The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Dark energy theory  (Read 14305 times)

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #25 on: 16/02/2011 23:35:33 »
It is not really a theory but a possibility coming out from my theory.

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has already been measured and it is substantially smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. All people who still think that there is a singularity should understand that it is simply impossible, this is a mathematical aberration. It just mean that the solution is not there, it is somewhere else. I just don't understand why some physicists use an impossible solution and perpetuate it...  ::)
 

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #26 on: 17/02/2011 00:06:02 »
OK hear we go ,i've got some new ideas to through out there and sea how much stink I can rase.
lets start with spasetime, I cannot buy into this because in my mind time is a constent steady flow and is broken up into standard units of measure and these units are not flexable , to say they are is the same as saying that an inch is still an inch when marked on a rubber ruler and stretched to twice its normal length. just because the tool you are using to measure something is flexable does not make the thing you are measuring any longer or shorter, despite what you tell your wife . I know the super accurate clocks in outer spase seam to prove otherwise but i don't think they fully take into account the effect of atmosphere, gravity, and god only knows what other forces are interacting with it, i mean nobody can actualy prove what gravity realy is so how can you say you are 100% sure that its time that is speading up or slowing down and not the clock.
 

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #27 on: 17/02/2011 00:14:56 »
Not to try and stray too far from the topic at hand, but what are people's thoughts on the universe being a 3-D hypersphere that is expanding in size?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #28 on: 17/02/2011 09:51:01 »
I'm sure nobody will mind if I move this thread to the "New Theories" section of the board, where people are more free to speculate and discuss new ideas.
 

Offline Magnus W

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #29 on: 17/02/2011 13:28:55 »
3-d hypersphere, I have not heard about that theory can you explain.

 

Offline bardman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #30 on: 17/02/2011 18:02:52 »
If you think of a sphere, and the surface of it, you can only travel in two orthogonal directions along it. So, if we lived in a 2 dimensional space, you could picture the universe as a 3-D sphere (A 2-D hypersphere) on which we could only exist on the surface, moving in two distinct directions along it. The concept extends into higher dimensions, we just have no way of representing it in a geometric way that would make sense.

The idea is then if you travel straight out in one direction (which is actually along a slight curve in this higher dimensional representation you cannot picture) you will eventually end up at the same point you started. The universe would then expand by increasing the radius of the hypersphere.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #31 on: 19/02/2011 13:55:36 »
"The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has already been measured and it is substantially smaller than the Schwarzschild radius."

Can you give me a link to that CPT?
Shouldn't it be a Kerr solution too?
As it is spinning, at least I thought it was?
==

The black hole at Sagittarius. 
« Last Edit: 19/02/2011 14:05:13 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #32 on: 20/02/2011 06:17:57 »
see this:

Would a ring shape be more fitted???!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40097454/ns/technology_and_science-space/

I am searching for it but it says the measures were precise enough to think that they haven't look at the right spot. They don't understand why. I just think they look at the right place but they are obsessed with their old black hole's model.

Here is a related article but i haven't found the original yet.

http://thespacewriter.com/wp/365-days-of-astronomy/measuring-the-black-hole/

finally: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/nature07245.html

More explanations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
« Last Edit: 20/02/2011 08:53:21 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #33 on: 20/02/2011 11:24:31 »
Well, I looked too?
And I found nothing strange, just a black spinning hole.
Quite big with 'a dense disk of gas (of at least 10,000 Solar-masses) around the central hole in Sagittarius A* apparently counters its tidal forces sufficiently for stars to form. Moreover, local conditions have also favored the formation of a high number (around 100) of very young and massive stars.'

Read my link above, it's the best I could find on this subject.

Peering into the heart of darkness. 
« Last Edit: 20/02/2011 11:33:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #34 on: 21/02/2011 05:55:07 »
thx, still very nice...

look page 6, right column: "Upper limits upon Ra/D are found directly via the radio
VLBI observations collected in Table 1. These are
shown in Fig. 5, with their 3–σ upper bounds (again
denoted by the hatched regions) together with the combined
infrared limit. The recent 1.3mm detection is the
strongest, and excludes Ra/D > 27 μas at the 3–σ level."

My prediction is half Schwarzchild radius ~26 μas

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.1105v1.pdf

page 7, right column: "As a consequence, we
cannot yet say that Sgr A* is described by a GR black
hole despite being able to conclude that a horizon must
exist."
« Last Edit: 21/02/2011 06:03:22 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #35 on: 21/02/2011 11:25:42 »
Nothing wrong with predicting. We'll see what the astronomers think themselves finding out as time moves on. Myself I still expect it to be a normal Black Hole, well as normal as any Black Hole can be? There is no gold standard to them yet, the definitions we have gets influenced by the regions in where we think ourselves to see them as i understands it. And they are quite a bit from us, hopefully :)
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #36 on: 22/02/2011 22:25:23 »
I disagree with this theory on several grounds. First of all, a "suction" is nothing but a reduced pressure. When a gas expands into a region of lower pressure, it its pushed by the higher pressure; the lower pressure simply doesn't push back as hard. The ancient philosophers were right; there can be no action at a distance without an intermediate particle or medium of transmission. If galaxies are accelerating into a void, it's because something is pushing them away from each other harder than their mutual gravity is pulling them together. For lack of a more descriptive title, that "something" has been named "dark energy".

My second objection is that I prefer to believe in an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic universe. Obviously, we can't prove what lies beyond our Hubble limit; but we can have models which only work because we make assumptions about what lies beyond. I have my own model which I believe works pretty well, though I lack the math skills to prove it.

Thirdly, I have my own understanding of exactly what dark energy is, where it comes from and what else it does beside driving the expansion of space. It is better described as a push than a pull.

I'm new, here. I'll make a point to post my model in this section ASAP. I don't consider my model to be a "theory", but it does contain a number of new theories.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 03:46:15 by Phractality »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #37 on: 23/02/2011 11:25:11 »
Phractality - nice post and welcome.  With regard to your first paragraph (and I think I side with you on this, but just for the sake of argument...)  could you not posit a region in which the vacuum energy exists and another in which it doesn't?  If space doesn't exist then you have no problems with uncertainty principle requiring fluctuations in vacuum and causing a background energy.  And like the Casimir effect, would this not create a zone of negative pressure (for want of a better phrase). 

I am not convinced that the universe is infinite - but I think your second point stands nonetheless.  My favourite concept of dark energy is neither a push or a pull, but rather a change in background - if you and your friend were standing on a paved floor and each stone increased in size by 10% (or an extra stone was added for every 10 - same thing) - would you be pushed apart or pulled apart, or just notice that the distance has increased without feeling a particular force.  this very simple hand-wavy view also covers the fact that someone 100 paving stones away 'moves slower' than someone 1000 stones distant.

If you post you post the model expect some criticism and mad questions, and if it has no maths I am afraid it is difficult to take too seriously; heuristic solutions are nice but don't really add much unless the maths can be easily added
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #38 on: 23/02/2011 13:19:49 »
...could you not posit a region in which the vacuum energy exists and another in which it doesn't? 

I really don't know how to fit vacuum energy into my model. After all, the experts on it are about 128 orders of magnitude apart on how much energy they're talking about. If vacuum energy and dark energy are the same thing, then I tend to agree with the higher estimate of 10^113 J/m, and it has to be fairly uniform thruout our visible universe, and probably millions of Hubble limits beyond that.

Quote
If space doesn't exist then you have no problems with uncertainty principle requiring fluctuations in vacuum and causing a background energy. 

In my model, space not only exists in the form of an ether foam, but it is quite tangible. A cubic meter of ether consists of literally googols of sub-universe galaxies; and for all I know, a sub-universe galaxy may have as much inertial mass as one of our own galaxies. Besides, we're probably moving thru the ether at about 627 km/s. I don't see the uncertainty principle applying to the ether, at all. It may, however, apply to the exchange of momentum between regular energy (shear waves) and dark energy (pressure waves).

Quote
And like the Casimir effect, would this not create a zone of negative pressure (for want of a better phrase). 

I don't understand the Casimir effect well enough to comment. 

Quote
My favourite concept of dark energy is neither a push or a pull, but rather a change in background - if you and your friend were standing on a paved floor and each stone increased in size by 10% (or an extra stone was added for every 10 - same thing) - would you be pushed apart or pulled apart, or just notice that the distance has increased without feeling a particular force. 

That is very similar to the way I explain how space expands. Instead of adding paving stones, I am "un-popping" ether-foam bubbles. This is explained in my own thread on my model. I postulate that volume of space can be measured in ether-foam bubbles, so for space to expand, the number of bubbles in a region must increase. That is accomplished by adding new bubble walls. When a bubble wall pops, two bubbles merge into one, which is a decrease in the number of bubbles. To resolve this apparent paradox, I conclude that the arrow of time reverses between alternate universes. As our universe gets older, the sub-universe and super-universe are getting younger.

The role of dark energy in the expansion of space has to do with the fact that foams fizz. When you pour a glass of beer, you can hear the pressure waves that are generated by popping bubbles. From a sub-universe perspective, the pressure waves radiate from a popping bubble. From our perspective they converge to a point where a bubble un-pops.

One unpopping bubble adds about a Planck volume (10^-105 m) to our universe. That must occur about 10^88 times per second per cubic meter, to account for the Hubble constant.

Quote
If you post you post the model expect some criticism and mad questions, and if it has no maths I am afraid it is difficult to take too seriously; heuristic solutions are nice but don't really add much unless the maths can be easily added

I have posted the model, and I welcome even angry, viscious questions. That would be a nice change from the silence that has greeted everywhere else that I have posted it. What I really need is a dialog, so I can argue with someone other than myself. There are unresolved questions, and I'm going bonkers trying to argue both sides of every issue.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2011 13:52:57 by Phractality »
 

Offline SOEDan137

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #39 on: 28/02/2011 16:36:09 »

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge, being a gravitational depression, gathers more of the energy of the field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the same direction as the first torus. This collapse is a black hole to the first torus, and a white hole to the second torus, where the axes of space and time in that second torus have reversed.
While gravity tends to draw depressions together locally on a dynamic torus, even to the point of field collapse, other areas on a torus expand and contract globally as the torus propagates along without regard to local phenomenon on the surface. This is quintessence. The inertia of the torus to propagate is its dark energy. This is a two-dimensional example of the process that we  experience in three dimensions.

From structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

--
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #40 on: 28/02/2011 18:41:09 »
well the most obvious answer is that the net force of gravitational attraction within a uniform shell is zero.  For a force to exist the shell must be non-uniform, yet the expansion we can measure is all pretty homogenous and isotropic

Several people, here, seem to be confusing an empty shell with a solid ball. The gravity of an empty shell is zero inside the shell, but outside the shell the gravity is equal to that of the mass of the shell concentrated at its center.

Consider a uniform finite solid ball of radius R (floating in space or in freefall). The gravity at the surface of an imaginary shell at radius r ≤ R (concentric to the ball) is proportional to the mass contained inside that shell. The mass outside of radius r contributes nothing to the gravity at radius r, because that mass is a uniform shell.

The key word, above, is finite. If the ball's radius is infinite, then the gravity at any point in the ball is zero. That's because every point is the center, and there is no gravitational potential difference between one center and any other center. Big bang advocates overlook this fact when arguing that their formulas prove the universe is finite. Their formula is based on total mass, irrespective of radius, but the formula is not valid if the radius is infinte. So they are tacitly assuming a finite radius in order to prove a finite radius.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #41 on: 28/02/2011 18:45:01 »
The vacuum energy was found by someone to be 120 times to large to explain dark energy, I think I actually heard that on the naked astronomy podcast but I have no links to the source.

I think that was 120 orders of magnitude too large. Slight difference!

I am working on an explanation of the difference at the thread about my own model.

 

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #42 on: 21/04/2011 07:35:11 »
What if we are being flooded with space?  Maybe the space is coming from somewhere.  Mass inhibits the flooding so we see what we think is expansion in the relatively massless inter-galactic areas.  The galaxies are not moving away but more space is entering the universe from somewhere.  Is Space conserved like energy?  Where might space come from?
« Last Edit: 21/04/2011 16:54:52 by yamo »
 

Offline mpc755

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #43 on: 21/04/2011 11:58:24 »
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html [nofollow]

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html [nofollow]

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg [nofollow]

Paths of light lead back to the Universal jet emission point or 'over the waterfall' towards the Rindler Horizon. This is what is defined as the CMBR.

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2011 12:04:25 by mpc755 »
 

Offline yamo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Dark energy theory
« Reply #44 on: 16/09/2011 07:49:33 »
What if the observable mass in the universe is being pulled to a massive shell outside of our light cone?  We live in an egg and we are the yolk.  Can this hypothesis be disproved?

well the most obvious answer is that the net force of gravitational attraction within a uniform shell is zero.  For a force to exist the shell must be non-uniform, yet the expansion we can measure is all pretty homogenous and isotropic

what about this?  http://atramateria.com/the-end-of-the-cosmological-principle/

http://io9.com/5838273/the-universe-might-not-be-the-same-all-over
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Dark energy theory
« Reply #44 on: 16/09/2011 07:49:33 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums