Accelerating expansion of the universe.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of the universe's accelerating expansion, with one participant proposing the "Meagors Stretching Universe Theory," which suggests two opposing forces: a central mass pulling inward and the residual expansion from the Big Bang pushing outward. Critics argue that this theory implies a nonexistent center and edge to the universe, complicating the understanding of acceleration versus speed. They emphasize that the universe is defined by its own boundaries, making external forces illogical. The conversation highlights the importance of adhering to established physics principles and the scientific method in understanding cosmic phenomena. Ultimately, the proposal is deemed overly complex compared to existing theories.
dmeagor
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was just reading an article about dark matter and the expansion of the universe and thorught it sounded like a bit of a bodge so I began thinking about what else could cause the acceleration and came up with this idea. Perhaps someone could tell me why it's wrong?

Is it not possible that the universe is being stretched by two forces not one. Firstly, a large growing mass (super-sized black hole) in the centre pulling things inwards at an ever accelerating speed and and secondly the remainder of the expansion force from the big bank pulling things at the extremities outwards.

I should like to call this "Meagors Stretching Universe Theory". Right, that's that solved, where do I get my Nobel prize?

Regards,
D. Meagor
 
Space news on Phys.org
Ok Einstein,

I think you have been reading enough grown up books! Just kidding.

Your solution would then suppose an absolute center of Universe, which does not exist. It also supposes a define edge, which does seem to exist. Then an ever accelerating speed is a confusing theory, since you are mixing speed and acceleration. Finally, from our definition of our Universe, you Meagors Stretching Universe Theory could not exist, because of the outside of the Universe porperty of your second force.

Therefore, you will have to wait a little for your Nobel Prize.

Cheers
 
I'm probably fighting a losing battle here but anyway...

It doesn't need a centre or an edge to work, just as long as something is being stretched and you're within the stretched space when you perform the measurement.

I simply propose a kind of "sucking" vs an "explosion" to explain the acceleration and expansion of space.
 
I think I've explained myself badly here, One more try...

Force 1. Force from big bang which should be slowing due to gravity.
Force 2. The Big ScrunchTM force somewhere in the universe (doesn't matter where it's located.)

The big scrunch causes stars closest to move inwards faster than stars that are further away hence red shift and the illusion that the universe is expanding when really it's just being stretched in parts.

NB. I've shifted a space on my mantelpiece for that award.
 
If you apply Occam's Razor principle then you might not end up with your theory.

Having to imagine a force from outside our Universe that is pulling our Universe apart seems terribly complicated to me. I prefer good old physics rules to understand what is going on in our Universe.

Cheers
 
As physicists, we tend to think in terms of cause and effect. We observe and collect data, derive principles and mathematical relationships, and make and test predictions. When predictions fail to conform to observations, we collect more data, derive new principles and mathematical relationships and make and test more predictions. It's a never ending process. Observing forces arising from 'outside' our universe is illogical. The universe is, by definition, inclusive of all that is possible to observe.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top