My theory on space expansion

[Deej]

So I came up with a theory to explain space expansion and I was hoping to get some feedback on it. I'm no expert by any means but I put in a lot of research and time so I thought I might as well see what people think about it. Please be kind with your feedback though, I'm already ify about sharing it, thank you.

 

Fluid Mass Pressure Theory

 

My theory is space and dark matter work like water. Imagine a bathtub, filled half way up and you get in it and the water rises to the top because of the added mass. What if, as planets and stars are formed, its increasing the total mass the universe, causing it to fill and expand? During my research Ive learned there are roughly 150 billion stars born every year, while supernovae (the death of a star) happens 1 billion times a year. Being that stars are created faster then they are destroyed supports this theory. With further research Ive learned the total mass of the ordinary matter in the universe is 1e53 kg and the total amount of stars in the sky is 7x10^22. Now, red dwarf stars are the most common stars in the universe so lets assume out of all of the stars, they make up 2/3 which comes to 7e22. The average mass of a red dwarf star is roughly 0.082 M or 1.64e29 kg. So if we do 
7e22 x 1.64e29, that comes to 1.148e52 kg. So, assuming my calculations are correct, out of 
1e53 kg, 1.148e52 kg is the mass of all red dwarf stars in the universe (roughly). Then the remaining amount is other types of stars, black holes etc. Which, again, supports my theory that dark matter and space act like water, as the total mass of stars etc. in the universe increases, space expands. Im also aware this theory is similar to the Fluidic Space Theory with one main exception. That theory states On the other extreme, in places where there is relatively little matter, as in the voids between galactic superclusters, the theory of dark fluid predicts that space relaxes, and starts stretching away from itself. Thus dark fluid becomes a repulsive force, with the same effect as dark energy. To relatively explain space expansion, as to my theory which states space expansion is caused from the combined mass of visible matter ie stars, planets etc.

[swansont]

 

During my research Ive learned there are roughly 150 billion stars born every year, while supernovae (the death of a star) happens 1 billion times a year. Being that stars are created faster then they are destroyed supports this theory.

A) citation(s) please, and

B) Not all stars die by going supernova. The sun, for example, won't — it doesn't have enough mass. Yet it will shed mass that could help form a new star. So this comparison is incorrect and the conclusion invalid.

[Strange]

So I came up with a theory to explain space expansion

 

Can you explain what is unsatisfactory with the current explanation?

 

 

What if, as planets and stars are formed, its increasing the total mass the universe

 

Stars and planets are formed from material that already exists and so do not make any difference to the mass of the universe.

[Deej]

A) citation(s) please, andB) Not all stars die by going supernova. The sun, for example, won't it doesn't have enough mass. Yet it will shed mass that could help form a new star. So this comparison is incorrect and the conclusion invalid.

 

A) I got all of my info from varies sites but if you really need it I'll provide links

B) yeah that defiantly throws my numbers off, it didn't occur to me that not all stars that go supernova won't die

Can you explain what is unsatisfactory with the current explanation?

 

 

 

Stars and planets are formed from material that already exists and so do not make any difference to the mass of the universe.

The current explanation just doesn't feel right to me. "The universe folds on to its self to expand" granted I haven't put in a lot of time researching it to fully understand it but it's never really sit right with me which lead me to come up with this theory. Plus I think it's important to try to look at current theories in a different prospective, ya know?

 

Wow, that didn't even occur to me at the time. That basically disproves my whole theory, unless its more about the positioning of the mass in the universe as to the amount, but even then that would a whole different story.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Deej

[Phi for All]

B) yeah that defiantly throws my numbers off, it didn't occur to me that not all stars that go supernova won't die

To clarify, that isn't what swansont said. If a star goes supernova, it dies but sheds its matter back within the universe. Our sun won't die that way, it's not big enough to support the kind of core-collapse that results in a supernova. It will go red giant instead, ending Earth but giving hope of life to the outer planets and their moons.

[Deej]

To clarify, that isn't what swansont said. If a star goes supernova, it dies but sheds its matter back within the universe. Our sun won't die that way, it's not big enough to support the kind of core-collapse that results in a supernova. It will go red giant instead, ending Earth but giving hope of life to the outer planets and their moons.

Ohh, sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying that, so yeah that disproves my theory also.

[Phi for All]

Ohh, sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying that, so yeah that disproves my theory also.

You don't sound like an adamant crackpot insisting he's right despite the evidence to the contrary, so I'll offer this advice, FWIW. You have new data to work with, and that will allow you to reshape the information that forms the foundations of your research. In addition to what you're currently doing, always make time to go back and learn some basics. It's called mainstream science because it represents our best current explanations of reality.

 

Also, be careful of analogy ("dark matter and space act like water"). They usually explain far less than is needed and require stretching to fit, always a danger.

[Deej]

You don't sound like an adamant crackpot insisting he's right despite the evidence to the contrary, so I'll offer this advice, FWIW. You have new data to work with, and that will allow you to reshape the information that forms the foundations of your research. In addition to what you're currently doing, always make time to go back and learn some basics. It's called mainstream science because it represents our best current explanations of reality.Also, be careful of analogy ("dark matter and space act like water"). They usually explain far less than is needed and require stretching to fit, always a danger.

 

All noted, I'll keep all of that in mind, thank you for the advice! Like I said I'm no expert, I just came up with this theory, researched it to try to prove it and up until now it seemed perfect but this was the next step, to see if people could disprove it and they did so now it's back to square one but that's fine. Thank you and thanks to everyone else for the feedback!

[Strange]

The current explanation just doesn't feel right to me.

 

Science doesn't really work like that, though. It is not about what "feels right" but which theory best fits the evidence.

 

"The universe folds on to its self to expand"

 

 

granted I haven't put in a lot of time researching it to fully understand it

 

Then maybe you should? I mean, kudos for imagination and interest, but I think it is always better to start from a position of knowledge about the idea you are going to criticise.

 

This is a good intro: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html

It gets a little bit mathematical but I think it does a good job of getting the ideas across.