Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JoeBrown on 06/03/2016 18:45:39
-
Been working on a hypothesis which debunks it. Have the logic figured out! No, I have no formula to prove my "theory" but none needs to be written that hasn't already been written. It's really simple when you think about it.
Okay peers, review me ;)
The Dark Energy of Cosmological Redshift
Joseph M. Brown
Monday, February 29, 2016
Effect of Condensing Gravity
Through observation, we infer undeniable facts of the Universe.
We’ve discovered the longer light traverses the Universe the more it is shifted toward red in the spectrum (wave lengths elongate). This observation is solidified by comparing spectral lines emitted from similar distant stellar events. The more distant, the more pronounced cosmological redshift manifests.
Edwin Hubble suggested distant galaxies appear to be receding because the light from distant extragalactic origin appear redder than light from neighboring galaxies. Waves bouncing off of, or originating from objects receding from observer are elongated compared to bodies of equal acceleration, or compressed when originator and observer are moving toward one another. Assumption based on the doppler effect, the distant galaxies are receding, conclude the Universe is expanding.
Gravitational redshift or Einstein shift has a similar effect on light as that of objects receding from one another. Light originating stronger region of gravity, such as a planetary object is shifted toward red when observed in a lower gravitational field, such as a leaner satellite (eg. from Earth to the Moon).
We must infer visible bodies in the Universe are not in a steady state environment. Stars have finite existence. Galaxies attract/merge, resulting in fewer and heavier concentration of mass. Galaxies are the result clouds of mass or that of gravity concentrating mass toward the heaviest localized point (super massive blackholes).
Universe is not a static environment, when the mass of galaxies is extrapolated toward the start of time, the Universe would appear to contain no stars, galaxies or black holes in the beginning, Instead it was a vast cloud of evenly distributed matter (mass and gravity spread out more evenly). We don’t know the cause of the cloud the size of the Universe, many subscribe to a big or silent sort of bang theory. I don’t believe we can infer existence beyond/before the cloud, my opinion wavers.
Gravity causes/caused stars, galaxies and black holes to form from the primordial gas cloud. Gravitationally attracted and continue to group together mass concentrating more mass in increasingly confined regions of space. The existing concentration of mass was more evenly distributed and diluted everywhere. It must be inferred, prior to existence of stars, galaxies and blackholes, there could not have been light nor other visible evidence. Consistency of physical laws suggest such state had once existed.
Its understood concentrated mass intensifies the field of gravity in a localized region of stars, galaxies and/or blackholes. Therefore concentration of mass must also dilute the field of gravity outside the concentration of mass. Corpuscles of light traversing the Universe continuously experience a weakening field of gravity, as the mass it navigates beyond, continues to condense or concentrate.
A corpuscle of light requires over 100,000 light years to traverse length of the Milky Way galaxy. Its reasonable to conclude during a short length of travel close to such field of gravity, considerable amounts of mass could be concentrated in the center. The extent of mass contraction/condensation must exceed the visible size of a galactic bodies many, many fold larger to support existence of such galactic bodies.
Merging galaxies would be an accelerated form of mass concentration compared to initial cloud collapse of galaxy formation, from primordial clouds of gas. Accelerated gravity contraction would likely have the effect of increasing the rate of redshift caused via weakening intergalactic gravity, therefore causing increasing rates of redshift. This has led some to believe the universe is expanding at increasing rates.
As many others, I find the concept of an expanding Universe incomprehensible. Dark Energy hypothesis is evidence of Einstein/gravity redshift due to mass and gravity concentrating/condensing in galactic bodies, not a mysterious force of nature.
-
My hypothesis is difficult to refute. It relies on supposition of the past Universe, which I imagine is difficult for many to envision. It contains no supporting math, tho Einstein shift is fairly well accepted principle.
Lambda-CDM model seems states that the Universe was once "flat" (curious term) when hydrogen & deuterium and helium gases were the only matter. This state of the universe is presumed to be caused by a cooling effect of expansion after the initial bang.
Even if you don't buy into BB theory, extrapolation into past, based on behavior of consistent physical laws, predict this state once upon a time. Beyond this point it's all supposition and conjecture.
BB/Lambda-CDM theorists must know the distribution of the field of gravity was different than present. Seems to me that they've neglected the change distribution as THE cause for redshift. Instead they flock to the idea "the Universe is expanding" due to effect of doppler shift. What's worse is they, the suppose it's gaining momentum based on a mysterious force termed "Dark Energy" and give it more energy than everything else...
Seems like a lot of whooie to me.
-
My opinion is, the idea of no preferred reference in the universe, due to space-time expanding in all directions, implies we cannot satisfy the needs of energy conservation. Energy conservation can only work if we have a ground state reference that has zero energy. Energy conservation needs an absolute reference hierarchy.
For example, if we have a train in motion with velocity=V, although a passenger on the train and a person at the station will both see the same relative velocity, both will see different energy balances. The passenger on the train sees the station move at velocity=V, while the person at the station, sees the train move at velocity=V. The kinetic energy of each reference depends on the mass of the train and mass of the station; 1/2MV2. If these are not exactly the same, and we assume relative, we will add or take away energy.
Say the station weighs twice that of the train, and we, the consensus, assume the station is moving, since there is no preferred reference and this is easier for us. We just added energy to the universe that is not there. This may be OK, if we don't look too far away from the station. But if we do we will start to see anomalies.
For example, say we look at the coal delivery journals and notice the coal pile is not down as much as we expected from the energy balance. In fact, the pile is twice is a high as it should be based on the energy needed by the moving train station. We may need to theorize we must have bought dark energy laden coal. We will never see this dark energy in the lab, because it is not there. However, we infer this from the larger than expected coal pile and the moving train station assumption we used for convenience. This illusion is all due to no preferred reference.
In the case of dark energy, we can't see dark energy in the lab to verify it is real. We infer dark energy from distant affects. My theory is, by using the assumption of no preferred reference, we don't do a proper universal energy balance. The lost/gained energy, due to that assumption, compared to energy conservation, results in a difference. We see the difference appear through other observations.
What I would do, if I knew more about the details of the universe, like the experts, is look for a layout of the universe, where there is no need for dark energy or dark matter. This layout will close the energy balance and should be close to the absolute universe reference; reverse engineer.
-
Your problem is exactly the expansion of the universe. If we have four people with one at each corner of a rubber sheet and they stretch it in all directions we can say our universal reference is the centre of the sheet. No matter how far we stretch the sheet we can always find this central point. We cannot do that with the universe. However we can look at the Hubble data. The mathematics we need lie in an examination of the Hubble relationship.
-
The
The mathematics we need lie in an examination of the Hubble relationship.
Isn't the Hubble relationship simply the correlation that the more distant an object the grater it's shifted toward the red?
It's also termed cosmological redshift, because it exists only on cosmological scales.
But then Dark Energy only exists on the cosmological scale, as well.
What really rubs me: Knowing there's a very simple explanation for shift, but resolving Dark Energy in this fashion, would undermine attempts to fund projects seeking an answer for the fictitious Dark Energy. I guess the joke isn't on me, so I shouldn't complain.
Back in Hubble's time, Doppler shift was well known. Einstein shift anticipated by Einstein in early 1900, but it wasn't verified until after Hubble had passed. I suspect if Hubble would have known about Einstein/gravity shift, he would have dispelled this Dark Energy nonsense.
-
The The mathematics we need lie in an examination of the Hubble relationship.
Isn't the Hubble relationship simply the correlation that the more distant an object the grater it's shifted toward the red?
It's also termed cosmological redshift, because it exists only on cosmological scales.
But then Dark Energy only exists on the cosmological scale, as well.
What really rubs me: Knowing there's a very simple explanation for shift, but resolving Dark Energy in this fashion, would undermine attempts to fund projects seeking an answer for the fictitious Dark Energy. I guess the joke isn't on me, so I shouldn't complain.
Back in Hubble's time, Doppler shift was well known. Einstein shift anticipated by Einstein in early 1900, but it wasn't verified until after Hubble had passed. I suspect if Hubble would have known about Einstein/gravity shift, he would have dispelled this Dark Energy nonsense.
You miss the point. The Hubble relationship is that the further away and the further back in time a galaxy is then the greater the red shift. We can't know where those galaxies are 'NOW' as that is in our FUTURE light cone. The Hubble relationship is not as straightforward as it first appears. If we extrapolate outwards past the universe we can observe then at a specific distance that lies in our future light cone things are moving away at the speed of light but that was a long long time ago. It is not in the present.
-
Just a quick question. What if dark energy/matter is the exact reason that galaxies redshift. Meaning what if the light traveling thru space slams into a massive amount of dark matter/energy and is split apart gradually losing energy and red shifting when it again becomes visable to whatever lies beyond that dark mass, namely us and our telescopes. In a sense it could be more like a bit of bird doo on a 'cosmic windshield'. Just kind of a counter thought. Although I do like your hypothesis
-
Just a quick question. What if dark energy/matter is the exact reason that galaxies redshift. Meaning what if the light traveling thru space slams into a massive amount of dark matter/energy and is split apart gradually losing energy and red shifting when it again becomes visable to whatever lies beyond that dark mass, namely us and our telescopes. In a sense it could be more like a bit of bird doo on a 'cosmic windshield'. Just kind of a counter thought. Although I do like your hypothesis
Black holes are a form of dark matter. They exist in theory and a lot of evidence that suggests they exist. Unfortunately light that slams into them, doesn't continue outside of them, based on theory.
There's a lot of evidence that indicates dark matter also exists outside of black holes. We've seen evidence in WIMP/neutrino detectors that matter can pass through about a mile of earth and still spark a light in heavy water.
Seems reasonable (to me) that atom smashers and events like supernovas ruin [some] matter, destroying electromagnetic coherence or interactivity. If mass has no electromagnetic interactivity, it doesn't interact with light or baryonic matter. On our plain of existence, everything we see touch, smell has to has electromagnetic qualities or we cannot interact with it.
By definition, dark matter is dark because it doesn't interact with light. I thought long and hard about that being a cause for redshift, but we cannot describe why its dark, just that it is... Kinda like the Pauli exclusion principle, with an additional caveat, we can only see evidence of how it effects other mass, but not know it's velocity, nor its position, we can only see evidence of it when there's a lot of it somewhere.
Dark energy on the other hand is an entirely different concept. The only evidence of it, is redshift. Which is why I argue against the whole concept. It's proposed that some mysterious energy only seen in redshift is expanding the universe and an accelerating rate. 68% of the Universe (and growing?) There is a reasonable explanation, unless you're trying to talk ppl into funding telescopes or space expeditions. Massive funds for massive projects like Dark Energy, is a reasonable explanation for it to be "accepted".
-
You miss the point. The Hubble relationship is that the further away and the further back in time a galaxy is then the greater the red shift. We can't know where those galaxies are 'NOW' as that is in our FUTURE light cone. The Hubble relationship is not as straightforward as it first appears. If we extrapolate outwards past the universe we can observe then at a specific distance that lies in our future light cone things are moving away at the speed of light but that was a long long time ago. It is not in the present.
Math is used to correlate the distance (into the past) with redshift. Without any other form corroboration, its simply a correlation. So what if it's done in math? Doesn't change the fact that its the only correlation. I've outlined how it's very likely and how it should be reasoned that gravity is responsible for what appears to be "Dark Energy". I cannot prove it, any more than any other w31rd or inexplicable phenomena.
Dark Energy is claimed to be of unknown origin. Its understood that changing field of gravity affects light shift. Lambda-CDM says mass (therefore gravity) was distributed differently in the past. We see evidence that no amount of mass in the Universe doesn't sits still, it all falls down. Black holes haven't always existed, takes a lot of time and mass falling in on itself to create one.
Seems to me, black holes are the most culpable entities for effects perceived as "Dark Energy"
Amazon has a special on universal kits. Been thinking about getting one. If'n I cause another big bang, forgive me for not following the instructions ;)
-
Dark matter/ energy is spherical energy and spinning spherical energy. Our atoms and all physical things are composed of spherical, linear, and orbital energy. the quanta of dark matter is 1.5662E-72 Kg. as per the Dot-wave theory. As this is radiated from a proton for example it moves one tiny distance. The next wave is radiated and kicks the first wave which moves. Over time the chain reaction reaches the 13.78 billion light years of our universe. Gravity is the effect due to the kickback. each new emitted wave pushes against the entire gravitational wave and the universe in effect kicks back upon each proton. We do not readily see this because we see a combination of both linear and angular energy (photons). We cannot see the spherical gravitational waves but we feel them. Objects are not attracted to each other by a mysterious force. They are pushed together as the gravitational wave resists each new quanta of dot-wave that comes out of matter. Right now 96 percent of our matter has been radiated into dark energy and only 4 percent is left.
-
Jerry,
Dot-wave hypothesis seems to be an oversimplified string theory.
I tend to think of a string theorist as the one who admits they attempt grasp hypothetical strings. Many of whom aren't content being limited to a 10 dimension universe.
We'd all like a simplified explanation of/for the Universe. Seems its more complicated than 3 distinct spinning dot masses. Seems like it. I commend your efforts. But em, mass, gravity, space, time != 3. Ironically, I'd be more inclined to believe one or two [:o]
I'm itching to post "my" stringy theory, but it's a work in progress. You might like it even tho it lacks any math to back it up.
-
FINALLY, I conceived a prediction, I can only hope, precedes observational evidence and/or verified correlation.
If Dark Energy is unexplained, then there is no reason to correlate Black Hole mass identification -to- redshift value fluctuation in angle of assention of otherwise similarly distant objects.
Statistical variations increase when population density is reduced, I can formulate a potentially verifiable prediction, hopefully before any correlation is identified previously.
I believe there's only one correlation associated with redshift. It's associated statistical anomalies in sample size. Redshift will fluctuate more in shorter distance & time samples.
I assert, there would only be a correlation to fluctuation in blackhole mass which directly relates to angle of assention. The further back in time the more smooth the fluctuation anomaly will be given higher population density.
Its rooted to aggregate blackhole mass in proximity to angle of assent will fluctuate more due to larger fluctuations potential in shorter distanced samples.
Gawd, I want to hit save and mark read only... Weight of a prediction only holds value if it's asserted before the correlation is made.
-
BAH I'm already identifying flaws in that prediction, which work for and against me.
I already know fluctuations exist in cosmological redshift. But to my knowledge they're only correlated to distance.
Distant fluctuations may be harder to measure because the greater the distance the fewer tools exist to measure cosmological redshift. However it's expected that this distance factor correlates and produces shift. I believe the current unexplained thesis is distance correlation not greater frequency of black mass/black hole correlation.
I didn't make that stipulation nor distinction in the initial prediction. I expect the further back (in time and distance) the greater the number of black hole phenomena will exist, but I expect it will be a smoother distribution due to greater sample size and how averages correlate in that respect, shift should be smoother.
Improvements in ability to correlate these phenomena may come to make my prediction(s) more evident. Only the future, can verify these as fact, if they haven't been established already.
-
We are in the Universal lobe powered by a Universal black hole. The Universal black hole continuously emits energy into the Unviersal lobe. This energy causes the matter at great distances from us to accelerate away from us. This energy is dark energy.
Our Universe is a larger version of the following.
'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'
Article at spacedaily.com
"But Haider's team also found that a surprising fraction of normal matter - 20% - is likely to be have been transported into the voids. The culprit appears to be the supermassive black holes found in the centres of galaxies. Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy. ... This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."
At the scale of our Universe the energy described above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering the Universal lobe we exist in.
-
I have drawn a conclusion which I believe is based in all acceptable terms reliable and agreeable. To my knowledge there are two observations that are believed to be evidence of black hole formation/super nova events. One has pre-technological development / historical significance toward such conclusion and date tho relevant, is not entirely significantly specific.
SN1978a is of resent occurrence. I've fixed it in memory only by year. I believe it's the only one of recent history, to have been observed (of a close nature) that has relevant consequence. There are of Asian origination, documentation of some such similar occurrence, only bearing witness of a star visible during daytime/light hours, which I consider to likely marked as close in proximity/space-time and evidence thereof has been concluded a SN event.
These two occurrences could be used in analysis of available SN data and plausibly postulated (by me) toward proof that shift attributed toward dark energy is infact evidence of SN events.
The calculation of wave transmissible distance in space-time coordinates is feasible if the dates of each event is narrowed to a specific (yet still varying) space-time set of coordinates.
In theory. It could be that the wave distribution could be narrowed to through some degree of proximity and verified shift change might be established. Unfortunately because both these events have occurred already, and have presented visible (which co-insides with speed of gravity waves and that of light) places us inside the wave formation.
If shift to an object outside wave perimeter and shift inside wave perimeter show difference, it would lead toward proof of my thesis.
I know all of that can be calculated, if there is sufficient evidence of shift(s) and distances involved. The question is can the be both pre-wave and post-wave metered.
I simply do not have access to tools necessary to verify such prediction. I have verbalized how it can be done. Those with the tools necessary can do it, should they ACCEPT to choose to. Therein lies root to much anxiety which applies only to this one's self.
Prediction complete. :) (took a while to solidify it toward being concrete).
However, it still leaves one question I cannot conceive an plausible answer without requiring evidence thereof to resolve a complete solution.
If all shifts have not been metered prior to witnessing such events, will proximity of inside/outside forever render change in shift a potential distinction impossible to resolve. In other words shifts most likely have only been metered after witnessing such SN events and therefore our proximity is from now on, only measurable from the inside, which may not permit identifying potential discrepancy.
Thus requiring measurements pre-post wave identification necessary to identify and discern change presence. Requiring as yet to be determination necessary to locate such change as necessary.
Via logic and understanding the only proof offered offer is to suggests explaination the shape of curve in "Dark Energy" is the way it is based on time interval between hole formation from the start of time through present depends on frequency of back hole formation.
Personally I do not possess command of data necessary nor tools required to collect and assimilate such data beyond margins of error that would prove inconclusive.
Having not performed the math. I cannot state a suspected margin of error and difference provided in magnitude of any one wave would provide as evidence for conclusion. I assume it has required numerous occurrences of black hole formation to produce perplexing conclusion of Dark Energy's current "accepted" postulations. The frequency of such formation will likely remain highly inaccurate due to a relatively short window of opportunity availed via observational technology establishment and the expanse of 14~ billion years of time. Maybe geodesics can help?-)
Those who possess all data and tools will find what I suggest looking for in time, likely correct. I can only suggest which directions one might to look. My beliefs may remain, only that of my own.
-
I predict I can come up with math that will show a fairly reliable average increment, however I must employ the learning process to my lack of skill with calculus.
This may/may not show curve of cosmological redshift, but I believe it will. Having not viewed the curve...
I have devised a test of my learning ability and possibly an equation to measure distance to between us and CBMR via providing a use for cosmological redshift.
I don't believe I'll show proof of my thesis, only a reason to change acceptance toward probable possibilities, IMO.
Now, let the game begin!
-
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=35285.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=35285.0)
-
Your problem is exactly the expansion of the universe. If we have four people with one at each corner of a rubber sheet and they stretch it in all directions we can say our universal reference is the centre of the sheet. No matter how far we stretch the sheet we can always find this central point. We cannot do that with the universe. However we can look at the Hubble data. The mathematics we need lie in an examination of the Hubble relationship.
The Einsteinian universe is something that has been sold to the people. It is a more complex universe than a simple universe in which we basically live upon part of a spherical plane which is equidistant from the absolute center where the big bang occurred. We can only see 15 billion light years all along the plane. the universe can be a little larger and this depends upon the rotating speed of the universe. The total universe include all dark energy will have a radius twice what we measure from us to the absolute center and then to the outer sphere which is a perfect sphere. We have been sold a complex universe whereas the simple universe appears more physically realizable in my opinion.
-
My hypothesis is difficult to refute.
Yes an no. Truly refuting an empirical proposition is fairly difficult. On the other hand, by scientific standards, your position is really a no go. In a homogeneous universe, we should not expect a significant redshift or blueshift from concentration of mass: the overall homgeneity should cancel out concentration effects on the large scale. We should expect smaller scale red and blue shifts from the concentration of mass and this is an important element in contemporary cosmology so it is something that is very well studied. It looks like the upper bound on the effect of concentration is well below that required to cause cosmological redshift.
It relies on supposition of the past Universe, which I imagine is difficult for many to envision. It contains no supporting math, tho Einstein shift is fairly well accepted principle.
All cosmological theories rely on supposition about the past universe. All physics relies on suppositions of the past universe. The question is: what suppositions are tenable, given the evidence?
Lambda-CDM model seems states that the Universe was once "flat" (curious term)
"Flat" has a technical meaning relating to the overall geometry of the universe.
wBB/Lambda-CDM theorists must know the distribution of the field of gravity was different than present. Seems to me that they've neglected the change distribution as THE cause for redshift.
Again, this is very much not the case.
Instead they flock to the idea "the Universe is expanding" due to effect of doppler shift.
This, also, is not the case. Doppler shift is due to motion, cosmological expansion is due to change of spacetime and arises from different equations. We can also see a proportional effect of redshift in time dilation, something that we would not necessarily see in redshift due to Doppler.
Back in Hubble's time, Doppler shift was well known. Einstein shift anticipated by Einstein in early 1900, but it wasn't verified until after Hubble had passed. I suspect if Hubble would have known about Einstein/gravity shift, he would have dispelled this Dark Energy nonsense.
Einstein's work was known to Hubble. Hubble did not have anywhere near the data to decide on dark energy.
Dark energy on the other hand is an entirely different concept. The only evidence of it, is redshift.
Yes and no. All evidence in cosmology has to do with redshift because it is the dominant cosmological phenomenon. However, there are multiple lines of evidence in favor of dark energy: the evolution of the redshift-distance relationship, the distribution of galaxies over time, the overall geometry of the universe as measured by the cosmic background radiation.
There is a reasonable explanation, unless you're trying to talk ppl into funding telescopes or space expeditions. Massive funds for massive projects like Dark Energy, is a reasonable explanation for it to be "accepted".
The same need for telescopes and space missions would be there without dark energy.
Math is used to correlate the distance (into the past) with redshift. Without any other form corroboration, its simply a correlation. So what if it's done in math? Doesn't change the fact that its the only correlation. I've outlined how it's very likely and how it should be reasoned that gravity is responsible for what appears to be "Dark Energy". I cannot prove it, any more than any other w31rd or inexplicable phenomena.
The problem here is that you have no mathematics behind your statements of correlation and there are many correlations on the dark energy side that all agree with one another.
Lambda-CDM says mass (therefore gravity) was distributed differently in the past.
This isn't the case. The contemporary cosmological model has an overall distribution that is the same (though less dense now than in the past), but also relies crucially on the details of how mass has condensed over time.
FINALLY, I conceived a prediction, I can only hope, precedes observational evidence and/or verified correlation.
I believe there's only one correlation associated with redshift. It's associated statistical anomalies in sample size. Redshift will fluctuate more in shorter distance & time samples.
This should be the case because at small scales, redshift is more dominated by local gravitational shift and by motion within and between galaxies. At larger distances, we find the correlations that lead one toward support for dark energy.