Is the universe an expanding ball?

Small???...Large enough I suggest.
One result from WMAP of course was the now famous "baby picture" of the Universe and the CMBR at 380,000 years post BB.
WMAP results also of course reinforced the BB modification that took place a couple of decades ago in Inflation.

In essences, since we are always going to be somewhat hampered by the observable Universe, a consequence of the finite nature of the speed of light and observed expansion, making logical assumptions is actually quite smart to do. EG: we assume rather successfully the Isotropic and homogenious nature of the Universe/spacetime as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You " suggest " ...

Hmmmm....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep, and just as most agree and accept.
Of course the long list of achievements by WMAP, did not include any indication what so ever of Plasma/Electric hypothesis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could there be a better sky survey than the WMAP? Yes.

Could there be a more comprehensive survey that the SDSS? Yes.

There are lots of holes in our observations for fanciful hypotheses to hide in.

The real question then should be: since the world is governed by your wild hypothesis, why does the part of the universe we looked at look so very much like your hypothesis is wrong and the standard cosmological model is so very right?

 

It is true that in the astrophysics mainstream, both the type 1a supernova AND the WMAP have been used together in order to produce pie charts of baryonic vs dark matter and also the magnitude of dark energy. The mainstream also proposes that the dark energy acceleration is due to "negative gravity", although this hypothetical force is not observed acting anywhere else (at non-cosmological distances).

These mainstream ideas smack of the extraordinary celestial mechanics proposals that epicycles were an explanation for the Ptolemeic system, or even Robert Hooke's ideas about celestial mechanics based on forces that were the analog of mechanical springs. I'd much rather be called a crank for pointing out that these observations are in direct conflict than to promote such nonsense.

 

Except they are not in direct conflict.
Quite logical actually to have DE acting over cosmological distances only, while gravity takes control over local smaller regions of spacetime.

 

"Quintessence" (as in a fifth force) to account for the DE expansion at cosmological distances, eh?

In 'For Alternative Theorists', you wrote, among other things:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:
[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:
[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:

Quintessence is a hypothetical new force to explain acceleration on cosmological scales. Whether there is another force (besides plain old gravity) to explain this expansion or not, it's a fact that:

1) we are observing both WMAP and supernova 1a data at a time very much later (13.7 b years) than the BB.
2) for what we can directly observe of the universe, gravity is by far the dominant player in forces affecting objects as large as galaxies, or larger ones composed of them.
3) nothing like "quintessence lensing" of EM has yet been observed anywhere in the observable universe, yet gravitational lensing is everywhere at the same cosmological distances. Would gravity not have interacted with quintessence in some observable way if it indeed existed?
4) the hypothetical quintessence model predicts nothing that can be corroborated to theories of the early universe nor the fate of a much older one that is substantially distinguishable from incumbent models.

To sum up, the quintessence model for DE is about as helpful as adding a fifth element to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water probably would have been in ancient times.

 

The quintessence is the cosmological constant. It's the dominant component of the metric during the inflation event. It's what causes the gravitational field of the soliton to inflate resulting in our universe. Inflation is a theoretical model which is on the verge of being confirmed by finding the signature of the primordial gravitational wave in the CMBR. To sum up your list is bullshit.

 

I adhere to all I wrote in the "For the Alternative Theorists" thread.
We have good evidence the Expansion of spacetime is accelerating.
And something that came as an absolute shock when first revealed, but " eventually accepted due to the quality of that evidence.
Still, as yet we do not know the actual "makeup" of this force...Is it the CC, or is it something else? It exists according to our observations, but as yet it is still somewhat of a mystery.
What is obvious, is that expansion is accelerating over large scales, and when looked at logically, can be readily explained. If you reject that, then let's have your alternative model.

Spacetime evolved from the BB, and underwent an Inflationary epoch, which I see as caused by the impetus of the BB...probably the CC or similar force, a property of spacetime.
At that time, spacetime was pretty dense and the resultant gravity was reigning expansion and the effects of this unknown DE in.
As time went on, and spacetime continued its expansion, the mass/energy density grew less. [more spacetime, same amount mass/energy] and the mysterious DE/CC again gained ascendancy as it was at Inflation.
We see that now as the acceleration in the expansion rate.

At this time, that appears to be the accepted theory.....Not quite yet at the certainty level of other cosmological theories like the BB/Inflation model of Universe/spacetime evolution, or SR, GR, Abiogenesis or Evolution, but never the less, the accepted model.
Now again, whatever hypothesis you have is just that. Don,t present it as fact....and make sure it explains better then the current accepted theory.
And of course some observational or experimental evidence supporting this mysterious new hypothesis you have.

I see what I described as rather logical, but certainly open for modification.
Worth remembering too danshawen, that when I say don't present your model as a faitre complei certainty, that does not apply to the already accepted incumbent model.
I mean no one with any brains is really going to expect those that quote an accepted incumbent theory, to encase it in "its only a theory" everytime its presented now do they?.
And of course as mention in the "For the Alternative Theorists" thread, and as I have mentioned again here, theories do grow in certainty over time, as they continue to make successful predictions.

And of course my use of the "faitre complei" point in presenting an hypothesis, was in reference to the four or five "giants" [TIC MODE ON] we have on this forum, that have ToE's, that when presented [don't hold your breath] will rewrite all of 20/21st century cosmology, and the chinglu's and sscully's that are invalidating SR and Galactic orbits, and in line for Nobels [tic mode on again]

 

Exactly. Dark matter and dark energy are important components of the Standard Model of Cosmology. I'd say what's left is determining the particle physics associated with the dark matter in our universe. WMAP results predict the dark energy is the cosmological component predicted by Einstein [regardless whether he initially thought it was 'wrong' or 'not wrong', LOL]. The same component of the metric that caused the gravitational field of the 'soliton' to inflate. Based on my 'not completely informed' analysis the acceleration could be a continuation of an inflation event which still hasn't reached it's minimum expectation value. IE: 'not completely informed' analysis. LOL.