Dark Energy, Expansion, and Acceleration.

[andreasj]

This is a question relating to the current observation, and what exactly they mean.

According to Lorentz Contraction, it's impossible to tell which way we're headed, because increased velocities should result in shorter distances. We theorize exactly the opposite, at an accelerated rate. Is Lorentz wrong?

According to Einstein, increased velocities should result in higher mass. According to recent results of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081216-chandra-dark-energy.html, we've observed decreasing mass in distant galaxies over time. If we're accelerating, shouldn't the galaxies be increasing in mass? Is Einstein wrong? Does mass decrease with acceleration? And yes, I understand the general thought process that energy density is thinning the galaxies with expansion. But, how do we know the difference between mass gain and energy thinning out?

I understand the Red Shift, but i don't understand why the laws of physics seem to side step the Big Bang Theory. I also don't understand how a theory gets invoked without observational proof (meaning Dark Energy of course), especially when that theory seems to contradict the laws of physics. Dark energy seems to be more of a theory based on excess data, rather than scientific evidence. Yes, we do appear to be expanding, and yes we do appear to be accelerating if you want to look at it that way. According to what we understand in physics though, the opposite could be true as well I think. Not speculating, just asking the question.

Anyone have a good answer to the duality of the problem? Am I missing something here?

I definitely want to say, I am not speculating anything. I am simply following the laws of physics, and I am confused by the accepted theory.

 

[bm0p700f]

The galaxies are not "moving" but space is expanding carrying them along for the ride. While that distiction may not seem important it from that the relatavistic mass increase is not observed.

However any mass increase observed by a "stationary observer" will be contradicited by the "moving obsever" as they would claim their is no mass increase associated with them. The moving observer could easily claim they are stationary and the stationary observer is moving so the mass increase is on them. Reletavistic mass increase is relative and can confuse the way you look at situations if used incorrectly, like the moving object becoming a black hole myth.

Decreasing mass of galaxies will be due to some sort of mass ejection for said galaxies. How I don't know. As for dark energy, it is invoked for a similar reason to dark matter. We have a good model of the universe which seems to predict what we see around us with the right fine tuning. This was true however until the issue of the galaxy rotation problem reared its ugly head and also the problem of the way galaxies move in there local clusters. So dark matter was invoked to explain these observations. It is just as valid in my view, perhaps more so to do this than to the scrap the theory we know and start again. Start where would be first question. Dark energy comes about because recent observations suggest the expansion of space in this universe is accelerating. It has to explained somehow.

I have read other theories to explain this accelerating expansion. If those are to be taken seriously we live in a void in our universe so presumably our "local" space is expanding faster than the rest of the universe. So more redshift here appears to us as the universe is expanding. I have only read this idea breifly so I have filled in the gaps in the article. There is no more basis for this idea, (perhaps less so as the universe would not be homogenous then) that the dark energy theory. At least the dark energy idea fits into our current cosmological model.

You forget, know one truly understands how the universe works. Our theories change over time and no doubt in the future people will look back at the folly of some aspects of our current understanding. That's why reseach takes place. May be there is no dark energy but it the best explanation at the moment.

 

[andreasj]

Being a forum that only allows one to question current theory, I can only say so much here. The questions I raise are valid ones. Mass gain has been an observed phenomenon, so I still question what the observation means. Lorentz contraction has also been an observed phenomenon, and could suggest an alternative explanation to expansion.

Quote "However any mass increase observed by a "stationary observer" will be contradicited by the "moving obsever" as they would claim their is no mass increase associated with them. The moving observer could easily claim they are stationary and the stationary observer is moving so the mass increase is on them."

Well, I'm not so sure. Mass gain is a measured phenomenon. One would have to run an experiment to see if there was a gain or loss, depending on the observational perspective. To my knowledge, no experiment has ever been done alog those lines on a large scale. Determining who is moving and who is stationary would be difficult if you had no other frames of reference, but it may not be impossible. Whose gaining and who's losing mass may just answer the question. Regardless, we have lots of points of reference to plot movement, so we can determine which one is doing the moving very easily.

Quote"The galaxies are not "moving" but space is expanding carrying them along for the ride. "

Not really sure I understand that statement entirely. If we're being carried along for the ride, and the space between us is increasing at an accelerated rate, we're moving. As for space moving, I'm not really sure what that means entirely. Is space becoming denser giving us the illusion of greater distance while we sit still? Is our mass decreasing, giving us the illusion of greater distance? What does moving space mean?

Once again though, this forum doesn't allow for creativity or imagination, much like real science stifles imagination, so I can't really say what I think without it coming across as speculative. I will say, I have definitely not forgot that science does not understand how the universe works. The scientific community as a whole is like a massive ship at sea, and it takes a very long time to change direction. Once it sets a course, and everyone jumps on board, they seem pretty content with the view from the helm.

 

[Ich]

Am I missing something here?

You are missing that you don't understand a single bit of the concepts you're throwing around.
Luckily, the guidelines of this forum prevent it from being swamped by crackpots, which makes it a good place to learn something.
If you're not willing to learn and instead want to live out your "creativity or imagination", this is certainly not the right place for you.

 

[ideasrule]

Once again though, this forum doesn't allow for creativity or imagination, much like real science stifles imagination, so I can't really say what I think without it coming across as speculative. I will say, I have definitely not forgot that science does not understand how the universe works. The scientific community as a whole is like a massive ship at sea, and it takes a very long time to change direction. Once it sets a course, and everyone jumps on board, they seem pretty content with the view from the helm.

If "imagination" for you involves something similar to what you did yesterday--namely, using the entropy of a macroscopic system of ideal gas to calculate the probability of a protein forming, then using the result to "prove" god exists--you'd better stay off the forum. Better yet, you'd better learn something and stop fooling yourself.

 

[vin300]

Not really sure I understand that statement entirely. If we're being carried along for the ride, and the space between us is increasing at an accelerated rate, we're moving. As for space moving, I'm not really sure what that means entirely. Is space becoming denser giving us the illusion of greater distance while we sit still? Is our mass decreasing, giving us the illusion of greater distance? What does moving space mean?

.

Well, you only had to say the last line.If space is dragged by observers moving apart, the rod you use will also extend thus showing the same distance between them

 

[andreasj]

You know, I'm not pretending to have anything to offer here, and I certainly don't subscribe to what I suggest, for multiple reasons. Truthfully though, scientists are under a tremendous amount of pressure to produce meaningful science. The scientific system from my assessment is daunting, because one wrong or questionable imaginative idea is career suicide, where you're instantly condemned to the category of crackpotery. Fortunately for me, I work as an estimator, and have nothing at stake in my career. I also accept that I will never publish a darn thing, nor do I care. I feel for the physics community as a whole though, because it's a pretty harsh bunch sometimes. Someones always waiting to pounce on one wrong or questionable idea. Human nature I suppose. An environment of that nature is surely a creative buzz kill at times, because livelihoods depend on being right, or being complacent if you want to simply keep your job. Ego's run high, which is a recipe for arrogance and nastiness.

That said, I question a few of the accepted theories based on the observations, nothing more. That certainly doesn't mean I disagree with anyones calculations, or claim I have the answer. It's actually quite the opposite. I think science is incredible, and I am in awe of the intellectual ability of the overwhelming majority of scientists out there. In general, it's pretty wonderful and useful science. I love my computer, that's for sure.

Okay, it's pointed out that under specific conditions you couldn't tell certain aspects of Lorentz Contraction and Mass Gain. Under what conditions could you observe them, and could those observations be similar to acceleration and expansion?

One thing I've always noticed in the observations, condensing mass states lead to organized galactic systems. That has been the observation 100% of the time. Never have we observed an explosion, that streams out, slows down, and then speeds up again sometime later in history. Yet, it is what the observations suggest if they are correct. The observations though, are defying energy conservation as we understand it, so we had to inject an unknown force which increases over great distance. It's unlike anything we have ever observed, and appears to occur only once in the universe as applied to a universal size explosion.

Something occurring once is also suspect in my mind, and doesn't fit with observations. 99.985 percent of mass is Hydrogen-1 (Wikipedia). Black holes are at the center of every galaxy. The universe is nothing but a huge number of galaxies. They all spin and draw the mass inward towards the middle. Moons spin around planets, planets spin around suns, suns spin around galaxies, and galaxies spin around black holes. From the quantum level and up, everything spins around a central point according to all of our observations. It's totally baffling that the universe is theorized to be working opposite of all our observations. The universe as near as I can tell is a giant duplicator, so it makes sense to me that all mass in the universe is trying to duplicate a universal theme, scenario, or process.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Once again though, this forum doesn't allow for creativity or imagination

It sounds like you are unhappy here. The web is a big place. There's something for everyone somewhere. I'm sure that there are places with a much more liberal policy on wild speculation out there.

Also, you might find Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" interesting.

 

[vin300]

Truthfully though, scientists are under a tremendous amount of pressure to produce meaningful science. .

Please note that the 'rod' I said is not an actual physical object

 

[andreasj]

It sounds like you are unhappy here. The web is a big place. There's something for everyone somewhere. I'm sure that there are places with a much more liberal policy on wild speculation out there.

Also, you might find Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" interesting.

Interestingly enough, I did visit the website you suggested. I have to say, I couldn't agree more. Maybe you should go back and read it yourself. You could learn something you know, which is exactly why I'm here. I kinda thought learning was the whole point of this site actually.

As for me not being happy here? I would consider that a pretty wild speculation on your part. I'm simply learning how to pose questions here without coming across like I know a darn thing, because I don't. Well, enough to be dangerous I suppose. Once again though, that's why I'm here, because others do have answers. It's called learning. I'll get the hang of it, without coming across in a way that will offend the educated in the field. Just try and bare with me, and if you have something to actually add or teach me, I'm all ears.

 

[bm0p700f]

You posted I answered. You then repost attacking the forum, physics and the way science is conducted. That's not the responce I expected. I wonder why I typed it up now. A discussion about my response, exploring some of the ideas raised further, fine but to attack physics and then feel sorry for us is not on.

If there are certain aspects of the ideas presented to you that you don't get ask away, there are enough people here so many different ways of explain the same thing. One will help you.

 

[andreasj]

My apologies. I certainly don't mean to offend anyone. I get enough attacks for asking naive questions, so just understand the frustration at times from my point of view. Try being called a crackpot for asking questions, or for debating the human interpretations on some of the theories. I'm proactive, and trying to learn as much as I can whenever I can, so it's not like I'm sitting on my butt claiming I have an answer out of the blue. I don't, just questions and possibilities. There's another site I frequented for the past 12 years, and you could say just about anything that was on your mind. I have two reprimands on here, within the first day...lol The other curator of the physics site I normally play on has cancer, so the site has stagnated. I've changed my thoughts there so many times, I have to laugh at myself from where I started. So once again, I apologize. I'm adapting to this format, which is much different from where I came from. There, it was much different, I could throw out wild _ss speculations, not that I believed them, then experts could tell me why it wasn't possible. When it made sense, I saw the error in the thought, and I learned something and moved on. I'm certainly no stranger to being wrong, as I probably am right now.

My question is pretty basic when it comes right down to it. Could the universe be imploding, rather than exploding? A simple inversion would look nearly identical as near as I can tell, and none of the math would really change. And my rough understanding of physics seems to support the possibility. What are the odds though, 1%, or 50/50?

 

[Ich]

I have two reprimands on here, within the first day...lol

Yes, they're not what they used to be. I didn't expect you'd still be around now.

I get enough attacks for asking naive questions, so just understand the frustration at times from my point of view.

No. You get attacks not for asking, but for acting like a crackpot. Being told you're wrong by experts does not imply narrow-mindedness on the experts side, especially not if you've admittedly no idea what you're talking about and say a lot of nonsense.

What are the odds though, 1%, or 50/50?

0.

 

[TheDestroyer]

I have read different parts of this thread, I advise you to learn general relativity to understand why the universe expands, I'm not going to go into deep considerations with you like positive and negative pressure of the universe and the energy-momentum-stress tensor and its proportionality to the cosmological constants. I can't talk about that unless you've had some delicious course about general relativity.

General relativity talks about everything ignoring the observer, not only this (which is there in special relativity) but it also removes the effect of gravitational forces by changing the coordinate system to curved system (equivalence principle).

With all due respect, if you want to discuss something scientifically, you need to learn what people before you have understood about it, and discuss using concepts, not intuition, because intuition in its very basic effect lead people 500 years ago to fail in imaging the free fall in its right form, they even didn't bother to do what Galileo did by free-falling some objects from some rooftop! If our mind can't imagine free fall intuitively, then this means that physics should not depend on the observer nor intuition, I can give you 10000 question that you won't give a right answer for by intuition, although they seem simple. Use your intuition but respecting the concepts of physics, just like when you solve algebraic equation and use the laws of solving or algebraic manipulation, not purely your intuition.

I again advise you, learn general relativity, and come back, and then I'm going to keep discussing with you for 10 days if you wish, and when you say something with a good basis, I may agree with you.

Good luck :)

 

[Chronos]

In an expanding universe, where mass relativistically increases with velocity, the increased gravity would balance out the increased distance between galaxies. This is not consistent with what we observe, andreaj. You can plot this rather easily on a spreadsheet.

 

[andreasj]

I really appreciate the last two responses. I've spent about 12 years trying to understand the human interpretations and the math, so I'm not laying this out entirely blind. I admit, there is much I don't know, but I really do understand the basic concept of what's supposed to happening out there. It doesn't make sense entirely, so I question. That said, I don't pretend to have an answer, just questions. These questions are highly complex, and do not really contradict relativity. It alters views of how we look at the universe, nothing more. Trying to ask the questions I have is very difficult, because they aren't black and white, and are very lengthy in cause and effect.

Why the universe is expanding and accelerating no one knows for certain. It is a mystery, so we had to add a theory, dark energy. I understand that, and don't question the need to add the theory. According to physics though, the Big Bang should have fizzled a few billion years ago. We're missing a piece of the puzzle, which leads to a plethora of possibilities.

My thought was to search for an alternative answer based on our current understanding of physics. That said, I want to make clear this is not a theory, or anything that I believe to be true. It is beyond my limits to go any further with this idea. I do have a day job, so for me to go back to school to learn the tools of the trade is unrealistic. I'm too old. My career path was set 30 years ago, so I missed my chance. It's reality. The fact is, I'd be dead or senile by the time I acquired the skills needed to rule out this possibility. That's why I'm here. I'm writing this as if I know what the heck I'm talking about, only because it's easier to write it that way. So the question at the end is, is it possible? Not from a "can pigs fly perspective", but from the current mathematics if bent slightly. I'm a realist, so no, pigs can't fly. And for those who want to inject a physics solution to the can pigs fly scenario, don't. Someone has already wasted their time on that answer. It's not funny, and it's an ignorant response. Can you tell I've done this before?

The basic idea is that expansion is a result of condensing mass states. Mass itself is dynamic, and forever condensing to a smaller state. There is no bottom limit. As mass condenses, our perception of distance expands outwards. So, expansion and acceleration starts right here, in our locality, and works outward from this point, or any other point from which you are viewing the universe. One of the reasons I suggest this, is because it seems to make sense when trying to define physical substance. If you took two atoms side by side, and imagined each one is condensing away from each other, it would give both an illusion, and reality of substance. So, energy in a continually condensing state could give an answer to the illusion of mass. I could take this a lot further, but I'll leave it at that for now. The thought is very simple though, if you took two very flimsy ping pong balls, and imagined they where condensing evenly from all sided at X rate, they wouldn't be to flimsy anymore. You'd have to overcome the condensing force in order to crush them.

This possiblity needs to be taken one small piece at a time. I know very well this leads to a multitude of other possiblities, and skews a multitude of other problems. I've been through it all, and I still can't see a way to say no, this couldn't be. I've ran this by professionals already, in great length, and still it hasn't been ruled out.

One of the interesting observation which does support this idea, unfortunately, is itself immersed in contraversy right now. That would be the pioneer anomaly. It's falling a little short of where it should be in the universe, which would make absolute sense if the expansion happened from a condensing mass state outward. It's not on the mark, because that mark has moved further out with expansion and acceleration.

I'll leave it at that for now.

The question obviously leads to a whole host of other questions. If I could upload graphics, it would make the questions a lot easier to ask. One other thing I do want to make clear as well. I have no dilliusions of ever taking any of this beyond a chat forum. I'm not looking to prove anything, I'm looking to disprove it.