acceleration universe huh...

[wstrege]

i read somewhere about dark energy and acceleration in the universe...

i may have a better solution. now i don't know much of anything in physics but i am assuming that time can flow at different 'rates' else where in the universe. with that said, instead of actual acceleration; i propose a perseaved acceleration due to time differences. for example: locally we see a ball travelling a constant 3 m/s, at a different place there is another ball travelling 3 m/s. here, in 3 seconds we have seen the ball go 9 meters. now the other ball also travels 9 meters in 3 sec but the other time could be described as a function of our time x = local time and y = other time as function of local. lets say(extreme case) y = x^2(wherein reality it may be something less extreme like y = x^(1.004) ) therefore we would see the object travel:

in the first sechere first second there: 3 meters

second local second/4th other second: 9 meters 12 total

third local second/9th other second:15 meters 27 total

fourth local second/16th other second:21 meters 48 total

 

looking like it is accelerating (6 m/s)/s

when in fact it has a constant velocity of 3 m/s

[RyanJ]

If your interested in this topic I reccomend you read a book called The Fabric Of The Cosmos its a brailliant book - well wrth te reading even if your no physics expert (I come into this category )

 

I belive this was proved by looking at the redshift of objects...

 

Infact have a general read here: http://snap.lbl.gov/brochure/

 

I can't find my Fabric of the cosmos book to get a quote right now I'm afraid

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[wstrege]

thx, but i am proposing a new theory in opposition to those that you pointed to. i had read that source and multiple others coming in, and believe my solution is more plausable and likely to cause the same red shifts we observe, thx for your comments though

[RyanJ]

thx, but i am proposing a new theory in opposition to those that you pointed to. i had read that source and multiple others coming in, and believe my solution is more plausable and likely to cause the same red shifts we observe, thx for your comments though

 

 

I'm not shure I cna explain it - maybe one of the physics experts here can though

 

What was originally thought was that you were correct, there could be no way that the uiverse could be expanding faster as time went on but this was later to be changed.

 

As far as I remember it wss somethinf to do with dark matter and negative preassure, a sort of inverse cosmological constant, that is pushing the universe out faster as the matter in space gets more spread out. Or was this an effect of dark energy

 

I'm sorry I can't explain it any better than that - if you really want another look then do borrow a copy of the Fabric Of the cosmos and see if you change your mind

 

Chers,

 

Ryan Jones

[wstrege]

those are theories scientists have came up with, but with proof as much as i have...i think. i hope a physics expert hops on here and reads my things

[RyanJ]

those are theories scientists have came up with, but with proof as much as i have...i think. i hope a physics expert hops on here and reads my things

 

But you don't have any proof

 

Science has proven that the universe is expanding at a constant acceleration rate in all directions. Redshift from many, many observations proved this the only thing that has yet to be proven is what is causing it. They think this is, as you have said, dark matter and dark energy and those will be investigated when the Large Hadron Collider is finished sometime in 2007

 

And yes, they are theories. But ther perfectly mathc what was expected and exactly match the results of observations, from my limited knowledge of physics yours don't seem to match them.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[wstrege]

science has not proven that it is accelerating. only bservations show that it is accelerating. my theory explains why we observe acceleration, when there is acually a constant velocity.

[RyanJ]

science has not proven that it is accelerating. only bservations show that it is accelerating. my theory explains why we observe acceleration, when there is acually a constant velocity.

 

Yes but its not, your method does not explain how things appear to be expanding faster now and how they could not have gotten to the current position by any method other than constant acceleration.

 

Your theory is an interesting one but it lacks support for the facts, mainly things are moving away faster on all points... as you have said it has not been proven but it is accepted by all good scientists because it exactly matches the facts and observations that we have today.

 

Brian does talk about the opposition in his book and how the scientifsts eventually came to the same conclusions as the theory and thats why its now accepted. Science is riggerous, don't you think if you were right they'd alredy have found and accepted what ou were saying?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[wstrege]

but my theory specificly addresses the acceleration you speak of. but instead of a negitive energy pushing us out, there is a time flow difference that make objects appear to be accelerating. all the evidence out there supports my claim as well.

[RyanJ]

but my theory specificly addresses the acceleration you speak of. but instead of a negitive energy pushing us out, there is a time flow difference that make objects appear to be accelerating. all the evidence out there supports my claim as well.

 

I'll leave this to the physics experts to explain. I can explain it to my self but when it comes to soemone else I'm usless I 'm afraid.

 

If your right then you'll just have to add the theory to the pile but the majority of the scientists already believe that the accelerating version is correct, I bet thay have already thought about what you've said.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[BhavinB]

i've never actually read the paper, but I've heard that not too long ago, someone in physics has proven that in any given reference, there must be universality in position (ie some other position in the universe in the same frame of reference must follow the same laws as we derive here).

 

Which means there must be a time constancy as well. Saying that time has its own velocity at some other position in the universe is an interesting thought, but there is no basis for thinking that.

[wstrege]

i don't think that is true, while i do not have all the fact right i am sure, but i believe that einstein's theory of relativity tells something of time differences. like if one were to travel away from the earth at a high speed and come back, only like a year passed for you but 100's of years for earth.

[RyanJ]

i don't think that is true, while i do not have all the fact right i am sure, but i believe that einstein's theory of relativity tells something of time differences. like if one were to travel away from the earth at a high speed and come back, only like a year passed for you but 100's of years for earth.

 

Yes it does, increased gravity and increased speed relate to time change (relative of corse).

But don't forget there are experts out there in these theories who know these theories much better than anyone at this froum I'd take a bet and what makes you think they'd miss something like that? I don't think so and I rememeber reading about the callanges and how they were beated. If you want a real objective view then read the Fabric of the Cosmos, if you can find something Brina missed then write a paper and submit it!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[wstrege]

i will go do as you say, and see if i can find fabric of cosmos, because there has been nothing on this site to disuade me from the fact that i think my idea would account for all observations

[RyanJ]

i will go do as you say, and see if i can find fabric of cosmos, because there has been nothing on this site to disuade me from the fact that i think my idea would account for all observations

 

I'm shure you will after Brian has explained it, you'll see why what you've said simply does not work

 

if your looking you buy the book it can be found here

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[BhavinB]

i don't think that is true, while i do not have all the fact right i am sure, but i believe that einstein's theory of relativity tells something of time differences. like if one were to travel away from the earth at a high speed and come back, only like a year passed for you but 100's of years for earth.

 

I was careful to use the word "frame of reference" just because that relates to relativity.

 

However, if you want to go really deep into why there is invariance, then look up anything and everything you can find about Emmy Noether. She was a mathematician who proved that due to space-time symmetries, certain laws of physics are invariant. Further, General Reletavity has a few concepts on point-of-view invariance which render your theory mute.

 

Should be good reading...

 

B