[Anirudh30 (OP)]

Hi all, I'm a 15 year old who made a theory about the so called "expansion" of the "universe" while in the bathtub.. I need help in publishing it, but I also need to verify if its correct. I heard you got real physicists here. So here it goes:

They say the universe is expanding because the galaxies seem to move away from and due to the redshift. What I theorized is, that the galaxies are not moving away because of the expansion of the "universe", but because they are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE". (Caps to highlight the main point.). That's why they appear to move away. Because, if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?! It must have a definite boundary to expand. It means that there is only a "super universe" with possibly infinite number of structures like our Large Scale Structure, which is another main point of this theory, that THERE MAYBE MANY OTHER STRUCTURES LIKE THIS FAR AWAY FOR THE LIGHT TO REACH US. (Which might be called as other universes, but it might all be in the same "realm"). Which all might be created from its own singularities that blew up.

So, is this theory plausible? If it's wrong, please don't hate me, because I'm just a 15 year old who is extremely interested in science! And how do I publish this theory to mainstream science IF it MIGHT be consistent?

Please help! I want to do something and contribute to the scientific community! (And by the way I call it the "Anirudh's Theory of Multiple Large Scale Orbiting Galaxy Systems".)

[Anirudh30 (OP)]

Oh no, wrong thread?

[Anirudh30 (OP)]

Hi all, I'm a 15 year old who made a theory about the so called "expansion" of the "universe" while in the bathtub.. I need help in publishing it, but I also need to verify if its correct. I heard you got real physicists here. So here it goes:

They say the universe is expanding because the galaxies seem to move away from and due to the redshift. What I theorized is, that the galaxies are not moving away because of the expansion of the "universe", but because they are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE". (Caps to highlight the main point.). That's why they appear to move away. Because, if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?! It must have a definite boundary to expand. It means that there is only a "super universe" with possibly infinite number of structures like our Large Scale Structure, which is another main point of this theory, that THERE MAYBE MANY OTHER STRUCTURES LIKE THIS FAR AWAY FOR THE LIGHT TO REACH US. (Which might be called as other universes, but it might all be in the same "realm"). Which all might be created from its own singularities that blew up.

So, is this theory plausible? If it's wrong, please don't hate me, because I'm just a 15 year old who is extremely interested in science! And how do I publish this theory to mainstream science IF it MIGHT be consistent?

Please help! I want to do something and contribute to the scientific community! (And by the way I call it the "Anirudh's Theory of Multiple Large Scale Orbiting Galaxy Systems".)

[PmbPhy]

Hi all, I'm a 15 year old who made a theory about the so called "expansion" of the "universe" while in the bathtub.. I need help in publishing it, but I also need to verify if its correct. I heard you got real physicists here. So here it goes:

They say the universe is expanding because the galaxies seem to move away from and due to the redshift. What I theorized is, that the galaxies are not moving away because of the expansion of the "universe", but because they are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE". (Caps to highlight the main point.). That's why they appear to move away. Because, if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?! It must have a definite boundary to expand. It means that there is only a "super universe" with possibly infinite number of structures like our Large Scale Structure, which is another main point of this theory, that THERE MAYBE MANY OTHER STRUCTURES LIKE THIS FAR AWAY FOR THE LIGHT TO REACH US. (Which might be called as other universes, but it might all be in the same "realm"). Which all might be created from its own singularities that blew up.

So, is this theory plausible? If it's wrong, please don't hate me, because I'm just a 15 year old who is extremely interested in science! And how do I publish this theory to mainstream science IF it MIGHT be consistent?

Please help! I want to do something and contribute to the scientific community! (And by the way I call it the "Anirudh's Theory of Multiple Large Scale Orbiting Galaxy Systems".)

I'm sorry but your theory is inconsistent with observations of the universe. It'd require too much work to explain what you need to know in order to understand why but there are plenty of book out there to explain it. I suggest reading some. Only when you can show why you are right while everyone else is wrong could you possibly publish your idea.

[timey]

Hey - I couldn't help but notice that if you called your theory "Anirudh's Theory of Multiple Scale Large Orbiting Galaxy Systems" instead, you could abbreviate it to ATOMSLOGS, (chuckle)

Don't be put off... thinking about the universe in different ways is the route to innovative thought, and there's nothing at-all wrong with thinking.  Pmbphy is right though, reading up on stuff never goes amiss.  If you do enjoy trying to think up ways in which the unknowns of the universe could become knowns, then as long as you have a basic understanding of relativity and quantum, I can recommend John D Barrow, "Theories of Everything", and Lee Smolin "The Trouble With Physics".  These 2 books will give you a good insight into the the problems that exist in physics, where it is that physics does not have problems, what other professional theorists are doing in terms of trying to solve the problems that do exist, and sets out guidelines as to what would be required of any alternative theory in order to address these problems...

It is easy enough to take concepts from these books and investigate them more deeply on the net, and if you do find yourself further inspired you will no doubt delve many times back into your relativity and quantum books as you further your thoughts.

[evan_au]

because (the galaxies) are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE".

It is true that galaxies in our "local cluster of galaxies" are orbiting the common center of mass of our local cluster.
- On a larger scale, astronomers have identified a "Great Attractor" which seems to have many galaxy superclusters orbiting it.

Finding the center of mass is not a new problem for astronomers:.
- Back in Kepler's day, they had to map the paths of planets which were orbiting the center of mass of the Solar System (which is 99% made up of the mass of the Sun).
- With the development of radio astronomy after WW2, astronomers studied the motion of dust clouds in our galaxy which are orbiting the center of mass of the galaxy.
- So the tools are already in place to identify the center of mass of our local galaxy cluster, and nearby superclusters.

With orbiting bodies, you measure very different relative velocities when looking in different directions and over different distances:
- If you look "outwards and behind" (or "inwards and ahead") of our direction of our motion, you see bodies moving away from us (red-shifted)
- If you look towards the center of mass (or directly away from it), other bodies are travelling across our line of sight, so there is no relative velocity.
- If you look "intwards and behind" (or "outwards and ahead") of our direction of our motion, you see bodies moving towards us (blue-shifted)
- This allowed astronomers to map out the structure of our Solar System and then our galaxy.

But this pattern is very different from what Hubble saw when he mapped the relative velocities of distant galaxies.
- Distant galaxies are all moving away from us
- This applies to galaxies in all directions
- The velocity away from us increases with distance away from us.
- This is a very different pattern than you see with orbital motions

if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?!

This is a very natural question; it has been asked before.
See, for example: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70195.0

[trevorjohnson32]

Hi all, I'm a 15 year old who made a theory about the so called "expansion" of the "universe" while in the bathtub.. I need help in publishing it, but I also need to verify if its correct. I heard you got real physicists here. So here it goes:

They say the universe is expanding because the galaxies seem to move away from and due to the redshift. What I theorized is, that the galaxies are not moving away because of the expansion of the "universe", but because they are ORBITING THE CENTRE OF MASS OF THE LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE "UNIVERSE". (Caps to highlight the main point.). That's why they appear to move away. Because, if the universe is just a BOUNDLESS void, HOW CAN IT EXPAND?! It must have a definite boundary to expand. It means that there is only a "super universe" with possibly infinite number of structures like our Large Scale Structure, which is another main point of this theory, that THERE MAYBE MANY OTHER STRUCTURES LIKE THIS FAR AWAY FOR THE LIGHT TO REACH US. (Which might be called as other universes, but it might all be in the same "realm"). Which all might be created from its own singularities that blew up.

So, is this theory plausible? If it's wrong, please don't hate me, because I'm just a 15 year old who is extremely interested in science! And how do I publish this theory to mainstream science IF it MIGHT be consistent?

Please help! I want to do something and contribute to the scientific community! (And by the way I call it the "Anirudh's Theory of Multiple Large Scale Orbiting Galaxy Systems".)

I had this same idea. That there was a super structure that used supernovae sized explosions for its fuel. I postulated that such a system would be at such a tremendous distance from earth that it would appear, if we could see it, as another sun in the sky. I postulated that we can't see it because it belongs to an outside universe where the four forces of nature inherent in space time, would become incredibly weaker because of a huge drop in the density of space, this would cool everything off and make it better as a star.
So no I don't think the universe we live in has a super structure for galaxy's to orbit, I think they just move apart because gravity isn't infinite and the gravitational links between most galaxy's is too weak to attract them together, and then for colliding galaxy's that's not true.