Thread: Can someone please debunk my theory as of why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate

I've posted this question in a Swedish forum but have gotten no good answer.




A giant thorn in the side of science today, is the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. They key word here is accelerating.


Because if it all began with a Big Bang, which it certainly did, (there is an insane amount of evidence for this), the expansion of the universe should be slowing down.


It should be slowing down since all that force came some 14 billions years ago, and have been dissipating ever since. Gravity has been pulling everything together during this time, too.



To explain this accelerated expansion, which has been verified by empirical data, we invented dark energy (almost wrote dark matter there, pew!). Dark energy is suppose to "push" the universe apart through some unkown mechanism.


Dark energy is all hypothetical and was only invented to explain the data. I have another explanation.




What if there isn't just "a" Big Bang, that is "one" Big Bang, but many Big Bangs, going off in the sky constantly. Like fireworks.


What if our entire visible universe (14 billion light years) is part of one of these local Big Bangs.


What if our entire visible universe is surrounded by other (will be) Big Bangs, overlapping each other, collecting mass to THEIR Big Bang right now.


And our universe is being pulled apart like a parent tugged at by five different kids.




Get what I'm saying?




The deeper an organization of mass is in its contraction phase, the stronger pull it will exert, and the more mass it will collect.


"The Great Attractor" would be one such collection of mass.

• This would explain the accelerated expansion.
• It would explain the observed phenomenom that the expansion isn't equal in all directions.
• It would make the Big Bang theory make sense, since now you have a cycle (and an infinite number of attempts to create life)

Do you understand my argument?


I think there are a bunch of "Big Bangs" spread throughout space, overlapping each other, competing for the same mass, and that we (our visible universe) is being pulled apart in all directions.


It seems logical to me. Have I missed something?


/Theo A. Gerken

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

Imagine a fireworks display. When one of the fireworks is sent up into the air and explodes that is all you see but if were to be sent up, one right behind the other, then you'd also see that explosion as well. Then take that example and imagine what you are theorizing and you'd know that you would be seeing allot of explosions happening that would be seen throughout the universe and be felt as well when the shock wave hit you. So knowing that does not happen we can assume that your theory isn't happening, at least in this universe but perhaps in another multi verse theory.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Imagine a fireworks display. When one of the fireworks is sent up into the air and explodes that is all you see but if were to be sent up, one right behind the other, then you'd also see that explosion as well. Then take that example and imagine what you are theorizing and you'd know that you would be seeing allot of explosions happening that would be seen throughout the universe and be felt as well when the shock wave hit you. So knowing that does not happen we can assume that your theory isn't happening, at least in this universe but perhaps in another multi verse theory.

Okay. Thanks for the answer.

Suppose it takes 400 billion years for a Big Bang to gather enough mass to explode again. And suppose there is a limit to how far that explosion reaches (spacewise).

Then there could just not have been an explosion nearby over the last 14 billion years since our Big Bang. Or replace the number 400 with 400 000 and you would have the same scenario, just more probable.

(sorry about placing the thread in the wrong forum to begin with)

Originally Posted by Theo A. Gerken

Suppose it takes 400 billion years for a Big Bang to gather enough mass to explode again.

Big bang was not an explosion. You are now piling up misconceptions.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

The acceleration of the expansion requires the application of energy. Theo's proposal is that the source of this energy is a surrounding environment of Big Bangs. So, you need to demonstrate that the energy we do observe could not arise from these other Big Bangs.

Theo, if what you are saying were true there would need to be a surprising uniformity of Big Bangs and these would need to be at comparable stages of development. Why are we not seeing compression from an adjacent Big Bang at the peak of its expansion phase?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

The acceleration of the expansion requires the application of energy. Theo's proposal is that the source of this energy is a surrounding environment of Big Bangs. .

The energy that we observe today is much less than the energy released at the time of the big bang. If there were "big bangs" we should detect a violation of the conservation of baryon number, we don't. We would be fried in the presence of another big bang.

So, you need to demonstrate that the energy we do observe could not arise from these other Big Bangs

I just did. Twice. Once for Theo and once for you.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

The acceleration of the expansion requires the application of energy. Theo's proposal is that the source of this energy is a surrounding environment of Big Bangs. .

The energy that we observe today is much less than the energy released at the time of the big bang. If there were "big bangs" we should detect a violation of the conservation of baryon number, we don't. We would be fried in the presence of another big bang.

Surely this would depend upon proximity? Theo seems to be proposing very distant Big Bangs. Also, what makes you assume he is proposing a BB on the same one we appear to be part of? i.e. your rejection on the basis of "being fried" appears to rest on two unsupported assumptions, of size and distance.

I stand ready to be educated. Are you up to the task.

As to baryon number, pretend I am wholly ignorant of physics (I know you will find that easy). In what way would further BBs violent conservation of baryon number?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

The acceleration of the expansion requires the application of energy. Theo's proposal is that the source of this energy is a surrounding environment of Big Bangs. So, you need to demonstrate that the energy we do observe could not arise from these other Big Bangs.

Theo, if what you are saying were true there would need to be a surprising uniformity of Big Bangs and these would need to be at comparable stages of development. Why are we not seeing compression from an adjacent Big Bang at the peak of its expansion phase?

I don't think you would need a surprising uniformity. All you need are collections of mass spread throughout space gathering more and more mass. These collections of mass, residing far beyond our visible universe, like the great attractor, would be at different stages in development. Some would have very little, and some would have a lot.

When one of them absorbs critical mass, eventually it will explode, hence giving away mass to the ones around it. Since so much mass then becomes available to the ones around it, it would probably create a chain reaction of big bangs (since the other ones would reach the critical mass needed for explosion too).

About the other post, I'm suggesting there is an overlap in the areas of these "Big Bangs". But the overlap mostly matter at the maximum point of expansion (just after a Big Bang has taken place). I am not suggesting another Big Bang have in any way reached our visible universe over the last 14 billion years, I really think it has not.

Originally Posted by Theo A. Gerken

I don't think you would need a surprising uniformity. All you need are collections of mass spread throughout space gathering more and more mass. These collections of mass, residing far beyond out visible universe, like the great attractor, would be at different stages in development. Some would have very little, and some would have a lot.

When one of them absorbs critical mass, eventually it will explode, hence giving away mass to the ones around it. Since so much mass then becomes available to the ones around it, it would probably create a chain reaction of big bangs (since the other ones would reach the critical mass needed for explosion too).

Then why are we not seeing a negative acceleration in portions of the universe being influenced by the expansion of an adjacent BB? Your idea requires that no such negative acceleration is present in today's universe. While not impossible, that seems implausible and definitely weakens your proposal.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

The Big Bang released a tremendous amount of energy. We do not see any such energy that would be associated with "ongoing big bangs". Sorry, your theory is DOA.

The acceleration of the expansion requires the application of energy. Theo's proposal is that the source of this energy is a surrounding environment of Big Bangs. .

The energy that we observe today is much less than the energy released at the time of the big bang. If there were "big bangs" we should detect a violation of the conservation of baryon number, we don't. We would be fried in the presence of another big bang.

Surely this would depend upon proximity?

Err, the big bang is not a localized effect, it happens everywhere in the universe. May I suggest that you firs study the fundamentals before you make such inferences about the locality of the big bang?

Theo seems to be proposing very distant Big Bangs.

Meaning that he too doesn't understand the notion of big bang. He thinks it is an explosion, this is what I corrected in my first post.

Also, what makes you assume he is proposing a BB on the same one we appear to be part of? i.e. your rejection on the basis of "being fried" appears to rest on two unsupported assumptions, of size and distance.

Please do not cast aspersions, it isn't me tthe one who doesn't understand the notion of big bang.

I stand ready to be educated.

I hope that I just did, I do not mind educating you as long as you refrain from swearing at me in PMs. You have some serious misconceptions about the notions, do you think that the above explanations were enough to clear them?

As to baryon number, pretend I am wholly ignorant of physics (I know you will find that easy). In what way would further BBs violent conservation of baryon number?

Are you Ophiolite? If yes, I apologize for criticizing the job you are doing on the other forum, I did not know that you are going to take it personally nor did I know that you are one and the same person. As to your sentence above, it does not form a coherent question, so I cannot answer it. Would you care to rephrase?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Theo A. Gerken

I don't think you would need a surprising uniformity. All you need are collections of mass spread throughout space gathering more and more mass. These collections of mass, residing far beyond out visible universe, like the great attractor, would be at different stages in development. Some would have very little, and some would have a lot.

When one of them absorbs critical mass, eventually it will explode, hence giving away mass to the ones around it. Since so much mass then becomes available to the ones around it, it would probably create a chain reaction of big bangs (since the other ones would reach the critical mass needed for explosion too).

Then why are we not seeing a negative acceleration in portions of the universe being influenced by the expansion of an adjacent BB? Your idea requires that no such negative acceleration is present in today's universe. While not impossible, that seems implausible and definitely weakens your proposal.

You mean that in some direction, there should be a collection of mass that just exploded, hence reducing/removing its pulling power? Is that what you mean?

14 billion years might be nothing compared to how long it takes for a collection of mass to absorb enough matter that it has to expand (in a Big Bang). It might take 5.5 x 10 to the power of 586 years of all we know. We don't know.

I think my hypothesis is supported by the fact that the expansion seems to occur at different rates in different directions. That is what you would find.

Yes, you have correctly understood my meaning. Is the expansion rate different, on a large scale, in different directions? You claim it to be so. Please provide citations from peer reviewed journals supporting this claim.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yes, you have correctly understood my meaning. Is the expansion rate different, on a large scale, in different directions? You claim it to be so. Please provide citations from peer reviewed journals supporting this claim.

Don't know if its peer-reviewed, but it's the best I got right now. The article refers to a bunch of "anomalies" that could be interpreted on their own, too. (that point to an non-uniform expansion)

The analysis determined a preferred axis of anisotropy in the northern hemisphere. This suggests that a part of the northern sky represents a part of the universe that is expanding outwards with a greater acceleration than elsewhere.

Is the universe expanding asymmetrically? - Cosmos Magazine

I suspect a measurment error in the acceleration

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

I suspect a measurment error in the acceleration

Planck also confirmed some oddities earlier noted by WMAP. The simplest models of inflation predict that fluctuations in the CMB should look the same all over the sky. But WMAP has found, and Planck confirmed, an asymmetry between opposite hemispheres of the sky, as well as a ‘cold spot’ that covers a large area. The asymmetry “defines a preferred direction in space, which is an extremely strange result,” says Efstathiou.

New View of Primordial Universe Confirms Sudden "Inflation" after Big Bang - Scientific American

If you look at from a biological stand point the universe is still in its infancy and it's growing older

Originally Posted by Mr. Painter

If you look at from a biological stand point the universe is still in its infancy and it's growing older

How can we know that the universe is still in its infancy if we know of no other universe to compare it to?

Originally Posted by 甘肃人

Originally Posted by Mr. Painter

If you look at from a biological stand point the universe is still in its infancy and it's growing older

How can we know that the universe is still in its infancy if we know of no other universe to compare it to?

just saying if we are looking at it at a biological Point, the universe is just it's earlier stages as biological beings grows from their earlier stages (infancy) then into teens and adulthood where we stop growing and just, saying the universe might be like that and it's just growing into something else and then stop growing and just decay (of old age)

lets say say the universe is one of a kind being and we're here to observe it even if it's not one of a kind for us it is and it's the first of its species that we observed so far

If in fact our universe is anisotropic in the northerly direction, and its rate of observed motion is accelerating, as at least suggested by astronomy, a possible mechanism would be that our universe is aging, with a concomitant decrease in its internal energies, and is being attracted toward a "stronger," younger, universe, the attraction becoming stronger as the two universes come closer to each other.

I would suggest an analogy with the documented astronomical observation of galaxies in collision, in that a decrease in the internal energy of one galacxy induces it to be attracted toward the nearest gravitationally-comparable and magnetically-comparable system, another galaxy.

This idea would imply that another astronomical observation would be on this basis, specifically novas, which then would have to be on the basis of one star losing its internal energies and colliding with a second, younger, more energetic, star. -I have never found the standard explanation of novae, that a "tired" star simply collapses internallly, to be very compelling.

I previously presented this idea about novae in an old Thread of mine that presented a model for the origin of neutron stars