• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A new hypothesis that would explain dark energy.

leroy

Well-Known Member
A new hypothesis that would explain dark energy.

Just a thought that came in to my mind……….what if the universe beyond the observable universe is more dense (has more matter) and therefore the force of gravity is much stronger.

Basically we live in a bubble with low density of matter, surrounded by “more universe” with a higher density of matter.

Galaxies in our small bubble are being attracted by the stronger gravity caused by the matter that surround us. This is why its seems as if everything’s moving away from us.

Have you ever thought something along this lines?

Are there good scientific reasons to reject this hypothesis?

Can you think on any hypothetical experiment that would prove or refute this hypothesis?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Interesting

Although the attraction of gravity is effectively infinite the strength of that attraction works on (roughly) the iniverse square rule.

For a gravity source strong enough to attract the entire universe of around 93 billion light years across it would need to be strong, so strong in fact that it would collapse in on itself
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Interesting

Although the attraction of gravity is effectively infinite the strength of that attraction works on (roughly) the iniverse square rule.

For a gravity source strong enough to attract the entire universe of around 93 billion light years across it would need to be strong, so strong in fact that it would collapse in on itself
Also this indicates that our OP cannot do math. The pull of gravity inside a uniform body surrounding it is zero. In fact it does not even have to be uniform. If the body surrounding it has the same density in the various shells surrounding the object the force of gravity on the interior is zero:

Shell theorem - Wikipedia

His hypothesis fails before he can even test it.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Also this indicates that our OP cannot do math. The pull of gravity inside a uniform body surrounding it is zero. In fact it does not even have to be uniform. If the body surrounding it has the same density in the various shells surrounding the object the force of gravity on the interior is zero:

Shell theorem - Wikipedia

His hypothesis fails before he can even test it.

I hadn't thought of it that way but yes, where is the centre of the universe?
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
Interesting

Although the attraction of gravity is effectively infinite the strength of that attraction works on (roughly) the iniverse square rule.

For a gravity source strong enough to attract the entire universe of around 93 billion light years across it would need to be strong, so strong in fact that it would collapse in on itself
true, good point, thanks for answerign
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Also this indicates that our OP cannot do math. The pull of gravity inside a uniform body surrounding it is zero. In fact it does not even have to be uniform. If the body surrounding it has the same density in the various shells surrounding the object the force of gravity on the interior is zero:

Shell theorem - Wikipedia

His hypothesis fails before he can even test it.

This is the first time I heard about this theorem, but I don’t see why is it relevant.


this is the picture of the universe that I am viewing.

Our Galaxy--------------Galaxy A------------------Galaxy B

· Galaxy A is any galaxy in our observable universe

· Galaxy B is any galaxy beyond our observable universe.

If the force of gravity of Galaxy B is strong enough it would pull galaxy A and from our point of view it will seem as if Galaxy A is moving away from us……. (which is what we observe)………how does shell theorem avoids B from pulling A?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
This is the first time I heard about this theorem, but I don’t see why is it relevant.


this is the picture of the universe that I am viewing.

Our Galaxy--------------Galaxy A------------------Galaxy B

· Galaxy A is any galaxy in our observable universe

· Galaxy B is any galaxy beyond our observable universe.

If the force of gravity of Galaxy B is strong enough it would pull galaxy A and from our point of view it will seem as if Galaxy A is moving away from us……. (which is what we observe)………how does shell theorem avoids B from pulling A?


Question, how can you be viewing galaxy B if its beyond our our observable universe?

In your example you only view part of the universe. What you hypothesise in the op is

Gravity source <<> Galaxy a <> Galaxy B <> Galaxy C <>> Gravity source

The gravity source to the left pulls galaxy a. Galaxy a exerts its gravity on both the the source and galaxy b. The source exerts less gravity on galaxy b. Galaxy b exerts gravity on both galaxy a and the gravity source. From this we see galaxies a and b pulled to the source at the left

However the same forces work from the right effectively cancelling out the gravity exerted on galaxy b from the source and both galaxy a and c.

Galaxy b is in a null point
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is the first time I heard about this theorem, but I don’t see why is it relevant.


this is the picture of the universe that I am viewing.

Our Galaxy--------------Galaxy A------------------Galaxy B

· Galaxy A is any galaxy in our observable universe

· Galaxy B is any galaxy beyond our observable universe.

If the force of gravity of Galaxy B is strong enough it would pull galaxy A and from our point of view it will seem as if Galaxy A is moving away from us……. (which is what we observe)………how does shell theorem avoids B from pulling A?
It is a theorem in the mathematical sense. That means that it has been proven. The math is not that difficult. If you can do a three dimensional integral you should be able to confirm it for yourself.

What refutes your hypothesis is the fact that the observed expansion is uniform in all directions. Your linear example would not do that.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Question, how can you be viewing galaxy B if its beyond our our observable universe?

In your example you only view part of the universe. What you hypothesise in the op is

Gravity source <<> Galaxy a <> Galaxy B <> Galaxy C <>> Gravity source

The gravity source to the left pulls galaxy a. Galaxy a exerts its gravity on both the the source and galaxy b. The source exerts less gravity on galaxy b. Galaxy b exerts gravity on both galaxy a and the gravity source. From this we see galaxies a and b pulled to the source at the left

However the same forces work from the right effectively cancelling out the gravity exerted on galaxy b from the source and both galaxy a and c.

Galaxy b is in a null point


Good point. And he just dug his hole even deeper. Gravitational effects cannot travel faster than the speed of light. If the galaxy is "beyond our observable universe" then its gravitational effects are too.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Good point. And he just dug his hole even deeper. Gravitational effects cannot travel faster than the speed of light. If the galaxy is "beyond our observable universe" then its gravitational effects are too.

A thought on that point Is the earth circling the sun as it is now or as it was 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago? Should the sun suddenly wink out of existence does the earth fly off immediately or do i have time to make a coffee?
 

Suave

Simulated character
A new hypothesis that would explain dark energy.

Just a thought that came in to my mind……….what if the universe beyond the observable universe is more dense (has more matter) and therefore the force of gravity is much stronger.

Basically we live in a bubble with low density of matter, surrounded by “more universe” with a higher density of matter.

Galaxies in our small bubble are being attracted by the stronger gravity caused by the matter that surround us. This is why its seems as if everything’s moving away from us.

Have you ever thought something along this lines?

Are there good scientific reasons to reject this hypothesis?

Can you think on any hypothetical experiment that would prove or refute this hypothesis?

In addition to HETDEX, some of the more significant dark energy experiments (listed in order of projected start date) include:
  • BOSS: Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey. ...
  • DES: Dark Energy Survey. ...
  • WFMOS: Wide-Field Multi-Object Spectrograph. ...
  • LSST: Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. ...
  • Euclid.
 

Suave

Simulated character
A new hypothesis that would explain dark energy.

Just a thought that came in to my mind……….what if the universe beyond the observable universe is more dense (has more matter) and therefore the force of gravity is much stronger.

Basically we live in a bubble with low density of matter, surrounded by “more universe” with a higher density of matter.

Galaxies in our small bubble are being attracted by the stronger gravity caused by the matter that surround us. This is why its seems as if everything’s moving away from us.

Have you ever thought something along this lines?

Are there good scientific reasons to reject this hypothesis?

Can you think on any hypothetical experiment that would prove or refute this hypothesis?
Also this indicates that our OP cannot do math. The pull of gravity inside a uniform body surrounding it is zero. In fact it does not even have to be uniform. If the body surrounding it has the same density in the various shells surrounding the object the force of gravity on the interior is zero:

Shell theorem - Wikipedia

His hypothesis fails before he can even test it.

Please allow me to ask why does dark energy not interact with non-dark energy, except for gravity?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A thought on that point Is the earth circling the sun as it is now or as it was 8 minutes and 20 seconds ago? Should the sun suddenly wink out of existence does the earth fly off immediately or do i have time to make a coffee?
The effects are from eight minutes ago. The problem is that both sunlight and effects of gravity travel at the same speed. If the Sun were to wink out of existence its gravitational effect on us would disappear at the same time that its light did.
 

Suave

Simulated character
Could anybody here simply explain to us why does dark energy not interact with non-dark energy, except for gravity?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Please allow me to ask why does dark energy not interact with non-dark energy, except for gravity?
You are conflating Dark Energy with Dark Matter. And we do not know why. One reason that those are called "Dark" is because we do not have all of the answers yet.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE = "ChristineM, publicación: 6964797, miembro: 61711"] Pregunta, ¿cómo puedes ver la galaxia B si está más allá de nuestro universo observable?

[/CITAR]

Yo (nosotros) no podemos ver la galaxia B, solo podemos ver la galaxia A ……………………… Pero los observadores de la galaxia A pueden observarnos tanto a nosotros como a la galaxia B ……………… B resulta ser una fuente más fuerte de gravedad, por lo tanto, A se mueve hacia B.

Solo podemos ver la galaxia A alejándose _ (no podemos ver la B)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
[QUOTE = "ChristineM, publicación: 6964797, miembro: 61711"] Pregunta, ¿cómo puedes ver la galaxia B si está más allá de nuestro universo observable?

[/CITAR]

Yo (nosotros) no podemos ver la galaxia B, solo podemos ver la galaxia A ……………………… Pero los observadores de la galaxia A pueden observarnos tanto a nosotros como a la galaxia B ……………… B resulta ser una fuente más fuerte de gravedad, por lo tanto, A se mueve hacia B.

Solo podemos ver la galaxia A alejándose _ (no podemos ver la B)

I (we) cannot see Galaxy B, we can only see Galaxy A ……………………… But observers from Galaxy A can observe both us and Galaxy B ……………… B turns out to be a stronger source of gravity, therefore A is moving towards B. We can only see galaxy A moving away _ (we can't see B)

How does this help you?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
There are no reasons to make any hypothesis about "dark energy" as this assumption is based on misconceptions of cosmic distance measuring.
One logically can´t take 1 type of stars to count as "a standard candle of distance" for the entire Universe and the initial predicion of an expanding Universe was contradicted when applying the (sound-wave)-redshift method wich again lead to the strange assumption that the Universe expands with an increasing velocity which lead to the unscientific assumption of "dark energy".
Cosmologists take the speed of light to be constant but when light is passing trough cosmic gas and dust, it is dispersed and delayed on it´s way to telescopes and this fact also distorts the distance facts for scientist to falsely believe in an expanding Universe:
As the sientists got the light- and redshift measuring wrong, they had to invent another force, "dark energy" to "explain" - explain away their misconceptions, that is.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
I (we) cannot see Galaxy B, we can only see Galaxy A ……………………… But observers from Galaxy A can observe both us and Galaxy B ……………… B turns out to be a stronger source of gravity, therefore A is moving towards B. We can only see galaxy A moving away _ (we can't see B)

How does this help you?
How does shell theorem prevents B from attracting A?
 
Top