The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe

[joigus]

2 hours ago, Max70 said:

But this is a spiral motion, therefore the calculation of the acceleration is more complicated.

Not really. A gravitational orbit plus a dissipative environment will be a possible model to account for closing spiral orbits, as @exchemist has pointed out.

It just doesn't seem to do what you claim it does.

I would relax about getting credit for this idea for the time being.

[exchemist]

22 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ?

I've found an explanation as to why the objects have a spiral motions towards a black hole instead of orbiting around it at this address:

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/32753/why-does-matter-spiral-into-blackholes

 

But surely this is due to relativistic effects (loss of energy as gravitational radiation) which only become significant at close range, isn’t it? Yet you are proposing spiral paths for objects far from the black hole, aren’t you? Or have I misunderstood?

[Ghideon]

27 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Do you think it's right that someone could publish a model without ever admitting that it is based on my ideas ?

Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something*. You might want to open a separate thread. 

 

3 hours ago, Max70 said:

But this is a spiral motion,

Your new pictures seem to have the same issues that I hinted at in my picture (and that @joigus helped highlighting). Objects that we observe accelerating away from each other seem to get closer in your model. The universe is not one dimensional. The universe is also not a flat disk as a spiral galaxy. Hint: look at how the stars move in a (flat) galaxy disk versus the movement of matter in a rotating sphere. 

There are other issues but this one is pretty simple to explain and discuss, hence my initial focus on this. 

 

*) https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=Copyright does not protect ideas,your written or artistic work.

[Max70]

26 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yet you are proposing spiral paths for objects far from the black hole, aren’t you?

The objects are far from the colossal black hole, but the the mass of the colossal black hole is billion times the sum of the masses of all the astronomical objects that we have observed until now, including all the galaxies, supermassive black holes and supernovae.

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The universe is also not a flat disk as a spiral galaxy.

All the objects in a sphere centred in the colossal black hole have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole, from any direction in the three-dimensional space.

[Mordred]

You know physics isn't a bunch of guesswork from the imagination. Even if you include all the mass of every galaxy you still wouldn't get any expansion from those galaxies.

 All baryonic matter which forms blackholes only accounts for 3 percent the mass terms.

What causes expansion  is thermodynamics and their equations of state for all particles of the SM model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

With that one can accurately calculate everything involving expansion.

The calculator in my signature does just that and it can predict up to 80 billion years into the future assuming the evolution of matter, radiation and the cosmological constant stays at the same rate of change.

 

 

Edited May 13 by Mordred

[Max70]

39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

With that one can accurately calculate everything involving expansion.

But these calculations are also based on the misterious dark energy

[Mordred]

So ? That only describes the accelerated portion. Matter and radiation also contribute.

In your idea you cannot have expansion  before a BH can form  and neither stars nor a BH can form until you have sufficient expansion to allow atoms to form. 

 

To put it bluntly your idea is a literal impossibility. It's like the chicken before the egg scenario.

As far as DE is concerned a lot of research and evidence suggest it may be the Higgs field itself.

Edited May 13 by Mordred

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

your idea is a literal impossibility

Are you sure ?

Can we have certainties on the universe ?

There are other possibilities: maybe the universe is much larger and much older than most peple think; maybe the universe is infinite: infinite mass in infinite space;  maybe the universe has always existed; maybe the Big Bang was only a local event.

[Ghideon]

5 hours ago, Max70 said:

All the objects in a sphere centred in the colossal black hole have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole, from any direction in the three-dimensional space.

That seems to contradict both observations and your title of this thread?

[Mordred]

58 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Are you sure ?

Can we have certainties on the universe ?

There are other possibilities: maybe the universe is much larger and much older than most peple think; maybe the universe is infinite: infinite mass in infinite space;  maybe the universe has always existed; maybe the Big Bang was only a local event.

Yes I'm positive this is my area of expertise and if you take expansion in reverse one can calculate at what temperature atoms such as hydrogen can form. 6000 degrees Kelvin for 25 % stability  3000 kelvin for 75 percent stability. The equation that one uses is the SAHA equation.

Those temperatures come prior to surface of last scattering but after inflation. You will get some hydrogen just prior to reheating due to slow roll on inflation. However the universe must cool down to hit electrweak symmetry breaking so must expand just prior to that as well.

 

Edited May 13 by Mordred

[Max70]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

That seems to contradict both observations and your title of this thread?

The following figure shows the 2D case:

The objects in the internal turns of the spiral have greater acceleration than the objects in the external turns.

S1 and S2 are two Type Ia supernovae, ra₁ and ra₂ are their accelerations relative to Earth. I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH.

[MigL]

7 hours ago, Max70 said:

All the objects in a sphere centred in the colossal black hole have a spiral motion towards the colossal black hole, from any direction in the three-dimensional space.

Sagittarius A at the heart of our own galaxy has a mass of 4.3 Million Suns, based on the tracks of the stars orbiting around it. The size of its event Horizon is about half the radius of Mercury's orbit, and it is about 27 000 light years from us.

Note that the stars of our galaxy do NOT spiral in towards this massive Black Hole, nor do they do so from all sides; galactic rotation is strictly planar.
If stars did spiral in towards the central BH, it would be termed an 'active' BH ( not by us; we, and most other life, would be dead ), more commonly known as a Quasi-Stellar Object, or Quasar, and emit more energetic radiation than the rest of the galaxy's stars combined.
Fortunately Quasars only exist far away ( actually, long ago, in the early universe ).

If this is the 'model' that you scaled-up to explain expansion, clearly, it doesn't work the way you think.
Maybe, before thinking you have a 'referenceable' theory, you should acquaint yourself with a little basic astronomy and physics, and take advice from people on how to make your idea ( not model ) testable.

Edited May 13 by MigL

[Mordred]

One of the biggest problems I see with those that try to suggest Galaxy or BHs causing things like expansion etc. Is that they really do not truly understand the sheer volume of our Observable universe.

Watch this video at the start it's only showing 42 to 43 Mpc watch as it zooms in. You cannot even discern a galaxy until your less than 1 Mpc.

Our Observable universe is 28820 Mpc in diameter. 93 billion light years. 

Our entire Milky way is 0.01620 Mpc. In radius.

There is literally no way no SMBH can possibly affect expansion once you crunch some numbers it's literally impossible.

That doesn't even take into consideration that gravity travels at c. You can convert the Mpc into light years to see what I mean by impossible.

 

 

Edited May 13 by Mordred

[geordief]

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

One of the biggest problems I see with those that try to suggest Galaxy or BHs causing things like expansion etc. Is that they really do not truly understand the sheer volume of our Observable universe.

Watch this video at the start it's only showing 42 to 43 Mpc watch as it zooms in. You cannot even discern a galaxy until your less than 1 Mpc.

Our Observable universe is 28820 Mpc in diameter. 93 billion light years. 

Our entire Milky way is 0.01620 Mpc. In radius.

There is literally no way no SMBH can possibly affect expansion once you crunch some numbers it's literally impossible.

That doesn't even take into consideration that gravity travels at c. You can convert the Mpc into light years to see what I mean by impossible.

 

 

I think you forgot  the link to the video....?

 

[Mordred]

Thanks I did.

https://www.illustris-project.org/

[Mordred]

Ok a back of the envelop calculation using a 1 billion solar mass BH at distance 1 Mpc mass 2 I used 1 kg.

\[F=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] 

using this at 1 Mpc the force exerted between mass 1 (roughly 2*10^36 kg) I rounded up for simplicity 

mass 2 1 kg.

radius 30856775812799586000 km.

you get roughly \(1.402 *10^{-19}\) newtons of force. Not enough to move a grain of sand.....so much for the idea of  ultra-massive BH driving expansion...recall the diameter of the Observable universe above. That is why physics uses math, it tests the feasibility of an idea.

Edited May 14 by Mordred

[Mordred]

On 5/11/2024 at 4:34 PM, Mordred said:

Rotation driven by  a supermassive BH would lead to Kepler curve which does not match the galaxy curves. Secondly due to the 1/r2 relation of reducing gravitational strength per mass term the strength of gravity would fall off to effectively zero influence Long before reaching the outer galaxy region.

if you recall this statement I made on page 1. If you perform the same calculation for the radius of Milky way you should get approximately 2.046*10^{-15} N. That is with a little larger than a 1 billion solar mass BH as I rounded up the solar mass.

Just for fun I decided to see if Sagittarius A has any measurable influence on our solar system. The answer is the force exerted on a 1 km mass in our solar system is approximately 9.34*10^{-36} N. Easily overpowered by local gravity.

Edited May 14 by Mordred

[Max70]

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

they really do not truly understand the sheer volume of our Observable universe

I would like to distinguish the observable universe from the part of the universe that we can observe with our most powerful telescopes.

I think that the observable universe is much larger than most people think.

If there is an object distant 10¹⁰⁰  light years, we could see it if we had a telescope enough powerful.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Max70 said:

If there is an object distant 10¹⁰⁰  light years, we could see it if we had a telescope enough powerful.

That’s not consistent with what we know. The universe is expanding, and that expansion is faster as the distance grows. At some distance the space is added at a rate that makes the objects recede faster than c; the light from them can’t get here anymore.

If you make claims you need to be able to back them up.

[Max70]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

The universe is expanding

Some astronomical objects that we observe are accelerating away, but I doubt that the whole universe is expanding.

[Mordred]

The entire universe with the exception of gravitationally bound objects is expanding. It also represents the farthest distance we can possibly receive any signals. (Radius of shared causality.) It doesn't matter which object your measuring. You will be able to measure the effect of expansion via the cosmological redshift. 

Nor does it matter which direction you look. 

Edited May 14 by Mordred

[Genady]

...

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

The universe is expanding

 

16 minutes ago, Max70 said:

I doubt that the whole universe is expanding

 

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The entire universe ... is expanding

...

The Monty Python's argument sketch comes to mind.

[Max70]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You will be able to measure the effect of expansion via the cosmological redshift

How can we measure the redshift of the objects that are out of the range of our most powerful telescopes ?

[Mordred]

Why would that matter when every object we do observe has redshift? If every object we have ever observed has cosmological redshift it only stands to reason that once we do find a new unobserved object. It too will have redshift.  Little side note it's possible to extend the range of a telescope using gravitational lensing. Many of Hubble telescopes deep field detection was done using this technique.

 

Nothing prevents the James Webb Telescope from doing the same.

Edited May 14 by Mordred

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

The Monty Python's argument sketch comes to mind.

No it doesn’t

55 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Some astronomical objects that we observe are accelerating away, but I doubt that the whole universe is expanding.

Doesn’t matter; this is science. It’s what the evidence tells is that does,