The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe

[Max70]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Arctangent is not a calculation.

There is something that I don't understand. The following figures show the absolute and relative acceleration of a supernova when the CBH is very far. The accelerations are parallel but, if the CBH mass is huge, the values of the accelerations are different. Are the following figures correct ?

 

[Genady]

21 minutes ago, Max70 said:

There is something that I don't understand. The following figures show the absolute and relative acceleration of a supernova when the CBH is very far. The accelerations are parallel but, if the CBH mass is huge, the values of the accelerations are different. Are the following figures correct ?

 

They are incorrect. There are several errors in these figures:

1. If CBH is very far, the dotted curves should be very close to parallel lines.

2. The accelerations should be perpendicular to the dotted curves.

3. If CBH is very far, the magnitudes of the accelerations should be very similar to each other.

4. As \(a_1\) and \(a_2\) shown incorrectly, so the \(ra_1\) is also incorrect.

Edited May 16 by Genady

[KJW]

@Max70, you appear to have the view that the expansion of the universe can be explained by the tidal effect external to a gravitational source. No, such a tidal effect has the property of being "volume preserving". In other words, a free-falling sphere distorts into the shape of a prolate spheroid of the same volume. On earth, this ideally gives rise to two antipodal high tides separated by a ring of low tide. By contrast, the universe is expanding in all directions. A free-falling sphere becomes a larger sphere... not volume preserving. It's worth noting that the flat-space FLRW spacetime that ideally describes our universe is entirely devoid of the type of curvature associated with a black hole.

 

 

[Max70]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

They are incorrect. There are several errors in these figures:

1. If CBH is very far, the dotted curves should be very close to parallel lines.

2. The accelerations should be perpendicular to the dotted curves.

3. If CBH is very far, the magnitudes of the accelerations should be very similar to each other.

I've corrected the dotted lines. I suppose that the CBH is so massive that the values of the accelerations are different. The new figures for absolute and relative accelerations are:

I have the following problem:

20 hours ago, Genady said:

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.

19 hours 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%.

In my last figure, S1 is accelerating away from the Earth, but it is outside of the cones A and B. How can this be explained ?

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I've corrected the dotted lines. I suppose that the CBH is so massive that the values of the accelerations are different. The new figures for absolute and relative accelerations are:

I have the following problem:

In my last figure, S1 is accelerating away from the Earth, but it is outside of the cones A and B. How can this be explained ?

This figure is also incorrect. If the mass of CBH and its distance are such that the accelerations are almost parallel, then these mass and distance would make the accelerations almost equal. I.e., \(ra_1 \approx 0\).

[Mordred]

Instead of pictures why not simply use the Schwartzchild metric with CoM being the CBH. Then add your vectors for particle motion. 

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Instead of pictures why not simply use the Schwartzchild metric with CoM being the CBH. Then add your vectors for particle motion. 

I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician.

[Mordred]

You don't need to be in this case you can use Newton laws and Keplers laws for orbiting bodies. I'm confident that if a high school student in grade 9 can apply those formulas you should be capable of doing so.

You only need basic algebra most commonly used in astrophysics. 

 Quite frankly most formulas used by astrophysics are first order Newtonian approximations. When you get right down to it the FLRW metric only requires geometry and Algebra to learn.

Edited May 16 by Mordred

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You don't need to be in this case you can use Newton laws and Keplers laws for orbiting bodies. I'm confident that if a high school student in grade 9 can apply those formulas you should be capable of doing so.

You only need basic algebra most commonly used in astrophysics. 

 Quite frankly most formulas used by astrophysics are first order Newtonian approximations. When you get right down to it the FLRW metric only requires geometry and Algebra to learn.

It's too tiresome and boring.

[Mordred]

I see, so you have no intention of having any form of testability.  In essence not doing what's needed for a physics theory. 

Pictures and drawings mean nothing for physics. They are nothing more than a visual aid and of zero value beyond that.

I would have thought you would have realized when I used math to demonstrate where your idea fails you would have caught on to the value of calculations.

For example at what distance from a mass such as a BH would a particle follow an orbit ? Or when will the path remain straight ?

Guess or calculate? Which do you think is the better route of determination ?

What velocity must the object have to maintain an orbit if it's too slow it will simply fall into the BH. If it's too fast it escapes (function of 1/r^2 ) Newtons gravitational law.

Edited May 16 by Mordred

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Max70 said:

It's too tiresome and boring.

No, it is not. It is rather quite straightforward. Here:

You could make a table in Excel that calculates the angle \(x\) and you could play with different configurations of distances between the Earth and the CBH, \(EB\), the Galaxy and the CBH, \(GB\), and the Earth and the Galaxy, \(EG\). When \(x \lt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates toward the Earth. When \(x \gt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates away from the Earth.  

Edited May 16 by Genady

[MigL]

6 hours ago, Max70 said:

It's too tiresome and boring.

So is trying to teach you the correct application of Physics and Astronomy.
Because it seems all of these guys efforts are wasted on you.

[Max70]

7 hours ago, Genady said:

It is rather quite straightforward.

I think that the things are more complicated. As I explained in my first post, the objects that we observe are only a little part of a colossal galaxy cluster around a colossal black hole. The motion of objects that we observe is influenced not only by the colossal black hole but also by the other objects in the colossal galaxy cluster.

In addition, as I said in some of my posts, it is possible that there are other colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes that influence the motion of objects that we observe.

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Max70 said:

I think that the things are more complicated. As I explained in my first post, the objects that we observe are only a little part of a colossal galaxy cluster around a colossal black hole. The motion of objects that we observe is influenced not only by the colossal black hole but also by the other objects in the colossal galaxy cluster.

In addition, as I said in some of my posts, it is possible that there are other colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes that influence the motion of objects that we observe.

R.I.P. "the simplest cause."

Edited May 17 by Genady

[Max70]

44 minutes ago, Genady said:

R.I.P. "the simplest cause."

I mean mathematically complicated. I mean that the calculations are more complicated.

I said "simplest cause" because it does not require other hypotheses such as quintessence, massive gravity or multiverse.

[Mordred]

Well once again we come back to how massive distance between galaxies are and how massive the universe is compared to how quickly the effect of gravity reduces to ineffective.

 I've already shown those calculations. For example the SMBH at the center of our Milky way has next to zero influence on our solar system let alone another galaxy.

Here is the thing, one equation is all it takes to show your idea is invalid. Ignoring or avoiding that detail doesn't change anything.

There are of course numerous other pieces of evidence that run counter to the idea I could mention such as lack of corresponding  temperature anistrophy and resulting plasma mass distribution which can be measured via the mass to luminosity relation but the one equation  is sufficient as a counter piece of evidence.

Edited May 17 by Mordred

[Genady]

8 hours ago, Max70 said:

I mean mathematically complicated. I mean that the calculations are more complicated.

Not much. You need only one additional step:

1. Using the same formulae as before, calculate \(ra\) for each gravitational source.

2. Add all the \(ra\) vectors.

3. Using the same formulae as before, calculate the angle \(x\).

Edited May 17 by Genady

[Max70]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

For example the SMBH at the center of our Milky way has next to zero influence on our solar system let alone another galaxy.

But there are attractors like the Great Attractor and the Shapley Attractor.

Similar attractors may exist on a larger scale and influence the motion of the objects that we observe.

 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Not much. You need only one additional step:

1. Using the same formulae as before, calculate ra for each gravitational source.

2. Add all the ra vectors.

3. Using the same formulae as before, calculate the angle x .

Which is the result of these calculations done for all the objects in the colossal galaxy cluster ? Which is the result of these calculations if there are two or more colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes ? Can't these calculations demonstrate that the accelerations of the objects that we observe are due to the gravity ?

The following figure shows a simple case (where CBH1 adn CBH2 may be colossal black holes or  attractors):

[Ghideon]

20 hours ago, Max70 said:

It's too tiresome and boring.

Ok. For your convenience here is a fe pictures then, illustrating the problem. 

First picture, what established theories and observations agree upon. On a large enough scale everything is moving away from everything else. The balloon analogy mentioned earlier illustrates this in three dimensions. here is a 2d drawing with earth (blue) in the center. dotted line represents the horizon we can't see beyond; the observable universe.

  ¨

Second picture; showing your invalid model with the observable universe very far from some large mass. White circle is the observable universe. 

Third picture let's zoom in on the observable universe, the white circle above:

Since we are far away from the mass everything is virtually unaffected and if there is any movement everything move parallel, there is no expansion. and nothing is moving relative to earth so no movement can be observed. Therefore there are no arrows. This is what your (incorrect) model looks like when drawn using the earth frame of reference. 

Last picture; for your convenience your invalid model superimposed on what we observe. Note the difference. When we look in telescopes we see the movement represented by green dots, not the orange static circles your model suggests.

.

 

Edited May 17 by Ghideon
clarified

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Which is the result of these calculations done for all the objects in the colossal galaxy cluster ? Which is the result of these calculations if there are two or more colossal galaxy clusters and colossal black holes ? Can't these calculations demonstrate that the accelerations of the objects that we observe are due to the gravity ?

The following figure shows a simple case (where CBH1 adn CBH2 may be colossal black holes or  attractors):

Doesn't CBH1 affect S2? Doesn't CBH2 affect S1?

To the other questions, the general answer is, the more gravitating sources surrounding the observable universe, so more they diminish each other's effect on the observable universe. Ultimately, there will be no gravitational effect from these sources on the observable universe at all. This is the consequence of the same Newton's shell theorem that I've mentioned earlier.

Edited May 17 by Genady

[Max70]

28 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Note the difference.

🤣

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

But there are attractors like the Great Attractor and the Shapley Attractor.

Similar attractors may exist on a larger scale and influence the motion of the objects that we observe.

 

How does attraction cause expansion ?

Can you answer that ?

You are attracting with a BH or the great Attractor which by the way only affects our local cluster. However attraction is  not the same as expansion.

You need something to counter gravity affects.

[Max70]

54 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Since we are far away from the mass everything is virtually unaffected and if there is any movement everything move parallel, there is no expansion. and nothing is moving relative to earth so no movement can be observed.

I contest this figure and this sentence.

I'll try to explain with this video in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve.

Now imagine that the observed universe (that is the part of the observable universe that we actually observe with our telescopes) is a little part of a turn of the spiral in the video. Which is the acceleration of the objects that we observe ? The objects in the spiral have not only centripetal acceleration, but also tangential acceleration. I don't think that all the objects that we observe have the same acceleration, because of the spiral motion.

[Mordred]

Once again simply applying  Newtons gravitational laws will tell you differently. The only way to avoid Kepler curve for rotation is to surround the galaxy with a fairly uniform mass density that is greater than the baryonic matter distribution.

Aka dark matter via the NFW profile.

 

9 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I contest this figure and this sentence.

I'll try to explain with this video in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve.

Now imagine that the observed universe (that is the part of the observable universe that we actually observe with our telescopes) is a little part of a turn of the spiral in the video. Which is the acceleration of the objects that we observe ? The objects in the spiral have not only centripetal acceleration, but also tangential acceleration. I don't think that all the objects that we observe have the same acceleration, because of the spiral motion.

We can also detect our motion and compensate this is called dipole anistropy it's actually why the first Planck dataset had the axis of evil. They didn't have the needed calibration for our peculiar motion.

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Aka dark matter via the NFW profile.

In my last post I didn't dispute the existence of the dark matter.