No dark energy

[Lawrence James Mccartney]

Even though gravity is considered a weak force, I believe that it's effects are cumulative. In fact I believe it to maybe the strongest of forces if I am right. Consider that gravity is constant, that all space mass continues to grow relentlessly. As mass falls in upon itself, the space between masses is continually stretched. Therefore, there is no need for a magical force to be pushing things apart. The constant tug of gravity is all that's needed 

[Rakaydos]

Interesting theory, but does it make any testable hypothoses?

[Shpaget]

4 hours ago, Lawrence James Mccartney said:

As mass falls in upon itself, the space between masses is continually stretched. 

What do you mean by that?

It either falls in upon itself, or expands outwards. Current observations suggest it not only expands outwards, but also accelerates outwards. That goes against the logic in case there is nothing but regular matter, since even if the expansion was occurring at or above escape velocity, it should still be decelerating. Since that is clearly not the case, there logically has to be a mechanism that overrides and overpowers this expected behavior.

[UmbralRaptor]

Got a mathematical framework?

[K^2]

So, let me see if I'm getting this right. Gravity is the strongest force. Which is why everything is flying apart at an accelerated rate? You'll have to break this down for these of us with just one Ph.D.

[DarkGravity]

5 hours ago, Lawrence James Mccartney said:

 Consider that gravity is constant, that all space mass continues to grow relentlessly.

What is space mass?

[p1t1o]

In my experience, hypotheses which cancel out whole fields of physics in a single paragraph probably need a re-think.

[KSK]

I think I understand where OP is coming from, which doesn't mean that I think he's correct. With apologies to all the actual physicists on this thread, I think it's time for a..... *drumroll*

Rubber Sheet Analogy!

Take one standard 'popular science' grade rubber sheet and make two marks on it, somewhere near the edge. Place a weight in the middle of the sheet. Watch the marks move apart as the sheet stretches. Presto - expanding space caused by the constant tug of gravity.

Edited June 22, 2016 by KSK

[KSK]

On a related note, NewScientist ran an article on something similar recently, i.e. that the space-time curvature caused by large scale cosmological structures could account for the apparent expansion of space between those structures without needing to resort to dark energy as an explanation (I think).

The article was based on work done by Thomas Buchert (amongst others) who does appear to be a bona-fide researcher in the field, or at least has a relevant looking publication list.The paper is here and a follow up paper, responding to a rebuttal of the original by other researchers, is here.

[PB666]

What the OP refers to as gravity is at the quantum level supposed to be a scalar quantum interaction that first resolve as quantum space-time, it was the strongest force in the early universe because it was the only force. At one point in the universe energy poured into an inflating universe the same way dark energy pours in today. The only difference is that today there are photon emmitting massive reference points and in the early universe, shrouded by the CMBR, there are no such points because the compact universe was too energetic. 

What needs to be appreciated here is that the early universe was a quantum state, superposition, it gets hairy because in that state all energy is supposed to be in a quantum space time unit, but as would other wise be known a point with infinite energy density. The collapse of this state is inflation which leads to quantum space-time that becomes classic space-time as observed. According to the model, energy subsequently pours into the universe as exotic particles which eventually leads to the observable matter and energy today.

There are numbers of theories out there that the inflating and reduction of scalar quantum spacetime fields is responsible for our visible universe, in much the same way that we can with high enough energy, pluck out higgs fields of inreasing energy, these can then be converted to other things. But since we cannot see behind the veil of CMBR, our emperical evidence is our visible universe. 

One point I should make though, light responds to the expansion of the universe it does travel through quantum space-time but as we recall light does not age, its wave length increases, it always travels at the same speed. This is our observable, we measure the propogation of fields through comoving space-time, and now we can apparently also measure space-time waves. So lets not put the cart before the horse, because fundemental to the question of what (energy) causes secondary inflation is how spacetime behaves, and as of yet we still have not 'detected' unitary interactions of quantum space-time. 

[YNM]

Ah. Stretching.

Space never "strecthes" - space "bends". That's the only thing there is from General Relativity to offer us - mass bends spacetime, spacetime bends tells mass where to go. The observed effect today in cosmology is that space strecthes out. Weird ? Indeed it is. But this implies something non-gravitational. For example, it implies that spacetimes in one site can have relative velocity to spacetime in other site - which is clearly not contained in General Relativity (apart from Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric plus the linear version of it, shortly frame-dragging, but those are only from rotation, or you need a moving mass, not intrinsic to spacetime, so unless you want to say that everything is rotating around us that is, or something very massive is moving out very quickly beyond the Hubble distance - oops, we can't even tell (!) ; then again, why in the hell would they move very quick ? It's possible but it's very weird...).

Bottomline, why is it called dark energy ? Because we don't have an idea what is it. Feel free to think what could it be but look upon the facts first.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

So, let me see if I'm getting this right. Gravity is the strongest force. Which is why everything is flying apart at an accelerated rate? You'll have to break this down for these of us with just one Ph.D.

With only gravity the expansion would slow down, the universe could still expand forever however the expansion speed could not increase. 
Either out understanding of cosmology is very wrong or its another force who push apart on very large scale. 

[PB666]

Just now, magnemoe said:

With only gravity the expansion would slow down, the universe could still expand forever however the expansion speed could not increase. 
Either out understanding of cosmology is very wrong or its another force who push apart on very large scale. 

Or the energy of quantum space time interactions is being coverted to some other form of energy. It is a bit puzzling though, because if this was the source it would only slow down the rate of the expansionary slowdown due to gravity. If we converted all the really long distance interactions into a pressure, there would still not be enough to inflate. And i think this would violate the symmetry argument anyway. So in great probability the opinion of the OP is not correct. Again fundementally to our understanding of comoving space-time is a QM explanation that we are on the very rough edges of understanding. Its probably more enlightening to come up with better questions than to posit answers, otherwise i could just say 42. 

[K^2]

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Space never "strecthes" - space "bends". That's the only thing there is from General Relativity to offer us - mass bends spacetime, spacetime bends tells mass where to go. The observed effect today in cosmology is that space strecthes out.

Actually, what stress-energy does is stretch space. The "bending" effect is just a consequence, and honestly, is just an interpretation. Take a clay disk, and stretch it locally in one area, then observe how it bends to accommodate the change.

Fundamental math of space-time talks precisely about stretching and shearing of space-time around each point. The oddity of dark energy is not in what it does to space-time. That part we understand perfectly. The oddity is in the fact that this kind of deformation of space-time corresponds to pressure in stress-energy without corresponding amount of matter, including dark matter, to correspond to it.

[Bill Phil]

I'd suggest a healthy dose of Occam's Razor.

[Mikki]

Time to examine other models than pursuing Einsteins guesswork. Sorry. Dark matter and dark energy are actually still pure guesswork.
Observed expansion of the (visible) universe can be a rather "local" small effect.
Okay, taxfunds fuel science in many ways, but titles can`t save anyone from doing serious work.
I strongly doubt when long time studied people declare "Heureka".

But really no offense to anyone here posting:

Einsteins idea of implementing a imaginary constant in his proposal was a pure shot in the dark, still.
I am taxpayer and i have some experience in live, Doktors and Bankers never impressed me.
Taxfunded theoretical science is prone to corruption aswell as any other "valuable" science.

Example for out of the box thinking: 

A friend mentioned once that photons "may decay after a random time/distance travelled" (also guesswork, sure, like dark matter/energy), the fact that massless ("m-a-s-s-l-e-s-s") photons are affected double as much by gravity (from large "mass") than actual physics predicts and bend spacetime themself, still doesn`t fit somehow.

Good to know energy and information need no "mass"... to be transferred. Sure?
Who has ever observed photons travel infinitly in empty space as modern physics suggest claims?
Me not. You?

Imagine ridicilous gigantic empty intergalactic space and voids. Only content: a dozen hydrogen atoms loitering around per cubicmile and a ridicilous amount of photons from any direction, anytime, anywhere, ..."massless".  

How about exchanging "mass" and "gravity" with "elektromagnetism"?
Like "massless" equals ... "oh, here is something wrong with the term itself..." 
Yes, shredding all the textbooks looks very unreasonable. Or not?
Maybe photons do decay randomly to subatomic particles.
Or there is unobservable matter and energy. 
  

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mikki
claims

[K^2]

2 hours ago, Mikki said:

Time to examine other models than pursuing Einsteins guesswork. Sorry. Dark matter and dark energy are actually still pure guesswork.
Observed expansion of the (visible) universe can be a rather "local" small effect.
Okay, taxfunds fuel science in many ways, but titles can`t save anyone from doing serious work.
I strongly doubt when long time studied people declare "Heureka".

But really no offense to anyone here posting:

Einsteins idea of implementing a imaginary constant in his proposal was a pure shot in the dark, still.
I am taxpayer and i have some experience in live, Doktors and Bankers never impressed me.
Taxfunded theoretical science is prone to corruption aswell as any other "valuable" science.

Oh, yes, that's the educated thinking that will bring us forward to the stars!

News for you, which you might have been unaware of. While Einstein's guess on applying principles of differential geometry to principles of general relativity where just that, a guess, albeit a very well educated one, since he proposed the theory, we've not only been able to verify it with precision of better than 11 decimal places, but we've been able to independently derive it from principles of gauge invariance. Same principles that yielded quantum field theory. The only other theory that has been tested with that sort of precision. It is, further, derived from the most fundamental symmetries we are aware of, making it both by far the best tested theory and the one with most concrete theoretical foundation. All other modern physics is derivative works. Modern CPUs are based on same "guess" being right. So is the laser in the mouse you are using. Most of the components of your cell phone. MRI at your local clinic. Should I continue, or are you getting the picture? Or are you still under the impression that this is just dogma being spread by some corrupt government-hired scientists?

This is the kind of idiotic, ignorant, destructive talk that gets funding pulled from real research which gets us real results and gives us the technology we are using. I'm very happy with this sort of technology, and I want to see more of it. I don't want to see a bunch of Luddites who learned about science from a TV show they've watched once to keep throwing wrenches into that system. If you don't understand first thing about science, please, go p**s in somebody else's pool.

[Shpaget]

2 hours ago, Mikki said:

Who has ever observed photons travel infinitly in empty space as modern physics suggest claims?
Me not. You?

Granted, photons traveling infinitely have not been observed, but we have observed photons traveling from the edge of the visible universe. If that's not far enough for you, I don't know what is.

2 hours ago, Mikki said:

Time to examine other models than pursuing Einsteins guesswork. Sorry. Dark matter and dark energy are actually still pure guesswork.
Observed expansion of the (visible) universe can be a rather "local" small effect.

While we can't make any definitive statement about the unobservable universe, I see no reason why it would behave drastically different than quite a big chunk of the universe we can observe and call observable. This observable universe behaves quite uniformly regarding the expansion, so suggesting that the unobservable part is fundamentally different than observable makes no sense.

Dark matter and energy are not exactly guesswork. They are a model intended to help explain the observable facts. Just like when I wake up in the morning and see that the street in front of my house is wet, I can very well assume it rained during the night, even though I have no evidence that it actually rained. The reason the road is wet could be something completely different, but until I find the evidence, I may as well assume it rained.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Shpaget

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

 

While we can't make any definitive statement about the unobservable universe, I see no reason why it would behave drastically different than quite a big chunk of the universe we can observe and call observable. This observable universe behaves quite uniformly regarding the expansion, so suggesting that the unobservable part is fundamentally different than observable makes no sense.

The edge of the observable universe is a few milliom years after the big bang, if we coukd clear a oath through CMBR and start look a third million years earlier it would be rather different, right now we see to 13.8 billion years or so, looking ever so slightly earlier you would see a tale of a very exotic universe. The problem is that the exotic universe was so exotic it was unstable and consequently we have CMBR. 

light behaves rather uniformly in space, it turns around massive objects, it red shifts as one expects from a field,mcertainly it would behave the same up to the point electromagnitism and weak force merge at high energy densities.

[monstah]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I don't want to see a bunch of Luddites who learned about science from a TV show they've watched once to keep throwing wrenches into that system.

TVs that work based on the same they don't "believe" in, I might add.

[Mikki]

8 hours ago, Mikki said:

But really no offense to anyone here posting:

 

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Oh, yes, that's the educated thinking that will bring us forward to the stars!

...If you don't understand first thing about science, please, go p**s in somebody else's pool.

?

[lajoswinkler]

On 22.06.2016. at 3:53 AM, Rakaydos said:

Interesting theory, but does it make any testable hypothoses?

Then it can't be a theory. Theory has evidence and can produce new hypotheses. It's a hypothesis, at best.

[Bill Phil]

2 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

Then it can't be a theory. Theory has evidence and can produce new hypotheses. It's a hypothesis, at best.

Sadly, the word theory as it's used in the vernacular is different from the scientific meaning. There's so much social inertia behind it that it's probably best to just accept that. If it's in the vernacular, it's technically correct... Language changes over time.

[lajoswinkler]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Sadly, the word theory as it's used in the vernacular is different from the scientific meaning. There's so much social inertia behind it that it's probably best to just accept that. If it's in the vernacular, it's technically correct... Language changes over time.

No, things are changing in the positive direction because of internets and people who correct 

And languages do change, but accepting gross misinterpretations of such words, especially because it introduces massive confusion and degradation of public opinion of science, is completely unacceptable.

Edited June 23, 2016 by lajoswinkler

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, lajoswinkler said:

No, things are changing in the positive direction because of internets and people who correct 

And languages do change, but accepting gross misinterpretations of such words, especially because it introduces massive confusion and degradation of public opinion of science, is completely unacceptable.

It's inevitable, though. The definition of words change, and it takes a large amount of effort to prevent that. But in the end it's just a word.

News outlets and mass media, plus youtube (used by billions) are kind of preventing the word from being correct in the vernacular. However it can be changed. But it's also just a word in the end, new ones can be made.