A new hypothesis that would explain dark energy.

[ChristineM]

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

If science knew then you would be one of the first 7+ billion people to know

Dark energy is currently a hypothesis used to explain known phenomena. What it is or if it is is unknown

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Nope, but I am open to being convinced. Besides ignorant denial do you have any evidence that supports your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does shell theorem prevents B from attracting A?

It doesn't. But your second model does not do you any good either. It is only one dimensional. It does not even answer that. The problem that you are trying to solve is three dimensional.

You ask for "proof" and when a mathematically proven concept that refutes you is given you won't admit it. This tells us that you are once again refusing to learn from your errors.

 

[leroy]

It doesn't. But your second model does not do you any good either. It is only one dimensional. It does not even answer that. The problem that you are trying to solve is three dimensional.

You ask for "proof" and when a mathematically proven concept that refutes you is given you won't admit it. This tells us that you are once again refusing to learn from your errors.

My first model and the second are the same (just worded differently)

I am simply asking how does the shell theorem refures this model.

Thanks to what @ChristineM said I saw a flaw in this model.... So yes I am willing to learn, it is just that your own petsonal refutation with shell theorem was nvalid

 

[Clara Tea]

This is a physics or astronomy question, not a religious question. However, God's creation touches all.

If we dig a hole in the earth, the sphere under us causes gravity. The spherical shell above us (all around the earth) cancels itself out, making its contribution to gravity zero. Example: If we dig half-way to the center of the earth, the gravity that we would experience is from a half-diameter earth (the shell above doesn't count).

There is no center of the universe. Things are the same in all directions. The expansion of the universe is the same everywhere (it is not expanding from the center....like the center of an explosion). The expansion of the universe is an expansion of the metric (the dimensions of space, not the dimensions of time). So, we can't talk about matter below us and matter above us (as we could when discussing the gravity of the earth).

I am not certain that gravity influences the expansion of the metric of space, though it would seem that many scientists believe this to be the case.

One thing that we should consider is that the far edges of the universe's metric are expanding away faster than the speed of light. Nothing is allowed to travel across the metric faster than the speed of light, but the metric, itself, is expanding faster than the speed of light. Since it is outpacing light, it is also outpacing gravity. Thus the light and gravity of distant stars would no longer be detectable. This means that the universe is expanding so fast that it can outrun gravity and light .

 

[gnostic]

There is no center of the universe. Things are the same in all directions. The expansion of the universe is the same everywhere

Here, you seem to be making progress...but then you wrote this:

One thing that we should consider is that the far edges of the universe's metric are expanding away faster than the speed of light.

Here, it would seem yo have taken several steps backward.

If the universe has no centre, and things are the same in all direction (space is both homogeneity and isotropy), then the universe would also have no edges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My first model and the second are the same (just worded differently)

I am simply asking how does the shell theorem refures this model.

Thanks to what @ChristineM said I saw a flaw in this model.... So yes I am willing to learn, it is just that your own petsonal refutation with shell theorem was nvalid

Then you should understand your failure.

Oh wait, you don't understand. The shell theorem refutes your model because you put the universe within another universe. The forces of gravity from it cancel out. That is what they theory tells you.

Math is the language of science. And sadly you do not seem to speak that language. When one does not understand math one tends to make very embarrassing mistakes.

 

[viole]

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?

If the whole mass of the earth were concentrated on its surface, inside the earth there would be zero gravity. Very easy to prove.
This is typical for force fields whose intensity depends on the square of the distance.

Ergo, your external high density universe would have zero gravitational effect on the one we live in. And it would not solve anything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[wellwisher]

Dark energy is a bandaid that is needed to close the universal energy balance because of problems created by the relative reference assumption, used to explain how we see the universe.

When we look out at the universe, the only sense we can use is the sense of sight. We cannot hear, taste, touch or smell the universe. However, we can see various energy emissions and use that to judge the universe. We cannot use the sense of touch to directly ascertain things like momentum and inertia.

This single sense default situation, for astral physics, creates a problem due to the lack of checks and balances with the other four senses. We can see a star by its emissions, but we cannot touch it to know other properties for a check and balance. We see the material and inertial universe only through its light emissions mask. This can be deceptive.

As an example, say you were a man at a train station waiting for your train. You can see the train arriving at the station. If we only use the sense of sight, the man can assume relative motion. He can say that the arriving train is stationary, and the man is in motion moving toward the train.

Although this will satisfy the eyes, it will not satisfy the needs of an good energy balance, since a moving train has more mass and kinetic energy, than a moving man, if both use the same velocity.

The man who uses only his eyes to assume he is moving in relative motion with the train, will violate energy conservation by under estimating the total system energy; train's actual momentum based on its fuel consumption which is quantifiable. With the energy balance off, we now we will need a bandaid to make up for the extra energy, that is not evident to the man's sense of sight. Dark energy is an bandaid, due to the poor energy balance, created by the one sense, relative reference assumption.

Dark energy has never been seen in any lab to know it is real. It is needed to close the energy balance problem created by visual only, relative reference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dark energy is a bandaid that is needed to close the universal energy balance because of problems created by the relative reference assumption, used to explain how we see the universe.

When we look out at the universe, the only sense we can use is the sense of sight. We cannot hear, taste, touch or smell the universe. However, we can see various energy emissions and use that to judge the universe. We cannot use the sense of touch to directly ascertain things like momentum and inertia.

This single sense default situation, for astral physics, creates a problem due to the lack of checks and balances with the other four senses. We can see a star by its emissions, but we cannot touch it to know other properties for a check and balance. We see the material and inertial universe only through its light emissions mask. This can be deceptive.

As an example, say you were a man at a train station waiting for your train. You can see the train arriving at the station. If we only use the sense of sight, the man can assume relative motion. He can say that the arriving train is stationary, and the man is in motion moving toward the train.

Although this will satisfy the eyes, it will not satisfy the needs of an good energy balance, since a moving train has more mass and kinetic energy, than a moving man, if both use the same velocity.

The man who uses only his eyes to assume he is moving in relative motion with the train, will violate energy conservation by under estimating the total system energy; train's actual momentum based on its fuel consumption which is quantifiable. With the energy balance off, we now we will need a bandaid to make up for the extra energy, that is not evident to the man's sense of sight. Dark energy is an bandaid, due to the poor energy balance, created by the one sense, relative reference assumption.

Dark energy has never been seen in any lab to know it is real. It is needed to close the energy balance problem created by visual only, relative reference.

"Dark" merely means "unknown" in this context. It is more than a bandage. There is support for it, but it is not fully understood therefore the term "dark" is used..

And I can and did just taste the universe. Right now it tastes like strawberries.

 

[ChristineM]

And I can and did just taste the universe. Right now it tastes like strawberries.

And its beige but used to be blue

 

[leroy]

Then you should understand your failure.

Oh wait, you don't understand. The shell theorem refutes your model because you put the universe within another universe. The forces of gravity from it cancel out. That is what they theory tells you.

Math is the language of science. And sadly you do not seem to speak that language. When one does not understand math one tends to make very embarrassing mistakes.

No I didn't put a universe within an other universe

Which is why the model is not refuted by the shell theorem.