Any Astrophysicists in the house?

[Vagrant0]

So here's the thing, I was walking from my class to my car and for some reason I started thinking about that whole Dark Energy thing... You know, the force which is causing distant galaxies to not only move further away from the center, but also moving further away from eachother at an increasing rate contrary to gravitational mass. And I got to thinking... Could it be possible that this increasing rate might be due to a sort of universal rotation, such that some element of centrifugal force is being applied to galactic bodies which causes them to accelerate more the further away they get from the z axis? Wouldn't this also go on to explain why many galaxies and such also have an aspect of rotation as matter is being pulled by matter near it, but pulled away by the force of rotation. The same way soap bubbles might not only collect on the surface of a pool of water, but also take on a rotational aspect if the water is gently stirred.

 

But, the problem with this would be that space is not planar, and that matter above the axis of rotation would eventually lose momentum from the big bang and be drawn into the center. Additionally, matter closer to an absolute x/y plane would be moving considerably faster than matter above or below that plane, leading to a predominantly flat disk shaped universe. But if the z axis had a wobble, there would be a lesser tendency for matter to form along a clear x/y plane, and the universe would be more torus shaped.

 

I know there's a way to prove or disprove this sort of thing, but all that math and technical stuff is a bit beyond my expertise (nevermind uncertainty in the data). So on the off chance that someone out there might be inclined to do the footwork, I thought I'd share some of my musings on the off chance that I might be onto something and be some obscure footnote somewhere in a physics textbook for generations to come.

[Lisnpuppy]

That made my head hurt Vagrant....sorry I am not the physicist you desire. However I did see recently that some of the motions of galaxies they have a theory that the "other" universes' (not alternate) gravity may be responsible.

 

But you have fun with your theory. *grin*

[Vagrant0]

However I did see recently that some of the motions of galaxies they have a theory that the "other" universes' (not alternate) gravity may be responsible.

Yes, that is one of the theories out there... But I've always believed that the simplest answers are often the better one, and this notion of explaining forces we cannot detect with universes or dimensions which we are also, by happenstance also unable to detect... Just seems too convenient.

 

If the universe were spinning as a whole, from our perspective, even after we isolated for the spin of our own planet around its own axis, that axis in our solar system, our solar system inside our galaxy, the rest of the universe would be spinning at the same rate we were, so we would not detect the spin from mere observation.

[Pronam]

Not that I have much interesting to contribute, but I certainly like the investigations to it. Mainly as it's really unknown how dark matter/energy enacts and when ultimately found out it will should kill some fundamentals we learned to rely on. It will make sense why there's such a disc-forming habit throughout the universe. I think it's mostly beneficial and as long if there's not a big disruption to how it enacts closer and further away from the centre it would stay that way. If it was not present in its current form at all it or disrupt in a major way I think other things than inward or outward acts would happen.

[Illiad86]

Ah, I should make my boyfriend respond to this. He understands this stuff very well. I understand a lot of it too, but this one is a confusing one for me. Edited October 21, 2011 by Illiad86

[Thor.]

So here's the thing, I was walking from my class to my car and for some reason I started thinking about that whole Dark Energy thing... You know, the force which is causing distant galaxies to not only move further away from the center, but also moving further away from eachother at an increasing rate contrary to gravitational mass. And I got to thinking... Could it be possible that this increasing rate might be due to a sort of universal rotation, such that some element of centrifugal force is being applied to galactic bodies which causes them to accelerate more the further away they get from the z axis? Wouldn't this also go on to explain why many galaxies and such also have an aspect of rotation as matter is being pulled by matter near it, but pulled away by the force of rotation. The same way soap bubbles might not only collect on the surface of a pool of water, but also take on a rotational aspect if the water is gently stirred.

 

But, the problem with this would be that space is not planar, and that matter above the axis of rotation would eventually lose momentum from the big bang and be drawn into the center. Additionally, matter closer to an absolute x/y plane would be moving considerably faster than matter above or below that plane, leading to a predominantly flat disk shaped universe. But if the z axis had a wobble, there would be a lesser tendency for matter to form along a clear x/y plane, and the universe would be more torus shaped.

 

I know there's a way to prove or disprove this sort of thing, but all that math and technical stuff is a bit beyond my expertise (nevermind uncertainty in the data). So on the off chance that someone out there might be inclined to do the footwork, I thought I'd share some of my musings on the off chance that I might be onto something and be some obscure footnote somewhere in a physics textbook for generations to come.

 

 

Good explanation, i read up on this sort of thing once in awhile and there are several explanations. I wonder if your idea has been walked through via scientists. :smile:

Edited October 21, 2011 by Thor.

[Vagrant0]

Good explanation, i read up on this sort of thing once in awhile and there are several explanations. I wonder if your idea has been walked through via scientists.

 

 

Science daily is a good place to start when it comes to science related news like that.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

 

Heres a One about Dark Matter.

 

http://www.scienceda...11017124344.htm

The thing is, if there was something like a universal motion, it would mean that everything has more mass than we suspect since mass increases with velocity. In terms of absolute space (space which is not linked to the universe), rather than relative space (space as we define it, within our universe), it might make sense since things on the outer edge would be moving more quickly through absolute space than than things nearer the center, so would have both more energy as well as more mass than what we would expect.

 

It's like if you had a bunch of force instruments attached to a wheel somewhere between the center and the edge, spun the wheel at a constant rate, then calibrated the sensors while spinning. From where it was sensing, there would be no detected movement, and anything attached to the wheel would appear stationary. But outside we would see the sensors moving around and around completing one revolution after another. Similarly, other objects attached to the wheel would be moving around, but would be traveling further in our space in the same length of time as it took the inner part to travel, so would have more velocity, and therefore more mass.

 

If the movement was always there to start, and remained constant, we would only know about it by seeing unusual readings when we looked at things which were a different distance away from the axis than we were. I know it's not really how it works, but not sure how else to explain what I'm talking about. It doesn't talk anything about the actual shape of the universe as we can detect it (which is a whole other mess since we think of light and other forms of radiation as having a strictly linear path, but can become curvilinear over vast distances when subjected to gravitational and other forces), but rather the distribution of matter within the universe in relationship to its origin and the presence of energy and mass which is not easily accounted for.

[Thor.]

Space is a interesting thing, You should call it the spinning top theory lol. You never know a idea like yours might change the way scientists view the universe. :thumbsup:

 

Or laughed at.:unsure:

 

We need a Astrophysicist already :teehee:

Edited October 22, 2011 by Thor.

[marharth]

The funny thing about dark matter and dark energy is that it is assumed it exists due to our current understanding of gravity. There is no hard evidence it exists, but we assume it has to since we would have to change our modern theory of gravity.

 

Mass does increase with velocity, but how would a spinning universe work? There still has to be energy that drives the rotation.

[Vagrant0]

Mass does increase with velocity, but how would a spinning universe work? There still has to be energy that drives the rotation.

Offhand... Based on nothing I can really explain... The idea of an expanding and contracting universe might have merit... Meaning that there was already rotation present at the moment of the big bang, and what existed before the big bang was another universe which was collapsing into a singular point. Although there is a natural tendency toward atrophy, once the rate of spin was low enough to no longer enough to overcome the forces of gravity, the universe would slowly start to collapse again, as it collapses, the spin would start to increase again changing into centripetal force, drawing the universe together quicker and quicker until it coalesced into a super-massive singularity containing enough energy to tear itself apart again and giving rise to a new universe. So the energy we see could be a product of the circumstances related to the big bang. Where that energy came from initially, from countless cycles of expansion and contraction... Not a clue, but since we're talking about an event far beyond evidence, far before time even existed... You may as well just call it a creative constant that for all applicable purposes, always was (take that for whatever you want).

 

Since we have no real measure of the lifecycle of universes, and can only get an idea of an expanding one based on ancient light and background radiation that tells us it is still expanding, for all we know, our universe could merely only be in its early stages of continued expansion.

 

The thing is that we're talking about a universal scale here... Something so utterly vast that it encompasses everything within our understanding. Even when you consider the theory of a Multiverse, it's only relating other possible universes with our own, rather than trying to encompass all universes inside some even more vast system, with that system probably inside yet another... and so on, because when something works really REALLY well and the rules remain constant, it can be scaled up and down infinitely. We just don't know all the rules yet.