Thread: Is the accelerated expansion of the Universe an illusion?

I think so. I suspect suspect the "dark energy" is a propriety of the atoms, and the atoms are in an accelerated contraction.
We can´t see this contraction because we are made of atoms, then we need a fixed reference to mesure it, The Universe. So simple so.

If dark energy is a property of atoms, and we are contracting and thus can't see the effect, what could we measure in 'the universe' that would allow us to measure it? Wouldn't all the matter (i.e., atoms) in the universe also be contracting just as we are?

Originally Posted by armf

I think so.

Why do you think so?
Is it because you haven't looked at the evidence for expansion?

I suspect suspect the "dark energy" is a propriety of the atoms

Why?
What evidence do you have for this?

and the atoms are in an accelerated contraction.

What evidence do you have for this?

You should have posted this in Personal Theories.
Although, so far, it's not a theory because you've presented no evidence to support your "thinking".

Moving to Alternate Theories.

Suppose you are on a train stopped at the station. Beside there is another train also stopped. Suddenly you realize that your train is going back, but you do not feel any bump or acceleration, then you look for the station and realizes that your train is stopped and the train beside of you went ahead, so the movement of your train was an illusion.
The research done by physicists about the accelerated expansion of the Universe perfectly fits this theory.
Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"), we must change the system reference, as in the case of the train at the station, and consider the universe as a fixed reference. That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting at the same rate of the accelerated expansion of the universe verified.
So the evidence of this Theory is the same of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Suppose you are on a train stopped at the station. Beside there is another train also stopped. Suddenly you realize that your train is going back, but you do not feel any bump or acceleration, then you look for the station and realizes that your train is stopped and the train beside of you went ahead, so the movement of your train was an illusion.
The research done by physicists about the accelerated expansion of the Universe perfectly fits this theory.
Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"), we must change the system reference, as in the case of the train at the station, and consider the universe as a fixed reference. That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting at the same rate of the accelerated expansion of the universe verified.
So the evidence of this Theory is the same of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Excuse me by the unexpected translated post.

Originally Posted by armf

Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"

Hmm, okay.

That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting

Oh wait.
What's the "reason" for the contraction?

It appears that you have a slight problem here.

Originally Posted by armf

Suppose you are on a train stopped at the station. Beside there is another train also stopped. Suddenly you realize that your train is going back, but you do not feel any bump or acceleration, then you look for the station and realizes that your train is stopped and the train beside of you went ahead, so the movement of your train was an illusion.

But measurements of acceleration or of the apparent motion of a larger number of bodies, for example, can resolve this illusion. So it is hardly relevant to scientific data based on multiple measurements.

Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"), we must change the system reference, as in the case of the train at the station, and consider the universe as a fixed reference.

You can, of course, do that. You end up with a much more complicated system where the speed of light and other fundamental constants change over time. This is much harder to work with, which is why the current model is used. (Most people find the "expanding universe" coordinate system more intuitive; but clearly not everybody given the number of people who post this idea on science forums.)

However, your coordinate change doesn't solve anything. Anything that happens in one coordinate system must happen in the other.

So, for a start, you need to explain why mater is shrinking in your model. The standard model has an explanation: the observed expansion was predicted by general relativity; whereas you seem to be simply trying to fit a model to observations in a post hoc manner.

More importantly, if there is accelerating expansion in the universe then there must be accelerating shrinking in your system. What causes this accelerated shrinkage? Don't know? Maybe you need a place holder name for it while you wait for an explanation. How about "dark energy"?

Excuse me by the unexpected translated post.

De nada.

Originally Posted by armf

I think so. I suspect suspect the "dark energy" is a propriety of the atoms, and the atoms are in an accelerated contraction.
We can´t see this contraction because we are made of atoms, then we need a fixed reference to mesure it, The Universe. So simple so.

Everything is a black hole and the light of the universe would be blue shifted.

:EDIT:

Actually, I've never been a black hole myself... yet... from my perspective.

Do I don´t have the presumption that I can solve the mysteries of the atom.
This is a job for LHC team and others of course.
The stability of the atom is not yet fully understood, not to mention the gravity that is the biggest mystery. At least we have abundant atoms to search for. The same I can´t say if the search had to be done in another galaxy to find out what is pushing it apart of us.
Maybe the key of the problem is the gravity and (or) the "light quantum".
Strange, how about "hidden energy" for energy able to shrink the atom?
The atom is the only reason for the existence of the Universe. The Universe is not made only of atoms, but the atom makes the Universe.

Originally Posted by armf

Suppose you are on a train stopped at the station. Beside there is another train also stopped. Suddenly you realize that your train is going back, but you do not feel any bump or acceleration, then you look for the station and realizes that your train is stopped and the train beside of you went ahead, so the movement of your train was an illusion.
The research done by physicists about the accelerated expansion of the Universe perfectly fits this theory.
Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"), we must change the system reference, as in the case of the train at the station, and consider the universe as a fixed reference. That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting at the same rate of the accelerated expansion of the universe verified.
So the evidence of this Theory is the same of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

Excuse me by the unexpected translated post.

Radical,. but I understand what you are saying with this example.

Because we have no external view this could happen.

To the observer the reversing train is expanding from a fixed point, the second stationary train.

The observer on the reversing train , also see an expansion. , makes a feeling of expansion also.

The observer on the stationary does not feel any expansion unless the observer is looking backwards but they will have the sense of movement.


If we were been contracted, that would mean we were been pushed into the sun. The Sun would start to get ''bigger'' to our perspective view.

I am sure if the sun had got ''bigger'' NASA would know.

The Sun would grow in diameter each year as we were contracted.

We would get warmer, that would fit in.

And the other planets would contract also, but to our perspective view, they would stay the same distance.

It would only be the Sun that would be affected by this visual difference.

Originally Posted by theorist

To the observer the reversing train is expanding from a fixed point, the second stationary train.

No.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by theorist

To the observer the reversing train is expanding from a fixed point, the second stationary train.

No.

yes, if i am standing on a platform and there is two trains, and one moves away, i see the train moving, is expanding from the stationary train.

Originally Posted by theorist

yes, if i am standing on a platform and there is two trains, and one moves away, i see the train moving, is expanding from the stationary train.

Please provide a source for this (erroneous) claim.
Moving objects contract from the point of view of an observer.
Some guy called Einstein showed this. But, then again, he wasn't a clueless troll on a science forum so he may have been wrong.

Originally Posted by theorist

Originally Posted by armf

Suppose you are on a train stopped at the station. Beside there is another train also stopped. Suddenly you realize that your train is going back, but you do not feel any bump or acceleration, then you look for the station and realizes that your train is stopped and the train beside of you went ahead, so the movement of your train was an illusion.<br>
The research done by physicists about the accelerated expansion of the Universe perfectly fits this theory. <br>
Since there is no reason for the acceleration of the Universe (So they call it "dark energy"), we must change the system reference, as in the case of the train at the station, and consider the universe as a fixed reference. That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting at the same rate of the accelerated expansion of the universe verified.<br>
So the evidence of this Theory is the same of the accelerated expansion of the Universe.<br>
<br>
Excuse me by the unexpected translated post.

<br>
<br>

Radical,. but I understand what you are saying with this example.<br>
<br>
Because we have no external view this could happen.<br>
<br>
To the observer the reversing train is expanding from a fixed point, the second stationary train.<br>
<br>
The observer on the reversing train , also see an expansion. , makes a feeling of expansion also.<br>
<br>
The observer on the stationary does not feel any expansion unless the observer is looking backwards but they will have the sense of movement.<br>

<br>This section is to go over the first five paragraphs of your comment. I'm sure you got the message of the train at the station. However I think you had difficulty in exposing what you were thinking, so you mixed movement and expansion. The main purpose of the example is to show the reason that the passenger had to change the reference, I mean how he felt no bump nor acceleration, he sought the station and found that the movement that he thought exist was an illusion.<br>
<br>

If we were been contracted, that would mean we were been pushed into the sun. The Sun would start to get ''bigger'' to our perspective view.<br>
<br>
I am sure if the sun had got ''bigger'' NASA would know.<br>
<br>
The Sun would grow in diameter each year as we were contracted.<br>
<br>
We would get warmer, that would fit in.<br>
<br>
And the other planets would contract also, but to our perspective view, they would stay the same distance.<br>
<br>
It would only be the Sun that would be affected by this visual difference.

<br>This section is to go over the sixth to tenth first paragraphs of your comment. I think there was an incorrect interpretation because I meant that the whole matter of the universe would be contracted. I said: &nbsp;

<em>That done, we can conclude or assume that all matter in the universe is contracting at the same rate of the accelerated expansion of the universe verified.</em>

&nbsp;However, the expansion or contraction is not measurable for short distances. For a distance equivalent to the distance from the Sun to the Earth, it would be 1.14E-1m per year (114mm). If someone got a different result, please correct me. I have no problem to assume an error. <br>If we adopt the changed reference system for space measurements, this apparent&nbsp; expansion would be nullified, The distance in meters also would be the same, because the meter is currently defined as a fraction of the light speed, so theoretically the meter (standard) should be amended from time to time to compensate the contraction.<br>

Originally Posted by armf

Strange, how about "hidden energy" for energy able to shrink the atom?

So you haven't solved anything. You have replaced expanding space (very well understood and predicted by theory) with shrinking atoms (with no explanation).

You have replaced accelerating expansion (admittedly, not currently understood) with accelerating shrinking (also not udnerstood).

So, remind me, how is this model better?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by armf

Strange, how about "hidden energy" for energy able to shrink the atom?

So you haven't solved anything. You have replaced expanding space (very well understood and predicted by theory) with shrinking atoms (with no explanation).

You have replaced accelerating expansion (admittedly, not currently understood) with accelerating shrinking (also not udnerstood).

So, remind me, how is this model better?

The basic question is: A theory can be supported for ten evidences and some predictions, but if we find out that the main evidence was false (ie; the constant expansion rate speed), the theory becomes invalid, because there is nothing to justify the accelerating expansion.
The new theory, with the new reference system, transforms the apparent "accelerated expansion" in "accelerated contraction",
It is to more likely and intuitive to find out some property of the atom that may cause this contraction than fantasizing "dark energy" as something supernatural. Isn´t “dark energy” a post hoc?
This makes the theory of accelerated contraction of the matter a valid theory, with all the evidences which supported the old theory, and at least one prediction to justify the "hidden energy". This model is better than the other because it is a valid one.
Einstein didn´t know that the universe could be in accelerated expansion so he accepted that theory by the evidences found at that time.
I believe there will not be many changes in the fundamental constant of physics.
The light speed remains constant.

Originally Posted by armf

but if we find out that the main evidence was false (ie; the constant expansion rate speed)

It is a good job that "constant expansion" isn't a fundamental part of the the theory, enver mind the main evidence.

It is to more likely and intuitive to find out some property of the atom that may cause this contraction than fantasizing "dark energy" as something supernatural.

Why is your unknown better than another unknown?

Also, can you produce a mathematical model, using this unknown property of the atom, which matches what we observe?

Isn´t “dark energy” a post hoc?

Isn't your "unknown property of the atom" post hoc?

In fact, aren't all theories post hoc? "Here is some data, let's see if we can model it."

This makes the theory of accelerated contraction of the matter a valid theory, with all the evidences which supported the old theory, and at least one prediction to justify the "hidden energy". This model is better than the other because it is a valid one.

Please show the mathematics that proves your model matches observation as well as or better than existing theory.

Einstein didn´t know that the universe could be in accelerated expansion so he accepted that theory by the evidences found at that time.

Einstein didn't even know the universe was expanding. He also didn't own an iPhone. I don't know why you think that is relevant.

The light speed remains constant.

Not in your model it doesn't. As you should know from the mathematics. You have done the math, haven't you? Or is this just a load of baseless assertions?

Originally Posted by armf

I think so. I suspect suspect the "dark energy" is a propriety of the atoms, and the atoms are in an accelerated contraction.
We can´t see this contraction because we are made of atoms, then we need a fixed reference to mesure it, The Universe. So simple so.

Collapse and expansion could happen at the same time and the observer is in a balance between the two. Like three rockets lunching at the same time from ground zero on earth. After a few minutes one runs out of fuel, a minute later another one does, while the third continues on into space. There was a moment in time when the second rocket that ran out of fuel stopped accelerating and was not falling back to earth. The second rocket would view one rocket heading into space as the other fell to earth. The balance between accelerating and falling (collapse and expansion) could be the moment that we exist in.

Originally Posted by YangYin

Like three rockets lunching at the same time

Obviously they'd be eating arroz con (a)pollo.

Apart from that your post is drivel.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by YangYin

Like three rockets lunching at the same time

Obviously they'd be eating arroz con (a)pollo.

Apart from that your post is drivel.

And this seems to be the moment the duck continues to exist in.