# Thread: Sphere Theory Explains Cosmic Expansion Increase Five Billion Years Ago

#### Hybrid View

1. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969

## Sphere Theory Explains Cosmic Expansion Increase Five Billion Years Ago

This ATM shows that the perceived change in acceleration of the universe, at about 5 billion light years, can be explained by the gravity between two universes. The acceleration of gravity, of our Hubble Sphere universe, increases as we get farther from the center of our Hubble Sphere universe linearly, the gravity from our adjacent Hubble Sphere universes decreases by the square of the distance from the center of that Hubble Sphere universe. The point at which these two accelerations, of gravity, become equal, is at 5.27 billion light years from the center of the universe. It is hypothesized here, that if the observed change in the rate of expansion of the universe occurs at exactly 5.27 billion light years from the center of the universe.
2.0 Calculations
We define the gravitational force of a symmetrical, uniformly dense sphere, to be 1 at its surface. As we move towards the center of the sphere, the gravitational force decreases linearly to zero at the center. As we move out from the sphere the gravitational force decreases by the inverse of the radius.
If we have two spheres adjacent at what point does the gravitational force from one sphere, as it decreases by the inverse of the radius, be equal and opposite to the linear decrease to the center of the other sphere. The fraction at which this occurs is calculated as follows.

at 0.618033988749895 from the edge of a spherical contact between two universes would be 5.27 billion light years from the center of one universe for a universe that is a Hubble Sphere Universe of 13.8 billion light years. It is proposed that this may be why a change in the expansion rate of the universe occurs at 5 billion light years as described in the following article in scientific american. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-then-speeds/
Last edited by Copernicus; 2018-Dec-13 at 01:01 AM.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,329
Originally Posted by Copernicus
This ATM shows that the perceived change in acceleration of the universe, at about 5 billion light years, can be explained by the gravity between two universes. ...
The ATM does not show that, Copernicus. The ATM is a story that with little physics and some errors

An expanding universe expands the same at every point so there is no center of the universe.
We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. The evidence says extremely larger than the observable universe and hints at infinite.
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is similar no matter what direction we measure it.

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up asks a question "But has the cosmic expansion been speeding up throughout the lifetime of the universe, or is it a relatively recent development— that is, occurring within the past five billion years or so?".

That article is a reprint of a 2004 article in 2008. We know more now. Dark energy
As of 2013, the Lambda-CDM model is consistent with a series of increasingly rigorous cosmological observations, including the Planck spacecraft and the Supernova Legacy Survey. First results from the SNLS reveal that the average behavior (i.e., equation of state) of dark energy behaves like Einstein's cosmological constant to a precision of 10%.[18] Recent results from the Hubble Space Telescope Higher-Z Team indicate that dark energy has been present for at least 9 billion years and during the period preceding cosmic acceleration.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Dec-13 at 02:36 AM.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by Reality Check
The ATM does not show that, Copernicus. The ATM is a story that with little physics and some errors

An expanding universe expands the same at every point so there is no center of the universe.
We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. The evidence says extremely larger than the observable universe and hints at infinite.
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is similar no matter what direction we measure it.

The Expanding Universe: From Slowdown to Speed Up asks a question "But has the cosmic expansion been speeding up throughout the lifetime of the universe, or is it a relatively recent development— that is, occurring within the past five billion years or so?".

That article is a reprint of a 2004 article in 2008. We know more now. Dark energy
I'm pretty sure that if earth was at close to the center of the universe it would also explain why everything is moving away from us. If the earth was within 300 million light years from the center of the universe that this would like 2.4 or 2.5 sigma, which would not really be that uncommon. Like one out of 50 chances.
I can't say that I really understand the lamda model but it supposedly occurred about 5 billion years ago with dark energy. Which is still just a place holder, although the best place holder we have right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accele...f_the_universe

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,329
Originally Posted by Copernicus
I'm pretty sure that if earth was at close to the center of the universe it would also explain why everything is moving away from us
That is not what the universe does in cosmology or even general physics. A basic premise in physics is that the Earth is not a special place and we find that Earth is one of maybe billions of planets in the universe, orbiting a minor star on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy.

This is the Lambda-CDM model. Lambda does not appear 5 billion years ago. Your sources do not state that. Dark energy has been present for at least 9 billion years. The Wikipedia article is slightly wrong. The cosmological constant and thus dark energy has always been present. What happened is that the universe expanded until the acceleration caused by dark energy became dominant. Scale factor (cosmology).
Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Dec-13 at 03:30 AM.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is not what the universe does in cosmology or even general physics. A basic premise in physics is that the Earth is not a special place and we find that Earth is one of maybe billions of planets in the universe, orbiting a minor star on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy.
This is the Lambda-CDM model. Lambda does not appear 5 billion years ago. Your sources do not state that.
The dark energy dominated phase started 5 billion years ago. I'm just proposing that if there are adjacent universes the pull from the next universe equals the pull from our universe at 5.27 billion light years. I also imagine that universes on the other side of the adjacent universe also pull but the pull would be weaker. I'm suggesting it could be superimposed on what ever the main driver of the appearance of expansion is. I also find it very interesting that this result gives the value for the golden ratio.
Last edited by Copernicus; 2018-Dec-13 at 03:36 AM.

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,162
Originally Posted by Copernicus
The dark energy dominated phase started 5 billion years ago. I'm just proposing that if there are adjacent universes the pull from the next universe equals the pull from our universe at 5.27 billion light years. I also imagine that universes on the other side of the adjacent universe also pull but the pull would be weaker. I'm suggesting it could be superimposed on what ever the main driver of the appearance of expansion is. I also find it very interesting that this result gives the value for the golden ratio.
So further than 5 and a bit billion ly away we see things moving away from us more slowly than we expect from looking close by. And you propose that this slowdown along our line of sight is somehow linked to an increasing force of gravity due to other universes? How does that work? You'd expect the exact opposite - that near to us outwards speeds would be slower (more dominated by our gravity) and as you move closer to other universes this speed would increase as matter becomes more dominated by attraction to these other universes.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by Copernicus
I'm pretty sure that if earth was at close to the center of the universe it would also explain why everything is moving away from us. If the earth was within 300 million light years from the center of the universe that this would like 2.4 or 2.5 sigma, which would not really be that uncommon. Like one out of 50 chances.
I can't say that I really understand the lamda model but it supposedly occurred about 5 billion years ago with dark energy. Which is still just a place holder, although the best place holder we have right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accele...f_the_universe
I calculated this incorrectly because the universe is a volume and not a straight line, so the chances of us being at the center of a 300 million light year sphere, would actually be much less.

8. Originally Posted by Copernicus
As we move out from the sphere the gravitational force decreases by the inverse of the radius.
Inverse square.

So I assume you have made that error deliberately to come up with this numerology?

at 0.618033988749895 from the edge of a spherical contact between two universes would be 5.27 billion light years from the center of one universe for a universe that is a Hubble Sphere Universe of 13.8 billion light years.
The radius of the observable universe is about 45 billion light years. There is no reason to think the universe suddenly stops there.

Originally Posted by Copernicus
I'm pretty sure that if ...

I can't say that I really understand the lamda model but ...
Do you see a problem here?

9. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by Strange
Inverse square.

So I assume you have made that error deliberately to come up with this numerology?

The radius of the observable universe is about 45 billion light years. There is no reason to think the universe suddenly stops there.

Do you see a problem here?
Hi Strange, you are correct, I worded this incorrectly. By the way, thanks for pointing that out. It is calculated correctly however. You can see I worded correctly in the first paragraph. "The acceleration of gravity, of our Hubble Sphere universe, increases as we get farther from the center of our Hubble Sphere universe linearly, the gravity from our adjacent Hubble Sphere universes decreases by the square of the distance from the center of that Hubble Sphere universe. "
Also, if the universe is not actually expanding, we only see 13.8 billion light years out. I don't know what the new physics for that would be. But there are many things we can't define correctly so there must be some new physics we don't know. We have not seen dark matter or dark energy and there is disagreement on the Hubble constant.
Last edited by Copernicus; 2018-Dec-13 at 06:21 PM. Reason: added thanks

10. Closed pending moderator discussion.

11. Originally Posted by PetersCreek
Closed pending moderator discussion.

Originally Posted by Copernicus
This ATM shows that the perceived change in acceleration of the universe, at about 5 billion light years, can be explained by the gravity between two universes. The acceleration of gravity, of our Hubble Sphere universe, increases as we get farther from the center of our Hubble Sphere universe linearly, the gravity from our adjacent Hubble Sphere universes decreases by the square of the distance from the center of that Hubble Sphere universe. The point at which these two accelerations, of gravity, become equal, is at 5.27 billion light years from the center of the universe. It is hypothesized here, that if the observed change in the rate of expansion of the universe occurs at exactly 5.27 billion light years from the center of the universe.
2.0 Calculations
We define the gravitational force of a symmetrical, uniformly dense sphere, to be 1 at its surface. As we move towards the center of the sphere, the gravitational force decreases linearly to zero at the center. As we move out from the sphere the gravitational force decreases by the inverse of the radius.
If we have two spheres adjacent at what point does the gravitational force from one sphere, as it decreases by the inverse of the radius, be equal and opposite to the linear decrease to the center of the other sphere. The fraction at which this occurs is calculated as follows.

You're missing the solution at y=1

So there are three zero points, and the value doesn't deviate much from zero between them. However, outside of 0 and 2, the two values augment, away from the center of the universe--and things get even more complicated in the second dimension.

Not that we should expect the "second universe" to coincidentally have such a simple three dimensional relationship.
at 0.618033988749895 from the edge of a spherical contact between two universes would be 5.27 billion light years from the center of one universe for a universe that is a Hubble Sphere Universe of 13.8 billion light years. It is proposed that this may be why a change in the expansion rate of the universe occurs at 5 billion light years as described in the following article in scientific american. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-then-speeds/
In the article, the value seems to be five billion years, not five billion light years.

Be careful of random coincidences (especially if they only apply along the radius between the two, as in this case, and not throughout the space.

12. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by grapes

You're missing the solution at y=1

So there are three zero points, and the value doesn't deviate much from zero between them. However, outside of 0 and 2, the two values augment, away from the center of the universe--and things get even more complicated in the second dimension.

Not that we should expect the "second universe" to coincidentally have such a simple three dimensional relationship.

In the article, the value seems to be five billion years, not five billion light years.

Be careful of random coincidences (especially if they only apply along the radius between the two, as in this case, and not throughout the space.
The 5 billion years could be coincidence. Maybe, most likely, it is coincidence. But the weird thing is that nobody ever noticed the relationship between two adjacent bodies and their attractive forces, that leads to the golden ratio. As far as I know, no one has ever shown a mechanism for the golden ratio in nature.
Also, if there are equal sized universes, it possibly shows that these forces of gravity between these two bodies, or surrounding bodies, could have an effect on the red-shift of light. Although my proposal is that our universe would be surrounded by 12 universes in a cuboctahedron structure, and I could not begin to know how to calculate the different nodes from those 12 universes, or the next layer of 42 universes and the nodes that they would create in the red-shift or CMB, and how much, the magnitudes of affects on the red-shift the affect this would have on the red-shift or CMB, compared to the the other causes of the red-shift.
Any how, I think this is definitely interesting that the relationship is the golden ratio. As far as the golden ratio in nature, I don't know if its manifestation would be from adjacent spheres exhibiting charge, gravity, weak force, or strong force.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
I should mention that, gravity, from all of the universes outside of our universe, would be a force that would stretch out light, and make it red shifted in all directions from our position in space.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by grapes

You're missing the solution at y=1

So there are three zero points, and the value doesn't deviate much from zero between them. However, outside of 0 and 2, the two values augment, away from the center of the universe--and things get even more complicated in the second dimension.

Not that we should expect the "second universe" to coincidentally have such a simple three dimensional relationship.

In the article, the value seems to be five billion years, not five billion light years.

Be careful of random coincidences (especially if they only apply along the radius between the two, as in this case, and not throughout the space.
Hi Grapes, you are correct. There is the zero point at one, which I meant to include, but did not. Thanks for pointing that out.

15. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
I should mention that the model I proposed also supports the appearance that the expansion of the universe is increasing in rate if we are observing close to the center of the universe since the gravitational affect of our universe gets less and less as we get closer the the center of our universe.

16. Originally Posted by Copernicus
We define the gravitational force of a symmetrical, uniformly dense sphere, to be 1 at its surface. As we move towards the center of the sphere, the gravitational force decreases linearly to zero at the center. As we move out from the sphere the gravitational force decreases by the inverse of the radius.

If we have two spheres adjacent[,] at what point does the gravitational force from one sphere, as it decreases by the inverse of the radius, be equal and opposite to the linear decrease to the center of the other sphere[?]

The setup and posing of this question is super convoluted. The first sentence in red is simply wrong. As you move out from the sphere, the gravitational force decreases by the inverse square of the distance from the sphere, NOT the "inverse of the radius."

BTW, the question you're trying to pose is for a super-special case, while there are practically an infinite number of other cases that you do not address. Your special case is the one where the "point of equality" is necessarily on the line between the centers of the two adjacent spheres (of uniform mass).

Discarding the cosmological claim (since "centers" and "edges" are inapplicable in a cosmological context), and taken as purely a mathematical problem involving two equal and adjacent spherical masses, you do not seem to have done the math correctly. At least, I certainly can't follow it. (BTW, doesn't 1+1=2?) Please show all the steps in your calculation. And where the heck does come from?

The fraction at which this occurs is calculated as follows.

1+1-y=

Last edited by Cougar; 2018-Dec-29 at 03:33 PM.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Originally Posted by Cougar

The setup and posing of this question is super convoluted. The first sentence in red is simply wrong. As you move out from the sphere, the gravitational force decreases by the inverse square of the distance from the sphere, NOT the "inverse of the radius."

BTW, the question you're trying to pose is for a super-special case, while there are practically an infinite number of other cases that you do not address. Your special case is the one where the "point of equality" is necessarily on the line between the centers of the two adjacent spheres (of uniform mass).

Discarding the cosmological claim (since "centers" and "edges" are inapplicable in a cosmological context), and taken as purely a mathematical problem involving two equal and adjacent spherical masses, you do not seem to have done the math correctly. At least, I certainly can't follow it. (BTW, doesn't 1+1=2?) Please show all the steps in your calculation. And where the heck does come from?
Hi Cougar, You are right. It should read, that when one reaches the edge of the sphere, the gravitational strength decreases proportional to the inverse square of the distance from the center of the sphere. Inside the sphere, for a uniform sphere, the gravitational strength decreases proportional to the radius. At the center of an individual sphere, the gravity is zero.

18. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
Hi Cougar,

I can rewrite the equation. Assume gravity at the edge of the sphere is equal to one. The force from the one sphere decreases to the inverse square from the radius.

r is the distance from the center of inside the sphere.

G=1/(2-r)^2 for the other sphere the gravity decreases toward the center of the sphere. G=r

If I set r=1/(2-r)^2 which is the points where there gravitational affects cancel out.

I get the points

r=1, 0.381966011250105, and 2.61803398874989

So if I say, how far is r from the center of the sphere where we were calculating the gravitational affect using the inverse square law

it is 1, phi, and -1/phi

I hope this helps.

19. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,969
I will try to come up with approximate z values using the adjacent sphere model. It may take a few days.

20. Originally Posted by Copernicus
I will try to come up with approximate z values using the adjacent sphere model. It may take a few days.

no, sorry, you are just making it up on the go, you kknow the rules, this is not a place to develop your ideas.