Acceleration, or variable deceleration?

[uncommonsense]

Is the universe still thought by the mainstream to be expanding at an accelerated rate?

If so, has it been considered that the following mainstream principles may play a role (I have researched and can find little of relevance):

Not acceleration, but variable deceleration - in that - if all mass is moving away from the “bang” point outwardly on various paths, then (just as the edges of a slice of pizza) they move further and further way from each other the farther out from the center. And so, bodies of mass that are closer to the “center” are closer to their neighbors (of equal distance from the center) on the neighboring path. Like wise, mass on the “edge” of the universe is the furthest away from mass on its neighboring paths. Thus, Mass on the edge of the universe will experience the least amount of gravitational pull in a “sideways” direction, as its neighboring masses are furthest away. Therefore, “edge mass” overall would be the most likely of all mass to retain a straight line movement away from the “bang” point and thus decelerate at a slower pace. And so too would each “layer” or “shell” of mass be more likely to keep truer exit paths away from the bang point, except that each layer inward will experience more and more “sideways” pull – having the effect of greater and greater deceleration towards the “center”.

From an observer’s view standing on any of the masses would not all other masses in all directions appear to be moving away from the observer? And if the rate of deceleration is greater from the edge inward, wouldn’t this appear identical to “accelerated expansion”?

I haven’t posted much here and am cautious not to present an ATMS post in the wrong place. I haven’t found much information as to whether accelerated expansion is mainstream and if so which theories are the most widely accepted. That’s why I am asking.

[Amber Robot]

You have assumed that there is both a 'center' and an 'edge'. This is not consistent with mainstream thinking.

[01101001]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I haven’t posted much here and am cautious not to present an ATMS post in the wrong place. I haven’t found much information as to whether accelerated expansion is mainstream and if so which theories are the most widely accepted. That’s why I am asking.

Good.

Check out one or more of the fine references in the Q&A FAQ/Resources topic (http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/22865-faqs-resources-web.html), like Sean Carroll's Cosmology Primer FAQ (http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/faq.html).

I think that and its ilk will help you quickly home in on what the mainstream knows.

[kleindoofy]

Is the universe still thought by the mainstream to be expanding at an accelerated rate? ...
"Still"?

As in "this should have changed by now"?

[astromark]

' Uncommonsense ' It looks like your idea of a slowing of expansion is not the mainstream view. As has been well demonstrated. Direct observational information has and still does confirm that the expansion of this universe is continuing to accelerate. Standing alone and without any support I would suggest you look elsewhere for a alternate view. Why do you think its not expanding ?
Of the many whom study and the thousands that research, do you see some thing we have missed ? No.

[uncommonsense]

"Still"?

As in "this should have changed by now"?

No, thank you. I meant "still" as in since the last time I was able to watch a good science show on public television or read a good article in a science magazine talking about accelerated expansion. :lol:

[pzkpfw]

(
I think the word should be "accelerating" not "accelerated".
)

[uncommonsense]

' Uncommonsense ' It looks like your idea of a slowing of expansion is not the mainstream view. As has been well demonstrated. Direct observational information has and still does confirm that the expansion of this universe is continuing to accelerate. Standing alone and without any support I would suggest you look elsewhere for a alternate view. Why do you think its not expanding ?
Of the many whom study and the thousands that research, do you see some thing we have missed ? No.

I doubt it. However I am just asking whether anyone knows of an alternate and possibly mainstream explanation to Hubbell’s Law other than the Copernican Principle that may be similar in nature to my OP. That is, a universe where from any point, on a large space scale, all other mass is moving away from that point, notwithstanding metric expansion. In the OP all mass moved away from each other at all points but without metric expansion.

I have read that metric expansion math gives consistent, reliable results. But I also read that at the time, it was the only thing that could explain Hubbell's Law.

I don't think i'm "on to something". I don't think I have caught something everyone else has missed. I am simply inquiring as to whether anyone knows of some prior research or articles that are based upon the scenario in the OP.

Thanks a million.

[uncommonsense]

One final question,

Under metric expansion, how can (large scale space) mass not be expanding in all directrion from any given point at an accelerated rate the further away the mass is from that point. Isn't this requred under the principle? If I am point A and point B is expanding away from me in direction x, and point C, on the same axis as A and B, is expanding away from B in direction x at the same rate of expansion as experienced between A and B, and so on. Do you add these rates of expansion? I would think you would have to untill it reached the speed of light? Or more?

Just asking.

[pzkpfw]

Or more?

Yes, that's what you get: superluminal expansion ... but the Galaxies are not moving through space faster than light, it's space itself that is expanding - so no breaking of the law here.


Isn't this requred under the principle?

That the expansion is accelerating is not about those further-away Galaxies moving away from us (or any point) faster than those nearer; it's that the metric expansion itself is speeding up.

[uncommonsense]

Fascinating. What is causing this?

[pzkpfw]

Dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[trinitree88]

Dark energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

pzkpfw. Which always brings up the cogent question, in a field that requires evidence and experimental proof....which multimillion dollar particle detector apparatus has confirmed that this exists? pete

[Amber Robot]

which multimillion dollar particle detector apparatus has confirmed that this exists?

Dude, let them find dark matter first... then they can try for dark energy. Sheesh.. :naughty:

[WayneFrancis]

I doubt it. However I am just asking whether anyone knows of an alternate and possibly mainstream explanation to Hubbell’s Law other than the Copernican Principle that may be similar in nature to my OP. That is, a universe where from any point, on a large space scale, all other mass is moving away from that point, notwithstanding metric expansion. In the OP all mass moved away from each other at all points but without metric expansion.

I have read that metric expansion math gives consistent, reliable results. But I also read that at the time, it was the only thing that could explain Hubbell's Law.

I don't think i'm "on to something". I don't think I have caught something everyone else has missed. I am simply inquiring as to whether anyone knows of some prior research or articles that are based upon the scenario in the OP.

Thanks a million.

I'm not clear on what your view is. From your OP it seemed like you think the universe is expand away from a point in our 4D space time.

The expansion of the universe would away from a point in a higher dimension of space if you wanted to look at it in that way.

So with the OP scenario where stuff is actually traveling through space from an actual centre point in the universe then there is no credible prior research because from observation that is not what we see. You probably will find some crank sights write about it but I stay away from those types of sites because they make my head hurt with how much they get wrong just on the basic level.

[WayneFrancis]

As for the dark energy part, for those that don't understand the science, think of it this way.

You live in a glass box.
You've always been in this glass box.
Outside you see leaves moving around.
You can't see what is causing them to move.
You have things like leaves inside your box.
These things don't seem to be moving.
What is causing the leaves outside to move?
You call it ______

We (not having only lived inside a glass box) know it is wind. We know the process by which wind is created.

We right now are in a box about the cause of the expansion of the universe. We are not sure what it is. We see the effects quite clearly but we don't really know what is causing it or why. So we call this mysterious thing "Dark Energy"

Getting hung up by the fact that we don't know what "Dark Energy" is yet doesn't change the observation that the universe is expanding and right now the data shows that it this expansion is accelerating. Saying "Dark Energy" doesn't exist is like saying cancer didn't exist if you lived 2,000 years ago. People would have been dieing from it we just didn't know the why back then.

[mugaliens]

Dude, let them find dark matter first... then they can try for dark energy. Sheesh.. :naughty:

:lol:

Personally, I was thinking something along the lines of a tidy bowl commercial...