Dark Energy in the form of heat indeed is being created at the core of the Earth and all other objects larger than 100 miles in diameter, even the moon. I know the theorized reason why the moon moves away from the Earth each year but the math does not add up. This idea implies that the Dark Energy being produced at their cores causes the two bodies to repel away from each other. With the distance the moon moves away each year we could calculate how much new dark energy the Earth is producing.
Tell me this idea of mine which is so easy to understand can not be understood. Anyone can actually do simple mathematical equation which shows this to be true using the formula for thermodynamics & actual core temperature reading of the Earth at 7 miles down out of to make a graph. It shows that the core temperature based on the actual radius of the Earth of 3,963 miles to be around 159,214 °F. Without even using gravity as a factor this temperature surpasses previous estimates by 150,000 °F!
To top it all off, we also know that charged particles are effected by magnetic fields. A thought experiment: If we were to observe the Sun from outside our solar system it would look no bigger than a particle of dust floating in the air. To the universe the sun would appear to be a charged particle. Emanating the charge which it can no longer hold, slowly adding to the dark energy which fills the universe. Add them all together and from a distance inflation is observed. Just a thought.
We all know that pressure creates heat and the more pressure which is applied the more heat is produced. Heat is energy. This means energy is being produced via pressure in the cores of all objects larger than 50 miles in diameter. This is where all the dark energy is originating. It is produced at the same moment gravity is produced, is equal and opposite to the force of gravity. This simple idea can explain everything which is observed in space & will also explain future observations.
So mass must be producing dark energy at the same time gravity is occurring, an opposite to the force which is causing dark energy. Note that the surface tension of a sphere concentrates pressure towards it's core. Pressure makes heat. The larger the object the more energy/heat is produced at the core. The limit where the heat turns the average material molten is approximately 2,300 degrees F, or 50 miles deep. This closely matches the size of asteroids when gravity can first be calculated.
Where is the center point of the universe's inflation occurring? Think about that one. The central point where the inflation is occurring or everything is moving away from is not one but many. They are located where matter and gravity are concentrated throughout the universe. I propose that gravity is the equal and opposite to the dark energy which is theorized to be causing the inflation. Evidence is in the observation where everything is moving away from everything else.
@IAmMeTisAll I'm sure there are many holes which can be found in this theory. That is why I placed it on YouTube, a little peer review. Credit would have to go to Hermann von Helmholtz.. It was he who postulated in 1854 that gravity created energy(over unity). His idea violated the law of thermodynamics. But when HST UDF imaged the red shift in the most distant galaxies it showed the universe was inflating leaving dark energy(over unity) to explain. Looks like he was right all along.
@GateMessenger So how does your theory explain time dilation near massive gravitational objects, something that General Relativity explains. Edwin Hubble first showed that the Universe was expanding, the redshift he found is part of the evidence of this well before the UDF. Gravity is a force, not energy. Plus nothing is being added to the Universe. And this is from someone who thinks light is electrons.
@IAmMeTisAll Some will disagree that gravity is a force. I never said that gravity was energy. If nothing were being added to the universe it would not be inflating exponentially against the effect of gravity. Do you know how much energy is needed to get galaxies at the extents of the observable universe to reach near light speeds? Dark Energy was added to theory in order to explain the observation of the inflation between galaxies. Hubble noted nearby galaxies moving away, not inflation.
@IAmMeTisAll My theory does not address time dilation it explains what is causing gravity which general relativity does not address. Yes, all this from someone who knows light is a visible frequency of the EM spectrum(Maxwell's equations) and when we observe the light the photon wave(quantum theory) collapses and converts into electrons(elementary particles), see duality of light. Oh, I could care less about recognition(Nobel prize) or I would not have posted this on YouTube for people to steal.
While gravity from existing mass requires no effort, there's no way to create mass without energy. In this regard it'd take energy in order to create gravity ( or mass which is equivalent to energy).
Also, for space-time it's important to remember it doesn't exist in 3d space. If an object is "sitting still in space" it's still moving in space-time in the time dimension.
Each body which produces gravity emanates new energy into space (called dark energy because it is unknown?) which causes the space to increase or inflate between planets, moons, stars, galaxies and all cosmic bubbles. Over unity is the only logical cause to the universe's observed inflation.
The energy emanates from the object and at the same time appears to be the cause of gravity. Is gravity the complementary force to this flowing energy? Like a circle, gravity creates pressure=heat and heat flows outward to meet with the cold=vacuum as is the vacuum rushes in to equalize with pressure it appears as gravity, which as we know gravity creates pressure... and thus continues in a circle. Possibly this continually causes matter to vibrate, standing waves.
Gravity creates pressure and pressure creates heat. Heat is considered as energy. So gravity is basically creating energy. If this heat is so extreme to cause nuclear reactions then gravity can create extreme temperatures. What visual evidence is there which shows this to be true?
The universe is constantly growing from the new energy which is being created. The energy starts in the cores of asteroids 100miles in diameter or larger, planets, comets, stars and black holes.1 This energy fills the space around the object like air in a balloon causing the space between the objects to move away from one another, hence universal inflation. More energy has to be added to Einstein’s relativity formula in order to fit observations.
This is proof there is over unity present in this universe. Any energy which is added to the universe is considered over unity, more energy in than what is already present.
Imagine the universe like marbles in a sack. The energy which gravity produces fills the marbles like they are balloons. Each growing at the same rate all equally spaced apart. As gravity produces more energy the balloons grow larger causing the distance between them to increase. The marbles on the opposite side appear to be moving away at a speed which increases exponentially. See inflation theory.
Energy can be converted into matter, see pair production. Also research Milagro Observatory where they detect heavy radioactive particles hitting the Earth, some in the Tera electron volts. Where energy converts into matter would only cause the universe to begin growing at a faster rate. This accretion would add mass to each object causing the gravity/mass ratio to increase then only to create more energy. Since the Earth will continue forever accretion will tip the scales in favor of growing.
Imagine this: Take a ton of steel and melt it down. Any heat added would be considered from an “outside source”. Any extra heat is radiated out after the material is molten. Keep the heat a constant for 10 years. After 10 years let the steel cool, weight it and it would still weigh 1 ton. The material would not dissipate because it had an “outside source” for heat. There was no conversion taking part upon the material. Steel does not loose its own material when heated by an outside source.
The solar wind action occurs when this energy emanates outward, 90° of the surface. If gravity were not present the force of this energy emanating outward from the sun would tear it apart and it would no longer be present. Gravity and the emanating energy appears to complement one another. We do not need to look further for the source of the heat created by the sun. It is caused by gravity.
So lets get this straight. Gravity creates heat because of pressure. Pressure=heat vacuum=no heat. Think of pressure as being the highest temperature ever possible and the vacuum as being the coldest ever possible. This is comparable to the cores of planets or stars (pressure=extreme heat), to the emptiness of space at 0° K(vacuum=extreme cold). This is a basic law in thermodynamics. This energy naturally is attracted to the cold of vacuum and is completely complementary to the force of gravity.
The reason for why there are rings on Saturn are because there was a collision with an asteriod and the rings are the remnants of the leftover collision process that happened who knows when though. But usually it all makes sense and that sounds like the most reasonable assumption to me.
@Kopdogg Yes, that is what is believed to have been done to create the rings was an asteroid broke up then accretion set in and formed the moons. Although, if that had happened then the rings would not all be different ages with the youngest ones being the outermost rings. The rings would have all been the same age as when the asteroid had caused the disturbance. Seeing they are all different ages suggests more than one asteroid was the cause. Yet how would that explain how the other rings..
@Kopdogg .. were formed without causing a disturbance with the existing rings? What would the chances be that each outer ring becomes younger than the ring before it if they formed from collisions? It would be impossible.
The radiation transforms into electrons, elementary particles, see pair production. This explains why all four of the Jovian planets have rings. Note every radioactive planet/star has rings while non radioactive planets/stars do not have rings. It's not a coincidence.
Your video is so absurd that I cannot find words to describe. I have encountered it while learning about The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory which may have some ground.
You are so badly wrong about many things that you would be very-very sorry only even after learning the basics of nature.
Tell me why should temperature be increasing linearly towards the core of the Earth? Sun's magnetic field: Have you ever heard of the 4th state of matter: plasma? NO? Not surprised, only over 99% of matter in the universe is in that form.
Take some high school lessons instead of wasting time with videos and dont mess around.
Yes, I see you have no idea what I am proposing. No, the earth does have a molten core. I know, it is written that the molten core was produced from collisions at the start of the earth via accretion. I proposed that energy transforms into elementary particles 90° of magnetic field lines & is why the planets all formed on a disk plane, not from the sun's gravitational pull as proposed by the Nebula theory. See pair production, thus why the earth has a + & - ionosphere, see Van Allen belt.
If this hypothesis were true and the sun's heliosphere grew, see Neal Adams videos on growing universe idea, then the position where new material would be located just outside the point where the drop off occurs. This would also be evident in the age of Saturn's rings. The Nebula theory if it were right we would expect to find Saturn's outer rings to be the oldest, being overly exposed to inbound debris. My hopothesis the outer rings would be the youngest. As the planet grows so does the MF.
At the drop off of the magnetosphere along the magnetic equator, 90° to the direction of the wave, is where the energy slows to form standing waves, elementary particles. NASA's Cassini spectrograph found the outer rings to be younger than the inner rings. NASA said it will take them a few years to figure it out. It does not fit current theory. It's just a hypothesis. Lol, my hypothesis predicted young outer rings. Can you explain Saturn's young rings using the Nebula theory or other theory?
Wow.... you are something else. You aren't going to oust anyone with a half-assed understanding of science. You really think every scientist looked over that fact that gravity creates pressure... lmao. The maximum potential energy for an object is the product of it's mass and the speed of light squared... (e=mc2) You can calculate the gravitational energy of a system just by knowing it's mass. You're the only one to look over things... I've know this since grade school.
@xccmx Wow, what a static claim. I was a bit harsh wasn't I? Lol, we should all be scientists. Last I knew there was a glitch with Einstein's theory of relativity. The reason or cause of gravity was still uncertain. Wow, If only you could understand my video, I know. It is a bit difficult to comprehend. With the method of cause and effect what is the cause of gravity? You may be able to calculate the effect but it does not show what is causing gravity. peace.
Gravity, if you want to call it that is the direct measurable effect of neutrino flow outward in all directions from every piece of matter that is effected by the K-flux of intersteller space. imo.
Yes, atomic decay, noted with the solar wind. When the decay happens a balance forms, an inward flow from space to occupy the place where the energy occupied. This flow is called gravity. Like, the energy that forms the magnetic field flows outward from every point off the surface while ether fills up the emptiness where the energy originally occupied. This causes a flow towards the core which small objects follow. This is why all objects are attracted at the same rate regardless of the mass.
nice new explanations to an old theory of Gravity and Universe...i may agree with you in some points, like Dark Matter, im not a fan of such headaches though, but to me it looks like the old either theory that Classical physicists needed whenever they found a gap in their theories to be filled by either, now a days its the same with dark matter just to fill gaps in the minds of the theory makers...not totally satisfactory....
Dark Energy in the form of heat indeed is being created at the core of the Earth and all other objects larger than 100 miles in diameter, even the moon. I know the theorized reason why the moon moves away from the Earth each year but the math does not add up. This idea implies that the Dark Energy being produced at their cores causes the two bodies to repel away from each other. With the distance the moon moves away each year we could calculate how much new dark energy the Earth is producing.
GateMessenger 1 month ago
Tell me this idea of mine which is so easy to understand can not be understood. Anyone can actually do simple mathematical equation which shows this to be true using the formula for thermodynamics & actual core temperature reading of the Earth at 7 miles down out of to make a graph. It shows that the core temperature based on the actual radius of the Earth of 3,963 miles to be around 159,214 °F. Without even using gravity as a factor this temperature surpasses previous estimates by 150,000 °F!
GateMessenger 1 month ago
To top it all off, we also know that charged particles are effected by magnetic fields. A thought experiment: If we were to observe the Sun from outside our solar system it would look no bigger than a particle of dust floating in the air. To the universe the sun would appear to be a charged particle. Emanating the charge which it can no longer hold, slowly adding to the dark energy which fills the universe. Add them all together and from a distance inflation is observed. Just a thought.
GateMessenger 1 month ago
We all know that pressure creates heat and the more pressure which is applied the more heat is produced. Heat is energy. This means energy is being produced via pressure in the cores of all objects larger than 50 miles in diameter. This is where all the dark energy is originating. It is produced at the same moment gravity is produced, is equal and opposite to the force of gravity. This simple idea can explain everything which is observed in space & will also explain future observations.
GateMessenger 1 month ago
So mass must be producing dark energy at the same time gravity is occurring, an opposite to the force which is causing dark energy. Note that the surface tension of a sphere concentrates pressure towards it's core. Pressure makes heat. The larger the object the more energy/heat is produced at the core. The limit where the heat turns the average material molten is approximately 2,300 degrees F, or 50 miles deep. This closely matches the size of asteroids when gravity can first be calculated.
GateMessenger 1 month ago
Where is the center point of the universe's inflation occurring? Think about that one. The central point where the inflation is occurring or everything is moving away from is not one but many. They are located where matter and gravity are concentrated throughout the universe. I propose that gravity is the equal and opposite to the dark energy which is theorized to be causing the inflation. Evidence is in the observation where everything is moving away from everything else.
GateMessenger 1 month ago
Thank you Brother...I ask no more remain at your service
philopolymath 3 months ago
PLEASE NO NO PLEASE NOT ANOTHER NEW THEORY
from the Wild E Cayote school of physics. oy vey
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE
READ WALTER RUSSELL
Think more talk less
gravity is a PUSH
NO MATTER, NO BB NO, BLACK HOLES, NO DARK SHIT
philopolymath 3 months ago
@philopolymath Thanks, my next purchase will be Walter Russell's book The Universal One.
GateMessenger 3 months ago
Let me call the Nobel Committee. If your theory was right, it would command a Nobel Prize for Physics.
IAmMeTisAll 1 year ago
@IAmMeTisAll I'm sure there are many holes which can be found in this theory. That is why I placed it on YouTube, a little peer review. Credit would have to go to Hermann von Helmholtz.. It was he who postulated in 1854 that gravity created energy(over unity). His idea violated the law of thermodynamics. But when HST UDF imaged the red shift in the most distant galaxies it showed the universe was inflating leaving dark energy(over unity) to explain. Looks like he was right all along.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger So how does your theory explain time dilation near massive gravitational objects, something that General Relativity explains. Edwin Hubble first showed that the Universe was expanding, the redshift he found is part of the evidence of this well before the UDF. Gravity is a force, not energy. Plus nothing is being added to the Universe. And this is from someone who thinks light is electrons.
IAmMeTisAll 1 year ago
@IAmMeTisAll Some will disagree that gravity is a force. I never said that gravity was energy. If nothing were being added to the universe it would not be inflating exponentially against the effect of gravity. Do you know how much energy is needed to get galaxies at the extents of the observable universe to reach near light speeds? Dark Energy was added to theory in order to explain the observation of the inflation between galaxies. Hubble noted nearby galaxies moving away, not inflation.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@IAmMeTisAll My theory does not address time dilation it explains what is causing gravity which general relativity does not address. Yes, all this from someone who knows light is a visible frequency of the EM spectrum(Maxwell's equations) and when we observe the light the photon wave(quantum theory) collapses and converts into electrons(elementary particles), see duality of light. Oh, I could care less about recognition(Nobel prize) or I would not have posted this on YouTube for people to steal.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger The Nobel thing, I was being sarcastic.
IAmMeTisAll 1 year ago
While gravity from existing mass requires no effort, there's no way to create mass without energy. In this regard it'd take energy in order to create gravity ( or mass which is equivalent to energy).
Also, for space-time it's important to remember it doesn't exist in 3d space. If an object is "sitting still in space" it's still moving in space-time in the time dimension.
TymeMastery 1 year ago
@TymeMastery Yes, tangled hierarchy.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Each body which produces gravity emanates new energy into space (called dark energy because it is unknown?) which causes the space to increase or inflate between planets, moons, stars, galaxies and all cosmic bubbles. Over unity is the only logical cause to the universe's observed inflation.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
The energy emanates from the object and at the same time appears to be the cause of gravity. Is gravity the complementary force to this flowing energy? Like a circle, gravity creates pressure=heat and heat flows outward to meet with the cold=vacuum as is the vacuum rushes in to equalize with pressure it appears as gravity, which as we know gravity creates pressure... and thus continues in a circle. Possibly this continually causes matter to vibrate, standing waves.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Gravity creates pressure and pressure creates heat. Heat is considered as energy. So gravity is basically creating energy. If this heat is so extreme to cause nuclear reactions then gravity can create extreme temperatures. What visual evidence is there which shows this to be true?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
The universe is constantly growing from the new energy which is being created. The energy starts in the cores of asteroids 100miles in diameter or larger, planets, comets, stars and black holes.1 This energy fills the space around the object like air in a balloon causing the space between the objects to move away from one another, hence universal inflation. More energy has to be added to Einstein’s relativity formula in order to fit observations.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
This is proof there is over unity present in this universe. Any energy which is added to the universe is considered over unity, more energy in than what is already present.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Imagine the universe like marbles in a sack. The energy which gravity produces fills the marbles like they are balloons. Each growing at the same rate all equally spaced apart. As gravity produces more energy the balloons grow larger causing the distance between them to increase. The marbles on the opposite side appear to be moving away at a speed which increases exponentially. See inflation theory.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Energy can be converted into matter, see pair production. Also research Milagro Observatory where they detect heavy radioactive particles hitting the Earth, some in the Tera electron volts. Where energy converts into matter would only cause the universe to begin growing at a faster rate. This accretion would add mass to each object causing the gravity/mass ratio to increase then only to create more energy. Since the Earth will continue forever accretion will tip the scales in favor of growing.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Imagine this: Take a ton of steel and melt it down. Any heat added would be considered from an “outside source”. Any extra heat is radiated out after the material is molten. Keep the heat a constant for 10 years. After 10 years let the steel cool, weight it and it would still weigh 1 ton. The material would not dissipate because it had an “outside source” for heat. There was no conversion taking part upon the material. Steel does not loose its own material when heated by an outside source.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
Gravity is similar to the outside source, heating up the cores of planets and stars via pressure.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
The solar wind action occurs when this energy emanates outward, 90° of the surface. If gravity were not present the force of this energy emanating outward from the sun would tear it apart and it would no longer be present. Gravity and the emanating energy appears to complement one another. We do not need to look further for the source of the heat created by the sun. It is caused by gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
So lets get this straight. Gravity creates heat because of pressure. Pressure=heat vacuum=no heat. Think of pressure as being the highest temperature ever possible and the vacuum as being the coldest ever possible. This is comparable to the cores of planets or stars (pressure=extreme heat), to the emptiness of space at 0° K(vacuum=extreme cold). This is a basic law in thermodynamics. This energy naturally is attracted to the cold of vacuum and is completely complementary to the force of gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
The reason for why there are rings on Saturn are because there was a collision with an asteriod and the rings are the remnants of the leftover collision process that happened who knows when though. But usually it all makes sense and that sounds like the most reasonable assumption to me.
Kopdogg 1 year ago
@Kopdogg Yes, that is what is believed to have been done to create the rings was an asteroid broke up then accretion set in and formed the moons. Although, if that had happened then the rings would not all be different ages with the youngest ones being the outermost rings. The rings would have all been the same age as when the asteroid had caused the disturbance. Seeing they are all different ages suggests more than one asteroid was the cause. Yet how would that explain how the other rings..
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@Kopdogg .. were formed without causing a disturbance with the existing rings? What would the chances be that each outer ring becomes younger than the ring before it if they formed from collisions? It would be impossible.
The radiation transforms into electrons, elementary particles, see pair production. This explains why all four of the Jovian planets have rings. Note every radioactive planet/star has rings while non radioactive planets/stars do not have rings. It's not a coincidence.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear GateMessenger,
Your video is so absurd that I cannot find words to describe. I have encountered it while learning about The Electro-Magnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP) Gravity Theory which may have some ground.
You are so badly wrong about many things that you would be very-very sorry only even after learning the basics of nature.
poki7524 2 years ago
Tell me why should temperature be increasing linearly towards the core of the Earth? Sun's magnetic field: Have you ever heard of the 4th state of matter: plasma? NO? Not surprised, only over 99% of matter in the universe is in that form.
Take some high school lessons instead of wasting time with videos and dont mess around.
poki7524 2 years ago
Yes, I see you have no idea what I am proposing. No, the earth does have a molten core. I know, it is written that the molten core was produced from collisions at the start of the earth via accretion. I proposed that energy transforms into elementary particles 90° of magnetic field lines & is why the planets all formed on a disk plane, not from the sun's gravitational pull as proposed by the Nebula theory. See pair production, thus why the earth has a + & - ionosphere, see Van Allen belt.
GateMessenger 2 years ago
If this hypothesis were true and the sun's heliosphere grew, see Neal Adams videos on growing universe idea, then the position where new material would be located just outside the point where the drop off occurs. This would also be evident in the age of Saturn's rings. The Nebula theory if it were right we would expect to find Saturn's outer rings to be the oldest, being overly exposed to inbound debris. My hopothesis the outer rings would be the youngest. As the planet grows so does the MF.
GateMessenger 2 years ago
At the drop off of the magnetosphere along the magnetic equator, 90° to the direction of the wave, is where the energy slows to form standing waves, elementary particles. NASA's Cassini spectrograph found the outer rings to be younger than the inner rings. NASA said it will take them a few years to figure it out. It does not fit current theory. It's just a hypothesis. Lol, my hypothesis predicted young outer rings. Can you explain Saturn's young rings using the Nebula theory or other theory?
GateMessenger 2 years ago
Comment removed
poki7524 2 years ago
Comment removed
poki7524 2 years ago
Wow.... you are something else. You aren't going to oust anyone with a half-assed understanding of science. You really think every scientist looked over that fact that gravity creates pressure... lmao. The maximum potential energy for an object is the product of it's mass and the speed of light squared... (e=mc2) You can calculate the gravitational energy of a system just by knowing it's mass. You're the only one to look over things... I've know this since grade school.
xccmx 2 years ago
@xccmx Wow, what a static claim. I was a bit harsh wasn't I? Lol, we should all be scientists. Last I knew there was a glitch with Einstein's theory of relativity. The reason or cause of gravity was still uncertain. Wow, If only you could understand my video, I know. It is a bit difficult to comprehend. With the method of cause and effect what is the cause of gravity? You may be able to calculate the effect but it does not show what is causing gravity. peace.
GateMessenger 2 years ago
Gravity, if you want to call it that is the direct measurable effect of neutrino flow outward in all directions from every piece of matter that is effected by the K-flux of intersteller space. imo.
p8950 2 years ago
Yes, atomic decay, noted with the solar wind. When the decay happens a balance forms, an inward flow from space to occupy the place where the energy occupied. This flow is called gravity. Like, the energy that forms the magnetic field flows outward from every point off the surface while ether fills up the emptiness where the energy originally occupied. This causes a flow towards the core which small objects follow. This is why all objects are attracted at the same rate regardless of the mass.
GateMessenger 2 years ago
nice new explanations to an old theory of Gravity and Universe...i may agree with you in some points, like Dark Matter, im not a fan of such headaches though, but to me it looks like the old either theory that Classical physicists needed whenever they found a gap in their theories to be filled by either, now a days its the same with dark matter just to fill gaps in the minds of the theory makers...not totally satisfactory....
KurdstanPlanetarium 2 years ago
Thanks
GateMessenger 2 years ago
Wow, I read about the laws of conservation and it says no one has ever shown it to be wrong. you however have a valid point.
BigNewGames 2 years ago