Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    elegance coral's Avatar
    elegance coral is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 1,148, Level: 19
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,148
    Level
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default Please explain the physics that shows I'm wrong.



    I'm sorry, but this may be a long post.

    I think about physics quite a bit, and question everything. Lately I've been thinking about the big bang and the problems associated with it. Like dark energy. The way I see it, with my limited understanding, we had a good theory with the big bang. That is until the discovery that the expansion of the universe is increasing. This showed that something was fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the universe IMHO. In stead of trying to figure out what was wrong with our theory, science simply made up something that would make our theory work. Dark energy was born. We can make any theory work, if we get to make up stuff as we go. This problem has caused me to do a great deal of thinking, and researching, with my limited resources. The next paragraph is the conclusion I've come to, but I'm sure it can't be correct. It's to simple, so there must be a flaw I'm unaware of. That's where you come in. Please explain to my why, or how, my theory doesn't work.

    Okay, there are two places in the known universe where gravity actually makes objects move apart from each other. One is near the event horizon of a black hole. The other is where space is warped in a spiral galaxy, like our milky way. There are bands where stars are clustered tightly together separated by bands with fewer stars. As the stars rotate around the center of our galaxy, they move through these bands, getting closer together and further away as they do. Why can't the acceleration of the expansion of our known universe be explained in a similar fashion? If there are two stars leaving one of these dense bands of stars, in a spiral galaxy, the one leaving first would move away from the one behind it. The rate at which the space between them grew would increase as they moved further away from the band.

    Nearly everything we know seems to fallow the same simple plan. One thing(like electrons), or body, revolving around another. From electrons around the nucleus of atoms, to moons around planets, to planets around stars, to stars around super massive black holes. Why can't we simply continue this pattern one step further? What if our known universe is simply a very tiny part of a much, much, much larger structure? A structure similar to a spiral galaxy. If our known universe was on the exit side of a large band where galaxies are closer together, it would seem, to us, as if the universe was expanding, and that expansion would seem to be increasing. If this were the case, our known universe would continue to increase expansion, until we approached the next band of galaxies. The galaxies that got there first would slow, and the space between them and us would begin to decrease. There would be a continual cycle of expansion and contraction as our known universe revolved around an unimaginably massive structure. To me, this would give a logical explanation for "dark energy".

    I have searched the web looking for evidence to disprove my line of thinking, but can't seem to find any. I hope the members of this site can help me out with this.

    Thanks for your time
    EC

  2. #2
    urbanespaceman's Avatar
    urbanespaceman is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 2,787, Level: 34
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!5 Threads Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ekerö, Sweden
    Posts
    26
    Points
    2,787
    Level
    34
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
    The way I see it, with my limited understanding, we had a good theory with the big bang. That is until the discovery that the expansion of the universe is increasing. This showed that something was fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the universe IMHO. In stead of trying to figure out what was wrong with our theory, science simply made up something that would make our theory work. Dark energy was born. We can make any theory work, if we get to make up stuff as we go.
    Well I'm strictly amateur but I think you've misunderstood something here ... dark matter isn't something that was made up to explain a theory. It is a prediction.

    This is the basis of good science, not bad. It makes predictions which can then be either verified (eg. An extra planet) or falsified. A theory that makes no predictions is not science.

    Whether we understand dark matter or not, whether the theory is correct or not, is all part of the scientific process.

    It might not be perfect, but it's the best we've got at the moment

    Now, since I assume there are folks on here who know _way_ more than me I'll just shut up now

    Cheers

    Mike

  3. #3
    urbanespaceman's Avatar
    urbanespaceman is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 2,787, Level: 34
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!5 Threads Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ekerö, Sweden
    Posts
    26
    Points
    2,787
    Level
    34
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Oh, the extension of your theory, the "planets as atoms" theory, was the basis of a lot of science fiction during the golden age in the 1920s and 30s. The resemblance is purely superficial though I'm afraid.

    The Bohr model of an atom is simplified for starters and doesn't really resemble a solar system as much as you might think. For example electrons can share an orbit - something that might cause a problem in a solar system We are talking about different forces in each case as well, which is a huge difference.

  4. #4
    elegance coral's Avatar
    elegance coral is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 1,148, Level: 19
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,148
    Level
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    Thanks for the input Mike.

    I didn't say dark "matter", though. I said dark "energy". Dark energy is the theoretical force scientists made up to explain why the expansion of the universe was accelerating.

  5. #5
    urbanespaceman's Avatar
    urbanespaceman is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 2,787, Level: 34
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!5 Threads Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ekerö, Sweden
    Posts
    26
    Points
    2,787
    Level
    34
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Oops, sorry, too quick off the mark, I shouldn't watch TV while writing about physics

    It's the same principle though -dark energy is there to explain observable phenomena. Nobody says it is the right theory, simply that it is _a_ theory (OK, it's generally regarded as the most likely theory, but that can change). It makes predictions, so it's possible the theory may be falsified at some point. i.e. it's "good" science regardless of whether it turns out to be correct or not.

  6. #6
    KathyNS's Avatar
    KathyNS is offline Super Moderator
    Points: 173,046, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 54.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Ghost Achievement! Averaging 5+ posts a day!First 1000 Experience Points400+ Posts AchievementGot three Friends
    Awards:
    Reply Award
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    25,172
    Points
    173,046
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    6,660
    Thanked 14,985x 9,542 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    A theory has to be built on evidence. There is evidence that the universe is expanding. There is evidence that the expansion rate is increasing. There is evidence that the expansion would be decreasing if it wasn't for something making it increase. We don't yet know what the something is, but it is convenient to give it a name, just so that we can talk about it. They could have called it "Fred" or "phlogiston", or "something", but they decided to call it "dark energy". It's just a name until we know more about it. But there is evidence that it (whatever it is) is there.

    Your theory, on the other hand...
    Quote Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
    We can make any theory work, if we get to make up stuff as we go.
    Before people will put any effort into "proving you wrong", you have to find evidence to support your theory and make it plausible. That's the way science works.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    DSO AP:
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    Newtonian Astrograph; ATIK 383L+; EFW2 filter wheel; Astrodon Ha,LRGB filters; KWIQ/QHY5 guide
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    ; Planetary AP: Celestron C-11; ZWO ASI120MC; Portable: Celestron C-8 on
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    pro; C-90 on wedge; 20x80 binos; Etc: Canon 350D; Various EPs, etc. Obs: 8' Exploradome;
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    (pier);
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    .

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

  7. #7
    elegance coral's Avatar
    elegance coral is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 1,148, Level: 19
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,148
    Level
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbanespaceman View Post
    Oh, the extension of your theory, the "planets as atoms" theory, was the basis of a lot of science fiction during the golden age in the 1920s and 30s. The resemblance is purely superficial though I'm afraid.

    The Bohr model of an atom is simplified for starters and doesn't really resemble a solar system as much as you might think. For example electrons can share an orbit - something that might cause a problem in a solar system We are talking about different forces in each case as well, which is a huge difference.
    Thanks for the reply.

    I think you misunderstood my post. It wasn't a "planets as atoms" theory. I simply mentioned atoms as one of four examples to show how prevalent one thing orbiting another is in nature. The fact that nature would use different forces (gravity and electromagnetism) to accomplish the same goal, only shows how successful the process of orbiting is in nature. If we start at the very tiny electrons of an atom and go up to the most massive objects known, super massive black holes, everything is orbiting something else. Other than the super massive black hole. What I'm saying is..... What if the super massive black holes are orbiting something even larger, just like everything else in nature does? This would explain why our known universe is expanding faster. We would no longer need a hypothetical force called "dark energy". There would be no "big rip" in our future. Suddenly the universe makes sense. At least to me.

  8. #8
    elegance coral's Avatar
    elegance coral is offline White Dwarf
    Points: 1,148, Level: 19
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6
    Points
    1,148
    Level
    19
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithBC View Post
    A theory has to be built on evidence. There is evidence that the universe is expanding. There is evidence that the expansion rate is increasing. There is evidence that the expansion would be decreasing if it wasn't for something making it increase. We don't yet know what the something is, but it is convenient to give it a name, just so that we can talk about it. They could have called it "Fred" or "phlogiston", or "something", but they decided to call it "dark energy". It's just a name until we know more about it. But there is evidence that it (whatever it is) is there.

    Your theory, on the other hand...


    Before people will put any effort into "proving you wrong", you have to find evidence to support your theory and make it plausible. That's the way science works.
    I didn't come here to say, "This is my theory, I'm right, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong." I honestly don't' know enough about this to state that I'm right. I would like to get to the point where I know if I'm right or not. Either way, I stand to lean something. I would think that this theory is so incredibly simple that it must have been proposed before. Obviously, science has dismissed it, so I'd like to know why. What laws of physics, or facts of nature, does such a theory clash with?

    I understand that science has labeled this force "dark energy" because they simply don't know what's causing the universe to accelerate in expansion. What I have proposed, explains what "dark energy" is. I don't dispute that there is a force there. I'm just saying that the force, or "dark energy, is actually gravity. If what I'm thinking were true, it would answer the question, "What is dark energy?".

  9. #9
    KathyNS's Avatar
    KathyNS is offline Super Moderator
    Points: 173,046, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 54.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!Ghost Achievement! Averaging 5+ posts a day!First 1000 Experience Points400+ Posts AchievementGot three Friends
    Awards:
    Reply Award
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    25,172
    Points
    173,046
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    6,660
    Thanked 14,985x 9,542 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    I think you are misunderstanding how it works. It is entirely possible that you are right. There is simply a lack of evidence to support it.

    On the one hand, scientists are saying, "We know it's something, and we've given it a name, but we don't know what it is." On the other hand, you are saying, "I think I have an idea what it is, but I have no evidence to back that up." The two approaches are not necessarily in conflict. However, one is scientific, in that it acknowledges the state of the evidence, whereas the other is not scientific because it reaches beyond what the evidence supports.

    It may turn out that the "something", a.k.a. dark energy, is indeed a manifestation of some orbital mechanics around some yet to be discovered "something else". But until there is some evidence to support that, it is better just to give it a name and say that we don't know what it is.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    DSO AP:
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    Newtonian Astrograph; ATIK 383L+; EFW2 filter wheel; Astrodon Ha,LRGB filters; KWIQ/QHY5 guide
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    ; Planetary AP: Celestron C-11; ZWO ASI120MC; Portable: Celestron C-8 on
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    pro; C-90 on wedge; 20x80 binos; Etc: Canon 350D; Various EPs, etc. Obs: 8' Exploradome;
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    (pier);
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    .

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

  10. #10
    astroval's Avatar
    astroval is offline SUPER GIANT
    Points: 174,554, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience PointsGot three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!365 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    1,347
    Points
    174,554
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    2,270
    Thanked 1,527x 741 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    May be you are right. But before to discuss your idea, let’s make couple of notes.
    Quote Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
    We had a good theory with the big bang. That is until the discovery that the expansion of the universe is increasing. This showed that something was fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the universe IMHO
    Not really. Classical Big Bang theory with Einstein constant explains the increasing expansion. The question is why instead of used existing terminology people decided introduce new terminology describing existing energy term as “Dark energy”. Still don’t understand why. May be it was just PR. But this PR was successful and people started to use it not only in science but in popular articles also. The only one problem that introduction new world for old term confuses people a little bit. But maybe this term useful, if you assume that general relativity is incorrect? Maybe somebody can explain me real reason why “Black energy” term was introduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
    Nearly everything we know seems to fallow the same simple plan.
    There is couple of exceptions. For example is general relativity. The basic idea of general relativity is constant of light speed in any system coordinate. (Not conservation low, not any other school physics ideas). As a result general relativity creates some very strange solutions which completely contradict our school physical experience – wormhole, travel in time, even travel with speed more than speed of light. General relativity was confirmed many times, so we believe that it is correct, but still some prediction of GR looks not as simple plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
    Okay, there are two places in the known universe where gravity actually makes objects move apart from each other. One is near the event horizon of a black hole. The other is where space is warped in a spiral galaxy, like our milky way. There are bands where stars are clustered tightly together separated by bands with fewer stars. As the stars rotate around the center of our galaxy, they move through these bands, getting closer together and further away as they do. Why can't the acceleration of the expansion of our known universe be explained in a similar fashion?
    One thing(like electrons), or body, revolving around another. From electrons around the nucleus of atoms, to moons around planets, to planets around stars, to stars around super massive black holes. Why can't we simply continue this pattern one step further? What if our known universe is simply a very tiny part of a much, much, much larger structure? A structure similar to a spiral galaxy. If our known universe was on the exit side of a large band where galaxies are closer together, it would seem, to us, as if the universe was expanding, and that expansion would seem to be increasing. If this were the case, our known universe would continue to increase expansion, until we approached the next band of galaxies. The galaxies that got there first would slow, and the space between them and us would begin to decrease. There would be a continual cycle of expansion and contraction as our known universe revolved around an unimaginably massive structure. To me, this would give a logical explanation for "dark energy".
    Let me explain in what situation your idea may be correct. The Einstein constant comes from simple integration. We know that indefinite integral equal some function plus some constant. This constant in GR gives term to energy which we now call “Dark energy”. Such constant can be finding from observation. Mathematically we can find this constant from boundary condition at the moment of Big Bang. One of the ideas is that our Universe was born from other larger Universe as result of rotating wormhole (or rotating black hole). Such boundary condition of rotating wormhole gives this constant (“Dark Energy”). Key word here is rotation. So in general you idea may be correct – rotation, revolving or torsion of space-time give the “Dark Energy” (Such rotation also can explain observable violations of Lorentz symmetry).

    Clear skies,
    Valentin

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    :
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    4SE, Coronado Solarmax II 60
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    Digital Cameras: Canon 60Da and 40D. CCD: NexImage
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    EPs: Celestron
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    & Filter Accessory Kit - 1.25", T-Adapter with
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    Universal, Other: Bahtinov focus mask

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    : Registax 6, Stellarium, PhotoShop, Deep Sky Stacker, AMCap

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    my backyard videos about
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    astrophotos
    http://astro-photos.blogspot.com/ - Astrophotography blog

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What are your favorite TV shows? Why?
    By CuriousCreature in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-08-2011, 03:07 PM
  2. RCA Victor Video shows much.
    By Haydn House in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 01:43 AM
  3. Astronomy Shows?
    By Fred Scharmann in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-17-2006, 07:36 PM
  4. Relativity shows....
    By geraldkelleher@hotmail.com in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-28-2005, 12:21 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 AM.