Can anyone with interest in physics and cosmology let me know what they think?
 

watching a show about telescopes I was struck by this last night. background.
Up until this century the universe was seen as STATIC, neither expanding nor contracting.
Hubble discovered that nearly everything in our sky (stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc.) seems to be receding away from us. This led to the expanding universe theory, and the Big bang Theory, which have been fairly well confirmed.
everyone assumed that the universe started expanding super fast and has slowed dwn over the billiosn of years due to gravitational pull of all matter in universe.
tests done by scientists in the 80's and 90's showed that surprisingly, the expansion of the universe is accelerating! thisled people to posit the existence of a dark energy (energy we cannot yet detect) that is driving this expansion.
Now... to me that has always sounded like a crazy make-em-up.

this is what I wrote last night.

a universeexpands, ("Big Bang") irregularities begin to form
matter coalesces into clumps eventually resulting in the various galaxies we see
as local gravitation centers create these "clumps" they also create spaces of empty void.
originally, gravity would slow down expansion of Universe quite aggressively, but since gravity decreases as the SQUARE of the distance there would have to be a moment in the Universe's expansion when, as the clumps are separating themselves
from each other with ever-increasing voids, the collective Universal gravitational pull would decrease ever
faster allowing for the continuing burst of the expansion to have ever more power in the "outward" manner as the
gravity of the whole has in the "inward" manner. would this explain why the universe appears to us now, 15-18 BILLION years (at least) later to be steadily , to be increasing in it's rate of expansion from our local point of view? does this make sense?

I like cake.

I have an interest in psychics and cosmetology, is that close?

close but no cigar

I'm not sure what you mean, but I've heard in the LHC rap, that gravity is a *weak* force, that is weaker than the force(s) which rule sub-atomic matter.

I believe the answer is yes.

The expansion continues and even increases because the gravity increases to a point of condensation in which the condensed energy become excessive and expands against the inward pull, sort of like winding a rubber band back, it will inevitably swing forward. Remember gravity is part of the mechanics of every atom and atomic particle, and acts on the sub-atomic level, and so is fundamentally different then the casual or common sense experience of gravity. In my own interpretation, gravity is the endless decay of death which attempts to implode EVERYTHING, where as the bursting energy of livity brings about the contrary expansion which creates the balance.

on another note, hubble observations speculate the age of this version of the universe to be approximately 14 billion years, and current estimates place the human population over its entire and current existence to be approximately 14 billion people, thats a person a year.. the kind of "coincidences" that occur like the fact that the salinity of your blood is the exact same as the salinity of the ocean.

does that include quantum manicures and thermodynamic dye jobs?

A long story short - there are far too many clauses not clearly distinguished; whatever you're saying comes across as convoluted stoner-speak. In terms of the actual content, I'm not sure you're saying anything at all, it's all speculative words with no actual point, so far as I can make out.

I'm no physicist, but there's no clear indication what relationship these (ill-defined) 'clumps' have to the 'universal gravitational pull'


I'm not being terrifically helpful, but you're not being terrifical clear, capiche?

obviously yr no physicist. ;)

everything I said is standard physics man.

the clumps are galaxies/galaxy clusters
the voids become the ever expanding space between the galaxies.
dig?

It's still a badly put together argument, whether it's well-known material or not. Dig?

yeah, the first thing i thought was he must have been high.

my previous post performed a quantum slip and disappeared. :(

.....take:deux:

spatial expansion is the result of our visible universe resting upon a balloon-shaped membrane. as this inflates, any given point moves further away from it's neighbor.

the crux is, current models for universal expansion cannot explain the increasing amount of red-shift measured (hence the drive to prove and observe the existance of dark matter/energy). we can see the effect of it's force (increasingly faster expansion), but cannot perceive the cause.

my long-time theory about the Big Bang event is that it is akin to a "white hole". that is, a singularity that has reached a certain critical mass of accretion and then began "dumping" it's meal down one dimensional level in order to maintain homeostasis. the x-rays released via Hawking radiation are not sufficient enough to disperse everything, and it simply adds up. basically, black holes are cosmic bulimics, happily binging and purging away.

that said, I believe that it's possible that other (smaller) white holes exist and are adding new mass by the nano-second, thereby expanding the membrane that we rest on, faster and faster. or, expansion into nearby dimensions is causing a warp effect on our own.

synopsis: you better ask jesus.

it is not an argument, just a contemplation on something that may negate the need for "dark energy" as an explanation of the increasing expansion of the universe.

This is cogent. If this post had 'does this make sense?' at the end of it, I would say 'yes'. ESPECIALLY as there's analogies in it. I realise this is the internet and not, y'know, school and shit, so apologies and all. But the above is simply clearer.

I should have been clearer. I meant to ask if mathematically/scientifically, the steady increase in distance between gravitational sources would account for the lack of a general decrease , and in fact, apparent increase, in the rate of the Universe's expansion.

and OF COURSE I was high! shit!

some get a kick from champagne
mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all........

;)

New mass hopefully brought into existence via the Higgs boson.

Yeah, well, that's just like uh... your opinion, man.

Stuff like this happens every time my parents watch The Universe while high. My dad is a stoner physicist, so I've heard some far out theories in my life.

for the record: I resent being forced to "break character". if I can't play stupid, I do not wish to play at all. :mad:

the gravitational pull of my posts (secondary to their increasing mass) is about to cause yr everything to collapse.


I think what you are trying to say is that "due to gravitation effect being weaker (at distance), expansion itself is making it easier to expand".

I believe that you may be mistaking Newton's gravitational constant with local gravitational fields. gravity is such a weak force at distance, that despite it's ability to traverse great distance, the actual force applied (or in yr case, lack thereof) is too negligable to account for the excessive acceleration.

it's a fairly simple equation to compute gravitational pull between two astral bodies (F=G[m1m2/r^2]), so I'm going to go on the assumption that the Big Heads have worked this out on their slide-rules.

you need to look toward the cosmological constant (and it's basis in negative-pressure energy) for yr answer (or again, maybe, jesus).

:)

^^^ this.

my money is on micro-singularities.



who the hell smokes beer? hurry, there's only one left.

ps: "does this make sense?"

psps: where the fuck is Atari when you need him. UFOs can fuck off.

pspsps: in the year that it took to write this, another person was surely born.

the cosmological constant was made up by einstein to "fix" his calculations.
it si now being treated as somewhat right IF the theory that there is a Dark Energy causing increased expansion of the universe.

Now, what I am saying is that the entire cycl of the Universe is one thing, and if the initial Inflation has continued un-abated since the big bang, then the fact that space itself is expanded between all the macro-sources of gravitational pull, thereby lessening the collective gravitational pull (going from 2x distance apart to 4x distance apart does not halve the gravitational pull, it quarters it, and so on as the square of the distance involved) would mean less of a "pull-back on the overall expansion of the Universe, allowing that self-same initial Inflation to "seem" to steadily increase from our vantage point.

this wold not require the mystical Dark Energy or a cosmological constant.

I was reading up on Dark Energy..but...ANywho...I have to get back to mindless farming on a very unpopular MMORPG...I'll read the rest later.

dark matter makes for fantastic fuel for your intergallactic space cruiser... if you can lift it!

I'm pretty sure that this is false, Rob. I can't give you the name of the man who realized (or helped realize) that the universe was expanding, but he used the Doppler effect but with light, noting that many galaxies had a red light shift. It is in an episode of Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but I've let my dvds to a friend, so I can't check it now.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM_4w...e=channel_page

Go to about 1:20 and then I think that shows it all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_L._Humason

I'm gonna have to go with Glice. That whole bold part was a bunch of cosmological clauses in a big run on sentence that was hard to make heads or tails of.

Also, I find your history to be a little off. Hubble discovered the expansion? Hubble was launched in 1990, correct? But apparently they've done 1980s tests that have found that the expansion is accelerating?

a trillion is a shitton. a million millions.

Edwin Powell Hubble (November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953) was an American astronomer
He profoundly changed astronomers' understanding of the nature of the universe by demonstrating the existence of other galaxies besides the Milky Way. He also discovered that the degree of redshift observed in light coming from a galaxy increased in proportion to the distance of that galaxy from the Milky Way. This became known as Hubble's law, and would help establish that the universe is expanding.

If you wanna play wiki wars:

Humason
"His observations played a major role in the development of physical cosmology, including assisting Edwin Hubble in formulating Hubble's law."


Also, I retract my second post. I realize you were referring to Hubble the person, not the telescope.

nerdgasm.

why do you all tease me so/

If you were to take into account that the universe could very well be a small part of a much larger 'multiverse', then it would make sense why the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In such circumstances a tug o' war would be inevitable.

If this superstring theory has any truth, big bangs come in many shapes and sizes and are constantly taking place in multiple dimensions.

Read what Nima Arkani-Hamed has to say about it. He might very well have the answers to your questions.

I have read superstring theory and while I hope it may yield some testable hypothesis, as of today it is still pure conjecture, mathematically sound conjecture, but not testable in our world. (not yet maybe)
I have also read extensively of M-theory, and some physicist's ideas that gravity is the one force that traveles from universe to universe, but again, not testable.

True, but the idea of there being other universes beyond ours, makes more sense than a void of nothingness.
At least for me.

me too actually. I can;t wait to see where all this will lead!

fishdom