# Thread: Theory explaining the acceleration of the galaxies!

1. The acceleration of the galaxies is due to the gravitational attraction of the yellow submarine that we all live in!

But really, heres my idea. If you look at the forces between molecules, one finds that it is an attractive force, but when you get close, the force is repulsive, and so on. Maybe its the opposite with gravity. Close up its attratcive, but as you get farther away, the force becomes repulsive, and so on. This idea is pretty logical in my humble opinion. What do you guys think?

2.

3. umm close but no cigar
just kidding the attration and repultion of molecules is due to the eletron and protons it is like a magnatic attration you can prove it is magnatic attation by taking a comb statically charge it and place near a thin stream of wather and observe the reaction should be that the stream bends. gravity is due to space being bent around a mass the more mass the stronger gravity this is easily represented by the ratio of fore of gravity and size i will use earth and the moon the moon is roughly 1/6 the size of earth an just so appens that earth gravity wiches 9.81m/s2 and the moons is about 1.63m/s2 roughly 1/6 earth gravity so i would have to disagree[/list]

4. they already tried that. they came up with a unstable universe that cant work

5. Well, it doesnt have to be exactly like that. I mean we know so little about the nuclear forces, why should we have any idea how the forces at greater scales thatn gravitation work?

6. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
why should we have any idea how the forces at greater scales thatn gravitation work?
If you have any idea of what might constitute a force at a greater scale than gravitation, please share with us.

7. gravity worx at infinite distance, so this will be interessting

8. Originally Posted by Zelos
gravity worx at infinite distance,
This is quite speculative of you.

9. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Zelos
gravity worx at infinite distance,
This is quite speculative of you.
if the force of gravity works on an inverse square law then any force of gravity is very infinitesmal at infinite distance, but still there none the less.

unless theres a cut of point where we just suddenly decide, it has to be exactly zero.

10. Hmmmmm.... I will ponder on this one for a while. I will try and come up with a "force" that takes full effect on greater scales, and will become asympotic to some constant, so that the objects end up accelerating at a constant rate at great distances. The first question, though, is what distance should i make the force become greater than gravity at?

11. EM and Gravity is infinite distance forces because the force carrier particle have no mass
gravity its thought so because its been shown to have infinite distance

12. It propogates at finite speed, so it doesn't really act at infinite distance unless you also have infinite time.

13. Originally Posted by Neutrino
It propogates at finite speed, so it doesn't really act at infinite distance unless you also have infinite time.
My point exactly. The "visible" universe is considered to be some 15 billion years old. Perhaps that means that other parts of the universe are so far that light emitted from there has not yet had time to reach us. If that is the case, then its gravity has not yet had time to exert an effect on us. The notion of the effect of gravity over an infinite distance given only the finite amount of time that is considered to have been available is another example of mathematical theory making its way unchanged into practical considerations.

14. Please elaborate, zelos ('They already tried that, they came up with an unstable universe that does not work'), on why vroomfondel's idea isn't tenable, in accordance with what 'they came up with'

(Did it have anything to do with Friedmann's computations? In any case, please elaborate on how vroomfondel's repelling force doesn't work. Are you referring to the alleged usurpation of the Cosmological Constant? What are you basing your disagreement on? Please.

15. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Zelos
gravity worx at infinite distance,
This is quite speculative of you.
if the force of gravity works on an inverse square law then any force of gravity is very infinitesmal at infinite distance, but still there none the less.
Gravity cannot, in my opinion, work at infinite distance. Do you think that gravity is instantaneous, or that it takes time for gravity to cause interaction between two points in space? Unless you consider it instantaneous, then infinite distance would mean that there would be insufficient time for the interaction to occur.

unless theres a cut of point where we just suddenly decide, it has to be exactly zero.
I think that a good candidate for the cutoff is the presumed age of the universe, some 15 billion light years away.

16. Until further notice, formal astrophysics finds gravity moving at exactly the Celeritas Constant of light. Law of the inverse square - same same. There's a heckuvva stubborn, alleged mythology going around that finds light and gravity as two different manifestations having the same causal identity.

17. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Until further notice, formal astrophysics finds gravity moving at exactly the Celeritas Constant of light. Law of the inverse square - same same. There's a heckuvva stubborn, alleged mythology going around that finds light and gravity as two different manifestations having the same causal identity.
I am not sure what you mean, but it sure sounds interesting.

18. Actually, atoms are repulsive because of their properities. You have electrons, protons, etc, and they're repulsive close up like a magnet due to the type of energy they radiate and activity. For example, lets say you have an electron and an electron. Will they attract? No, like a magnet with a + and + side, they will repel eachother. Will a proton and a proton attract? Again, no. GRAVITY tends to differ from this, however, as many can tell through observations. One can even tell from the earth itself, or the sun. When you get a certain distance away, does it repel? No. If it did, many comets wouldn't even exist today, as they would have been repelled. For a shitty observation, the farther away you pull a magnet, the weaker the repelling becomes, or the weaker the attraction depending on which side you're facing. Although, again, that's a shitty (and probably inaccurate since it's out of context slightly) observation. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

But to explain the difference between atomic repulsion and gravitational attraction, you again have to go on an atomic level. When you have many atoms squashed together in a small space, the atoms repel eachother like mad, and the energy between them increases due to the friction brought on by the compressed space. Because of that, with enough atoms, they begin to attract more and more as the energy increases more and more. Why is this? Well, this is where it becomes difficult. Gravitrons, or the UFT, both have majorly different explanations when it comes to the ATTRACTION effect of the mass amount of atoms. With the UFT, the energy emitted depends upon the mass, how compressed the atoms are, and how much energy is generated from it. As well as the rate of movement among those particles, etc.

The rate of acceleration is mostly from the Big Bang. When you have something that massive become unstable and explode, it's unlikely it will fall right back into itself. Especially since a star that massive would definitely have become a black hole, and thus after converting and burning certain amounts of matter (and according to hawking radiation, assuming it's correct), it could no longer remain together. Thus, the rate of acceleration is in part due to the original strewing of matter accross such a vast distance. Another thing to consider, is how galaxies are attracting eachother. Some are probably moving closer to the initial explosion area, while others farther appart as they attract eachother gravity wise. But some galaxies are a weee bit too far appart for this to make a difference. For the rest, I leave it to you to think up, my hands are starting to bug me from all the typing. XP

19. Besides rocket propulsion, what sort of fragmentation increases in it's post explosive stages, to the point that it is not merely maintaining its original velocity, but increasing, and, increasing at an exponential rate, namely, acceleration?
Such dynamic seems more a signature of a repelling force acting out all material bodies, approximately in accordance with and parallel to Newton's laws, but in the opposite direction.

20. Not entirely sure. However, as I sort of suggested in my prior ( and somewhat inaccurate previous post) I think that the gravitational tug of war is to blame. Like how Nasa uses the planets to speed up their probes.

21. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Not entirely sure. However, as I sort of suggested in my prior ( and somewhat inaccurate previous post) I think that the gravitational tug of war is to blame. Like how Nasa uses the planets to speed up their probes.
I Don't understand the phrase "The Gravitational tug of war".

Whilst it is true War attracts some individuals it can hardly be called gravitational , shouldn't you rename it "The blood-thirsty tug of war"?.

22. hahahaha, funny Bill. Maybe you're right though. Haha

23. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
hahahaha, funny Bill. Maybe you're right though. Haha
Isn't the English Language simply Beautiful...

24. I think it's the contrary, the most you get away from a magnetic field (gravity), the stronger it is... But there are limits. The closer you get, the weaker it it... Not much weaker though.

25. Black holes and other astral bodies disagree.

26. I think the galaxies are racing apart merely to uniformly fill space. Inject a small amount of gas into a vacuum - the same thing occurs, with the same increase in acceleration. The galaxies are just bigger gas molecules.

E&OE. 8)

27. Originally Posted by billco
I think the galaxies are racing apart merely to uniformly fill space. Inject a small amount of gas into a vacuum - the same thing occurs, with the same increase in acceleration. The galaxies are just bigger gas molecules.

E&OE. 8)

28. In 1956 a phenomina was observed where there appeared to be [uniform]cosmic microwave radiation detected from every direction. This radiation was of a frequency which indicated it's temperature was about 2.7 Degrees above absolute Zero.

Some interpreted this as evidence to support the theory that the universe was born of a 'BIG BANG' - as at that time nobody had considered other possibilities.

Ther are Mr Zelos, a I have pointed out to you inconsistancies in this theory, I have even pointed you in the direction of where you may, for yourself, study them.

29. Originally Posted by Zelos
It is the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropised by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium.
Eric J. Lerner

30. if it was caused by stars it wouldnt be uniform all the time in all direction

Ther are Mr Zelos, a I have pointed out to you inconsistancies in this theory, I have even pointed you in the direction of where you may, for yourself, study them.
i havent seen it yet, maybe you could show me again?

31. I would also like this evidence.

32. Originally Posted by Zelos
if it was caused by stars it wouldnt be uniform all the time in all direction
Do you understand what the word isostropised means?
If so, do you realise how silly your question appears?

33. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

From which:

"Problems with the Uniformity
The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for the big bang theory.
First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.

Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure. "

I presume that .EDU sites are more reliable than Wiki and some others, IF this is a mistaken belief I would be grateful for assistance in correcting any views I may have expressed as a result of the above informatiom.

34. Hi billco

The horizon problem is only one of the few with the current big-bang flavours, the others been the flatness problem (why is the universe largely well approximated by euclidean geometry) and smoothness problem (why was matter and space so smooth to allow the large scale structure we see), the lack of the existence of magnetic monopoles adn the extremely low entropy levels of the early universe.

Treat most theories which handle the first 10<sup>-12</sup> seconds of the universes existence as "tentative" until better understanding of the mathematics of GR and how QM effects it are found.

35. I've never been comfortable with this background radiation! I Don't have an alternative to Big bang BUT something does not smell right.

36. Saw something online not that long ago about a shadow problem with the background radiation. If the backfround radiation is a relic from the big bang then it should be shadowed by super clusters (as they would block it) but these shadows have not been found.

Its way to early to close the book on cosmology, thats why its such an interesting science.

If you want to through away expansion how to you get around olber's paradox? (ie why is the night sky dark?)

37. I am not familiar with that, I am still learning the subject, Is that the one that says "If the universe is infinite then there must be a star at every point in the sky, therefore the night sky should be as bright as the sun?"

Thats fine till you think about the asteroid belt, low temperature nebulae dust particles which should also be every where? After all the Andromeda isn't very bright - even through a 6 inch telescope.

38. You dont need an infinite universe for the paradox (it comes from the fact that the amount of radiation we recieve from any shell of stars surrounding earth is independant of the radius of the shell) and dust doesnt help as this would simply warm up and begin radiating itself.

You do need two other things that are hidden though, a suffiently old universe (around the order of 10<sup>15</sup> years old) which is not expanding - which kind of forces you into a "Big-bang" type cosmology model.

39. I can accept the universe has had a finite life thus far.
I do not believe the age quoted (15Bn) is neccessarily correct.
How old would it be if you had to ignore background radiation?

40. Not sure, its tempreture serves as an easy benchmark for the age of the universe wrt different observers (so you and i are in the same epoch if we measure the same tempreture). The age of the universe the way i understand it depends more on the value of hubbles constant - so ignoring the background radiation wont alter it dramatically but i may be hirribly wrong.

Any experts here?

41. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/hubble.html

OPen that one, then drop to the bottom it suggests that using the hubble constant and a temp of 2.7 deg etc

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...expand.html#c3

42. looks like only for the theoretical age (or perhaps to predict the expected tempreture given hubbles constant?)

Hubbles constant is found independant of the background temp though.

Okay, im still confused on the issue - but some other ways are given here

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

43. My point is IF it all hinges on the background radiation then could all be wrong. did you check the second link? - I made an error

44. Did check it - it does not depend soley on the background radiation temp though. The hubble time (another upper bound) is given by 1/H where H is the hubble constant and this is independant of the background radiation temp.

The current value of 70 km/s /Mpc gives an age of around 13.9 billion years (one parsec is around 3.0857 x 10<sup>16</sup> meters)

45. It's just another bit of the jig-saw puzzle for me. I have what I believe is a very credible alternative explanation for the background radiation.
I name this the Joseph Sphere. More work required. I am pleased that it does not shoot down the big bang [in one go] - it would make acceptance easy if the BB can still be supported.

46. Problem is that BB demands the existence of the background radiation - so if the current model is true then we got to find it.

47. Well it's like this some time ago Voyager 1 sent back to earth a curious radio signal. It essentially detected this as coming from outside the solar system. After a while some smart arse spotted that it corresponded to a solar flare which had happened some 400 days earlier. Voyager had returned a similar pattern about 200 days beforebut much stronger. THe upshot was that the solar flare had passed Voyager, continued going for around 100 more days then 'bounced' off of something and come back. From this, the edge of the heliosphere was determined. What was the temperature of this signal - I have not as yet been able to discover but it would be very very low. Suppose there is always this background reflection from the heliopause? - more work to be done.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005...yager_agu.html

I do not believe for this and other reasons we can look for the radiation from within a solar system.

If I could get hold a large accurate picture of the radiation with reference points I think I might be able to shoot down my own theory, then I can get on with the decorating.

49. The sun emits radiation almost uniformly in every direction, the solar radiation eventually collides with the heliopause causing all sorts of effects as described in the article. Consider yourself looking up at the stars from the top of a city block, You see a faint yellow glow all around. THis glow is of course light pollution. You need to move outside the city to see the true sky, you need to move outside the heliopause to see the true background radiation. Another thing you might like to know is, that you simply cannot tell how far a radio signal has come, from a single observation point. Compared to the size of the universe the entire solar disk is just a single point. The background radiaton signal does not [in my opinion] contain enough data to prove beyond doubt that it is extra-solar.

ZELOS:

--- Just note the 600KM/S in the following article.

The indication of the above image is that the local group of galaxies, to which the Earth belongs, is moving at about 600 km/s with respect to the background radiation. It is not know why the Earth is moving with such a high velocity relative to the background radiation.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/cbr.html

Then look at the solar wind.
Velocity: 596 km/sec

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/4

Happy now you have forced me to print it? - There is other more superior proof, But to avoid it being 'pinched' i'll keep the rest of the pack close to my chest.

50. Billco. I am pressed for time at the moment, but I'll accept your challenge - at a later date.

But I wanted to quickly outline a couple of ideas I am throwing around in my head for the acceleration of the universe's expansion.

I believe that Chaos theory is grossly overlooked in explaining the fundamentals of the universe - We see chaos on the nanoscale level and satellite imagery of the coastline.

I think in due order, we will also realise that the distribution of the universe corresponds to this same natural chaos. On the other end of the scale I will go so far as to suggest, that a deterministic future is possible once we understand that quantum interactions aren't random, but are also governed by Chaos.

There is one theoretical place in our universe that hints at what our early universe was like - Beyond the Event Horizon. Beyond an event horizon is a completely self contained universe - Nothing gets out - we cant peer in.

And thus because of the repeating infinte rules of chaos, if the entire universe we dwell in, is within an event horizon, then our universe is expanding just like an event horizon expands when stuff falls beyond its boundary.

An increase in stuff above average - the universe/event horizon accelerates in expansion diameter.

A decrease in stuff below average - the universe/event horizon decelerates in expansion diameter.

If there is no outside source fuelling the universe/event horizon, then the universe/event horizon starts to evaporate, as shown by Hawkins until it ceases to be.

So our universe is increasing in expansion, because an increasing amount of stuff is passing into our event horizon.

PS. I reserve the right to use the highly technical term 'stuff' when I am tired and busy...

PPS... If this seems crackpot - try to imagine what a Mandelbrot set would look like in 3 dimensions. it will all become clear. Then think of each region (of the same colour in 3d) as a turbulent fluid, that flows through black holes connecting them together. Some regions expand when the fluid passes through the event horizon, while the adjacent regions contract through hawkin radiation. The universe is infinite, not only dimensionally, but also in scale - with regions governed by chaos laws permanently expanding or contracting. And it follows simple harmonic motion. Sine waves - the most basic wave you can get, currently, we are in the upstroke of a sine wave, where acceleration is increasing, we will get to the peak, and the universe will slow and reverse as it dissipates through our regions event horizon by hawkin radiation until it reaches the lower trough, then our region will start to expand again.

Currently we are measuring 15 billion years since the last trough.

51. What does the Borg think on all this?

52. Originally Posted by billco
What does the Borg think on all this?
see, the real question is - and all i realy care is - what do you think about all this?

53. You'd have to break it down in easily digestable 2 line parts - keep it short, make sure your audience agrees with each point before proceeding - ever given a presentation at work? - I'm not sure I agree with determinism - IF it's we are a product of our history then fine, IF it's you can predict the future knowing where everything is know that's bollocks. Maybe start a new thread - this one is about me trying to show that background radiation may not be an echo of the Big bang.

By the way your nothing gets out of a big bang is not true (you can feel really honoured I did not say bullshit). Gamma rays escape from nuetron stars, rays with higher energy levels as yet undetected may easily escape.

54. I'll disagree and clarify,

I think it would be theoretically possible to predict the future if we knew where absolutely everything is and absolutely how it responded to the laws that govern it if we knew all the laws. We aint close to knowing this yet, even if it were possible to show that quantum interactions are goverened by laws that aren't random.

Assuming we're talking purely hypothetically, and you can hypothetically understand my scenario, then the CBR IS the visible event horizon or its echo - as looking from the POV of inside a black hole.

Not sure what you mean by gamma rays escaping from neutron stars in connection to having something escape the big bang???

55. On your first point I would say that you have failed to take into account the "Billco Syndrome" - essentially the only way you can predict the future is to program everything into a rather large PC - every atom - it's position etc BUT the size of the computer will exponentially grow as you you take into account the the very atoms of the computer!. Ie you will need more than 1 atom to describe another etc ad infinitum. Failure to take all into account and chaos theory will take hold. It may therefore only be possible in theory yet impossible in practice.

I was making the point that if electromagnetic waves have no upper limit then they may achieve almost infinite energy, ergo such a particle/wave bay have sufficient energy to escape a black hole - and deplete it quite quickly. The higher the frequency the greater the energy of EM waves.

56. Originally Posted by billco
On your first point I would say that you have failed to take into account the "Billco Syndrome" - essentially the only way you can predict the future is to program everything into a rather large PC - every atom - it's position etc BUT the size of the computer will exponentially grow as you you take into account the the very atoms of the computer!. Ie you will need more than 1 atom to describe another etc ad infinitum. Failure to take all into account and chaos theory will take hold. It may therefore only be possible in theory yet impossible in practice.

I was making the point that if electromagnetic waves have no upper limit then they may achieve almost infinite energy, ergo such a particle/wave bay have sufficient energy to escape a black hole - and deplete it quite quickly. The higher the frequency the greater the energy of EM waves.
I'd agree, its a theoretical possibility only.

Not sure about the other point.

57. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel

But really, heres my idea. If you look at the forces between molecules, one finds that it is an attractive force, but when you get close, the force is repulsive, and so on.

How do you look at this force? When you find "it" what is it? ANNND say you're not too close but not too far; are you just right?

58. maybe gravity is a quirk of space and not mass.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement