The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae ... located tangentially to the Earth.

These supernovae are not located on a line. If you see a supernova that accelerates away from the Earth, then looking in a roughly perpendicular direction you'd see supernovae which accelerate toward the Earth. The fact that the supernovae in all directions accelerate away from the Earth contradicts this model.

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

It is much more likely that more of them are located tangentially rather than radially, because there is only one radial dimension but there are two tangential dimensions.

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why? Is there some reason that being at our distance should somehow suppress a star from going supernova? 

It is more likely to have supernovae located like S1 and S2 in my last two correct figures than tangentially (that is at the same distance of E from CBH).

1 hour ago, joigus said:

the universe was opaque to radiation

This is based on the standard Big Bang theory. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in the Big Bang.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Photons from so long ago and so far away get redshifted into total invisibility.

There are also microwave, radio, X ray and gamma ray telescopes.  In the future we could have types of telescopes that we cannot imagine now.

[swansont]

58 minutes ago, Max70 said:

It is more likely to have supernovae located like S1 and S2 in my last two correct figures than tangentially (that is at the same distance of E from CBH).

An assertion is not an explanation. Or evidence.

 

edit: something one could do is look at a lost of supernovae and sort out the 1a events, and see if they are distributed through all angles. And you know what? They are!

http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html

So the assertion that we wouldn't see ones at certain locations is bogus.

 

58 minutes ago, Max70 said:

This is based on the standard Big Bang theory. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in the Big Bang.

!

Moderator Note

If you want to argue against the big bang - or any mainstream science - you need to present evidence, in its own thread. In any speculations thread, you can either cite evidence, or mainstream science. Not other pet theories.

 

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, Max70 said:

This is based on the standard Big Bang theory. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in the Big Bang.

This isn't a good argument at all, sort of a weird appeal to authority. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in any of the various theories. That doesn't take away from the fact that these theories are our best supported explanations of various phenomena.

BBT is based on the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, and currently it's our best explanation for the evolution of the early universe. Based on what you've posted so far, you don't understand BBT, and have dismissed it as a viable account of what we observe. You've said you invested in this idea of yours, but I think you started filling in gaps in your knowledge with this stuff you made up before you understood the theory and had legitimate objections. IOW, you tried thinking outside the box without understanding what's inside first. We see this a LOT here.

[Max70]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

An assertion is not an explanation. Or evidence.

I'll try to explain better with the following figure:

E, that is the blue  dot, is the Earth. The blue circle contains the part of the observable universe that we can observe because it is in the range of our telescopes. The yellow and orange dots are supernovae. It is more likely to have supernovae in the position of the yellow dots (that are at any distance from the CBH) than in the positions of the tangential orange dots (that are at the same distance of E from CBH).

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

This is based on the standard Big Bang theory. There have always been scientists who didn't believe in the Big Bang.

We know observationally, actually. The surface of last scattering has still not disappeared behind the kinematic horizon. The fact that there are features not totally explained by the standard cosmological model doesn't mean that we must throw everything away.

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

There are also microwave, radio, X ray and gamma ray telescopes.  In the future we could have types of telescopes that we cannot imagine now.

All of them photons. All of them subject to extreme redshift when close to c as receding velocity. So your point is moot.

[Mordred]

We can also measure redshift via plasma using spectography for the 21 cm line. Any well understood process can be used as a standard candle reference. You don't require supernova. They are simply one convenient well understood process.

The other essential piece of evidence is any blackbody temperature measurements via the ideal gas laws. As the universe expands the blackbody temperature will reduce.

The rate of temperature reduction is the inverse of the scale factor.

Edited May 15 by Mordred

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

I'll try to explain better with the following figure:

E, that is the blue  dot, is the Earth. The blue circle contains the part of the observable universe that we can observe because it is in the range of our telescopes. The yellow and orange dots are supernovae. It is more likely to have supernovae in the position of the yellow dots (that are at any distance from the CBH) than in the positions of the tangential orange dots (that are at the same distance of E from CBH).

It is a mistake to think that only the bodies at the exact distance of the Earth would be accelerating toward the Earth and all the rest would be accelerating away from it. In fact, there would be two cones, A and B, where the bodies will be accelerating away from the Earth, and the 3D volume, C, where they would be accelerating toward the Earth:

The relative sizes of A+B vs C depend on the angle of the cones, which depend on the distance from CBH. In case of the angle being 90 degrees, as on the drawing above, the volume of the two cones, A+B, is about 30% and the volume of the C is about 70% of the blue sphere. This means that in this case, about 30% of the observed supernovae would be accelerating away and about 70% would be accelerating toward the Earth.

Edited May 15 by Genady

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

I'll try to explain better with the following figure:

E, that is the blue  dot, is the Earth. The blue circle contains the part of the observable universe that we can observe because it is in the range of our telescopes. The yellow and orange dots are supernovae. It is more likely to have supernovae in the position of the yellow dots (that are at any distance from the CBH) than in the positions of the tangential orange dots (that are at the same distance of E from CBH).

But “most likely” isn’t the issue - your idea requires that we don’t observe most of those supernovae. Expansion happens in all directions. The idea has to apply to all of the observations. Cherry picking a scenario isn’t science.

[Max70]

29 minutes ago, Genady said:

This means that in this case, about 30% of the observed supernovae would be accelerating away and about 70% would be accelerating toward the Earth.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

your idea requires that we don’t observe most of those supernovae

My drawing does not show the true proportions of the blue circle with respect to its distance from the CBH. I think that the CBH is so far away that the volume of the two cones A+B is 100% of the blue sphere. Therefore all the observed supernovae are accelerating away.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, Max70 said:

My drawing does not show the true proportions of the blue circle with respect to its distance from the CBH. I think that the CBH is so far away that the volume of the two cones A+B is 100% of the blue sphere. Therefore all the observed supernovae are accelerating away.

I think that as CBH gets farther, the angle gets closer to 90 degrees, and the volume of A+B gets closer to 30%.

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I think that as CBH gets farther, the angle gets closer to 90 degrees, and the volume of A+B gets closer to 30%.

But as CBH gets farther, don't the acceleration of any supernova in the blue circle tend to align with the acceleration of the Earth ?

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, Max70 said:

But as CBH gets farther, don't the acceleration of any supernova in the blue circle tend to align with the acceleration of the Earth ?

Show your calculation.

[Ghideon]

Early I the thread I hinted at the issues with your model giving you opportunity to explain. But so far, as seen in the responses, each attempt att explaining or correcting introduces one or several new contradictions. Either just a geometrical impossibility or something fundamentally incompatible with observations, confirmed by multiple different methods. The result so far is a large pile contradicting random guesses connected by misunderstandings of current theories.

But don't despair; open a thread in the mainstream section and ask a question such as: "Why does every application, however ingenious, of Newtonian mechanics fail to explain the universe's expansion?" Several members on this forum may be able to provide the answers in simplified terms.

32 minutes ago, Max70 said:

But as CBH gets farther, don't the acceleration of any supernova in the blue circle tend to align with the acceleration of the Earth ?

You seem to lack an intuitive feel for gravity and forces, maybe you should use mathematics instead of guessing? (edit, do what @Genady said)

Hint: what happens to your proposed expansion once you get far away? Every arrow you have drawn is of almost equal length and (almos exactly) parallell. Again; contradicting the expansion you are trying to explain.

Edited May 15 by Ghideon
x-post

[Mordred]

As to the last suggestions perhaps looking over some literature may help

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

Start there first look over the balloon analogy. This will describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

The last article details the FLRW metric as well as the equations of state for expansion.

[Max70]

54 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You seem to lack an intuitive feel for gravity and forces

I think there is a misunderstanding.

I think that the problem is the sentence "as CBH gets farther", that I used to describe different possibilities of the current situation.

I don't think that the Earth and the supernovae are moving away from the CBH. I think that the Earth and the supernovae are moving towards the CBH.

I will try to explain with the following figure:

This figure describes two different possibilities of the current situation: one with CBH closer to the Earth and one with the CBH further away from the Earth. In the second case I imagine that the CBH has a larger mass, so that the accelerations have magnitude equal to the first case.

The red arrows describe the directions (not the magnitude) of the accelerations of the supernovae.

In the second situation, because the CBH it's further away, the angles of the accelerations are minor than the first case and are nearest to 0, that is the angle of the acceleration of the Earth.

It's clear ?

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I think there is a misunderstanding.

I think that the problem is the sentence "as CBH gets farther", that I used to describe different possibilities of the current situation.

I don't think that the Earth and the supernovae are moving away from the CBH. I think that the Earth and the supernovae are moving towards the CBH.

No, there was no such misunderstanding. When I said "as CBH gets farther", I was not talking about it moving farther away. I was talking about comparing cases when it is farther from vs closer to the Earth.

[Max70]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, there was no such misunderstanding

Maybe there was such misunderstaning with Ghideon.

[Genady]

43 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I will try to explain with the following figure:

This figure describes two different possibilities of the current situation: one with CBH closer to the Earth and one with the CBH further away from the Earth. In the second case I imagine that the CBH has a larger mass, so that the accelerations have magnitude equal to the first case.

BTW, you can stop wasting time on drawing sizes of CBH. You can just mark their centers. According to the Newton's shell theorem, their gravitational effects do not depend on their sizes anyway.

Edited May 15 by Genady

[Max70]

Who said  “It is not unscientific to take a guess, although many people who are not in science believe that it is.” ?

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Who said  “It is not unscientific to take a guess, although many people who are not in science believe that it is.” ?

Feynman. But the context, and the whole message, matters a great deal. He immediately discusses comparing the guess with experiment to test it. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

If all you have is a guess, it’s not science. 

https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

 

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Feynman. But the context, and the whole message, matters a great deal. He immediately discusses comparing the guess with experiment to test it. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

If all you have is a guess, it’s not science. 

https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

 

 

Love that video I couldn't agree more. Here's another little tidbit with regards to step 3. A very important step is to make considerable effort to prove your idea wrong.

Never ignore counter evidence. You must take into consideration (ALL experimental and Observational evidence). 

 

[Ghideon]

7 hours ago, Max70 said:

Maybe there was such misunderstaning with Ghideon.

No. I pointed at the same thing as @Genady

 (although they formulated their response better)

[Max70]

11 hours ago, Genady said:

Show your calculation.

Do you really want the calculation ?

Calculation is the arctangent.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

Do you really want the calculation ?

Calculation is the arctangent.

Arctangent is not a calculation. I want to know, what part of the sphere is in the cones when CBH is far away. To show it, algebra / trig / calculus / computer can be used, but not hand waving.

Edited May 16 by Genady