The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe

[Mordred]

11 minutes ago, Max70 said:

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

Good but it's still useful to understand how the NFW profile deals with Kepler curve.

Now a little hint there is a means for  a matter only universe to expand though it's related to gravity it isn't how it's described so far in this thread.

Gravity only attracts it never repels.  Matter also exerts no pressure term. So it isn't due to pressure.

Edited May 17 by Mordred

[Max70]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

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.

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Now a little hint there is a means for  a matter only universe to expand though it's related to gravity it isn't how it's described so far in this thread.

😕

[Max70]

14 hours ago, Genady said:

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

The attraction of CBH1 on S2 is minor that the attraction of CBH2 on S2. The attraction of CBH2 on S1 is minor that the attraction of CBH1 on S1.

 

On 5/15/2024 at 6:49 PM, Genady said:

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:

I think that the above affirmation is not applicable if 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 in the Wikipedia page of the galaxy rotation curve.

I think that the above affirmation is also not applicable to the cases shown in the following figures (where A1, A2, A3 and A4 are attractors):

 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

Gravity only attracts it never repels.  Matter also exerts no pressure term. So it isn't due to pressure.

I quote the Wikipedia page Expansion of the universe:

"Negative-pressure fluids, like dark energy, are not experimentally confirmed, but the existence of dark energy is inferred from astronomical observations".

Dark energy is inferred from astronomical observations. But we can't observe the part of the observable universe that is outside the range of our current telescopes.

 

[Ghideon]

33 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I think that the above affirmation is also not applicable to the cases shown in the following figures (where A1, A2, A3 and A4 are attractors):

Wrong guess. Mathematics does not seem to be your thing, lets look for something else that may suit your style of conversation.

14 hours ago, Max70 said:

🤣

Ok, Lets use emojis.
🍏🌐🎯

🌐🍏❌

 

Spoiler

Universe has three spatial dimensions. Newton shell theorem, represented by a sequence of emojis, tells us that:

1. 🍏🌐🎯:

    "An external particle, symbolized by an apple (referencing Newton's anecdote), is attracted to a spherical shell as if its mass were concentrated at a single point."

2. 🌐🍏❌:

   "A particle inside a spherical shell, represented by an apple, experiences no gravitational attraction from the shell."

I still think mathematics is better, as suggested in several posts in this thread.

 

Edited May 18 by Ghideon
spelling

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Max70 said:

The attraction of CBH1 on S2 is minor that the attraction of CBH2 on S2. The attraction of CBH2 on S1 is minor that the attraction of CBH1 on S1.

 

3 hours ago, Max70 said:

I think...

It does not matter. You are simply wrong, and it is known for 300 years by now. You have nothing to show for and there is a pile of arguments against your guess. It does not fit a definition of Speculation by the rules of these forums. IMO, this thread is to be closed.

Edited May 18 by Genady

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This thread has been a good example of why we insist on quantifying things in physics. Hand-waving doesn’t remove the danger that you’re fooling yourself, but numbers don’t lie.

If you don’t have a testable model, it’s just a WAG.

We’re done here. Don’t re-introduce the topic.