The simplest cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe

[Genady]

Just now, swansont said:

No it doesn’t

🤣

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

🤣

😟

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

😟

Why?

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Why?

Even emojis can be argued with.

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Even emojis can be argued with.

No, they can not

[TheVat]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

No, they can not

This isn't an argument.  It's just contradiction.

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This isn't an argument.  It's just contradiction.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

I could be arguing in my spare time, it doesn't make it any less valuable... 🧐

[Max70]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Why would that matter when every object we do observe has redshift?

Suppose you have a black box containing 10000 balls and you can't mix them.

You extract from the box 100 balls that are on the surface and they are all red.

Is it scientific to conclude that all the balls in the box are red ?

No, because the balls deeper into the box may have a different color.

[Mordred]

What does that have to do with physics ? Simply put the reason cosmological redshift exists has nothing to do with probability but is a direct consequence of expansion due to thermodynamics. There is no guess work involved.

The further an object is from us the greater the cosmological redshift value will be. That will not change due to some hypothetical probability.  Just as there is no guess work behind expansion being homogeneous and isotropic. 

Physics isn't guess work. Its careful examination of observational evidence combined with mathematics to describe what is observed.

Its not random guesses or mere logic games. That has been repeatably mentioned this thread. Any object you measure at the limit of any telescope will have the corresponding redshift to distance relation. That isn't based on any guesswork but is simply put what has been shown through all observational evidence.

For example using one equation I was able to show your guesswork incorrect with regards to the SMBH. You could easily have done the same thing. The formula for Newtons gravitational law is extremely easy to use. If you spent more time studying why cosmology states what it does and learn how the thermodynamic laws are involved in expansion you would be far better off. Simply put expansion is easy to understand once you look at those equations of state I posted earlier.

 

Edited May 14 by Mordred

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

Suppose you have a black box containing 10000 balls and you can't mix them.

You extract from the box 100 balls that are on the surface and they are all red.

Is it scientific to conclude that all the balls in the box are red ?

No, because the balls deeper into the box may have a different color.

Your analogy is constructed so that someone with information deliberately hides it from someone else.  What reason is there to believe the universe is constructed in such a way? 

 

22 hours ago, Max70 said:

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.

1: What does the arrows mean? acceleration? Is S1 moving outwards?

2: You base your idea on galaxies. According to observations galaxies do not expand, but the universe do. Your idea for an explanation of universe expansion is simply not logical (in addition to the obvious mathematical issues explained by other members)

 

Edited May 14 by Ghideon
expanded explanation

[Mordred]

Here is a clear example of lack of guess work. This uses only 5 main equations and look at what can be calculated.

\[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&T (Gyr)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H(t)&Temp(K)&rho(kg/m^3)&OmegaM&OmegaL&OmegaR&OmegaT \\ \hline 1.09e+3&9.17e-4&3.71e-4&6.25e-4&4.53e+1&4.15e-2&5.67e-2&8.38e-4&2.12e+1&3.13e+0&6.64e+1&1.56e+6&4.59e-18&2.97e+3&7.56e-1&1.29e-9&2.44e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 6.08e+2&1.64e-3&9.75e-4&1.59e-3&4.48e+1&7.36e-2&1.01e-1&2.28e-3&1.49e+1&3.10e+0&4.63e+1&6.16e+5&7.13e-19&1.66e+3&8.48e-1&8.31e-9&1.52e-1&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.94e-3&2.49e-3&3.94e-3&4.41e+1&1.30e-1&1.79e-1&6.05e-3&1.08e+1&3.05e+0&3.29e+1&2.48e+5&1.16e-19&9.27e+2&9.09e-1&5.12e-8&9.12e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.89e+2&5.27e-3&6.20e-3&9.64e-3&4.32e+1&2.28e-1&3.15e-1&1.57e-2&7.90e+0&2.99e+0&2.36e+1&1.01e+5&1.93e-20&5.17e+2&9.47e-1&3.07e-7&5.31e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.05e+2&9.44e-3&1.52e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&3.96e-1&5.52e-1&3.98e-2&5.83e+0&2.90e+0&1.69e+1&4.18e+4&3.28e-21&2.89e+2&9.70e-1&1.80e-6&3.03e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 5.82e+1&1.69e-2&3.71e-2&5.65e-2&4.03e+1&6.81e-1&9.61e-1&9.98e-2&4.33e+0&2.79e+0&1.21e+1&1.73e+4&5.64e-22&1.61e+2&9.83e-1&1.05e-5&1.72e-2&1.00e+0\\ \hline 3.20e+1&3.03e-2&8.98e-2&1.36e-1&3.80e+1&1.15e+0&1.65e+0&2.47e-1&3.22e+0&2.63e+0&8.47e+0&7.20e+3&9.73e-23&9.00e+1&9.90e-1&6.09e-5&9.65e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 1.74e+1&5.42e-2&2.17e-1&3.26e-1&3.50e+1&1.90e+0&2.80e+0&6.08e-1&2.40e+0&2.42e+0&5.81e+0&3.00e+3&1.69e-23&5.03e+1&9.94e-1&3.51e-4&5.41e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 9.29e+0&9.71e-2&5.21e-1&7.83e-1&3.09e+1&3.00e+0&4.61e+0&1.48e+0&1.79e+0&2.14e+0&3.84e+0&1.25e+3&2.93e-24&2.81e+1&9.95e-1&2.02e-3&3.02e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 4.75e+0&1.74e-1&1.25e+0&1.87e+0&2.55e+1&4.43e+0&7.32e+0&3.61e+0&1.35e+0&1.76e+0&2.37e+0&5.23e+2&5.14e-25&1.57e+1&9.87e-1&1.15e-2&1.67e-3&1.00e+0\\ \hline 2.21e+0&3.12e-1&2.97e+0&4.36e+0&1.83e+1&5.69e+0&1.09e+1&8.70e+0&1.03e+0&1.26e+0&1.30e+0&2.24e+2&9.43e-26&8.74e+0&9.36e-1&6.28e-2&8.87e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 7.91e-1&5.58e-1&6.80e+0&9.18e+0&9.27e+0&5.18e+0&1.44e+1&2.06e+1&8.79e-1&6.42e-1&5.64e-1&1.06e+2&2.13e-26&4.88e+0&7.22e-1&2.78e-1&3.81e-4&1.00e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.45e+1&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&1.66e+1&4.62e+1&1.00e+0&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&6.77e+1&8.60e-27&2.73e+0&3.11e-1&6.89e-1&9.18e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -4.38e-1&1.78e+0&2.29e+1&1.68e+1&6.88e+0&1.22e+1&1.72e+1&9.44e+1&1.53e+0&4.76e-1&7.31e-1&5.84e+1&6.40e-27&1.53e+0&7.43e-2&9.26e-1&1.23e-5&1.00e+0\\ \hline -6.84e-1&3.16e+0&3.27e+1&1.73e+1&1.11e+1&3.51e+1&1.74e+1&1.81e+2&2.64e+0&7.67e-1&2.03e+0&5.66e+1&6.01e-27&8.62e-1&1.41e-2&9.86e-1&1.31e-6&1.00e+0\\ \hline -8.22e-1&5.62e+0&4.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.35e+1&7.58e+1&1.74e+1&3.36e+2&4.67e+0&9.33e-1&4.36e+0&5.62e+1&5.94e-27&4.85e-1&2.53e-3&9.97e-1&1.33e-7&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.00e-1&1.00e+1&5.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.48e+1&1.48e+2&1.74e+1&6.10e+2&8.30e+0&1.03e+0&8.52e+0&5.62e+1&5.93e-27&2.73e-1&4.51e-4&1.00e+0&1.33e-8&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.44e-1&1.78e+1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&2.77e+2&1.74e+1&1.10e+3&1.48e+1&1.08e+0&1.59e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&1.53e-1&8.03e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-9&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.68e-1&3.16e+1&7.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&5.07e+2&1.74e+1&1.97e+3&2.62e+1&1.11e+0&2.91e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&8.62e-2&1.43e-5&1.00e+0&1.33e-10&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.82e-1&5.62e+1&8.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&9.15e+2&1.74e+1&3.51e+3&4.67e+1&1.13e+0&5.25e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&4.85e-2&2.54e-6&1.00e+0&1.33e-11&1.00e+0\\ \hline -9.90e-1&1.00e+2&9.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&1.64e+3&1.74e+1&6.26e+3&8.30e+1&1.14e+0&9.42e+1&5.62e+1&5.92e-27&2.73e-2&4.51e-7&1.00e+0&1.33e-12&1.00e+0\\ \hline \end{array}}\]

No guessing straight application of the FLRW metric.

[Max70]

39 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What does the arrows mean? acceleration? Is S1 moving outwards?

The following figure shows the absolute accelerations:

The following figure shows the accelerations relative to the Earth, obtained subtracting a_E from the absolute accelerations:

S1 is moving towards the CBH but it is accelerating away from the Earth, that has a greater centripetal acceleration.

[Genady]

21 minutes ago, Max70 said:

S1 is moving towards the CBH but it is accelerating away from the Earth, that has a greater centripetal acceleration.

Both S1 and S2 in the drawing are accelerating rather toward the Earth:

[Max70]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

Both S1 and S2 in the drawing are accelerating rather toward the Earth

Why do you consider only one component of the acceleration ?

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, Max70 said:

Why do you consider only one component of the acceleration ?

Because this is how "toward" and "away" are defined.

[Max70]

13 hours ago, Genady said:

Both S1 and S2 in the drawing are accelerating rather toward the Earth

A stupid mistake made late at night.

The problem is that the angles between S1, S2 and the CBH are too large.

Are the following figures correct ?

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, Max70 said:

A stupid mistake made late at night.

The problem is that the angles between S1, S2 and the CBH are too large.

Are the following figures correct ?

Yes.

Why wouldn't you draw all four bodies aligned? If you did, S1 and S2 would certainly be accelerating away from E.

[Max70]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

Why wouldn't you draw all four bodies aligned?

In my first post I've drawn the four bodies aligned.

If the angles between S1, S2 and the CBH are too large, as in my previous wrong figures, S1 and S2 are too far away from the Earth, therefore we cannot observe them because they are out of the range of our telescopes.

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, Max70 said:

In my first post I've drawn the four bodies aligned.

If the angles between S1, S2 and the CBH are too large, as in my previous wrong figures, S1 and S2 are too far away from the Earth, therefore we cannot observe them because they are out of the range of our telescopes.

However, objects located tangentially rather than radially from E would be accelerating toward E.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Max70 said:

In my first post I've drawn the four bodies aligned.

If the angles between S1, S2 and the CBH are too large, as in my previous wrong figures, S1 and S2 are too far away from the Earth, therefore we cannot observe them because they are out of the range of our telescopes.

What about a galaxy that was on the same path as us, some distance away, but a similar distance as these other galaxies?

edit: xpost with Genady

[Max70]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

However, objects located tangentially rather than radially from E would be accelerating toward E.

 

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

What about a galaxy that was on the same path as us, some distance away, but a similar distance as these other galaxies?

 

The accelerating expansion has been discovered observing the Type Ia supernovae.  I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH or located tangentially to the Earth.

[Genady]

Just now, Max70 said:

 

 

The accelerating expansion has been discovered observing the Type Ia supernovae.  I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH or located tangentially to the Earth.

It is much more likely that more of them are located tangentially rather than radially, because there is only one radial dimension but there are two tangential dimensions.

[joigus]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:30 AM, Max70 said:

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.

There are at least two reasons why this isn't true. One of them is that long enough ago (which is automatically implied by "far enough away" as you should understand if you want to do cosmology and astrophysics) the universe was opaque to radiation. A little farther beyond it was opaque to neutrinos even. And also there's a kinematic horizon, as Swansont explained. Photons from so long ago and so far away get redshifted into total invisibility.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

No it doesn’t

🤣

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Max70 said:

I think that is unlikely to have these supernovae at the same distance from the CBH or located tangentially to the Earth.

Why? Is there some reason that being at our distance should somehow suppress a star from going supernova?