Gross Gravity: The Theory They Don’t Teach You
Introduction
Gravity is often colloquially referred to as an attractive force. We often say things like “the pull of gravity” or “the suck of a black hole.” Though this may be how we refer to gravity, Einstein’s general theory of relativity proposes the most widely accepted definition of gravity. It contends that gravity is not a force (as in Newtonian mechanics) but is a result of the curvature of spacetime. However, modeling gravity from yet another perspective may yield insights into some of the universe’s greatest mysteries.
The Perspective
If you aren’t familiar with Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity, don’t fret because you should still be able to understand this concept. All you need to know is that most people view gravity as either an attractive force or the simple distortion of spacetime.
This perspective represents gravity as a repulsive force. In this model, gravity is the result of an omnidirectional force being emitted from every point within the universe. From every infinitesimally small, single point within the bounds of the universe is a force emitted in all directions around it.
In “empty” space with no objects nearby, “zero gravity” or the freefall state is realized because all gravitational repulsion cancels out. For example, a golf ball released in empty space experiences the same gravitational force from every direction, so the net force equals zero.
So how does this explain why objects on the earth’s surface, for instance, are attracted to the earth and not in perpetual freefall? The perceived “attractive” force results not from the earth “pulling” things but from the mass of the earth attenuating the repulsive forces acting upon an object from the opposite side of the earth relative to the object.
Discussion
This discussion of opposing views of gravity may certainly seem unproductive to most. After all, we’ve never been able to definitively prove any point of view to be correct. However, this perspective actually helps to explain two major phenomena in a more intuitive way than the others.
First, the repulsive model accounts for at least some of the missing 68% of energy in the universe that we attribute to the existence of dark matter/energy. The activity we observe occurring in the vacuum of space may be this mysterious omnidirectional force and be responsible for gravity.
Second, this perspective may explain the expansion (and the expansion’s acceleration) of the universe. Of course, we know that the expansion of the universe is more a matter of perspective and units than a literal, physical expansion. One cannot adopt a frame of reference from outside the observable universe because there is no outside from which to make observations. However, I will proceed with this argument because it offers an explanation and remains an interesting discussion. The repulsive force from within the “bounds” of the universe acts outwards upon those “bounds,” forcing not only celestial beings apart but also causing the universe itself to expand.
Conclusion
I’m not sure if I accept this perspective, given Einstein’s somewhat distinguished resume and the widespread support of his proposals. However, it does offer some insights into problems we aren’t entirely sure how to answer yet. Speaking of uncertainty, I don’t know what my next post will be about (I know you love surprises, don’t lie), but I’d bet it’ll be something great.
