New theory about how it all started

[Pulchra]

Hello Pulchra, of course the next question to ask would be "why" is the energy doing the particular work that it is doing (unless you believe that "energy" is a being itself, with both a mind and and will of its own)?

Perhaps figuring out where energy originated would answer the secondary questions as well(?)

--David

Yes, I`m thinking

 

[Hans Blaster]

Dark matter is a theory to explain that the universe is still expanding but with everything we know about physics it shouldnt be. So dark matter that we cant see, feel, or perceive or detect in any way was invented. Maybe it could be the creative power of God causing the universe to continue expanding. Dark matter is just the name given to it.

Nope. Dark matter is about trying to explain the motion of certain gravitationally bound systems where the mass detected through light emitting gasses and stars is much less than implied by the (orbital) motions. In particular dark matter is needed to explain the orbital motion of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. (Dark matter is also indicated by the formation of the first elements out neutrons and protons about 3 minutes after the "big bang". These calculations show that the mass in neutrons and protons is only a small fraction of the total mass [I think 4%, but I don't feel like checking] and that the rest of the mass doesn't interact with nuclei in the standard fashion. )

Your description is closer to "Dark Energy" but it isn't quite right either. (The Universe would still be expanding without Dark Energy, but it would be doing so slower.)

 

[sparow]

My older theory was that when all energy was gathered in just one lump sort of, it collapsed under it`s on weight and spread out like an explosion almost, but to have a final amount of something would be arbetrary in the universe, it has to be infinite amounts of it, so the theory people have that everything`s gonna be dark and empty one day, is most likely wrong, energy that everything consists of is probably infinite, but where does it come from then? Well, thats the big questions really, where does the thing everything consists of come from really, is it like a hole from another dimention or universe just spewing out infinite amounts of it?

First, I do not find your use of the word "theory" offensive or grammatically incorrect but it could be offensive to a junior scientist; words like idea, opinion or supposition would appease the scientist in this case. What I gather from your post is you see problems with the big bang theory. I do not know whether the big bang theory is a genuine theory, according to the rules of science, or whether the big bang theory is merely a scientific idea. One requirement I would expect a scientific theory to be is rational and have a potential to be proven.

What you seem to be suggesting is over unity power generation or negative entropy which seems to be required for the universe to function.

 

[Petros2015]

is it like a hole from another dimention or universe just spewing out infinite amounts of it?

It's where we drove the first nail in.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes, I'm thinking

Being a Christian, I have an idea or two about how (and why) the universe came into existence, why energy does what it does, etc. If you'd care to hear my POV sometime, just let me know.

--David

 

[Ophiolite]

hehe be my guest to point out the flaws

Is it worth my while? You have already chosen to ignore my major criticism and insist upon calling your wooly piece of handwaving a theory.

You explain even less. Don't complain. Hand waving is not an explanation.

Do you sometimes feel you were headed for a lecture on the role of Cepheid variables in cosmology and found yourself instead in a kindergarten class?

 

[sjastro]

There`s one flaw with math itself, it has infinite decimals after comma, so it`s not accurate

With comments like this mainstream cosmology has nothing to fear about a paradigm change.
(staff edit)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it worth my while? You have already chosen to ignore my major criticism and insist upon calling your wooly piece of handwaving a theory.
Do you sometimes feel you were headed for a lecture on the role of Cepheid variables in cosmology and found yourself instead in a kindergarten class?

I am somewhere in the valley when it comes to this topic:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats the big question where it came from, but after my own theory it collapses of it`s own weight, people don`t really explain how energy has the ability to do things, so I thought perhaps it collapsed on under it`s own weigth and spread out and therefore have the power to make things move

Energy doesn't have independent existence, it's a property of stuff. When people talk about 'pure' energy, they usually mean electromagnetic radiation (heat, light, etc).

How energy does things is not simple to explain, but it converts from 'high quality' or 'concentrated' energy that can do work (free energy), to 'low quality' or 'diffuse' energy that can't do work, e.g. low level heat (the vibration of atoms & molecules).

For example, if you throw something off a cliff, it starts off with gravitational potential energy that depends on the height of the cliff. As it falls, that gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy of motion and air currents, some heat, and maybe some sound. When it hits the ground, the remaining kinetic energy is converted into sound, heat, ground deformation, and possibly kinetic energy of bits of the ground thrown up.

But at every change in type of energy, some is lost as low-level heat energy which is usually not hot enough to do useful work. So eventually all high quality free energy will end up as low quality heat energy.

Weight is not the correct term - that applies to how gravity affects a particular mass. What you probably mean is that it collapsed under its own gravity. But if this was the case, it wouldn't spread out, it would shrink (probably to a black hole).

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from the main forum to Non-mainstream science. ​

 

[Ophiolite]

First, I do not find your use of the word "theory" offensive or grammatically incorrect but it could be offensive to a junior scientist;

The word is not offensive. It is simply wrong in the context in which it was used by @Pulchra . Even as someone one or two steps below 'junior scientist' level, I know enough to recognise incorrect terminology when it is used. I am also perceptive enough to recognise the snide attempt at an insult on your part. If I valued your opinion on the matter that might offend me. Fortunately, that's not a problem.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, but they don`t explain how energy has the ability to do work, I think it`s from the collapse itself, it forces it out so it does the work

The 'accelerated' expansion of the universe is not directly measured, it is a speculation based on the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding at a higher speed

And so dark energy is not directly measured either- just a mathematical patch- like Einstein's cosmological constant- to fill in the apparent gap in the model

But you may be on to something- a mass collapsing under gravity could create the same appearance of an accelerating expansion- without the need for an extra mystical energy force.

Dark matter is a little less mystical- just stuff we can't see- the garden gnome you trip over at night is 'dark matter' by this definition

(edit) or is it trolls in your neighborhood?!

 

[Hans Blaster]

The 'accelerated' expansion of the universe is not directly measured, it is a speculation based on the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding at a higher speed

But it *is* directly measured. It is measured by comparing the distance and recession speeds of various exploding stars. You would do the same to measure the acceleration of a car speeding away from you -- measure it externally.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it *is* directly measured. It is measured by comparing the distance and recession speeds of various exploding stars. You would do the same to measure the acceleration of a car speeding away from you -- measure it externally.

We would measure acceleration as CHANGE in speed over time

By this analogy- we have a snapshot of several cars receding from us on the highway- we can use doppler shift to detect that the more distant cars are moving more quickly- that's all- that does not mean they are accelerating

We don't have a large enough time-lapse to directly and accurately measure change in velocity - that is only indirectly assumed from our 'snapshot'

 

[Hans Blaster]

We would measure acceleration as CHANGE in speed over time

By this analogy- we have a snapshot of several cars receding from us on the highway- we can use doppler shift to detect that the more distant cars are moving more quickly- that's all- that does not mean they are accelerating

We don't have a large enough time-lapse to directly and accurately measure change in velocity - that is only indirectly assumed from our 'snapshot'

I'm sorry you don't understand cosmology, but is that really my problem?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 'accelerated' expansion of the universe is not directly measured, it is a speculation based on the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding at a higher speed

No; a uniform expansion of space would give that result. The acceleration is evidence by the velocities of objects at greater distance being greater than that produced by uniform expansion. They've checked it very carefully.

And so dark energy is not directly measured either- just a mathematical patch- like Einstein's cosmological constant- to fill in the apparent gap in the model

Dark energy is just a name for the cause of the acceleration. The acceleration has been measured.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No; a uniform expansion of space would give that result. The acceleration is evidence by the velocities of objects at greater distance being greater than that produced by uniform expansion.

in both cases we are talking about measurements of velocity, not acceleration

Dark energy is just a name for the cause of the acceleration. The acceleration has been measured.

not directly, as you noted above- objects appear to be receding more quickly- and yes, even more quickly than might be expected through uniform expansion- but these are still just differences in velocities between objects not over time for an individual object, used to assume acceleration. it's not a direct observation of change of velocity over time- the effects are just too small to measure directly- but maybe in a decade or so...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

in both cases we are talking about measurements of velocity, not acceleration
...
not directly, as you noted above- objects appear to be receding more quickly- and yes, even more quickly than might be expected through uniform expansion- but these are still just differences in velocities between objects not over time for an individual object, used to assume acceleration. it's not a direct observation of change of velocity over time- the effects are just too small to measure directly- but maybe in a decade or so...

Strictly speaking, neither the acceleration nor the velocity of the expansion are measured directly. The original measurement was the red-shift, effectively a Doppler effect. A confirmation of acceleration was obtained from the cosmic microwave background baryon acoustic oscillations which give a measure of the early rate of expansion (slower than measured today). The density of galaxy clusters and gravitational waves also contribute to measurements of the acceleration.

If you have an alternative explanation that better explains these multiple lines of independent evidence all suggesting acceleration, I'd be interested to hear it. Given that cosmological researchers and theorists were expecting to find a deceleration of the expansion, the original results were subject to very detailed scrutiny, and subsequent discoveries have supported them.

You'll forgive me if I accept the conclusion of the people who've spent their careers doing this research over some guy on the internet

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Strictly speaking, neither the acceleration nor the velocity of the expansion are measured directly. The original measurement was the red-shift, effectively a Doppler effect. A confirmation of acceleration was obtained from the cosmic microwave background baryon acoustic oscillations which give a measure of the early rate of expansion (slower than measured today). The density of galaxy clusters and gravitational waves also contribute to measurements of the acceleration.

they all contribute to the observation that more distant objects appear to be receding more quickly-
not necessarily accelerating-

If you have an alternative explanation that better explains these multiple lines of independent evidence all suggesting acceleration,

all suggesting increased expansion velocity at greater distances.

I'd be interested to hear it. Given that cosmological researchers and theorists were expecting to find a deceleration of the expansion, the original results were subject to very detailed scrutiny, and subsequent discoveries have supported them.

You'll forgive me if I accept the conclusion of the people who've spent their careers doing this research over some guy on the internet

Don't worry I forgive you! argument from authority is one of the most common fallacies and we have all been guilty of it at some point. I am old enough to remember science teachers who still looked to Hoyle as an authority on the steady state nature of the universe..

There are several alternate theories, my original point was just that the same general observation of objects receding at greater speeds at greater distances doesn't require a repulsive force- positive gravity can do the same

 

[Ophiolite]

Don't worry I forgive you! argument from authority is one of the most common fallacies and we have all been guilty of it at some point.

@FrumiousBandersnatch is not guilty of using an Argument from Authority. You, however, are guilty of misunderstanding the nature of that fallacy, or - even worse - are cynically ignoring its character in an attempt to discredit Frumious through cheap rhetoric.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

@FrumiousBandersnatch is not guilty of using an Argument from Authority. You, however, are guilty of misunderstanding the nature of that fallacy, or - even worse - are cynically ignoring its character in an attempt to discredit Frumious through cheap rhetoric.

Well I'm guessing you are probably a perfectly nice, honest, reasonable person at heart

This is why I much prefer discussing this sort of thing in person, ideally with a beer or two. misunderstandings and personal attacks are far less common when people can look each other in the eye.

unfortunately that is getting harder to do these days.. so here I am..


So.. any substantive response to the dark energy point while we are here?