In summary: Newtonian cosmological model...The cosmological principle is the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic and that the distances between objects are the same in all directions. Hubble's Law demonstrated that the universe is expanding and the cosmological principle is based on the assumption that the universe is static. But the universe is expanding and does not have a boundary.The cosmological principle is based on the assumption that the universe is static. But the universe is expanding and does not have a boundary.
Would it be inappropriate to mention in an off-hand way that the "2009 PF Member Awards" are still collecting votes, and that you can have your say for cosmology in the [thread=359217]Astro/Cosmo Award[/thread]? There are a number of very worthy nominees and at this point the winner is all but wrapped up; but it is still worth giving a nod to anyone you think appropriate.
#38
voyager4383
1
0
Ok, total newbie here. I'm deeply involved in an IT career, however I've often thought about learning more about physics as I have a lot of ideas, but no knowledge to back them up...so I'm bouncing them off everyone else to get feedback on my thoughts.
My first thought is this: The original thread was posted about the acceleration of the expansion of the universe...which is just way to big to try to think about at this time. Apparently entire galaxies are accelerating which throws a lot of physics out the window, as that just shouldn't happen. If I had a pool table full of balls but no pockets, and the balls had no drag or gravity affecting them, the balls would bounce forever, yet by colliding into each other some would end up moving faster, and some would be slower, all by transferring motion. Even so, there is no acceleration, only transfer of motion making some objects move faster than others...some may even end up at nearly a standstill until something else whacks into it.
In an accelerating universe, the general idea is that everything must be pushed or pulled into moving in a direction, which would be the billiards theory plus gravity. So there is gravity (a force that tugs objects in a direction) and collision (which transfers motion between objects). We have a pull, we have collision, but we don't have a push which is what people are looking for in dark matter or dark force. It must be pushing objects away.
Now...my thought is truly this: We can talk about transfer of motion, and pushing and pulling all day. If you simplify a car...with an engine that moves it forward or backward...it is able to move itself. What is stopping something that is incredibly massive from accelerating itself...maybe simply because it "wants" for the lack of a better word, to be moving as close to the speed of light as possible. Maybe highly massive objects move barely perceptively faster over time without intervention, and we just can't see it because it happens sooooooo slowly that we cannot measure it at this time. Beyond highly massive objects, we have something as large as an entire galaxy full of mass...working together like an engine, that just ever so slightly accelerates ITSELF in the direction it is already going.
I dunno, maybe I'm just way wrong, or this has already been proven wrong due to other circumstances I'm not seeing...but sometimes I feel as though some people are just so intelligent that they miss the obvious...and I really enjoy theorizing about things just out of my current reach and thinking that just maybe everything is as simple and yet complicated as we think.
I look forward to any and all replies! Thank you all, I've got to go to work!