Expanding Universe

I see, so some kind of force that still "feels" contained and is still pushing against matter?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who needs to compete with them? We are here to have a discussion on an interesting subject- that is all. I don't care if my ideas are published or not and that I get famous like Einstein. I'm just having fun here.

Again, I don't pressume my opinions are better. I just use logic to come upi with educated guesses.

Of course, I did study quite a bit on those subjects.... But they study it in depth for years. So... ya know...

I'm not challenging them. I'm trying to understand them better by questioning them.

Yes. I can comment on it. It's a relatively "simple" theory.

The math is done. I just use the data I get to make logical guesses (interpretations).

Why would I care. I'm thinking about this stuff because I have fun thinking about this stuff. Huuummm.... coffee and advanced physics early in the morning... So good... LOL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you think i should be a physicist? Yes, I have considered that. But there were two problems with that. First of all, I find basic physics pretty boring, and I would have to go through that first (again). Second, I'm not rich. Physicists get paid shit. Why would I do that when I have a wife and two kids?

You say you don't know and yet you write all that. You are so humble...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you think there is a 5th dimension characterized by the dark energy that makes the universe expand on a spheric way?

I mean... Do you think that the 4 dimensions are on the surface of that sphere and that the 5th dimension is the radius of that sphere (and that dark energy is the force that is making the 5th dimension "expand")?

Cause that's what I always imagined...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What if dark energy is actually outside the universe and it is pulling it? If it's "Dark", maybe we cannot see it because it is outside!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AFAIK, no one has a handle on dark energy, at a guess it will be proved to be a relic of cosmological maths, can anyone understand how difficult it is to
homogenise a theory for the mechanics of our universe? It will not happen this year, next year, next century, it may be never will, the best we can do is keep guessing and hope to strike lucky.

 

I love mind-bending puzzles... LOL!!

Well, yes, there is no centre for the visible universe- the one at the surface. But what about the universe that once was the universe? I mean... take the universe as spheric. In this scenario, wouldn't the radius of the sphere expand throughout time? Then, wouldn't the past radi be the universes that once were in the past? Then, if you go all the way to the Big Bang, the radius of the sphere would be 0, and in the "centre" of the universe. So in this scenario, the radius of the sphere would equal "time", in the fith dimension. :bugeye:

Man... this would be easier if I could show you a picture... LOL!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So... What if the past universe is still there? What if every time the universe expands, a copy of the universe is made? Then, wouldn't that explain the "dark" matter? In this scenario, the "dark" matter would be the accumulated matter of the whole universe history in the background of the universe (ie 5th dimension, the radius of the "universe"). The visible universe would be the 4 dimensional "flat" surface of the sphere. The rest of the universe (the invisible part) would be on the background, within the layers of this sphere. As time goes by and matter continues to accumulate in the invisible universe, then the amount of dark energy created increases, which causes the expansion to further accelerate.

Well.. what I have imagined before was that the invisible 5th dimension would superimpose the visible ones. So if you take our galaxy, for instance, the invisible matter would still be right "behind" the galaxy. And as I said before, this invisible matter is "past matter".

:m:

 

It means there something pushing things apart.

I think the universe is getting positively charged due to conversion of photons from electrons. Hence the positive charges repel eachother.

 

Is that strong enough to create an accelerated expansion of the entire universe?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the universe is contained in an undetectable force field ,that is generated by a magic spell ,cast by one of the gods.
Can you disprove my idea?

 

lol @ backpedalling

 

It has to be logical. I cannot see much logic in that. Can you?

 

i say thats the new theory that we should focus our efforts on,


peace,

 

Yes it has to be logical, and many scientists have gone through all the
what ifs, and come with the present mainstream theories, this was just
a demonstration to show that any theory can be proposed but, it is
useless if it can not be tested.
I am not saying these mainstream theories are right, just that they are the
best we have to fit the given data, when we have have masses more data
the theories may change.
But do not hold your breath NASA is more interested in going to mars.

 

Mars is a little closer.

 

Yes but what will it tell us of the universe? going to Mars is just a waste of
resources, its cost could fund many other missions that could give us useful
data, Mars is just an ego trip.

 

What's wrong with my hypothesis? It's not any less likely then multiverses, is it?

 

I can not remember the facts, but i think oscillating universe theories run
into entropy problems, i will try to find papers.

This is from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe

In the simple cases studied by Friedman[1], containing just homogeneous matter and possibly a negative cosmological constant, each "bounce" is a gravitational singularity with infinite density and zero size. It is then a matter of taste whether to extend the solution through the singularities, giving an infinitely oscillating model, or to assume that only one cycle exists. The oscillating model was once popular amongst cosmologists who thought that the singularities could be avoided and so each big bang would be connected to an earlier big crunch: the mathematical singularities seen in calculations were supposed to be the result of over-idealizations (e.g. assuming too much symmetry or neglecting some force), and would be resolved by a more careful treatment, or by an alternative theory of gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory. In this case, as pointed out by Tolman[2], entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation; according to Tolman this would cause each oscillation to last longer and reach a larger size than the one before, in some sense tending towards a condition of heat death. However, in the 1960s, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis showed that singularities were a universal feature of cosmologies with a big bang and that no feature of general relativity could prevent them. Since no "memory" of previous cycles would be preserved, the entropy issue was eliminated, but by the same token there was little reason to postulate cycles before or after the present one. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused most cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model.

 

Its possible that all the electrons in the univrese will be used up and that will create a soup of positive ions and ...

well


Is it possible that positive ions can attract photons ?

After all photons originate from electrons.

 

How could all the electrons get "used up?"

 

Actually i dont know but i think that because light is generated from electrons there should be more protons around us each time light is produced.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!