Universe Expanding Energy

Recommended Posts

I came to the conclusion that the source of energy for the expansion of the Universe is the compression of matter in galaxies, primarily when matter is absorbed by black holes. This compression of matter leads to an increase in gravitational binding energy in those places where matter is compressed. The law of conservation of energy requires that this increase in binding energy be compensated by something, and it can only be compensated by a decrease in the gravitational binding energy between these centers of mass concentration by increasing the distances between them. The greater the distance between galaxies, the greater the absolute increase in the distance between them is required to compensate for the same increase in gravitational binding energy in galaxies. That's how Hubble's law is explained. When the mass in the Universe, which can absorb black holes, will end, or will be eaten by black holes, then the expansion of the Universe will end and, logically, it will begin to shrink. And this is the reverse process, and the law of conservation of energy requires that during the contraction of the Universe, black holes would be destroyed and the universe would return to the original state from which its expansion began. Not in point, and in some area with more less uniform distribution of sparse.And then the whole cycle has to repeat.
This turned out to be a very simple and beautiful model of the Universe. Read more at *link removed*. Initially, I did not set out to refute the hypothesis of the Big Bang, I just tried to apply to the universe a formula from nuclear physics, where the mass of the nucleus is the sum of the masses of protons and neutrons minus the binding energy divided by the square of the speed of light, and then everything turned out by itself through simple logical conclusions.

Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

When the mass in the Universe, which can absorb black holes, will end, or will be eaten by black holes, then the expansion of the Universe will end and, logically, it will begin to shrink. And this is the reverse process, and the law of conservation of energy requires that during the contraction of the Universe, black holes would be destroyed and the universe would return to the original state from which its expansion began.

So the idea is that consumption of matter by black holes drives expansion of the universe. During the reverse process does the black holes, according to you, spit out the matter again? That does not sound like the black holes described by the current models. What model of black holes are you using?

Share on other sites

I assume that in the center of the black hole the density of matter is so high that the gravitational binding energy of the matter compressed there exceeds the initial mass of this matter. That is, the density inside the black hole is negative. It turns out that inside the black hole is a white hole. Agree, this is a very explosive design.

Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Post the material required to discuss the topic here on the forum please.

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Share on other sites

Consider a system of two bodies with masses MA and MB at a distance R.

The total mass of the system of these two bodies will be equal as

If the distance between the bodies R is less than the critical RC, which is

then the total mass of the system of these two bodies will be negative. Thus, to obtain a negative mass, it is necessary to compress ordinary matter very much, so that the gravitational energy of the bond would be greater than the initial mass of matter.
Now tell me, where in the Universe is matter very much compressed? The answer is obvious, in black holes.
And now about the properties of bodies with negative mass. First, it is obvious that bodies with negative mass will repel bodies with positive mass and attract other bodies with negative mass,
this follows from the Law of universal Gravitation. But there is another important property of bodies with negative mass, which is worth mentioning.
Suppose we have two bodies with the same initial mass M0 and gravitational bond energy E0 > M0 * c^2, that is, their masses are negative. They are located at a distance of R.
the Total mass of the system of these two bodies will be

M = 2M0 – 2E0/c^2 – 4G(M0-E0)^2/(R c^2)

They will begin to attract to each other, the distance R to decrease. This means that the last term in the above formula will increase and that the total mass of the system of bodies
will remain unchanged, the gravitational binding energy E0 in each body will have to decrease. This will mean a decrease in the absolute value of the negative mass of each of the bodies.
This will lead to the fact that on the surface of each of the bodies will form a thin shell of positive mass, which will immediately disperse in the surrounding space under the force
of repulsion from the negative mass, and if the distance R is sufficient, there will be a complete annihilation of these bodies with negative mass.
Thus, when approaching two bodies with a negative mass annihilate, just as annihilate matter and antimatter.

From the above, the internal structure of the black hole is as follows.

When a black hole is formed in its center, a region of negative mass is formed under the influence of enormous pressure. Unlike electrodynamics, where opposite charges are attracted,
the masses of one sign must be attracted, and the masses of different signs repelled. Therefore, in the center of the black hole should be a nucleus of negative mass,
which repels the outer shell of the positive mass. The shell is held from the inside by the pressure of negative mass, and from the outside by the pressure of absorbed matter and its own gravity.
On the inner surface of the shell is a layer in which, under the influence of pressure from both sides, particles of negative mass are gradually formed,
which are immediately repelled into the nucleus. We can say that there is a white hole inside the black hole and to clarify what was said earlier,
" the Universe is expanding from billions of black-white holes."
Thus, the apparent mass of a black hole will be the difference between the mass of matter absorbed by the black hole and the negative mass of the nucleus, or white hole.
Also, a small contribution to the reduction of the mass of the black hole will make a gravitational mass defect from the compression of matter.
And this visible mass of a black hole can be billions of times smaller than the total mass of matter absorbed by the black hole.

Share on other sites

Thanks for posting material allowing for discussion of the idea. Here are some initial notes and questions:

12 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The total mass of the system of these two bodies will be equal as

Where does that formula come from? What is the evidence that mass will become negative when distance, R, is small?

15 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

First, it is obvious that bodies with negative mass will repel bodies with positive mass and attract other bodies with negative mass,
this follows from the Law of universal Gravitation.

It is not obvious that two negative masses will attract each other:

Quote

Although no particles are known to have negative mass, physicists (primarily Hermann Bondi in 1957,[6] William B. Bonnor in 1964 and 1989,[12][13] then Robert L. Forward[14]) have been able to describe some of the anticipated properties such particles may have. Assuming that all three concepts of mass are equivalent according to the equivalence principle, the gravitational interactions between masses of arbitrary sign can be explored, based on the Newtonian approximation of the Einstein field equations. The interaction laws are then:

Positive mass attracts both other positive masses and negative masses.

Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.

Source wikipedia/Negative_mass. Paper from 1957:  http://www.edition-open-sources.org/sources/5/24/index.html

Share on other sites

Thanks, I will revise the model

Where does that formula come from?

The formula is taken from nuclear physics, " the mass of the nucleus is the sum of the masses of protons and neutrons minus the binding energy divided by the square of the speed of light"

Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.

This makes it even easier, as soon as the negative mass inside the black hole equals the positive mass of the shell, the black hole should explode.

Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

The law of conservation of energy

Energy isn't conserved on cosmological scales.

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

That's how Hubble's law is explained.

Before you can claim that, you need to show in mathematical detail that the mechanism you claim produces the same effects as Hubble's Law.

And then, that it also explains the recent acceleration of expansion.

Then you need to explain why general relativity is wrong.

25 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses.

There is no such thing as negative mass.

Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The formula is taken from nuclear physics, " the mass of the nucleus is the sum of the masses of protons and neutrons minus the binding energy divided by the square of the speed of light"

Can you provide a reference for the formula? What evidence is there that negative mass exists?

Share on other sites

Can you provide a reference for the formula?

I'm known from nuclear physics, the formula has replaced the masses of protons and neutrons on the masses of bodies A and B. a reference to the third term, which expresses the gravitational binding energy here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гравитационная_энергия

In this video (it is in Russian) Professor Zaitsev said that if two particles with a small mass bind a large binding energy, the system of two particles will have a negative mass

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

The total mass of the system of these two bodies will be equal as

...

Now tell me, where in the Universe is matter very much compressed? The answer is obvious, in black holes.

You can't apply concepts from Newtonian gravity to concepts that require General Relativity. For example cosmology or black holes.

The results you get are just meaningless.

It might be relatively simple to calculate the gravitational potential in the case of a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole. But it isn't going to be the equation you are using.

Share on other sites

Negative mass under GR isn't possible. Secondly even if a BH were radiating mass it would not account for a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

Your theory cannot work once you consider the size scales from the radius from a BH as well as the uniform nature of expansion.

BH'S even supermassive are miniscule compared to the volume between large scale structure distributions of galaxy clusters. The voids between the LSS is incredibly immense there is no way these voids cam be influenced by mass radiating from a BH even assuming such a thing is possible.

If you wish confirmation look at how many Mpc the volume of the universe entails. Entire galaxies only average a few Kpc is diameter. Yet even with the Supermassive BH'S in the Centre of our Milky way there is absolutely no influence here on Earth from those BH'S and we're only a few Kpc from them.

Secondly flows are detectable via plasma there is no indication of outward flows as opposed to inward flows from any BH.

Your theory has zero possibility of any viability.

If you really want to learn how expansion works then you need to study the thermodynamics behind the fluid equations of the FLRW metric.

There is one argument that you cannot account for with your theory.

The universe was expanding before the first star or BH existed  even before the first hydrogen atom could exist.

Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

I'm known from nuclear physics, the formula has replaced the masses of protons and neutrons on the masses of bodies A and B. a reference to the third term, which expresses the gravitational binding energy here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гравитационная_энергия

I am unable to find the formula you posted. Your formula:

9 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Trying English references i find:

Nuclear binding energy*: The mass defect of a nucleus represents the amount of mass equivalent to the binding energy of the nucleus (E=mc2), which is the difference between the mass of a nucleus and the sum of the individual masses of the nucleons of which it is composed.

Gravitational binding energy**: is the minimum energy that must be added to a system for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state:

The third term in your equation does not look like gravitational binding energy above.

Is the formula you provided invented by you? Can you show some evidence or reference that Nuclear binding energy is applicable to the masses in a system where Gravitational binding energy dominates?

Edited by Ghideon
formula
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Gravitational binding energy**: is the minimum energy that must be added to a system for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state:

The third term in your equation does not look like gravitational binding energy above.

It's different by the factor of 3/5, but more importantly, the equation you cite is for a spherical mass, not two already-assembled masses. So that difference is irrelevant. But the OP is also ignoring kinetic energy, i.e. the masses are not orbiting, and further, are somehow shedding their KE as r decreases. But those are minor differences

The OP is simply taking Newton's equation for potential energy and dividing by c^2.

The Schwarzschild radius is 2 GM/c^2. The OP's critical radius for two objects of equal mass is half of that. Thus, any item will collapse to a black hole — and require we apply GR rather than Newtonian gravity — before the scenario would arise.

Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

the equation you cite is for a spherical mass, not two already-assembled masses

My bad, you are correct, I missed that for some reason. I tried to find a formula by the name OP stated: "gravitational binding energy".

Share on other sites

You would want the gravitational coupling constant for that.

Share on other sites

I must admit that there was a mistake in my calculations, and now it was impossible to explain Hubble's law immediately. The correct formula for the total mass of two identical galaxies should be written as follows

M = 2m - 2E/c^2 - Gm^2/Rc^2

m - mass of each galaxy, E - internal gravitational bond energy in each galaxy

then for two values E2>E1 the balance of gravitational binding energy will be expressed by the following equation

2(E2-E1) = Gm^2(1/R1-1/R2)

where get

R2-R1 =2(E2-E1)R1R2/Gm^2

denote dR=R2-R1 , dE=E2-E1 and approximately R1R2=R^2

dR = 2*dE*R^2/Gm^2

that is, the increment in the distance between galaxies caused by the same increment in the internal energy of the gravitational bond in each galaxy will be proportional to the square of the distance between galaxies, not just the distance, as in Hubble

During the reverse process does the black holes, according to you, spit out the matter again?

There is another option. Black holes will slowly evaporate due to Hawking radiation and this will cause them to converge

Create an account

Register a new account