'Metagravity' - an explanation for quasar redshifts and galactic motions?

[W.Davidson]

From Wikipedia:

"At the centre of the black hole, well inside the event horizon, general relativity predicts a singularity, a place where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and gravitational forces become infinitely strong.

It is expected that future refinements or generalisations of general relativity (in particular quantum gravity) will change what is thought about the nature of black hole interiors. most theorists interpret the mathematical singularity of the equations as indicating that the current theory is not complete, and that new phenomena must come into play as one approaches the singularity."

It occurs to me that if the 'new phenomena' included the generation of a new force of nature that was similar to gravity, but much stronger than it, that might explain two conundrums at a stroke - quasar redshifts and the 'missing mass' in galaxies. Let's call this new force of nature 'Metagravity'. If the black hole at the centre of a quasar generates this much stronger type of gravity, it could provide an explanation for the redshift. It would be a combination of a gravitational redshift added to the redshift of recession.

The same force would also explain why galaxies rotate as they do, and there would be no need to invoke 'dark matter' as an explanation for this.

[Jay-qu]

Moved to strange claims.

And until you can back up your theory with some sound scientific priciples, it shall remain here.

Jay

[W.Davidson]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

Moved to strange claims.

And until you can back up your theory with some sound scientific priciples, it shall remain here.

Jay

As 'Metagravity' is postulated to be a new force of nature about which nothing is known apart from the fact that it is generated inside black holes and may account for both quasar redshifts and galactic motions, I am not really in a position to back it up with 'some sound scientific principles'. It is new ground.

If a scientist during the age of Newton had proposed that the energy from the sun must be due to a new force of nature, he would have been right. But he could not have backed it up with the scientific knowledge which existed during that era. It would have to be left to future scientists to do that. However, his proposal may have acted as the spur to open up new insights into the way the universe works. That is all my post seeks to achieve.

Gravity is a very mysterious thing. No one knows how matter generates this force and phrases such as 'deformation of space-time' are not really very helpful. 'Metagravity' is even more mysterious, and since it is only generated inside black holes, it will prove to be more difficult to study. But it does explain a lot.

[Jay-qu]

Sorry, not letting you off that easy! Just because it is 'new ground' doesnt mean you can not back it up. For instance you could show that it is impossible to account for what you see given the current set of laws for gravity but that given a new set that you have created, will fit in and be accounted for. This should be done with the primary language of physics, math

It may turn out that this situation does not require new forces, physicists dont lightly proclaim the finding of a new force. They will work long and hard to first try and make things think with what they already know.

Im not here to say your wrong, I am merely trying to uphold the scientific method.

[ronthepon]

This is a hypothesis just as 'perhaps we go to heaven after we die' is. It may actually be true, but we cannot verify it for sure at the time being.

The only way to actually validate a concept of this kind is to show that the effects are exhibited, perhaps to a lower degree, some place else, and we can observe it.

I mean, if Newton would have talked about nuclear energy and not given any reasoning behid it, he would probably had been talking about a lot other bullshit too.

[W.Davidson]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

This is a hypothesis just as 'perhaps we go to heaven after we die' is. It may actually be true, but we cannot verify it for sure at the time being.

I mean, if Newton would have talked about nuclear energy and not given any reasoning behid it, he would probably had been talking about a lot other bullshit too.

There's no evidence for heaven. There is evidence for metagravity. Two things are known (in theory) to be able to cause the very high redshifts seen in quasars - recessional velocity and gravity. Recessional velocity is falling out of favour as a sole explanation. However, conventional gravity is not strong enough to produce the observed effects. Black hole maths 'break down' and yield infinities, and many theorists have said that this may indicate 'new phenomena'. Well, metagravity is a 'new phenomenon' that could explain it. The infinities could be indicating a phase change.

At the same time, the rotation of individual spiral galaxies and the motions of galaxies within clusters are incompatible with gravitational theory. Physicists have had to invoke the existence of vast quantities of 'dark matter' to try to account for the observations, but they freely admit they don't have a clue what this dark matter might be. It's all highly theoretical and flimsy. Super-massive black holes are strongly suspected to lie at the hearts of galaxies, and the metagravity they could be producing might explain the observations better.

On the subject of Newton, he was also an alchemist.

[ronthepon]

Allright then, metagravity.

You are proposing the existence of a new force, one that is present to a observable degree only near supermassive black holes.

My suggestions to you: give it some thinking, and attempt to form a somewhat clear hypothesis about it. Give some detailed background information and about the other hypotheses that have been proposed, and then present it. Only then will people pay serious attention to your idea.

[GAHD]

How would you model this?

[W.Davidson]

GAHD, no idea. I'm not a scientist. I supply the 1% inspiration. Hopefully, scientists will supply the 99% perspiration.