Dark energy is the place holder for the reason of an observed expanding universe. We don't know what is making the galaxies accelerating away from each other, instead of saying god did it, we are enlightened enough to say we don't know, but we will find out sooner or later and let's refer to it as dark energy for now since it take energy to accelerate something away from each other.
Imagine you are falling inside a black hole right as you cross the event horizon in 3 dimensional space (as opposed to falling inside a well). The gravitational force applies an acceleration on objects and it increases as you move toward the black hole and it's so strong that even the speed of light can't overcome it. Which means anything fallen into the black hole before we do, we can no longer see. But objects that falls into the black hole a split second after us, we will still be able to see them. And since we are a split second ahead of them we will have a greater gravity toward the center of the black hole, and a greater acceleration as a result.
From our perspective there is no reference of our own movement compare to the center of the black hole,because we can't see the black hole and anything that is near us that cross the event horizon in the same time have the same acceleration in the same direction applied by the black hole. For the objects that falls in the black hole after we do, they will appear to us as speeding away from us, because we are further along into the black hole as those objects and hence have a greater gravity/acceleration. So the later the objects were to fall into the black hole after us, the faster they appears to move away from us. Which explains the speeding apart galaxies without needing to invoke dark energy. Which also explains why near by stars and galaxies are not accelerating away from us, instead they are govern strictly by gravity of the mass near them. These near by stars and galaxies just happened to fall into black hole at the same time as we do, and have the same overall acceleration toward the center of the back hole as we do. And as we all know that when you are falling into a black hole the space is being squeezed like a tooth paste aka spaghettification, in a 3 dimensional sense it means they will come closer together . which also fits the pattern on what we see on our nearby galaxies.
What do you guys think of this hypothesis? i want to come up with a test for this too, but I have a feeling that someone way smarter already thought of this long time ago and it was proven to be wrong, or i would have heard about it by now.
So I understand the bit about if we enter the event horizon before a star does, the star will appear to us as speeding away from us, but I'm not sure I quite understand how this will affect how we see distant stars. Is your theory that we are inside a giant event horizon and what we see as the universe expanding is actually just the universe contracting into a black hole?
The way they figured out the galaxies moving away from us by detecting the red shift from the Doppler effect in the wavelength of lights we see from those galaxies. As far as I understood, this doppler effect only tells the speed it is moving away from us. The part where they say the galaxies are accelerating away from us is imply from measurements of the doppler effect from different galaxies with different distance from us, they found that the further the galaxies the more the red shift, therefore it's reasonable to assume that it's accelerating away the further away from us in all directions. They have to use indirect methods to imply acceleration because shits are too far away from us for us to directly measure the acceleration,
if you take a snap shot on an object say 2 seconds after we fall into a black hole that has a gravity that accelerates at 10m/s/s, our speed would be 20m/s toward the black hole, and the object's speed would be 10m/s toward the black hole, and we will be speeding away from that object at 10m/s with respect to each other. Now if you take a snap shot of another object 10 seconds after we falls into the black hole the speed would increase as the distance between us and the 2nd object increases from the distance between us and the 1st object. Which means further away, the faster it's moving away from us, or should I say us from it. And since we can't see lights that goes into the black hole before us, any other objects we can in that does not go into the black hole at the same time as us has to make contact with the event horizon after us. Hence just about anything has a red shift as far as we can see. come to think of it, the greatest red shift would be from galaxies that is yet to reach the event horizon.
And this is not a theory, it's a hypothesis, a theory includes a part where I propose a experiment to test this hypothesis.
How would directionality work? Remember that the black hole is a singularity, so it'll be in a specific position relative to us, whereas acceleration occurs no matter which direction we look.
Then again, I'm just a chemist. Don't know much about forces and stuff.
On February 28 2013 16:31 rei wrote: Dark energy is the place holder for the reason of an observed expanding universe. We don't know what is making the galaxies accelerating away from each other, instead of saying god did it, we are enlightened enough to say we don't know, but we will find out sooner or later and let's refer to it as dark energy for now since it take energy to accelerate something away from each other.
Imagine you are falling inside a black hole right as you cross the event horizon in 3 dimensional space (as opposed to falling inside a well). The gravitational force applies an acceleration on objects and it increases as you move toward the black hole and it's so strong that even the speed of light can't overcome it. Which means anything fallen into the black hole before we do, we can no longer see. But objects that falls into the black hole a split second after us, we will still be able to see them. And since we are a split second ahead of them we will have a greater gravity toward the center of the black hole, and a greater acceleration as a result.
From our perspective there is no reference of our own movement compare to the center of the black hole,because we can't see the black hole and anything that is near us that cross the event horizon in the same time have the same acceleration in the same direction applied by the black hole. For the objects that falls in the black hole after we do, they will appear to us as speeding away from us, because we are further along into the black hole as those objects and hence have a greater gravity/acceleration. So the later the objects were to fall into the black hole after us, the faster they appears to move away from us. Which explains the speeding apart galaxies without needing to invoke dark energy. Which also explains why near by stars and galaxies are not accelerating away from us, instead they are govern strictly by gravity of the mass near them. These near by stars and galaxies just happened to fall into black hole at the same time as we do, and have the same overall acceleration toward the center of the back hole as we do. And as we all know that when you are falling into a black hole the space is being squeezed like a tooth paste aka spaghettification, in a 3 dimensional sense it means they will come closer together . which also fits the pattern on what we see on our nearby galaxies.
What do you guys think of this hypothesis? i want to come up with a test for this too, but I have a feeling that someone way smarter already thought of this long time ago and it was proven to be wrong, or i would have heard about it by now.
That's actually pretty clever. Though, if we're all moving towards a black hole, what's being left behind? Also, this would be very hard to prove without more points of reference
On February 28 2013 16:31 rei wrote: What do you guys think of this hypothesis? i want to come up with a test for this too, but I have a feeling that someone way smarter already thought of this long time ago and it was proven to be wrong, or i would have heard about it by now.
This is the most important part of the post. Of course thinking about those things is a lot of fun and generally good for you in the sense that it challenges one to do some research, come to terms with odd things happening in the world and being creative in asking questions and so on (plenty of reasons), but as a matter of fact, unless one is a PhD student in theoretical physics and has the methodological and substantive training in that field, one will not come up with anything interesting (that is true, novel and non-trivial stuff) that has not been dealt with before - that is if you rule out saying something interesting by chance, but saying something interesting by chance denies 'having come up with it'.
An interesting theory, but I don't think it's true. In your theory, instead of the universe expanding outwards in all directions, all things would be heading back to the center of the black hole. That would mean that, from our perspective, all our neighboring celestial bodies would be either speeding towards the black hole ahead of us or seeming to retreat away as we sped away from them. Meaning that perceived movement would primarily occur in only two directions, as opposed to the infinite directions possible in the current scientific belief that the universe is spreading outwards. I know there aren't many frames of reference in space for you to judge where exactly stuff is going relative to you, but I'm pretty sure someone's already figured this one out.
It is true that data might be flawed since we can only observe from a single point and everything we observe might be a local phnomenon.
But data suggests that the energy is very homogenous, it affects everything equally. Instead of pulling something in, it is like a pressure coming from every single point of the universe.
I dont want to write more because without using formulas, this is more like an exercise in philosophy
The principle as to why the universe expands with accelerated speed is comparable to blowing up a balloon. If you pick a spot on the balloon as your home-spot and then pick another spot somewhere else on the surface of the balloon, the more you blow it up, the faster the second spot will seem to move away from your home-spot, even if you don't increase the speed with which you blow up the balloon.
Dark matter and dark energy are the questionmarks as to why it is possible for matter to accumulate into galaxies etc., while everything is drifting away, because gravity alone is not enough to counter the expansion. So there must be something else to form bowls in space, where the matter can accumulate. Bending space to form a pit takes a fuckton of mass and bending enough space to allow a galaxy to be created takes such a huge amount of mass, that physicists say, it cannot be from normal matter (like gas clouds etc.), because the calculations say you need X amount of mass to do so.
On February 28 2013 22:10 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: An interesting theory, but I don't think it's true. In your theory, instead of the universe expanding outwards in all directions, all things would be heading back to the center of the black hole. That would mean that, from our perspective, all our neighboring celestial bodies would be either speeding towards the black hole ahead of us or seeming to retreat away as we sped away from them. Meaning that perceived movement would primarily occur in only two directions, as opposed to the infinite directions possible in the current scientific belief that the universe is spreading outwards. I know there aren't many frames of reference in space for you to judge where exactly stuff is going relative to you, but I'm pretty sure someone's already figured this one out.
black hole is a singularity in 3 dimensional space, don't think of the event horizon as it had been portrait in movies like a disk with a deep hole in the center, a real black hole's event horizon is like a sphere. and you don't move straight into it in a straight line. it's more of a spiral movement same as planets orbits around a star, but instead of a stable orbit, you accelerates faster toward the singularity the closer you gets.
But then again, where would this singularity since there is no point of reference, however, there is another interesting fact. Scientist found that our milky way galaxy's arms are moving much too fast than the equation that governs the movement of celestial bodies allowed. The calculation involves an estimation of all the matters exists in our galaxy (using brightness and mass of known stars as reference to index the all the stars in the milky way) and using that mass to calculate the speed of the orbit about the center of our galaxy, and it doesn't matter how generous this estimation is, scientists found that the calculated data is still too far off from the observable actually data. and If they want to fit the observable data into that equation, the mass required to product this acceleration is much greater than all the matter that exists in our galaxy. They call this matter that we yet understand the dark matter.
Why i mention dark matter? well I have this thought experiment, what if our galaxy is laying flat in the sphere of the event horizon of a black hole, where most of the stars enters the even horizon about the same time as us. and the galaxy is being broken apart and everything spirals into the black hole, and the closer you get to the singularity the faster everything will move in a spiral trajectory. Yet we ourselves within the galaxy does not see the deformation of the galaxy that curves with the sphere of the event horizon, how can we, there is no reference point for us to notice the curvature even light travels according to the curvature of space. From an outside observer they would see the milky way as a half hemisphere of a globe where one side of our galaxy is on the north pole and the other side is on the south pole and everything is spiraling and shrinking into the singularity overtime until it finally cross over the event horizon and disappears.
So maybe, just maybe the gigantic black hole they said they found in the center of our galaxy is actually not on the same plane as the milky way galaxy, we think it is on the same plane yet we can not explain the mass required for the movement of the stars, perhaps the reason we don't see these mass is because they enter the event horizon before the observable milky way galaxy, and since their light can't escape the black hole we can't see it, but we still feel the effect of their mass via gravity.
If the black hole we are supposed to be falling into is just the same as the regular black holes we are observing, then this seems pretty unlikely.
If you are thinking about a phenomenon with black hole like characteristics in higher dimensions, then I have no idea, because that would be pretty damn complicated.
On February 28 2013 23:03 spinesheath wrote: If the black hole we are supposed to be falling into is just the same as the regular black holes we are observing, then this seems pretty unlikely.
If you are thinking about a phenomenon with black hole like characteristics in higher dimensions, then I have no idea, because that would be pretty damn complicated.
well other than spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies, we also see some irregular shaped galaxies, as far as we know normally stars form spiral galaxies, and if galaxies collide with each other, it will end up as an elliptical galaxy, and all the irregular shaped galaxies are the one who has yet to collide but is being disrupted by gravitational interactions of another galaxy.
So it's pretty unlikely that we are under going a shape change from spiral into irregular because of a massive black hole near by that is merging with the black hole in the center of our galaxy. There are 2 reasons why it's unlikely,one is that this black hole has to be big enough to affect our entire galaxy and in the same time completely undetectable due to it swallowed all it's own stars/materials. two is that the coincidence of having black hole perfectly perpendicular to the plane of our galaxy is too far fetch. Yet this explanation would work without invoking dark matter.
On February 28 2013 23:53 spinesheath wrote: Not a single sentence in your reply seems to be related to my post in any way...
I don't want to sound rude, but it seems to me that your hypothesis is not backed up by scientific knowledge in the subject.
what i said is basically agreeing with you, and the reason for agreeing with you that why it's unlikely. How about you list these scientific knowledge in the subject that contradicts with my hypothesis? hasn't seen you putting down any facts yet.
On February 28 2013 23:02 rei wrote: black hole is a singularity in 3 dimensional space, don't think of the event horizon as it had been portrait in movies like a disk with a deep hole in the center, a real black hole's event horizon is like a sphere. and you don't move straight into it in a straight line. it's more of a spiral movement same as planets orbits around a star, but instead of a stable orbit, you accelerates faster toward the singularity the closer you gets.
Few weeks ago there was a presentation at our university from Uni Stuttgart about the Infrared flying telescope SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy). One interesting part were pictures of the blackhole in our galactic center. It shows indeed a ring. In the news you find picture of a poster they presented, PDF of it is downloadable.
Edit: To add to the second part Accelerating faster the closer you come is nothing special. It´s with star and even the earth the same. If the Sun would be suddenly a black hole it would be no difference (beside getting quite cold) as it would have the same gravitation. Black hole are nothing special in a way, it´s a normal endstadium of stars when they collaps and fullfil some specifications.
On February 28 2013 23:53 spinesheath wrote: Not a single sentence in your reply seems to be related to my post in any way...
I don't want to sound rude, but it seems to me that your hypothesis is not backed up by scientific knowledge in the subject.
what i said is basically agreeing with you, and the reason for agreeing with you that why it's unlikely. How about you list these scientific knowledge in the subject that contradicts with my hypothesis? hasn't seen you putting down any facts yet.
I have never said anything about your hypothesis being right or wrong, or about me being able to verify or contradict it. Nor do I have to if all I am pointing out is that you don't seem to have extensive knowledge in this field. If you actually have, then fine, I don't have an issue with being proven wrong. I'm not trying to launch any ad hominem attacks at you either, so stop being so defensive.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but most of this is just plain wrong. Why would stuff be moving away from us at the event horizon? The horizon is no physical boundary after all. We would still see stuff falling into the black hole after us. We just couldn't send a signal towards it. Also you should clear up your use of black hole and singularity. They are not interchangeable. And why would stuff not fall into a black hole in a straight line? Are you assuming the black hole is rotating? But what about the ergosphere then? And if we were inside the Schwarzschild radius we could definitely detect it. And curvature can be measured as well. Even though, as you correctly pointed out (I guess), light moves along geodesics. There would still be strange optical effects due to gravitational lensing like several mirror images of the same galaxy and so on. It is definitely interesting to think and speculate about these things. After all, as you said in the beginning, these are fundamental questions about the universe and possibly related to our existence. But unfortunately without formal training you will most likely misinterpret or misunderstand thes things and make up stuff as you go along, no offense. If you have further questions I'd be happy to answer them to my best knowledge. (Sorry, no PhD in Physics )
On February 28 2013 23:02 rei wrote: black hole is a singularity in 3 dimensional space, don't think of the event horizon as it had been portrait in movies like a disk with a deep hole in the center, a real black hole's event horizon is like a sphere. and you don't move straight into it in a straight line. it's more of a spiral movement same as planets orbits around a star, but instead of a stable orbit, you accelerates faster toward the singularity the closer you gets.
Few weeks ago there was a presentation at our university from Uni Stuttgart about the Infrared flying telescope SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy). One interesting part were pictures of the blackhole in our galactic center. It shows indeed a ring. In the news you find picture of a poster they presented, PDF of it is downloadable.
Edit: To add to the second part Accelerating faster the closer you come is nothing special. It´s with star and even the earth the same. If the Sun would be suddenly a black hole it would be no difference (beside getting quite cold) as it would have the same gravitation. Black hole are nothing special in a way, it´s a normal endstadium of stars when they collaps and fullfil some specifications.
very interesting find, it doesn't necessary means the blackhole in our galatic center is a ring. more likely the dust material near the black hole that exists in the plane of our galaxy rotates about the black hole as a ring much like Saturn's ring. If there are more dust material above and below the plane of our galaxy, we should see a sphere instead. But then again, the reason there are not much dust materials outside of the plane is because of it's rotation of the galaxy and gravity forces everything to fall in to the plane. Perhaps that's why most black hole will have dust materials gather around it as a ring.
On March 01 2013 00:40 surfinbird1 wrote: I'm sorry to burst your bubble but most of this is just plain wrong. Why would stuff be moving away from us at the event horizon?
they appears to be moving away because we arrived in the event horizon first, as i explained in my 2nd post the gravity is stronger the further one goes into the black hole. So you would be moving away from things that are behind you faster even though both you, and the object that gets suck in after you, are moving in the same general direction. hm... here let me quote neil degress tyson, i can't make this more clear than he does about falling into a black hole.
On February 28 2013 22:21 LaNague wrote: It is true that data might be flawed since we can only observe from a single point and everything we observe might be a local phnomenon.
But data suggests that the energy is very homogenous, it affects everything equally. Instead of pulling something in, it is like a pressure coming from every single point of the universe.
I dont want to write more because without using formulas, this is more like an exercise in philosophy
hm.. what observation do we see that distinguish between the expanding universe from us speeding toward a black hole. Wouldn't both cases as you imagine yield a red shift on far away galaxies? and the further away the more it shift to the red spectrum? There has to be something that is known to us that sets this apart and points toward the expanding universe instead of my black hole hypothesis.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dzwCWXy.jpg)
)
