Derivation of Universal Field Cosmology's Equation for Gravity

We have seen earlier (in Articles 7, 8 and 12) that, according to this theory, gravitational force varies with the deflection of BTTPs (α), but the “splay” of BPs (σ) due to the curvature of the Universe subtracts from the gravitational force to the extent that it is present. This means gravitational force varies with the deflection minus the splay. The deflection, itself, increases with the mass of the larger object, and decreases with distance between the objects but, as already discussed, not the square of the distance between them, and since the actual force must decrease with the square of the distance, we must divide by distance again. And since the force will also be in direct proportion to the lesser mass (m1), we must multiply by that. We can assemble these attributes into this equation:

Fg = K(α – σ)m2/d    .           .           .           .           .           .           .           (28)

K is a constant, m2 is the lesser mass, and “d” is the distance between the objects. At small distances, when the splay, σ, is negligible, this equation will limit to Newton’s equation for gravity, so:

Kαm2/d = Gm1m2/d˛     .           .           .           .           .           .           .       (29)

We earlier derived an equation for deflection in terms of the number of solar masses in m1 and the distance apart of the objects in light years. It is Equation 22 (derived in Article 12). Converting this to a equation where m1 is in kg and distance, d, is in meters, and α is in radians, we get:

α = m1 x 1.485143333754 x 10-27/d     .           .           .           .           .           .      (30)

Substituting this in Equation 29 we get:

Km1m2 x 1.485143333754 x 10-27/d˛ = Gm1m2/d˛

Canceling out the common terms from each side, we get:

K = G/1.485143333754 x 10-27     .           .           .           .           .           .              (31)

Substituting G into this equation, we get K = 6.67390 x 10-11/1.485143333754 x 10-27, or

K = 4.493775 x 1016. Since c˛ = 8.98755 x 1016, we can see that K = ˝c˛. There is also another way of finding K. In Article 19 I derive α = 2Gm1/c˛d (equation 43, using 'd' instead of 'r'). When we substitute this value for α into equation 29, above, we get: K × 2Gm1m2/d˛c˛ = Gm1m2/d˛. Cancelling out common terms on each side and multiplying both sides by c˛ we get K × 2 = c˛, or K = ˝c˛. Inserting this value of K = ˝c˛ into Equation 28, this theory’s primary equation for gravitational force in Newtons, with deflection and splay in radians, distance in meters, speed in meters per second, and mass in kilograms (all SI units), becomes:

Fg = ˝m2c˛(α – σ)/d     .           .           .           .           .           .           .        (32)

The SI formulas for α and σ are equations (30) and (33) on this page, which enables this equation for gravity to be easily used in practice. The formula for α, equation (30), assumes a value for G of 6.67390 x 10-11 and a value for the sun's mass obtained from this value of G of 1.98843 x 1030 kg. I have road tested this equation for gravity, and it gives the same results as Newton's equation to a high precision, where this would be expected, providing the same value of G, quoted above, is used in Newton's equation.

This equation for gravity is interesting in at least two respects. Firstly, it has no need for a constant of gravitation, or any constant, for that matter (except for c, which this theory suggests may vary over large periods of time), thus it is very revealing of the nature of gravity. The lack of the need for a constant of gravitation is because the force of gravity on an object is a result of that object’s kinetic energy as it moves forward through time at the speed of light (˝m2c˛). We know that force = energy/distance, and there is no reason why gravitational force should be any different. The actual gravitational force, though, is only the result of the deflected kinetic energy divided by the distance from the attracting mass, which is why it is then multiplied by the net angle of deflection (α – σ) and divided by 'd.'

Secondly, this equation shows that the force of gravity is proportional to the square of the speed of light. So if the speed of light were just over seven times its current value when the Universe was about a billion years old, as Figure 8 (in Article 7) suggests, then the force of gravity would have been about 50 times higher then than it is now. That would certainly have got that primeval matter condensed into galaxies in a hurry! It would also have acted to quickly slow the speed of expansion of the Universe, and, as a result, the speed of light, until the force of gravity became a lot weaker, and couldn’t slow it any more. The speed of expansion of the Universe would then have begun to settle around an equilibrium value, as suggested in Article 7.

Let’s continue on, though, to get an equation for gravity in terms of masses, distances and G, the recognized gravitational constant. Just as we converted Equation 22 to get Equation 30, we can also convert Equation 23 to get an equation for splay in terms of meters, with the result in radians. It is:

σ = d x 1.14888 x 10-27/f     .           .           .           .           .           .           (33)

Substituting Equations 30, 31 and 33 into Equation 28 we get:

Fg = G((m1 x 1.485143333754 x 10-27/d) – (d x 1.14888 x 10-27/f))m2/(d x 1.485143333754 x 10-27)

Multiplying top and bottom of the subtracted term by d to get a common denominator:

Fg = G(m1 x 1.485143333754 x 10-27 – d˛ x 1.14888 x 10-27/f)m2/(d˛ x 1.485143333754 x 10-27)

Dividing both top and bottom of the right hand side by 1.485143333754 x 10-27, we get:

Fg = Gm2(m1 – (0.77358d˛/f))/d˛           .           .           .           .           .           (34)

This is a very useful equation for gravitational force as it stands, which limits to Newton’s equation when the subtracted term is relatively tiny, such as within our solar system. We could, however, take it one step further and multiply top and bottom of the subtracted term by m1, so we can take out m1 as common factor to get:

Fg = Gm1m2(1 – (0.77358d˛/m1f))/d˛     .           .           .           .           .           (35)

This then enables us to write the equation as in Equation 15:

Fg = IGm1m2/d˛            .           .           .           .           .           .           .             (36)

where I = 1 – (0.77358d˛/m1f)    .           .           .           .           .           .           (37)

“I” is the Gravitational Intensity Factor we have previously mentioned, which we now have quantified. “f” is, of course, the “flatness factor” that we have previously talked about, which is likely to have a value of about 2,500 within our Local Supercluster of galaxies. Note that the factor of 0.77358 in the subtracted term is dependent on the radius of the Universe. This value is based on the current radius being presumed to be 46 billion light years. This factor varies inversely with the radius of the Universe, and will decrease over time.

The way in which “I” decreases slowly at first with distance ensures that “I” will always be very close to one at small fractions of the critical distance. Our sun has a critical distance of about 8.5 light years. At 0.085 light years distance, 128 times the distance of the orbit of Neptune, and 1/100 of the sun’s critical distance, “I” will only be reduced by one part in 10,000, to be I = 0.9999. At the orbit of Neptune, I = 0.9999999968. At the orbit of the Earth I = 0.999999999997. These figures show the Universal Field Cosmology is in agreement with what we know from experience — that Newton’s equation for gravitation is a very good description of gravity within our solar system.

Although “I” only differs minutely from one within the solar system, it would be interesting to see whether these minute differences could account for the tiny anomalies of planetary motion that Newton’s equation by itself can’t account for. In particular, could it account for the tiny fraction of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit that Newton’s equation can’t account for, but general relativity can? Newton’s equation already accounts for 99.23% of the precession of Mercury’s perihelion, so it is quite conceivable that the tiny differences within the solar system, predicted by the Universal Field Cosmology, could explain the remaining 0.77%. (For a discussion of how the repulsion of nearby stars by our sun could affect the environment we live in, see Appendix E.)

Please press your browser's "back" button (<) to return the main article.

To go to the beginning of the main article, please click here.