Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: How Big is the Universe?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7

    Question How Big is the Universe?

    My sole purpose in sending this paper to ATM is to challenge the assumption that our universe is all there is in the cosmos. It is time to ask the question -

    How big is the universe?

    It is such a simple and obvious question.
    Why bother? Everyone knows that the (observable) universe is 93 billion light years across and you can't do evidence based science beyond that.
    It all started 14 billion years ago. There is nothing south of the south pole.
    “It is known Kahlesi”.

    There are three good reasons to ask the question.

    1. It is the biggest question in cosmology.
    2. The time is right. We have a new tool capable of detection beyond our universe.
    3. There is so much in cosmology which cannot be explained. If the cosmos is much bigger and older than our universe then it may explain some of them.

    Over the centuries as telescopes got bigger and better, the universe also got bigger.
    The only certainty is that as our instruments improve we find more; more twinklies; more of the dark stuff which dominates our universe.

    The universe has always been much bigger than we thought.

    Gravitational Wave Detection

    LIGO is a miracle of vision, determination and instrumentation. In decades to come this new technology will give us a whole new perspective on our universe - and possibly our cosmos. Just as multiwavelength astronomy has changed our view of the universe, gravity wave astronomy will allow us to look out into the cosmos.
    If the universe really is much bigger than we think then gravity wave detection will prove it.
    But we will not find it unless we look for it.

    We don’t have all the answers

    There are gaping voids in our understanding of cosmology.
    It was that pie chart showing that we can only explain 5% of the energy budget of the universe which first grabbed my attention. But there are more gaping voids. You know what they are.

    I want to thank the Buchalter Cosmology Prize 2018 for confirming my concerns.
    “The Standard Big Bang model has done a remarkable job in explaining many fundamental observations. However many other, seemingly fundamental, observations are not immediately explained by the model.
    A few examples include dark matter, inflation, and dark energy.
    These examples share a common issue: they explain a phenomenon that is not understood in the context of an existing theory, by introducing a new idea or mechanism which itself is not understood and which has no physical motivation to exist, other than to explain the original phenomenon. In effect, there is a one-to-one trading of ignorance, so to speak.”

    Cosmology:

    “the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe” Wikipedia.
    The problem with the Standard Big Bang model is that it tells us nothing about the origin, very little about the fate and only explains 5% of the bit in the middle.
    Now don’t jump in to defend ΛCDM. It does a great job explaining so much, from that super dense hot plasma to the amazing structure of the universe we see today.

    I need another quote - from Professor Stacy McGaugh,
    “we should remember that we once endowed SCDM with the same absolute certainty we now attribute to ΛCDM. I was there, 3,000 internet years ago, when SCDM failed. There is nothing so sacred in ΛCDM that it can’t suffer the same fate, as has every single cosmology ever devised by humanity.
    Today, we still lack definitive knowledge of either dark matter or dark energy. These add up to 95% of the mass-energy of the universe according to ΛCDM. These dark materials must exist.”

    How big is the universe?

    I suggest that a big old cosmos may help us answer these fundamental problems we have with our cosmology.

    What happened before the Big Bang? Where did all that stuff come from?
    Dark Energy - what is it?
    How will it all end?

    Let's start with the easy one - Dark Energy

    Readers and contributors to ATM will be informed of the current theories on the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe. The truth is, of course, nobody knows and it shows.
    NASA
    “More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy.”

    All of the theories start from the same assumption and I am indebted to Paul Sutter for this statement which I think perfectly sums up the problem.
    "As far as we can tell, the universe is totally self-contained. All of its dynamics are governed purely by its interior contents."

    There is so much missing in our understanding of the cosmos. I am not challenging the model, nor the maths. I challenge the assumptions.
    Look outside of the box.

    The common feature of all of the theories on Dark Energy is that they assume that there must be some force pushing galaxies out into the universe, a kind of negative gravity.
    Change the assumption; change the landscape and in a bigger older cosmos these problems disappear.

    DON’T PUSH! - PULL!

    In a big old cosmos Dark Energy is just gravity, plain, vanilla gravity.
    The gravitational pull from a bigger older cosmos.
    No new physics; no new particles; no quantum effects; no sleight of hand to produce energy from empty space.

    Dark Energy is the gravitational pull of the cosmos.

    Evidence, evidence I hear the cry!
    Evidence of course will not be easy, but unless we look, we shall not find.
    The ultimate proof will be gravity waves from beyond our universe originating from the big old cosmos.
    It is an enormous challenge but who would not want to be the first to find evidence of a universe beyond ours.

    The Hubble Constant

    We have tension in cosmology and not for the first time. I refer of course to the tension in Ho. The tension is not only in the value of Ho. There was a conference in Santa Barbara this July with all, or most of the main players. Reiss, Freedman et al. How I would have loved to be a fly on that wall.
    If Dark Energy is indeed the gravitational pull of the cosmos then it could explain the different values between the local and early universe measurements. Once again, no new physics, it's just gravity.
    There already is an imperative to resolve the tension. Now I do not want to spoil a good fight, but it's possible that they are ALL right.
    I acknowledge that a Dark Energy which increases with time is not proof of cosmic gravity, but it would support it.
    If Ho is constant then at least cosmic gravity is falsifiable.

    Conclusion

    So, Dark Energy is the gravitational pull from a cosmos which is much bigger and older than we thought.
    Even better it's falsifiable and provable. It is time to give it proper consideration as an assumption which can explain and simplify some of those “fundamental problems”.

    In my reading and study I am constantly reminded that the more I learn, I realise how little I know. Many or all of my conclusions may be wrong but I am confident that my question is the right one -

    HOW BIG IS THE UNIVERSE?


    Notes

    I add these further thoughts in this Notes section because I do not want to detract from the main message - How big is the Universe?
    It is interesting to speculate on how the Big Cosmos landscape would answer some of the other big unknowns, but also challenge some of the givens of the standard cosmology.
    I suggest that by assuming a Big Cosmos a new, much simpler view of our universe is possible.

    Thought Experiment

    Before we ‘shut up and calculate’ let's play the game and have a think. There will be plenty of time for calculation if it looks like a good idea.

    The Expansion of the Universe.

    Until 20 years ago we did not need an expanding universe. Until then the acceleration of the galaxies was assumed to be slowing under the gravitational pull of our universe. The concept of an expansion of space was only needed to explain the acceleration of galaxies out into space.
    In Big Cosmos the explanation is again rather obvious. Movement through the cosmos is determined by gravity. No need for Expansion.
    There is no expansion of space - it's just gravity.

    Cosmological Redshift

    It would be more accurate to describe it as the Gravitational Redshift; the gravitational pull of the cosmos. It's not Expansion which is redshifting the light from distant galaxies it's gravity.
    Now this will have some implications for the calculation of true cosmological speeds and possibly the size and age of the universe.
    'Honey, I shrunk the universe!'

    The origins and fate of the universe.

    So how do we explain where all this stuff came from?
    We can extrapolate our universe back to a small dense hot ball of plasma but then it all gets a bit fuzzy. My apologies to the many theories trying to explain where all this stuff came from. My advice to them is another quote. This time from the old Scot who was asked the way to Aberdeen. His answer was simple “ You’ll no want to start from here.”
    If you assume that our universe is all there is then you may be starting from the wrong place. Change the assumptions and it's much easier.

    So what does the Big Cosmos theory say about the origin and fate of the universe?
    Well, our fate is sealed.
    Under the gravitational pull of the cosmos we are accelerating out towards the black cosmos.
    I going to assume a flat universe because that is what the evidence suggests.
    We can rule out the “Big Crunch” as it is usually understood. There is no going back.
    Neither will there be a “Big Freeze” as our universe is not expanding out into an infinite cold cosmos.
    The fate of the galaxies of our universe is to come under the gravitational control of the big black masses out there. Some will get the “Big Rip” as they are drawn into the black holes of the cosmos. Others will remain as clusters orbiting the cosmic scale black hole they were drawn to.
    Whether this is preferable to the usual fates is a matter of personal choice! I like to think of it just as a redistribution of the energy of the universe. Not an “end” of the universe but part of the cyclical nature of the cosmos. I like a happy ending.

    The origin?
    Well, something very big went 'bang'. So the Big Bang was well named after all.

    Black holes

    I am old enough to remember the time before black holes. They have come a long way since then. Their role in our universe just gets bigger and bigger. Black holes are here to stay! To put it very simply; stars and galaxies come and go but black holes grow and grow.
    When we imagine what could be out there in the Big Cosmos then massive black holes are a good candidate. The origins and fate of our universe may be explained by black holes.
    It's how we started and it’s where we are going.
    How did the smbhs at the centre of our galaxies get so big?
    Is Dark Matter primordial black holes?
    OK it's pure speculation, as is this -
    The stuff of the cosmos is Black Holes.
    Our universe is only a temporary, excited state of Black Matter (not a typo).
    We came from Black Matter and will return to Black Matter.
    Our universe is nought but a firework in the timeline of the cosmos.

    Game over.

    HOW BIG IS THE UNIVERSE?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    37,136
    Accelerated expansion is not due to the outside-our-horizon gravity sources. See also Shell Theorem. Gravity in all directions* cancels out.

    *And if it was directional, we would see a preferred path of expansion which we don't.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    138
    Welcome to BAUT Lindsay!

    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    If the universe really is much bigger than we think then gravity wave detection will prove it.
    But we will not find it unless we look for it.
    Why would gravity waves allow us to see things beyond the cosmic horizon? Gravity waves travel at the same speed as photons: the speed of light. Therefore there is just as much a limitation on gravity waves as there is on light. We can't see anything from beyond 13.7 billion light years out, not because our instruments aren't powerful enough but because nothing from further away has had time to reach us yet, and that includes gravity waves.

    Also, you imply that we aren't looking for this. As though if LIGO figured out a gravity wave was from a source 20 billion light years away the scientists would all shrug their shoulders and say "Nope. We are only looking for things 500 million light years away. Throw that one away boys."

    Evidence of course will not be easy, but unless we look, we shall not find.
    The ultimate proof will be gravity waves from beyond our universe originating from the big old cosmos.
    It is an enormous challenge but who would not want to be the first to find evidence of a universe beyond ours.
    And since this is your theory you are proposing here, I am assuming you have already worked out just how enormous this challenge would be? Please calculate how large of an event would be required for LIGO to detect it's gravity waves from a distance of, lets say 20 billion light years.

    Until 20 years ago we did not need an expanding universe. Until then the acceleration of the galaxies was assumed to be slowing under the gravitational pull of our universe. The concept of an expansion of space was only needed to explain the acceleration of galaxies out into space.
    This is simply false. The expansion of the universe was discovered back in the 1920's, and it was to explain the observation that galaxies are moving away from us. 20 years ago is when we discovered the acceleration of the universe.

    It would be more accurate to describe it as the Gravitational Redshift; the gravitational pull of the cosmos. It's not Expansion which is redshifting the light from distant galaxies it's gravity.
    My understanding is it actually requires a pretty intense gravity field to significantly redshift light, an average star or even an entire galaxy wouldn't do it. So, with that please calculate how strong the gravity would have to be to redshift the CMB light all the way down to microwaves. Once you've done this, you can then figure out how many different sources you'd need and how they have to be spread across the sky. Do they have to appear every arc second? every 1/10th of an arc second? And once you know this, you can then calculate how densely things things would have to be packed together at that distance. More dense then the current universe? A thousand times more? Remember, it has to be enough to recreate the observed CMB, and since we know how to calculate gravity's effect on light this is a problem that you should be able to figure out. Since this is your theory, have you figured this out yet? If not, why not?


    Noclevername already brought up the other point I was going to raise, so I'll await your answer to his question on that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    Thanks for your interest and you get straight to the key issue. Newton’s Shell Theorem is a brilliant (it’s brilliant because it's so simple) piece of calculus which corrects the totally contra intuitive view that mass should gravitate to the edge of the circle. I remember doing this 50 years ago at Glasgow Uni when I was rather good at calculus..
    In maths and maths based physics we need/like to simplify the model. The real world is seldom so simple. My model of the cosmos does not assume that it is homogeneous and isotropic. Just like our universe, structures are developed and complex making it difficult if not impossible to model and calculate.
    So, yes, I have to assume a directional gravity. Not because my idea would be debunked by work done more than 300 years ago, but because complex is the most likely option in the real world.
    “We would see a preferred path of expansion which we don’t”
    This is another assumption which is in the category of “It is known Kahlesi”
    Within the measurable part of the universe, several 100 mps, the movement of galaxies is mainly driven by local factors and is anything but equal in all directions, peculiar velocities are significant. Beyond that, we have problems measuring distances and redshifts need to be corrected for the gravitational redshift I propose in my essay.
    If proof is needed, look at the wide variety of Ho values now being reported in the scientific press.
    Once again I say we need to challenge the assumptions.
    The universe is not as simple as the maths would wish.
    Sorry for the delay in answering but I just had to watch the Whites destroying the All Blacks this morning

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    Dave, thanks for the welcome to BAUT. I’ve been a fan of Fraser and Pamela for some time, but I only recently found BAUT and ATM in particular. So it's welcome to the lion’s den!
    I have responded to Noclevername’s point on Shell Theorem. I do very much accept that I am challenging so many of the givens of cosmology. Only an old crank with nothing to lose would dare to.
    Another quote: Scott Dodelson of Carnegie Mellon University,
    “We’re not sure our current way of thinking [about the universe] is correct because it
    essentially requires us to make stuff up , namely dark matter and dark energy. My bet is that we’re looking at things all wrong. Someone who’s 8 years old today is going to come around and figure out how to make sense of all the data without evoking mysterious new substances.”Source- Astronomy, November 8, 2017.

    I am new to this so I haven’t worked out how to do your quote in the box thing yet, sorry.

    “Why would gravity waves allow us to see things beyond the cosmic horizon?”

    Yes, gravity waves travel at the same speed as light. Thanks LIGO for the proof.
    My assumption is that “the universe is bigger and older than we thought”. Our universe is only an event in the history of the cosmos. Simple to write but difficult to internalise for proper cosmologists. Lots of time for gravity waves to get here.

    I love your comment, "Nope. We are only looking for things 500 million light years away. Throw that one away boys." That is the problem I am trying to address. If evidence exists it will end up in the bin. Imagine going to your prof with such a result!!!!
    In similar vein here is another daft idea. If there have been other Big Bangs producing Light Matter (not so dense and bright) then some of it could exist in our universe. So a grad student finds evidence of isotopic decay suggesting the sample is 100 billion years old. “Eureka, look prof, look what I have found,” Bin or Nobel Prize?

    “how large of an event would be required for LIGO to detect it's gravity waves from a distance of, let’s say 20 billion light years.”

    My calculus days are over. It's qualitative stuff only.
    LIGO is only finding stuff in the millisecond range. So we see/hear only compact binaries and these will not be powerful enough to be detected at cosmic scales, yet. I am looking for bigger things and that’s Pulsar timing or CMB polarisation at present. The wavelength of 2 cosmic scale black holes coming together is too big to wait for. I said it wouldn’t be easy!

    “This is simply false. The expansion of the universe was discovered back in the 1920's, “

    Mea culpa! I meant to say the accelerated expansion.

    Your final point on Gravitational Redshift.

    I accept that this is not fully thought out and I can’t do what you say should be done.
    It would affect measured redshifts but I can’t quantify.

    Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my essay, it's what I came to ATM for.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,890
    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    I am new to this so I haven’t worked out how to do your quote in the box thing yet, sorry.
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, LindsayForbes. Please look for a private message from me with information about using the quote feature.

    Before you get too deep into this thread, I do strongly recommend that you read our rules, linked in my signature line below. Please give attention to rule 13, which governs discussions here in the Against The Mainstream forum. I also suggest that read our ATM Forum Advice, also linked below.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    My sole purpose in sending this paper to ATM is to challenge the assumption that our universe is all there is in the cosmos. It is time to ask the question -

    How big is the universe?

    It is such a simple and obvious question.
    Yes, and it is one that is considered all the time by scientists, contrary to what you seem to think. You would do well to study mainstream science (and the body of evidence that has led it to become mainstream).

    I cannot discern from your post precisely what your ATM theory is. All I see is a series of assertions which are not only unsupported, but which you seem unprepared to support. If you haven't done the maths, claiming that redshift is entirely gravitational in origin may be dismissed as a mere opinion, not an ATM theory.

    So, my first question is: Can you state -- succinctly and with precision -- what your ATM theory is?

    My second question is: What support can you offer for your theory?

    Note that a mere critique of mainstream theory is not support for your idea. Even if the mainstream were shown to be wrong, it would not mean that you are right, so it is a dead-end strategy merely to attack the mainstream. Instead, you need to show that your theory can fully reproduce the known successes of the mainstream, while showing how your theory differs from the mainstream.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, LindsayForbes. Please look for a private message from me with information about using the quote feature.

    "Before you get too deep into this thread, I do strongly recommend that you read our rules, linked in my signature line below. Please give attention to rule 13, which governs discussions here in the Against The Mainstream forum. I also suggest that read our ATM Forum Advice, also linked below".
    PetersCreek, I read the rules and advice sections 2 or 3 times before posting and I have them copied to my Docs for easy reference. I have been preparing for this for some time as I was aware of the 30 day rule. Diary cleared for the next weeks. It will be a bumpy ride I know, better than being ignored.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    Yes, gravity waves travel at the same speed as light. Thanks LIGO for the proof.
    My assumption is that “the universe is bigger and older than we thought”. Our universe is only an event in the history of the cosmos. Simple to write but difficult to internalise for proper cosmologists. Lots of time for gravity waves to get here.
    Ok, sure. This is a pretty common idea that cosmologists talk about, so not difficult to internalize for cosmologists at all. What you are talking about is the idea that we live in a truly ancient universe, perhaps hundreds of quadrillions of years old or older and "big bangs" are events that just happen from time to time within that ancient universe. However, I will again point out that if gravity waves can reach us from an event that happened, say, 10 trillion years ago then the light from that event will be just as likely (or unlikely) to reach us as well. And considering that we have a FAR easier time with capturing light then we do with capturing gravitational waves, I don't think we are very likely to detect any gravity waves from events which predate the big bang.

    I love your comment, "Nope. We are only looking for things 500 million light years away. Throw that one away boys." That is the problem I am trying to address. If evidence exists it will end up in the bin.
    When I said this I was being sarcastic. How can you honestly believe that scientists behave this way? Unexpected results are what scientists dream of getting, and yet you think they are just as likely to throw such results away? Shocking.

    Imagine going to your prof with such a result!!!!
    They probably imagine this all the time, in much the same way that athletes imagine scoring the winning point in a championship game. As I said, this is what they dream of doing.

    In similar vein here is another daft idea. If there have been other Big Bangs producing Light Matter (not so dense and bright) then some of it could exist in our universe. So a grad student finds evidence of isotopic decay suggesting the sample is 100 billion years old. “Eureka, look prof, look what I have found,” Bin or Nobel Prize?
    Certainly not the trash can, not unless we are dealing with a staggering amount of incompetence.

    “how large of an event would be required for LIGO to detect it's gravity waves from a distance of, let’s say 20 billion light years.”

    My calculus days are over. It's qualitative stuff only.
    I don't think any calculus would be needed for this question. Gravity wave intensity falls off with the inverse square law, so all you need to do is look up an even that LIGO has detected and it's distance, and then extrapolate out from that. If an event was detected at a distance of 50 million light years, then the same signal from 500 million light years would be 100 times weaker, and from 5 billion light years would be 10,000 times weaker, ect. Then compare that to what the weakest signal LIGO is able to detect. This is very useful to do, as it will give you some idea of if current technology can detect it, or if not how much more sensitive our technology needs to be. If you are serious about developing your theory, you should start with the basic calculations like this just so that the rest of us have some idea of what your idea requires.

    LIGO is only finding stuff in the millisecond range. So we see/hear only compact binaries and these will not be powerful enough to be detected at cosmic scales, yet. I am looking for bigger things and that’s Pulsar timing or CMB polarisation at present. The wavelength of 2 cosmic scale black holes coming together is too big to wait for. I said it wouldn’t be easy!
    It sounds like you do know something about how LIGO operates and detects signals, so again are you able to extrapolate out to say what range future gravity wave detectors would have to operate at to detect what you want them to detect? You claim the millisecond range isn't good enough, so what range would be? How does this compare to todays detectors?

    “This is simply false. The expansion of the universe was discovered back in the 1920's, “

    Mea culpa! I meant to say the accelerated expansion.
    Happens to us all.

    Your final point on Gravitational Redshift.

    I accept that this is not fully thought out and I can’t do what you say should be done.
    It would affect measured redshifts but I can’t quantify.
    While you may not be able to do this for the entire sky (I agree that would be a pretty involved calculation), have you tried just figuring out how intense the gravity field would need to be in order to achieve the amount of redshift you are claiming? I suspect that once you do, you will see that it requires an absurdly strong gravitational field, and when you then realize that you'd need that strong of a gravity field for essentially the entire sky in every direction you'd begin to see why that idea starts getting absurd. That's why these calculations are important. Even if you have to estimate them, they will at least give you some idea of what sorts of forces you are talking about and if such a scenario is reasonable or not. For this, we are very much in the "unreasonable" camp, but you'd have to perform at least some sort of a calculation to see this.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    I can assure you that I do study mainstream science or as much is available to one who is now a layperson. Fortunately there are others who assist in getting around paywalls.
    I make 2 points in my first section. You can’t do science beyond the observable universe nor before the Big Bang. Until 2 years ago we could only observe. We only had em radiation. Now we have a new tool which is capable of probing beyond these limits, if and only if, there is a bigger and older cosmos beyond.
    I have replied to criticism of my paragraph on Gravitational Redshift. I have tried unsuccessfully to find information on the strength of gravitational redshift. So you are right. I considered leaving it out of the original submission and I should have done. I can only add that if my theory that Dark Energy is the gravitational pull of the cosmos then some corrections to observed redshifts will have to be made. It is a byproduct of my theory and not central to it so I choose to drop it.

    What is my ATM theory? Succinctly.
    The cosmos is much bigger and older than our observable universe.
    Dark Energy is the gravitational pull of the cosmos.
    Iff this is correct then the theory can be developed to explain some of the other fundamentals not well explained by the Standard Model. See items and Notes in my paper.

    Support for my theory?
    The theory is both provable and falsifiable. See sections on gravity waves and Ho.

    “you need to show that your theory can fully reproduce the known successes of the mainstream, while showing how your theory differs from the mainstream.”

    My theory sits on the established base of the Big Bang theory and not least, attempts to explain Dark Energy. I believe it tries to, as Scott Dodelson says “figure out how to make sense of all the data without evoking mysterious new substances”
    I do not attack the mainstream, but seek to build on it by suggesting mechanisms based on established physics.

    Thank you for your interest and questions. I hope that my answers have made my ideas clearer to the readers.

    I will never be able to prove my theory, that was not my intention. At best, by asking the right questions, I hope to open up a debate which challenges the assumption that our universe is all there is.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,751
    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    What is my ATM theory? Succinctly.
    The cosmos is much bigger and older than our observable universe.
    Dark Energy is the gravitational pull of the cosmos.
    Iff this is correct then the theory can be developed to explain some of the other fundamentals not well explained by the Standard Model. See items and Notes in my paper.
    I don't see a theory, sorry. I see a series of suppositions and opinions. That's not a theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes
    I will never be able to prove my theory, that was not my intention. At best, by asking the right questions, I hope to open up a debate which challenges the assumption that our universe is all there is.
    That's sort of a straw man assumption, but to challenge even a straw man requires more than an assertion of your own assumptions and the raising of questions.

    You say "if this [theory] is correct, then [it] can be developed...". You have made an assumption, and you have apparently not developed it. It does not seem that you have gone very far to construct an actual theory. You say you wish to open up a debate. Is that as far as you can go?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    “Then compare that to what the weakest signal LIGO is able to detect. This is very useful to do, as it will give you some idea of if current technology can detect it, or if not how much more sensitive our technology needs to be. If you are serious about developing your theory, you should start with the basic calculations like this just so that the rest of us have some idea of what your idea requires.”
    And “what range future gravity wave detectors would have to operate at to detect what you want them to detect? You claim the millisecond range isn't good enough, so what range would be? How does this compare to today's detectors?”

    Thanks for your questions on GW detection. Its is a very complex field and my access to it is limited, but here is my best shot. Data from Wikipedia.

    First, why is GW such a promising field if the measurement task is so difficult?
    The energy release from a black hole merger is enormous, several solar mass equivalents have been seen already, up to 5% of the total event.
    This is possibly the best one. As you say energy falls off at 1/r2, but GW detection measures not the energy of the event but the amplitude of the wave. This falls off at 1/r. Source Ask Ethan!
    So reaching out into is going to be easier once the technique improves.
    Already LIGO’s 3rd run 03 is reporting events out to 5725Mpc with remnants up to 80 solar masses (oh for SI units!) OK the error bars are large but another order of magnitude and we are out into the cosmos with LIGO. 03 brought a 60% improvement and more major upgrades April 20.
    LISA. Briefly, with arm 2.5 million kms long it can detect mergers of supermassive black holes where the frequencies are much much lower. Possibly first waves in the 2030s. But it has the potential to detect well out into the cosmos.
    The International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA). The Large European Array for Pulsars in their report in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 455, Issue 2, Jan 2016 claimed the potential to detect supermassive black hole mergers out to 1000Mpc. So another GW detection method is already within reach of the sensitivities needed. It is much easier to get LIGO updates that IPTA.
    So the technology is nearly there.
    What could be out there? Anything or nothing, from LIGO scale mergers, LISA smbh mergers or black holes binaries up to cosmic scale black hole binaries with wavelengths the size of the universe.

    You started with “This (a big, old universe) is a pretty common idea that cosmologists talk about”. I hope the folks at LIGO do talk about it are dreaming of such a eureka moment. The data is going to need some scrutiny before we hear of it.

    Redshifts

    As I said in another answer I should not have included the section on redshifts. It is not essential to the Big Cosmos concept. I guess I just liked the line “Honey I shrunk the universe!” ;(

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    7
    Originally posted by Geo Kaplan
    “You say "if this [theory] is correct, then [it] can be developed...". You have made an assumption, and you have apparently not developed it. It does not seem that you have gone very far to construct an actual theory.”

    So my assumption is that the cosmos is a much bigger and older than our universe.
    My idea, or hypothesis if you prefer, is that it is now easy to explain Dark Energy as the gravitational pull of that cosmos. I offer some suggestions as to where the data may be found to support this idea.
    In a recent answer I try to show that GW technology will soon have the ability to search the local cosmos for evidence of a bigger, older cosmos.
    There is much being done to improve the measurements of Ho and a significant body of opinion is with the tension argument as opposed to a measurement error. If the tension is true then the assumptions I see suggest the answer lies in “new physics”.
    If the tension is true then I argue that it can be explained without new physics, by the gravitational pull of the cosmos. No need for the mysterious vacuum energy reproducing itself as space expands. Rather by applying GR to the whole cosmos rather than just our universe, the acceleration of the universe can be explained. With better data on the true expansion of the universe some measure of the local structure of the cosmos can be determined.
    And no, not for me, my old brain is not up to that challenge.
    So as I said Dark Energy was the easy bit.

    In my notes section I suggest briefly how this idea may help to explain some of the other “fundamental problems” in cosmology. Not my words but the opinion of others well qualified to comment. My simple idea does not require new physics, nor does it “explain a phenomenon that is not understood in the context of an existing theory, by introducing a new idea or mechanism which itself is not understood and which has no physical motivation to exist, other than to explain the original phenomenon.”
    It is such a simple idea but the implications challenge much of the Standard Model.
    I think my idea has legs and does need to be developed further. It is not easy to get any feedback when one is a crazy amatuer. That is why I am here in ATM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,388
    Closed pending moderator discussion
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,890
    Quote Originally Posted by LindsayForbes View Post
    I think my idea has legs and does need to be developed further. It is not easy to get any feedback when one is a crazy amatuer. That is why I am here in ATM.
    LindsayForbes,

    I'm afraid you have mistaken the purpose of the ATM forum. It is intended as a place where proponents present, defend, and answer questions about their theories. It is not the place for developmental, collaborative, speculative, or feedback discussions. This thread will remain closed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •