Expanding Universe

[jajrussel]

Question 1: If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate wouldn't that mean that times is changing at the same rate of acceleration?

Question 2: How do we know that universal expansion isn't a thermal event? I am assuming here that unless something acts to interfere something hot should move toward something cold. I am also assuming that the greater the difference, the greater the acceleration. That though gravity or some other force insists that an object move in one direction, thermal difference may effect to change that direction, and might actually contribute to an increase in acceleration.

If you apply this thought to a solar system an increase in acceleration of the outer planets might not be that noticeable in part due to the age and distribution of the system.

If you apply this thought to a galaxy, in a sense layer a thermal field over a gravitational field. Things further from the center of the galaxy might just be moving faster than they should be moving due to gravity alone.

Think of it like a big storm suspended in space. With the storm as a whole moving on a thermal current layered within a gravitational field that becomes less influential the further things move apart. The less influence gravity has on the system the greater the thermal influence has. Things speed up because nothing is acting to slow things down.

So long as the galaxy remained hot it would continue to move and accelerate toward the cold. Considering that the system is suspended in space all thermal equilibrium would do would be to stop the acceleration, there would be no reason for it to slow down.

Just a thought.... And a question.

I had another thought; should a galaxy ever reach thermal equilibrium it still has gravity so what is coming behind it should act to slow it down, and it should act to speed up what is coming up behind it, but I can not see it stopping or reversing direction.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

How do we know that universal expansion isn't a thermal event?

 

 

Hot particles go up on Earth.

They are moving faster than cooler particles.

The coldest particle should be motion less.

But in practice motion less particle, at rest on Earth, is still moving around Sun, and around galaxy.

 

Imagine temperature as absorbed (virtual in SM) photons orbiting particle.

Because they are orbiting around particle (it's excited), it's taking more space/volume than cooler equivalent.

There can be less quantity of such particles per 1m3 volume than cooler equivalent.

 

If hot particles would go down, it would means that surface of planet is the hottest place and constantly increasing it by newly warmed particles from other areas. And nothing would exist at surface other than melted material or plasma.

 

I don't think so it can be applied to galaxies. On planet temperature is spreading across multiple particles, by constant collisions of them, virtual in SM photons are jumping between one particle to other particle when they're colliding.

Galaxies don't collide so often.

The more pressure (the more particles per 1m3 volume), the more probable is collision of some of them.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[jajrussel]

I was thinking that reasons photons or other particles would be attracted to other masses would be gravitational or because they are simply in the way.

Thermally a photon should be very hot compared to most things, but having an effective mass of zero it is moving very fast and anything that would attract it would have to effect a change in the photons direction or be in the path of the photon. A thermal difference is not likely to do this.

I would think that particles that are moving much slower would still have a better chance of being attracted gravitationally, or because of a difference in charge, or again the cooler mass might just be in its path. Again the particles original direction would have to be overcome, and space is a lot cooler, but again a thermal difference is not likely to do this.

This whole thought is speculation; my goal here is to think of ways to make the thought work. To ask why there seem to be certain anomalies, and how can they be explained?

So, what I am wondering is;

If space can be manipulated by gravity, if gravity is a curvature of space and not necessarily an attractive force then perhaps there are other means to manipulate space, perhaps thermally. Just maybe, a thermal difference can cause a ripple in gravitationally curved space at points where the gravitational curve might be weaker than the thermal curve. With the change in curvature causing acceleration. When you consider the distribution of matter in a galaxy the acceleration would not necessarily be outward along the axis. The distance up or down is a lot shorter. The thermal difference up or down would be greater. In those directions gravity would be weaker.

How to explain this better? It doesn't necessarily overcome the gravitational curve that exist between the object and the galaxy center. It just changes the curvature of space in the direction the object is moving enough to cause acceleration. If that direction is ever so slightly outward it would move outward, but the distribution of matter in a galaxy is such that at times there are occasions where it would move inward, but from a distance we would probably only notice that it is moving faster than it should be.

I also wonder; what if the thought was applied to the Big Bang / Sudden Expansion? What would the thermal curve look like at the beginning?

What would happen if we took a gallon of core plasma from the sun and suddenly dropped it in the deepest coldest region of space? Would it simply just freeze solid, or would it explode?

I'm guessing that the temperature difference would rip it apart in a big hurry. There wouldn't be enough gravity to hold it together. The guess is definitely an uneducated one. Is the whole thought a bit far fetched? Maybe? Okay, probably; so now I would like to know why dark matter does not make heat?