[Pr. snoerkel]

The Universe is expanding. Because of the "Inflation" era, it is assumed that part of the Universe is moving faster than light and is thus outside our event horizon. However, that means that somwhere, near the edge of the observable Universe, the objects are moving very close to the speed of light. According to the theory of relativity, these objects must have a very high mass and the gravitational force of these objects must be nearly infinite. Why would this force not be sufficient to explain the accelleration of the universal expansion?

[Mad Mark]

I thought Stars and Galaxies at the Edge of the observable Universe were moving with Space not through it at the Speed of light and therefore their mass would now be altered by the exceleration.
We are at the edge of their Observable universe and we do not have infinate Mass.

[Pr. snoerkel]

Good point. However, since the remote galaxies are subject to the other relavistic phenomenas such as time dilation, there is no reason to believe that the masses will not increase as well. And the observers at the edge of the universe will of course see us as subject to time dilation and mass increase. That follows from the principle of relativity

[acsinuk]

The deep space force that is pushing the galaxies apart is likely to be electro-magnetic.  Until this 3D electric deep space force is identified and measured we will just have to keep guessing  and trying to adapt relativity.
CliveS

[Pr. snoerkel]

Whicb observations or theories support the hypothesis of electromagnitism?

[andreasva]

There is another explanation.  All matter contracts uniformly as it loses energy over time.  This rate of contraction is accelerating.  The gain in distance we detect through the redshift isn't because we are moving outward and away from distant objects, it's because we are moving inward and away from distant objects.  It's a scaling effect that we don't notice, because the only thing that's static in this observation is our perspective on the universe and in physics.  All matter in the universe was created at the same time and from every conceivable coordinate.  It did not expand outward, and the underlying empty universe is a static state and infinite.  We aren't expanding, we're contracting, and doing so at an accelerated rate.  It's a simple inversion error, where our current understanding of physics still holds true, mostly.  The big bang did not emanate from a single miniscule point, or more appropriately, that single point represented the whole of the universe we understand today, because the universe less matter is a singularity unto itself.  Einstein's early thoughts were correct, but we became confused in 1928 when Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift and we inverted the problem because of our naive and newly acquired understanding of wave theory.  The expansion concept was then fueled by religious beliefs and popular culture, and took hold.  We've been chasing our tales ever since, creating ever more complex theories to sustain the error in the human interpretation of what the redshift represented.  In the early universe, atoms could have quite possibly been the size of planets, and solar systems the size of galaxies, and galaxies the size of the observable universe.  We haven't really moved anywhere from where we were created though, less incidental motion caused by relatively local gravitational forces.  The universe is infinite.  Just a thought.  I have a theory written on the subject, which I was debating posting here.  No one really seems to care though.  Most are content in the inverted concept developed over 80 years ago, when we were naive and science was in its infancy.  The universe is a depleting state, not an expanding state, where 1 becomes divided into 2, and 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16, and so on, and so on, and so on.  We are a fraction of the whole, and the number of variables grows exponentially over time, continually dividing to an ever smaller state of existence.  Dark energy is a myth, and will never be proven valid.  It is unnecessary once you invert the problem.  Space does not expand, it is static, and we, or the material universe, contract against the static substrate of space.  In the 80 years since Hubble's discovery, we have never found empirical evidence to show empty space itself is even capable of expanding, or contracting.  How could we observe the remnants of an underlying singularity anyway?  We have however, shown empirically that matter is capable of expanding and contracting.  Take the observations at face value, and the answer becomes apparent, as hard as it may be to accept as our reality.

Edwin Hubble's reasoning was incomplete, and the conclusions false, but the math was spot on as always.  If the math is right, theories advance through the peer review process, with little thought given to the heart of the theory, human interpretation.  This one little mistake has spun science off in the wrong direction for nearly a century.  I wonder when they'll catch the mistake?   

[Pr. snoerkel]

I concede that if there is no absolute scale, the objects in the Universe could be skrinking rather than the total Universe expanding. In that case the Big Bang may never have happened. But would that not mean that the background radiation presently interpreted as the afterglow of the Big Bang would need an alternative explanation? And would that model of the Universe not eventually contract into a single object (the big crunch) due to the normal gravitation?

[andreasva]

But would that not mean that the background radiation presently interpreted as the afterglow of the Big Bang would need an alternative explanation?

Not at all.  I think it would look pretty much exactly the same, because that is the cooling and condensing process over time.  The very beginning would have been dominated by matter, with a very low density vacuum energy in space.  As matter contracts or condenses, that energy converts to the vacuum of space.  We have a rising vacuum density against a falling matter density.  It remains proportionally constant, so it only looks flat.  Still working on these thoughts however.

And would that model of the Universe not eventually contract into a single object (the big crunch) due to the normal gravitation?

Absolutely, which I find much more logical then us accelerating into oblivion, or random quantum fluctuations of time and physics.  They're (science) essentially saying our existence is a random event bred from nothingness.  That doesn't make any sense to me. 

I don't see it as a big crunch however.  It's more like a slow and gradual fizzle.  I think the graph should be very close to an inverse square model.  I think when all matter is exhausted, and only the vacuum energy of space remains, then the process begins anew.  Essentially I'm considering that our exhaust from the condensing process is space or vacuum energy.  More matter, less vacuum energy.  Less matter, more vacuum energy.  We start at a singular state and break down from that point.  The resulting vacuum state is all the energy for the next cycle.  It is neither created nor destroyed.  The cycle is perpetual, with no definable beginning, and no foreseeable end.  It should look similar to a wave graph.

The overall universe is neither expanding, nor contracting, which is pretty much the way Einstein felt before the Hubble observation.  Once it was determined to be some sort of universal expansion though, everything went sideways, and he called it his biggest blunder.  All theories were rewritten to match the redshift observation, and no reasonable alternative was ever contemplated.  That brings us to where we are today, and the multi-billion dollar quest to find dark energy.  I don't think they're going to find it.

Let me rephrase this some.  I think you are right in your assessment, dark energy is probably just plain old gravity.  Its properties though, don't cause expansion as we are considering now, because expansion is merely an illusion of mass contraction and the rising vacuum density of space.  The perceived expansion of the universe is caused by gravitational force, not a secondary substance theorized as dark energy.  Gravity is increasing over time, but we contract against its rise.  Smaller mass, less surface area, less impact of gravitational energy.  It remains constant from our perspective.       

There simply are no true constants in the universe, and that's the problem in physics that I see.  We assume there are to a large degree, and consider we just need to nail them down exactly as technology improves.  The ones we've used to define the physical world work to a point, but only as a snap shot in time and perspective at that particular moment.  The next moment, everything is different, except the perspective mostly.  I think that's where the uncertainty comes from, because you can't know what the next moment will be precisely.  That doesn't make it random though, only extraordinarily complex, because every variable within the entire universe needs to be taken into consideration, which is physically impossible.  We do know our perspective remains pretty much constant though, so we can use those numbers in physics to predict things with a high degree of certainty and accuracy, but never 100%.             

[andreasva]

I concede that if there is no absolute scale

Keep in mind, an absolute scale has never been formally theorized to my knowledge, or more importantly, verified.  It is assumed to be factual in physics.  A hydrogen atom for example, has a static mass of approximately 1.00794 (give or take).  However, I'm not sure what that means entirely if mass increases with acceleration, and would conversely decrease with deceleration (relative to you of course).  Sure sounds like a more dynamic scale to me, rather than an absolute.   

Planck made an attempt to set the minimum scale of matter at a Planck Length.  The maximum would be assumed somewhere around the collapse of matter into a black-hole I suppose, although we can have different sized black holes supposedly.  Not sure what that means entirely, but okay, I believe.

I guess the point is, we don't know what we don't know.  We seem pretty content lately with the idea of hidden dimensions and multiple universes floating around within the same space, so why not a simple scaling effect to answer a few unanswered questions instead? 

I can explain the nature of the universe in a couple of paragraphs.  In science we need a masters degree and a genius level IQ to even explain it, let alone understand it.  I just don't think it's all that complicated to understand on the surface.  What do we have to work with on a fundamental level anyway, 1?  A person should be able to speak plainly and have others understand it in a layman's sense. imho.   

[acsinuk]

 The results of the WMAP investigation by NASA; now confirmed by ESC/CERN, have established there is less than about 4.5% of required matter in the universe to balance it gravitationally.
 This means the standard CDM model based on gravity is insufficient to balance the universe because the model considers that the only force acting across space is gravitational which has led cosmologists into dreaming up dark matter, blackholes and event horizons and fantasize about parallel universes to try and explain away the WMAPs observed results. The observable evidence is that there is no dark matter which is just a hypothetical attempt to use gravity to hold the old model universe together. BUT what you see is what you’ve got [WYSIWYG] and that is all baryonic.
To balance the galaxies instead of imagining there is dark energy matter which we know is not there why not have a dark force of -23.2G [reciprocal of 4.5%] that is pushing the known matter in the universe apart.  This 3D deep space dark force is probably electromagnetic but is extremely difficult to measure.
CliveS

[Pr. snoerkel]

From what I read elsewhere, I understand that the model of the skrinking universe also include that the masses are reduced - not just the sizes of the object. That makes the model a bit complicated:
If the reducing is linear, you need to assume that the mass of the earth and the sun was about 10% larger 1.3 billion years ago. It also implies that the orbit of the Earth was much closer to the Sun at that time. These two effect combined means that the radiation Earth received from Sun was about 30% larger and the temperature of the Earth by simple heat balace must have exceeded the boiling point of water. However, we know that liquid water existed on earth at that time. So something need to be added to the theory in order to explain that

[ScientificSorcerer]

Imagine this. Before the big bang the entire universe was contained in a single spot, much like a black hole. Imagine the collective gravity it would have, that gravity would be powerful, when the big bang happened it converted the singularity's matter into energy and it's gravitational field disappeared instantly, I predict that In that moment a gigantic rippling gravity wave was made.

Think of space as water, and the distortions of space as the waves. the big bang was the explosion that made the waves.


These gravity waves effect the spacing between objects exactly like dark energy dose, But Dark energy is an extremely powerful gravity wave so big that its wavelength is millions of light years long. think of it like a giant tidal wave generated by the big bang's singularity gravity blowing up. If this were true then the higher the wave's amplitude is then the closer objects would get, the more condensed the fabric of space is. But Right now we are on the down-slope (heading toward the wave trough) of the gravity wave which means space is getting less condensed back to the way it was.

I want to make this part clear, we are living in "condensed space" Because we are in the middle of a huge gravity wave but right now we are heading toward a "wave trough" which means that the fabric of space is spreading out.



I hope I layed out my theory clearly
What's the possibility of this being the answer to Dark energy?

[andreasva]

From what I read elsewhere, I understand that the model of the skrinking universe also include that the masses are reduced - not just the sizes of the object. That makes the model a bit complicated:
If the reducing is linear, you need to assume that the mass of the earth and the sun was about 10% larger 1.3 billion years also It also implies that the orbit of the Earth was much closer to the Sun at that time. These two effect combined means that the radiation Earth received from Sun was about 30% larger and the temperature of the Earth by simple heat balace must have exceeded the boiling point of water. However, we know that liquid water existed on earth at that time. So something need to be added to the theory in order to explain that

My thought on this is that the actual orbit collapses over time, so 1.3 billion years ago we were further away.  Even the nice perfect orbit we see is somewhat of an illusion.  We're falling into the sun at the same rate as contraction which is what keeps us moving around the sun at a constant rate, so we remain at a safe distance. 

[Pr. snoerkel]

The model of the occilating Universe implies that the wavelengh must be at least 26 billion years, because we are able to look 13 billion years back in time and nowhere we see any sign of contraction. That is possible, of course.
We could not be moving closer to the sun while loosing mass, however. That would contradict all our knowledge on physics, because it would mean that we loose energy even faster than we loose mass, and no explanation for that has been offered

[andreasva]

I get somewhat confused on the energy loss versus mass loss.  Isn't that the same thing?

If not, that somewhat supports what I'm suggesting anyway, although I wouldn't know how to differentiate the two in my mind entirely.  for example, mass loss would be seen as expansion, and energy loss as acceleration.  I don't know which way to look at it though.  The larger loss would be the expansion view, and the smaller loss acceleration, to coincide with the observation. 

I really admire your responses, by the way.  They are completely non judgmental, which is very rare, and refreshing.  I don't believe anything, but enjoy weighing possibilities or probabilities.  I consider this contracting view as equally probable to the current view of expansion.  It all hinges on the redshift observation, and whether or not it can be viewed in either direction.  50/50 in my assessment, but typically .01/99.99 in many opinions. 

[Pr. snoerkel]

Of course we should all strive to keep an open mind. But, if we skip all basic physics such as the law of inertia, we may end up in a situation entirely without any undisputed facts - and that is more metaphysics or religion than science. Not that such a theory necessarily is wrong, only that it is beyond falsification.
To say that mass is not constant, energy of movement is not constant etc. is a possiblity, yes. But I think it would be more fruitful to base ourselves on observations, investigate inconsitensies and maybe reformulate theories that remove the inconsitency observed