# B Would a spread theory eliminate the need for dark energy?

Tags:
1. Jul 28, 2016

### Benplace

I am doing a thought experiment. Keep in mind that I am not a mathematician and have never taken a physics class, so excuse me if this comes off as a "dumb" question.
Is it possible that mass could cause space to spread, instead of bend/stretch?
So, for instance, gravity could be like water in some ways as it causes ripples in space time, but perhaps large bodies spread space, so a planet would expand the space around it, and in the process of doing so, it would not be equivalent to the mass of the object. Space wouldn't spread or expand in an equal amount to the mass, the ripples would cause it to spread out more than the mass of the object. If this were true, wouldn't it eliminate the need for Dark Energy?

2. Jul 28, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

This does not make sense, but every process that would lead to anything repulsion-like over long distances would also repel objects nearby. There would be no orbits at all.

3. Jul 28, 2016

### Benplace

No I am not saying it repels the objects, I am saying it creates new space. I guess its not in place of bending spacetime, as that definitely happens. I am saying when the initial warping of spacetime happens, at that point it would create new space. If the object suddenly disappeared then spacetime would no longer be bent but the additional space it spread out would remain there.

4. Jul 28, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

That's the part that does not make sense.
Fixing that problem would lead to repulsion, but then it is in disagreement with observations.
That does not make sense.
That is impossible.

5. Jul 28, 2016

### Benplace

This is why I rarely post on this forum, I am trying to understand and put things in perspective. I am not saying an object could disappear. I am using it to explain what I mean.
Here is my next question, are all physicists rude to people that want to learn?

6. Jul 29, 2016

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
The problem here is that you are asking the rest of us to debunk your personal theory.

Now, besides the fact that this is against the rules of this forum, which you should have read and agreed to when joining it, can you see how, if we allow such a thing, our forum will be inundated with endless supply of these "tell me what's wrong with this..." questions. In fact, in the history of this forum, we HAVE been buried under such a thing. It is why the rules are as they are now.

You can't simply come up with a possible explanation of "dark energy" when you don't even know all the properties of it. It isn't just a qualitative description. There are quantitative aspect of it as well, which means that if you want to come up with something that might described it, it must also fit in with the numbers! We already have a set of quantitative description of dark energy. Any model that claims to want to match it must also come close to these numbers. Handwaving arguments are just that, handwaving. That is why mfb said that you have to first learn and understand what you are trying to describe and the physics involved. You have to show the gravitational effects of your model. Otherwise, you are really asking us to do all the hard work. (I'm also suspicious, based on your response, that you are confusing dark matter with dark energy. But then again, your description is so vague, it is hard to know which is which.)

There is also a cultural disconnect here, and since you came into the "physics" culture, this is something you need to understand. Physics isn't just saying "what goes up must come down". It must also say "when and where it comes down". The quantitative aspect of physics is often lost in all this, and for many in the general public, this is something they are not familiar with. People are used to listening to politicians claiming that they want to cut taxes, but they never asked "by how much, and what are the ramifications of a smaller revenue?" Physics can't sweep that under the rug, because everything has consequences and effects.

So the world that you have stepped in requires THAT much more rigor than just shooting the breeze on your front steps. It is why something like this is often dismissed, because we have seen WAY too many of it on here already, and it is not the aim of this forum to debunk every single personal theory out there.

If you really are here to learn, start from the basics, i.e. the foundation. Without such foundation, nothing solid can be built on top of that. It is fun to speculate, but it is not something that you can build a clear knowledge from. Physics isn't just a series of disconnected pieces of information. If you don't learn anything out of this encounter, you should at least be aware of that.

Zz.

7. Jul 29, 2016

### Benplace

Where would you recommend I start from the basics? I really do want to learn, but I am not a young pup anymore so going back to school really isn't an option for me.
Thanks for your thorough response. Maybe I should look more into the philosophical side of things?

8. Jul 30, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

Closed pending moderation

Edit: a long thread hijack has been removed and the thread will remain closed.

Last edited: Jul 30, 2016