Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By Chrispen Evan
  • 1 Post By Chrispen Evan

Thread: Universal Expansion and Acceleration

  1. #1 Universal Expansion and Acceleration 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1
    Proposed by Thomas Hinchliffe, 2012 with you as My witness-Please respect my claim to this theory.

    We all know the universe is expanding some of us are aware of the fact the universe is not only expanding but speeding up as well. I have independently come up with a theory which explains this and although i do not have all of the facts it seems to make sense (at least to me and my college). This thread will be very helpful to me in understanding if I am the first to think of such things and if such things make even the smallest amount of sense. My theory is as follows...


    The universe is expanding, this expansion is believed to be caused by an explosion at a signal central point (the big bang). What we do not know and what I hope to explain is why it is accelerating outwards instead of slowing down which is what common sense dictates. My findings suggest that there is a force at work but not an external force like some physicist believe dark energy for example. The force I'm talking about is far more common; centrifugal force. When an object is being moved around a circular path centrifugal face is acting upon the object drawing it outwards away from the centre of rotation. Now the laws of circular motion dictate that an object on the outside path of a rotating axis must take the same amount of time to complete a rotation as the object at the centre of rotation. The object on the outward path has far more distance to travel then the object at the centre of rotation because the circumference (distance needed to travel) is far greater at the outward path. So using the equation for speed (speed=distance over time) the distance has increased but the amount of time hasn't so therefore objects on the outward path must travel faster than those at the centre of rotation in order to cover the same amount of distance in the same time period.


    Centrifugal force is caused by the inertia of the moving object constantly changing its direction along a circular path. So my theory is that if the universes expansion is due to centrifugal force then the cause of acceleration is the laws of circular motion making objects in the universe move faster than the objects closer to the centre of rotation (centre of expansion). This means that the universe is rotating (which in my eyes would make sense) this also gives rise to the unavoidable truth in that the universe going to end faster than we have predicted because of exponential growth in expansion spreading galaxies much much farther apart.


    My theory is still in the prototyping stage and needs a lot of work but so far it looks promising to me. If anyone could shed light on my revaluation then it would be much appreciated.


    Thank you.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Welcome to the forum!

    Quote Originally Posted by MrZodiac View Post
    The universe is expanding, this expansion is believed to be caused by an explosion at a signal central point (the big bang).
    Describing the big bang in this way is not really very accurate. It is not like an explosion for many reasons. For example, it is not the expansion of "stuff" into space; rather it is an increase in size of the universe itself. Also there is no "central point". Or, more accurately, because it is the entire universe expanding and so everything is moving away from everything else, everywhere is the "central point".

    My findings suggest that there is a force at work but not an external force like some physicist believe dark energy for example.
    I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone suggests dark energy is an external force.

    The force I'm talking about is far more common; centrifugal force.
    I can see a few problems with this. For one thing, if there were some sort of axis that the universe is rotating around to cause this centrifugal force, then we would expect to see more expansion in the direction equivalent to the "equator" and less (none?) in the direction of the axis. Instead we see exactly the same expansion in all directions.


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    As Strange pointed out, there is no center of the universe. There is no axis for the universe to rotate around.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    We all know the universe is expanding some of us are aware of the fact the universe is not only expanding but speeding up as well. I have independently come up with a theory which explains this and although i do not have all of the facts it seems to make sense (at least to me and my college). This thread will be very helpful to me in understanding if I am the first to think of such things and if such things make even the smallest amount of sense. My theory is as follows...
    how well do you know the current theory?l
    how well does your theory answer all the points that the current theory does?
    what predictions does your theory make that the current one does not?
    what experiments can be done to support your theory?
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Moving to New Hypothesis.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by MrZodiac View Post
    Proposed by Thomas Hinchliffe, 2012 with you as My witness-Please respect my claim to this theory.

    When an object is being moved around a circular path centrifugal face is acting upon the object drawing it outwards away from the centre of rotation. Now the laws of circular motion dictate that an object on the outside path of a rotating axis must take the same amount of time to complete a rotation as the object at the centre of rotation. The object on the outward path has far more distance to travel then the object at the centre of rotation because the circumference (distance needed to travel) is far greater at the outward path. So using the equation for speed (speed=distance over time) the distance has increased but the amount of time hasn't so therefore objects on the outward path must travel faster than those at the centre of rotation in order to cover the same amount of distance in the same time period.


    Thank you.

    It reminded me of something what I had learnt 40 years back in school. Earth’s gravitational force.

    I think what you propose as new theory or hypothesis about centrifugal force and circular motion only possible when earth’s gravitational force acts upon and gives stability to an object.

    To a reader like me, you are the first to look at expanding universe differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3
    If the force (centrifugal or centripetal) which generates this rotation then why you could say that the universe is isotropic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Also worth noting is that in the past, the expansion accelerated, then reduced, now is accelerating again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    [QUOTE=MrZodiac;360828]

    We all know the universe is expanding some of us are aware of the fact the universe is not only expanding but speeding up as well. QUOTE]

    That is today's consensus but like many other ideas it may not be right. I still believe there are reasons other than the expansion of the universe for the cause of the red shift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    I still believe there are reasons other than the expansion of the universe for the cause of the red shift.
    well, put it here and we can tell you where you are wrong.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    Well for one we don't know how big the universe is. For all we know the part of the universe that we can see may only be a bubble of expansion somewhere in the middle of a collapsing or condensing universe. On the other hand it could have something to do with the way we are seeing the light and the combination of time dilations. I don't think expansion should be offered as the only reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by bill alsept View Post
    Well for one we don't know how big the universe is. For all we know the part of the universe that we can see may only be a bubble of expansion somewhere in the middle of a collapsing or condensing universe.
    Possible. We are pretty sure that universe we see is only a tiny fraction of the whole universe.

    But there is no evidence for this idea and, presumably, no way of ever getting evidence for it. So it is not really testable (i.e. not really scientific).

    But it is still expansion causing red-shift.

    On the other hand it could have something to do with the way we are seeing the light and the combination of time dilations.
    That's a bit vague. If it is not specific , quantifiable and testable then, again, it is not really science.

    I don't think expansion should be offered as the only reason.
    It isn't (wasn't). One of the earliest suggestions was "tired light". Which was rapidly shown to be wrong.

    But the expanding universe is (currently) the only one that matches all the data and the predictions of our (current) best theory of the universe.

    Maybe a future theory will change this. Maybe it will, as you say, turn out to be something to do with something ....
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    well i think strange and the others have said all that is to be said.your theory seems good to your college guyz because they don't get it....as far as we know the inflationary big bang theory is the best that explains the whole thing with some few parts missing.
    i myself don't like the idea of dark energy causing this expansion.And i won't say you should stop your work,buh i will tell you that you should not get happy over what seem right to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by merumario View Post
    i myself don't like the idea of dark energy causing this expansion.
    Strictly speaking, dark energy is proposed to explain the recently observed acceleration of expansion, not the expansion itself.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. merumario's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    nigeria
    Posts
    844
    also speaking it is actually not a recent observation'
    it was first carried out by hubble back in the 20th century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Hubble observed the red-shifts which were (later) explained by expansion.

    The (unexpected) acceleration of expansion was first reported in 1998: Nobel Prize in Physics 2011–The Accelerating Universe – News Watch
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    For all we know the part of the universe that we can see may only be a bubble of expansion somewhere in the middle of a collapsing or condensing universe. On the other hand it could have something to do with the way we are seeing the light and the combination of time dilations
    when we make models of the data we assume certain things. we have no evidence at this moment for the first part of your post. therefore we don't take it into consideration and make our models to explain the data we do have. as long as the models work then that is all that is required. when evidence comes in that show revision is necessary then we do that. as to the second part, the people who do this modeling are aware of the limits of observation techniques and relativity and one would think that one of them would see if they hadn't been considered. remember that there are more than one scientist working on these things and from different research groups who are very competitive.
    Strange and merumario like this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I don't understand the comments about the being no central point in the universe.

    If the universe has a boundary then it must have a point which is central... the 'centre of gravity' if you like. Though gravity may or may not be relevant.

    Just because everything is expanding away from everything else... that doesn't mean there is no centre to it all. There might not be anything at the centre and the 'central nothingness' might move around constantly... but there has to be a centre doesn't there?

    Whats the observation which leads people to say there's no centre to the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Whats the observation which leads people to say there's no centre to the universe?
    The lack of an observation of an edge, coupled with the observation that the universe seems to be the same in all directions from here. There is no "preferred direction" to the overall expansion, therefore there is no centre of expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Couple with expansion (Big Bang) happened everywhere in the Universe, not outward from a central point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,677
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    If the universe has a boundary then it must have a point which is central...
    It may not have a centre or a boundary. Think of the surface of the earth. Does it have a centre? Does it (the surface) have an edge?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I'm going to try this, though writing it in words is difficult.

    People talk about the Universe being curved, not flat. And being finite but unbounded or infinite but bounded- What does this even mean?
    Well, the problem lies in our familiarity with living in three dimensions.
    Let's lose 1 dimension for a moment.
    Imagine that you're a flat lander. You live in flat land- a 2D (two dimensional) land. You have no understanding of something unfamiliar, like a third dimension, where there is another direction you can move in to right angles of other directions; a direction called "Up." You know length and breadth but what is this "up?" You don't know, you cannot picture it. But you can deduce that somehow, that direction is there.
    As a flatlander, you would be unable to envision this, to picture that direction in your mind.

    Now, return to 3D space. You're a Terran (Human) living on 3D Earth.
    What direction is ninety degrees from 'length,' 'breadth,' and 'height (Up)?' Like the Flatlander, you do not know, but you can deduce that this direction is there, that it goes at right angles from the three directions we are familiar with.

    Look at this image:

    Those angles that are not right angles actually are right angles in that alien direction spoken about above. It's not something you can just look at and say, "Oh, I get it." But you can deduce that if you unfold it without altering it or taking it apart, envision all the lines as all being to right angles from the next, that there is a direction to right angels that is 1 dimension more than length, breadth and height. Look at the square on one side. Then, look at the one toward the middle of the object and take perspective into account so that you recognize it as a square with right angles, but distorted by perspective in three dimensions- Hold That Image - and work your way around the cube doing this, you will see the inner cube is larger than the cube it is inside of; and yet somehow fits inside of a cube smaller than itself because the angles move in that other direction.

    It is that direction that space is curved into.

    Let's return to Strange's example above using the center of a sphere.
    A Flatlander would not know where the center of the surface of a sphere is. To him, it would have no center. But to a three dimensional being, like you, you can find the center, by moving in another direction and pointing to the middle of the balloon, itself.
    A Terran would not know where the center of the Universe is. To us, it has no center. The universe is curved into that direction, the one we are unfamiliar with and cannot point to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    the universe, as far as i am aware, is currently thought to be flat, infinite and unbounded. a "critical" universe.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    the universe, as far as i am aware, is currently thought to be flat, infinite and unbounded. a "critical" universe.
    Due to WMAP data. I know, I know... But the above makes it a hell of a lot easier to describe a lack of a definable center than trying to do it with a flat universe.
    But you're correct, IIRC it's stated as within 0.5% margin of error to be Flat Local Spacetime Geometry.



    Quit busting my 4D bubble.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    no worries then.

    :-)
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The HUGE bang the Cause of the Acceleration of the Expansion of the Universe
    By EddyBearr in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 29th, 2012, 11:02 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 18th, 2012, 05:27 PM
  3. What causes acceleration of expansion of the universe.
    By jsaldea12 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 5th, 2010, 03:44 AM
  4. Replies: 63
    Last Post: April 25th, 2008, 04:43 AM
  5. Expansion of Light Waves verses Expansion of Space
    By Mike NS in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 10th, 2007, 08:31 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •