Theory of the Expansion of the Universal (Dark Energy is a Myth)

[Pleader88]

This hypothesis eliminates the need for Dark Energy to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. If we assume the model is correct we can calculate the expansion of our viewable portion of the universe using established and proven standard equations.

 

Observations have been made that supports the diagram within the following link or see attachment.

 

http://www.docdroid.net/hjmx/metropolis-pal-9-12-14.pdf.html

Metropolis Pal 9-12-14.pdf

Edited September 15, 2014 by Pleader88

[ajb]

Can you say a bit more about your theory here rather than just link to a pdf?

 

 

If we assume the model is correct we can calculate the expansion of our viewable portion of the universe using established and proven standard equations.

So, not assuming that it is correct, you still do the calculations and see how well they match with observation. You have some idea about how well your theory matches observation?

[Pleader88]

This would not be a theory if I had proof. I do not have access to the type of observation equipment necessary to validate the theory. Many factors come in to play and it would be extremely difficult to map the movement of mass within our viewable universe because we cannot see beyond it with our current technology. As it stands the observed data is insufficient but is enough to support the model that has already been proven but not with precision. A model using Newton's law of gravity is a very simple one to do. With science, sometimes all we can do is make assumptions based on what we know. We can put our faith in a plausible model or into something that may not even exist. If your life depended on it, which would you choose?

[Airbrush]

Interesting idea. Could you elaborate a little more in plain English?

[Pleader88]

I'm not sure how to make it more "plain English", so I will explain a little bit about gravity.

 

As mass accumulates it's gravitational strength is increased. Imagine a Sun suddenly gaining 100 solar masses. The planets would be pulled into it based on there mass and distance away from the sun. If all of the planets weighed the same and were equally spaced from the sun the first planet would be pulled the hardest and accelerated the fastest. The second planet would have 1/4 the pull and acceleration of the first. The third would have 1/4 the pull and acceleration of the second. The amount of space between the planets would be stretched as the planets fell inward.

[ajb]

This would not be a theory if I had proof.

By a theory we usually mean a mathematical model. So do you have a theory?

 

 

I do not have access to the type of observation equipment necessary to validate the theory.

Lots of data from observational cosmology is available. This is outside my area of expertise, so am not sure exactly how to get hold of data, and indeed I don't know what you need.

[Bignose]

This would not be a theory if I had proof. I do not have access to the type of observation equipment necessary to validate the theory.

There is a wide and rich literature of published data presented by people who do have access to observation equipment.

 

For example, look at how BICEP http://bicepkeck.org/ published their data: http://bicepkeck.org/B2_2014_i_figs/powspecres.pdf

 

The red line is the predicted values. The dots with the error bars around them are the observed values.

 

You should be able to do the same. Your idea should be able to make predictions. Compare those predictions to published values in the literature. Ignorance of the literature is not a valid excuse for not doing this, just like "I do not have access to the type of observation equipment necessary".

 

Furthermore, the request isn't for 'proof'. Virtually nothing is 'proved' in science. What we get is a great deal of observations that agree really quite well with predictions. That's what we need from you to begin talking scientifically. Predictions and comparisons of how well those predictions agree with measurements.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the specific rules of the Speculations Forum

 

[Phi for All]

This would not be a theory if I had proof.

 

A theory is the best you can get in science. In fact, science isn't interested in "proving" anything. Even scientists don't start out with a theory, they start with an hypothesis and work methodically from there. It's all about piling up supportive evidence for an explanation of a particular phenomenon. If the explanation can't be refuted, and even more evidence continues to pile up in support, we eventually start calling the explanation a theory.

 

A theory is more valuable than an answer, because a theory keeps getting better as more people work to either support it or refute it. When we think we have an "answer", we stop asking the question. Does that make sense to you?

[Bignose]

Any idea that claims to solve or remove dark matter needs to demonstrate how the implications from that idea are able to recreate the dark matter maps we have today. http://www.universetoday.com/105619/astronomers-map-dark-matter-throughout-the-entire-universe/ and http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-biggest-map-unveiled.html for example.

 

Whether you think that these mappings are actually mapping dark matter or not is your choice, what you can't do however, is ignore the effects that are leading what these maps are recording. Namely, the gravitational effects of something that we cannot see at this moment.

 

Pleader88, you need to demonstrate how your idea directly leads to the above mappings of gravitational effects with no visible matter.

[Pleader88]

Dark Matter is an entirely different subject.

When I am able to I will gather up some information that I feel supports this hypothesis. I do not intend to be lazy about this. For now I just wanted to get this out there in case any of you may have come across something that seems to support it.

[Endy0816]

The drawing seems to be suggesting "expansion as an explosion" which is incorrect.

 

What evidence we have also shows a homogenous Universe where everywhere or nowhere is the "center".

[Dekan]

The drawing seems to be suggesting "expansion as an explosion" which is incorrect.

 

What evidence we have also shows a homogenous Universe where everywhere or nowhere is the "center".

 

When you say "everywhere and nowhere is the center", aren't you contradicting the Big Bang theory?

 

This theory says that the Universe began at a central point. Which then expanded outwards, in all directions. That must result in the formation of a sphere. And surely a sphere, by definition, has a center?

[Pleader88]

Endy and Dekan,

 

You have both misinterpreted the diagram. There is a small dashed circle which represents all that we can see. The large circle does not necessarily represent the center of the universe. It is meant to represent a collection of mass. Think really big. Everything that we can see (the small circle) is being drawn to the large center of mass. Consider it to be present day.

 

Sorry for the lack of quotes, for some reason the page is not functioning correctly for me.

[Endy0816]

Everything outside of Laniakea Supercluster is "moving away" from us, without any exceptional bias to the best of my knowledge.

 

 

When you say "everywhere and nowhere is the center", aren't you contradicting the Big Bang theory?

 

This theory says that the Universe began at a central point. Which then expanded outwards, in all directions. That must result in the formation of a sphere. And surely a sphere, by definition, has a center?

 

It expanded internally. You can imagine it to be like a structure that is bigger on the inside than out. Another way people like to describe it is as distance increasing.

 

Really can't say much about the "shape" for certain. I like to think of it as a 4D cone shaped seashell, but that is only an analogy(and then mostly for expansion). What is possible for us to see, all looks about the same and some distances are effectively infinite for the foreseeable future.

[Airbrush]

Your illustration says on the upper right "Average mass density should be higher at the head of the view ring".

 

"Should be"? Observations show that the viewable universe is homogenious and isotropic. Your illustration has more mass near the "head" or bottom of our "viewable universe". So your illustration is a fantasy.

[tar]

Pleader88,

 

I think Endy0816 and BigNose, have given you two reasons to reconsider the workabilty of your thought. Endy0816 with the most valuable.

 

Many years ago I had writen to Stephen Hawking with a thought with some similarities to your's suggesting that we should be able to tell which direction the big bang was in, because items toward the big bang and between us and the big bang (coming along with us) would look different than items toward the big bang, but on the other side of it, going away from us, and the items "outside" us proceeding away from the big bang would look different still. We could take these directional signals and figure out which direction the Big Bang was in.

 

He, or one of his helpers actually answered me, and pointed out the main problem with my thought. The main problem was that it required the Big Bang to be an explosion proceeding outward from a center point, which is not the case. In actuality we, and every other piece of the universe, was AT the point of the Big Bang, and every point is thusly STILL here, and therefor you cannot "point" to the spot.

 

That is paraphrasing what I was told, it was a long time ago, and I just recall the jist.

 

Your egg shape requires a knowlege of the direction of the point of the egg. That there would be a difference looking toward the center of mass or away from it. I don't think we see something like that, as the CMB looks the same, basically, in all directions. And I would add, that given the fact that the CMB is coming from 280,000 years after the Big Bang, and it is in ALL directions, that observation is hard to jive with any theory that we are a exploding away from a center of mass.

 

However, conceptually one would think that given a universe of any size, and any shape, once known, one could figure the center of mass, and we might be able to figure where we stand in the thing, as we can figure where we stand in the Milky Way.

 

And since we can point to Sagitarius and say the center of the Milky Way is in that direction, and we can point to the great attractor, which may be a "local" center of mass, we may one day be able to point in the direction that seems to be the center of mass that the great attractor is circling, I suppose the "direction" of your idea, is not impossible to consider.

 

As an aside, any particular reason you have 13 circles evenly placed around your center? How would this be spaced in three dimensions?

 

Regards, TAR

[Pleader88]

Tar,

 

The diagram has not been represented as an explosion and it's not the universe, nor is it referencing the big bang in any way.

 

We do have knowledge of the stellar movement in all directions. From observations the universe seems to be expanding non-uniformly into a tube. Granted, a tube is not an elliptical shape. Due to the enormous amount of mass interacting in the universe it is difficult for us to see what is actually occurring.

 

Think of the cannibalization of two galaxies on a much larger scale. Do the two galaxies not stretch? If we were inside one of the galaxies and only able to see a portion of it what would we see? We would see stars wildly moving away from us while others seemed to be moving closer or not at all.

 

Regards,

 

Pleader88

[Bignose]

We do have knowledge of the stellar movement in all directions. From observations the universe seems to be expanding non-uniformly into a tube.

citation please.

[MigL]

If people continue to consider the big bang as an explosion, then for consistency with observation, we ( and by we I mean the observable universe ), have been and always will be within the 'explosion'. There is no outside to the explosion just as there is no 'outside' to the universe.

 

Discussing a centre, direction or other side of the explosion is non-sensical as it doesn't fit observation.

 

Trying to use gravity as the driver for expansion in this way is also a non-starter, as gravitationally bound systems in the universe at large scales are not affected by expansion.

Or am I misunderstanding your theory ?

Edited September 16, 2014 by MigL

[Pleader88]

This is one article that you might want to take a look at.

 

http://phys.org/news/2011-09-evidence-spacetime-cosmological-principle.html

 

Unfortunately I did not take note of the links that I have found so far. I will need some time to dig them back up. I was more concerned about getting the idea out there then supplying supportive articles.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Pleader88

[Pleader88]

MigL,

 

You have misinterpreted the diagram. Apparently the way that it is drawn is misleading because you are not the only person who has. I have not once mentioned that the big bang or an explosion. Please see my response to Tar.

Please see new thread for a new diagram which should be more clear.

[Pleader88]

Attached is a new diagram.

Also see the following link for article.

 

http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/is-universe-expanding-asymmetrically/

Metropolis PAL 09-16-14.pdf

Edited September 17, 2014 by Pleader88

[Pleader88]

Wow it's gotten really quiet. I will try to find more supporting articles as time permits. If you feel this hypothesis might be a possibility please let me know. I could always use the support and I would like to keep this up front on the forum for others to consider.

[Bignose]

I could always use the support and I would like to keep this up front on the forum for others to consider.

Pleader, the way to keep this 'up front' is to demonstrate it scientifically. For that, you need to post predictions and comparisons of those predictions to measurements. If you can't do that, then it is just story telling and of minimal interest scientifically and to a science forum.

 

You've done good actually bringing back citations when asked. But I still haven't seen any real prediction yet...