going faster. Conversely, if the same kilometer is shortened by a lack of proximity to a gravity well, he would still take one minute to traverse that kilometer, and to an outside observer seem to be going slower...even though in both cases his velocity would not have changed.
According to ES theory, the kilometers as measured in interstellar space would actually be 'normal', and ours here on Earth - since we're in a gravity well - would be 'stretched'.
2 - doug m
Fascinating piece, at least to this layman. It does make sense for gravity of bodies to affect the space around it.
3 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Well, if you're a physics laymen then I must be a physics dolt. One hell of an article and it really points out how inaccurate the Newtonian laws are becoming.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Thank you both very much for the encouragement. My next move is to e-mail some physicists and try to get them to review the article so they can point out the mistakes that are obvious to them, but not to us.
5 - Shawn
Right now I'm picturing the balls-of-various-masses-on-a-sheet-of-fabric example of gravity wells. If the physicists behind that visual aid for the layman didn't catch on that it implied a change in size for some regions (all, really, to varying degrees) corresponding to the change in shape, they deserve a kick. I'm under the impression that they do take this into account and use it along with the 'lensing' effect of stars passing behind masses to check assumed distances.
6 - fcetier
Well written and thought out piece, Glen. Wish I knew enough to comment on the content. Made C's in the only two physics courses I had in pharmacy school !!
Best of luck in getting published!
7 - El Bicho
please provide updates and more articles of this type. I enjoyed it
8 - Jeannie Danna
Glen, You must be mistaken here
I know that I am not a physicist by any means.
you are a physicist if your writing this!
i watched a show about using prisms to intensify sunlight in space and direct it to solar panels in order to produce clean energy. Would your ES theory help?
i saw this program on planet green channel
9 - roger nowosielski
I'll have to read it Glenn, and then comment. Perhaps you've found your niche.
10 - zingzing
my understanding is that dark matter is thought to exist because there just isn't enough matter in the universe to explain how gravity affects that matter we can see. or in order for the rate of expansion to be explained, there must be something else out there... of course, that could be what you're talking about, but i just missed it.
meh. writing about physics using a language other than math is like trying to explain the beauty of english in japanese.
11 - Cannonshop
Hmmm... I wonder how we could represent that mathematically...
12 - roger nowosielski
Glenn,
Is there anything in popular literature about science that even comes close to anything you're saying?
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Jeannie -
Zing is right - it's difficult at best to describe physics without math...and it's downright dangerous for someone not well-versed in higher math to attempt to do so. That's why I expect for any real physicist to shake his head and snort in disgust at my article.
But I still think I'm on to something.
14 - Jeannie Danna
quantum physics?
didn't Einstein also prove that we all exist in time at all our ages simultaneously?
15 - Jeannie Danna
well then Glen, i better leave your thread..i am mathematically challenged :)
16 - roger nowosielski
Glenn, #13,
You underestimate the extent to which philosophical thinking, in terms of metaphors and ideas, figure in most of the important scientific discoveries and theories.
Einstein himself wasn't as mathematically astute as some of his colleagues - had to get help from Schrödinger, for example (Schrödinger's equations).
His was a thought-experiment at first, which eventually prompted mathematical description.
17 - zingzing
i sent this article to two friends who are physics majors. we'll see if/how they respond.
18 - roger nowosielski
#10,
And if my memory serves, the "observable matter" constitutes only ten to fifteen percents of the stuff in the universe.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
I don't have the link anymore (my last PC crashed and burned so I finally broke down and got a Mac last week), but there was one small association of scientists who were.
But a quick search for curvature of space turned up this link from the University of Winnipeg describing General Relativity. Note the graph lines of the gravity well on the page. Each square in the graph is exactly one square in length and width...even when the square is stretched. It's just as I said - in close proximity to masses, space is stretched...and a kilometer outside the heliopause is (by our observation) shorter than a kilometer inside the heliopause.
I believe that, taken to its logical extensions, this explains not only the Pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomaly, and the galaxy rotation problem, but also the dark matter/energy that we cannot directly observe despite the belief that they comprise 94% of the universe.
I expect that any physicist worth his salt will immediately disavow my argument...but I still think I'm right. My explanation is simpler than 'dark energy/matter', string theory, or a host of other theories...but my explanation is still in line with general relativity. No one - including Einstein - were ever able to explain the source of his 'cosmological constant'. My theory does.
That sounds pretty arrogant, and I must admit that when one is confident of the truth contained in one's inspirational epiphany, it's hard to not be arrogant. But I really do think I'm right. Time will tell.
20 - roger nowosielski
Brian Greene on dark matter.
21 - roger nowosielski
I wouldn't call that arrogance, Glenn, to follow ideas that make sense to you.
Many a discovery had very humble beginnings. And I'll look up your link.
I really think you should discuss your ideas with competent people. Think of copyrighting, though.
22 - roger nowosielski
How does your idea square with Richard Feynman's work?
23 - roger nowosielski
You might like the following site, Glenn.
24 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Fine article. Excellent thoughts. I admire that you could even imagine such a thing. Such imagination is usually found in younger minds. Anyway, I'll e-mail Dr. Gerald Schroeder with a link and ask him what he thinks. No promises as to results.
At least with this there is no political bullshit to deal with. There are no liberal or conservative electrons running around, last I read. And none of them are trying to destroy Israel!
Nice job!
25 - roger nowosielski
Sharp guy, Ruvy.
I like the following discussion.