The universe is expanding exponentially

[Locrian]

So when confronted with the concept with a universe expanding at an increasing rate, I began to speculate. Everyone in the science community seems to think it is some sort of exotic 'dark matter' which no one can find. I think I have a simpler solution.

 

No one in science thinks it is dark matter that is causing this acceleration. You are confusing dark matter and dark energy. They are not the same thing.

[Locrian]

The data coming from the edge of the universe, which appears to be accelerating is actually data from 13 billions years ago. Data that is closer to real time, i.e., from a billion years ago, shows very little red shift, indicting the modern universe has decellerated.

 

This is not true either. If you look at Reiss and Schmidt's data, it is not from stars at that distance. It is from closer, and actually shows the universe is accelerating. You are making a very serious error here.

 

I swear, between Mart's failure to understand the basic operation of science involved and everyone else's failure to get the facts right I'm begining to think people here haven't actually read the literature on the subject.

[Locrian]

But there is a second time involved and that is the time of origin of the data that we access.

 

No, there is only one time involved. You can see this by just looking at the equations involved and observing that there is only one variable for time. In this case, taking observations "over time" is the same as taking observations over distance. I'm appalled you didn't make this connection.

[RoyLennigan]

The data coming from the edge of the universe, which appears to be accelerating is actually data from 13 billions years ago. It is not what is happening today. Today's data from the edge of the universe will take 13-14 billions years to reach us. What we do know for sure is that the further back into time one goes (oldest transmitted data), the more the universe was accelerating. This makes sense since the original expansion from 13 billion years ago accelerated rapidly. Data that is closer to real time, i.e., from a billion years ago, shows very little red shift, indicting the modern universe has decellerated. The imaginary fifth force should be directed to help explain the potential beyond the original expansion. The fifth force is entropy. Entropy acts, tastes, and smells like a repulsive force but is not a force in the technical sense.

of course data closer to us isn't going to be redshifted as much, its closer to us. the expansion of the universe is proportional depending on where you are in the universe. at the edges its going to be expanding more rapidly than anywhere else. closer to the 'core' of the universe the redshift is going to be much less and appear to show that the universe is expanding slower. now, if you're talking about the % of rate decrease then that would be a different story.

[RoyLennigan]

I guess I would call myself a speculative physics geek. So when confronted with the concept with a universe expanding at an increasing rate' date=' I began to speculate. Everyone in the science community seems to think it is some sort of exotic 'dark matter' which no one can find. I think I have a simpler solution.

 

I read back in Scientific American a few years back about theories of infinite universes. One theory describes space-time as infinite in all directions. The speculation is that local universes burst into existence like bubbles in the bottom of the pot of boiling water. Randomly throughout spacetime. This means that in any direction at a sufficient distance is another local universe expanding similar to our own. These universes exist so far away that most would die a cold death before their expansion ever brought them into contact with each other.

 

Now assume that their are huge massive UNIVERSES, not just galaxies or stars, extremely far away in every direction. The gravitational pull of these universes, because of their astronomical masses would not be negligible despite their distance. Since they exist in all directions, the net effect should be to pull our universe apart at an increasing rate in every direction. No mysterious dark matter required.

 

Comments?[/quote']

that's a good hypothesis, but it wouldn't be nearly as simple as the dark energy hypothesis. effects of what could only be explained by dark energy are observed all over the universe. it pushes positive energy and matter away from it, and pulls negative energy towards it. if it, or something like it, is observed in the universe already, and its presence explains expansion of matter/energy, then it would be a simpler and more accurate description than a hypothesis with no evidential support, even if it is from Scientific American.

 

with that said, evidence might be found supporting the 'boiling pot' hypothesis but also explaining the presence of dark energy, who knows.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by RoyLennigan

the expansion of the universe is proportional depending on where you are in the universe. at the edges its going to be expanding more rapidly than anywhere else.

You mean the edges as we define them from our position in observational spacetime. But from the point of view of an equivalent observer "at the edge" of the universe it was this region which was expanding the most rapidly. But there is no local evidence HERE NOW of the expansion that they are detecting.

[Davisaurus]

if it' date=' or something like it, is observed in the universe already, and its presence explains expansion of matter/energy, then it would be a simpler and more accurate description than a hypothesis with no evidential support, even if it is from Scientific American.

[/quote']

 

My apologies to Locrian for confusing Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Both are fictional creations used by physicists to manufacture something to fix unexplained observed phenomena. We could call them magic mass and and magic energy it would be irrelavant. It is like the mystical gravitational constant, a fudge factor. Anyway...

 

For Roy the thing is "if" something like it is observed. No-one has been able to demonstrate the prescence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy to any degree of certainty. While I agree if something can be demonstrated with certainty then by all means use that as the explanation. But until that point why would anyone wish to dismiss a possible explanation, without consideration? I am more curious to determine if a minute gravitational attraction from basically an infinitely distance sphere could somehow be measured.

 

The only thing that would cause me any question with this possibilty is the propogation of gravitational attraction. Does anyone know if they have determined yet how gravity works between an existing mass and a newly created mass? Does gravity follow the rule of light?

[gib65]

Now assume that their are huge massive UNIVERSES, not just galaxies or stars, extremely far away in every direction. The gravitational pull of these universes, because of their astronomical masses would not be negligible despite their distance. Since they exist in all directions, the net effect should be to pull our universe apart at an increasing rate in every direction.

 

I like that idea. It leads me to wonder what would become of the universe after all the sub-universes collided with each other. The universe would become a giant asteroid field.

 

There is one problem with this, however, that I see. If the edges of our universe are being pulled by the gravitational force of other nearby universes, then the light from those nearby universes should also have reached the edge of our universe (since gravity tarvels at the same speed as light). And since the light from the edge of our universe at the very time when it was being pulled has arrived here (lest we couldn't make such observations), so should the light from the nearby universes. In other words, we should be able to see our neighboring universes.

[Vanitas]

(since gravity tarvels at the same speed as light).QUOTE]

 

Is this really true? What evidence is there to confirm that? A joint effort between NASA and the European Space Agency is in the works to build a trio of satellites which will be spaced 3 million miles apart to search for gravity waves. Supposedly such waves reverberated from hte Big Bang at the begining of the universes life. This is really the only testing that will be done concerning the nature of gravity that I have heard of. (on this kind of scale anyway)

[RoyLennigan]

For Roy the thing is "if" something like it is observed. No-one has been able to demonstrate the prescence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy to any degree of certainty. While I agree if something can be demonstrated with certainty then by all means use that as the explanation. But until that point why would anyone wish to dismiss a possible explanation, without consideration? I am more curious to determine if a minute gravitational attraction from basically an infinitely distance sphere could somehow be measured.

the only evidence for dark matter is the fact that it is the only thing that can be explained mathematically to fit the known model of the universe. it was proposed because it could explain why the universe is (or was) expanding increasingly.

this diagram explains the theory better:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/101bb2_1.html

 

i am also curious about gravitational attraction over large areas. i think most physicists say that gravity travels at the same speed of light, while a few mention that gravity isn't limited to a certain speed, seemingly in contradiction to GR. that 'boiling pot' theory would only work if gravity somehow traveled faster than light. much, much faster, which doesn't seem to hold up in GR at all.

[Conceptual]

Correct me if am wrong, but expansion uniformly in all directions implies it once started from something closer together. Is there any reason why 13billions year old objects are not found nearby?

[RoyLennigan]

Correct me if am wrong, but expansion uniformly in all directions implies it once started from something closer together. Is there any reason why 13billions year old objects are not found nearby?

everything has been shaped and reshaped, i'd be surprised if there was any kind of 'object' anywhere in the universe that was 13 billion years old. but the matter that makes up everything in the universe--me, you, the computer, etc--is as old as the universe.

[Sirjon]

I read at the following site:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html

 

that the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an accelerated rate! We're expanding FASTER as time goes on. Is this true? What kind of force is behind this acceleration? What will become of the universe?

 

PS - Scroll down to "Towards a unified field theory" in the link above where this is mentioned.

 

It has to do with the "new matter". Re-examine the "Steady-StateTheory" and make a modification and of course, ignore that gravity is a force.

What Makes Space-Time Expands: (Re-Examining “The Steady State Theory and Inflationary Models”)

[mv]

Hello,

 

I made public my opinion, including this subject, on January 04, 2010 in the article from:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

The accelerated expansion of the Universe can be due to the "gravitational glue" becoming weaker while the distances between galaxies increases, and some possible huge black holes from other "close enough" Universes around our Universe, attract the matter from the margins (along the borders) of our Universe (therefore we may not need any "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, like the today's astrophysicists are supposing).

[pywakit]

Hello,

 

I made public my opinion, including this subject, on January 04, 2010 in the article from:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

The accelerated expansion of the Universe can be due to the "gravitational glue" becoming weaker while the distances between galaxies increases, and some possible huge black holes from other "close enough" Universes around our Universe, attract the matter from the margins (along the borders) of our Universe (therefore we may not need any "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, like the today's astrophysicists are supposing).

 

Wouldn't this require that ( based on observations ) those 'huge black holes' from other close-enough universes be rather evenly spaced around OUR universe? Not only that, but what is stopping these behemoths from just 'barging in' to our universe?

 

I assume you are the author of the article. I read it with interest. Especially the last paragraph. Care to elaborate?

 

But I am in agreement that dark energy may not exist in the manner described/hypothesized by mainstream science.

 

And nice to meet you Mihail.

[mv]

Wouldn't this require that ( based on observations ) those 'huge black holes' from other close-enough universes be rather evenly spaced around OUR universe? Not only that, but what is stopping these behemoths from just 'barging in' to our universe?

 

I assume you are the author of the article. I read it with interest. Especially the last paragraph. Care to elaborate?

 

But I am in agreement that dark energy may not exist in the manner described/hypothesized by mainstream science.

 

And nice to meet you Mihail.

 

 

Thank you for your interest regarding my article.

Of course that I am the author of the article!

 

So far, the shape (around borders) of our Universe is not similar with a sphere, but it is more like an irregular body, so that it is not required for those 'huge black holes' from other close-enough universes to be evenly spaced around our universe.

 

... nice to meet you too.

[mooeypoo]

Please avoid off-topic discussions, and stick to one theory at a time in each thread.

 

Mv's theory is available in its own thread.

 

Please discuss it there and keep this thread on topic.

 

~moo

[mv]

I read at the following site:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html

 

that the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an accelerated rate! We're expanding FASTER as time goes on. Is this true? What kind of force is behind this acceleration? What will become of the universe?

 

PS - Scroll down to "Towards a unified field theory" in the link above where this is mentioned.

 

This thread is called "The universe is expanding exponentially" and my quotation from my article is a possible answer exactly to the questions placed on this thread in the beginning, as seen above (therefore it is on-topic).

 

Should we not give an answer other than the ones from the existent books?

A debate is supposing to make us think and find new possible solutions, not only to reproduce already existent info from related books, magazines etc.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mv

[mooeypoo]

This thread is called "The universe is expanding exponentially" and my quotation from my article is a possible answer exactly to the questions placed on this thread in the beginning, as seen above (therefore it is on-topic).

 

Should we not give an answer other than the ones from the existent books?

A debate is supposing to make as think and find new possible solutions, not only to reproduce already existent info from related books, magazines etc.

LAST TIME, mv: your theory is speculative, and therefore is NOT a valid answer to another speculation. You have your own thread, use it to prove your case that the theory is valid. Until you prove that, the theory is not yet proven, and the evidence are lacking, therefore it is *NOT A VALID ANSWER*.

 

If you don't intend on debating your own theory, rethink your membership here. Either way, you are to STOP spamming the forum with links to your site. Please don't have us tell you this again.

 

~moo