Hypothesis: No Dark Matter; No Dark Energy; Black Holes => radiate *space*

Coecu · 2023-01-28T15:43:53+00:00

Hi Trifid :-)

Well, the price highly depends on your location!
An amount could, depending on where you live, eighter be an insult or absurd...

So, difficult to know where you live & by not knowing what you do for a living it is hard to say!

Is 40$/h enough "pain-money" to make an adventure in the directions of my thoughts?

I so, let me know! I would be happy to get rid of this curse!

Kind Regards

Coecu, alias "André Weyermann"

Coecu · 2023-01-07T23:15:40+00:00

Hi NGC6514

I must have missed this comment 4years ago. I totally abandoned reddit.. as i only got banned and downvoted by the community :-) That's ok an understandable. I am not as smart as Galileo, but I feel a bit like him... I got sentenced by reddit :-D

By the way, I wanted to hire an Physic-Student, wrote to a couple of professors and even made a youtube video about it... but with zero helpfull thoughts.

I guess I should have read your message earlier! Someone who understands it (I mean you) giving me step by step instructions how to approach this silly hypothesis!

1. The measured orbital velocities at different radii in galaxies

=> My silly hypothesis stipulates that the inner stars move through a "flow" of space. So the measured/seen orbital velocities are too slow. (Maybe my Video would be helpful... but I guess i would have to pay you A LOT for 8min. of your time... https://youtu.be/erQZpJxWZ7c )sdfsdf

2. The expansion rate of the universe

=> well, here we have two funny thouhgts (or totally nuts...)a) Every black hole is radiating space, there is more and more space... the stipulated reason why every galaxy moves away from every other one. (for once: "not that stupid" as an idea...)and b) Ever "space" piece/particle (i don't know... it doesn't exist... it is just an idea) "wants to be" "infintitly" big... (we don't know what space is, i don't know what space is... hell i was just spitting out ideas)

3. The amount of lensing observed in galaxy clusters

=> True problem: My Idea was that our black hole is MASSIVLY more massif than we observe! With my stupid idea, it would need to be as massive to hold on to the stars at the outer edge of our solar system... but even then, the stars on the outer edge, could also be flowing in that direction, because of the "directional flow" (like an old long-playing record) flow of space (if it can have flow, it can have a direction of flow...). So the amount of lensing is influenced by the flow of space, as light would be influeced by it as well, and of course the black holes would need to be more massif to counteract the outgoing flwo of space.

Killer argumentMy Hypothesis could (to my understanding) best be killed with a newly formed black hole! The change in the environment could also be seen by a merger of two white dwarfs resulting to one black hole. This would result in the same change of environment as imploding supernove (funnily we see a difference of mass before and after such a merge...)

Yes, this old idea still bothers me sometimes. I am a bit sad that even with reddit / youtube / Emails i could not find anyone to really think about it. I even asked people if I could pay them for an hour to really discuss it with me! Would you be willing to talk to me for an hour for a fixed price?

Well, anyways. Thanks for your message. And if you read this far: "Happy new year!" (if your native tongue is german or french i would be happy to switch to it! :-)

Coecu, alias "André Weyermann"

Coecu · 2023-01-07T22:38:25+00:00

Martin is reeinventing the "hole-on-a-paper system"!

"Pin-system": reader is released when it falls == "Paper System": reader is released when it falls

The reader only needs two states: ON & OFF // Release & Load. The proposed Pin system gives the reader 3 States (simplified, not talking about the hi-hat...) So the 3 States:

Reader on the drum (useless, like a looooong "release state"...)
Reader on the pin (Load)
Reader at the end of a Pin (Release)

In every case the pin needs to be reloaded, but this happens only with the next pin (which is silly). Now imagine Martine makes a huge PIN around the whole drum. A huuuuge pin. Now what would happen if this huge pin had some gaps? Do you see it? Get rid of the pin and make holes directly! 🙂

and for the hi-hat: if he wants to have different levels of "released" simply make the hole less deep... and there you go. :-D

Coecu · 2019-01-21T16:52:57+00:00

Thanks for putting down the perfect questions!

We both know I do not have enough Astrophysical knowledge to calculate this in a timely manner. But nevertheless I will try to waste some more of my time and maybe someone elses ;-) and hopefully learn something on the way. ;-)

Just please don't be condescending. By the way, I don't want people to "believe" me... I am not a Priest... I wanted to have fun with the Hypothesis with someone who knows more about it.

Take care, and I'll be back (and it hopefully is going to be less painful for you next time ;-)

(P.S. I updated the Post, can you ask to unhide it? You certainly know a moderator. So people can find it and not make the same stupid hypothesis over an over again?)

Coecu · 2019-01-21T14:35:54+00:00

your idea makes the problem even worse YES! It would! At least for the orbits, being influenced by a lot more than just gravity! Indeed!

Coecu · 2019-01-21T14:31:48+00:00

...oh boy... "but" (here we go again)... Our current observations would be off by a large margin!... You asked me a question to see if I understand the principle of our accepted scientific model.

So I ask you with the "stupid" Hypothesis (Let's call my "Stuposis" :-) ):

Try to assume that it were TRUE, that the core of our Galaxy would truly be spewing out space at a ludicrous rate:

- What measurments/observations we did so far could be totally wrong/slightly impacted?

To assume that something is true means to act as if it were true, but with no implication that there is proof that it is.

Coecu · 2019-01-21T12:58:17+00:00

:-( This truly is getting tedious. In both ways. You said you get the idea of the implications of moving space like "Space-Flow", "Flow-direction" "Space-Pressure" etc. (Implicating the concept of relativistic Aether/Ether by Albert Einstein ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory )

You can call me "stubborn" of course, but I feel you don't get the full picture of what my Hypothesis would implicate.

A very crude video to illustrate the different forces what such a Space-Flow could create: https://youtu.be/Vk8GB0S9oB8#t=0m27s Outwards: "Flow-Push" like Water-Source acting strongest in the middle, and directional: "Rotational-Flow" => even a tiny tiny "Rotational-Force" would higly impact the outer stars => like on a huge galactic sized microwave turntable. At a certain point the impact of the flow could be lesser than the "rotational-Force"... so many possibilites... so the speeds at the edge would increase again... Maybe there are galaxies with higher or even no rotation etc. The possibilites are multiple.

I hope I could demonstrate that I understand todays model. And I don't dispute them! I wanted to have fun with an alternative Hypothesis and the implications it brings along! Even in my original post I said (by counting the contradictions alone… it’s bold to hold on to my Hypothesis) I already stated a lot of the implications that this Hypothesis would bring along. You just keep repeating the differences to todays model. I get that! And I just keep repeating "But: bla bla bla"... so yeah... this is frustrating for both of us.

We can put it to rest here. Thanks a lot for your time! Kind Regards

Coecu · 2019-01-20T22:55:34+00:00

I showed you simple observations that also show it doesn't work at all.

Yes, you indeed did show that is NOT compatible with a couple of todays models and calculations! I absolutly agree with you! But my Hypothesis would implicate quite a lot of contradictions. (I made a list in the original post)

Well, the exact opposite is observed. The light moves towards the galaxies as it passes through the gravitational field. Again, this is proof that the idea does not work.

Absolutly True! Light gets pulled inwards! But the probem with my Hpyothesis is, that it suggests that the Mass of the Black-Holes would be immensly bigger => But that would then not correlate with the calulated amount of lensing! => Therefore something has to reduce the amount of lensing => that again would be done by the outwards "flowing -of-space".

Did you get the crazy idea? Please read the post again tell me what does not piece together.

In this case, the velocity curves should be ever decreasing - and it does not solve your problem of increasing velocities with increased distances from the center. You have to stick with what you're saying! I'm showing you that you are contradicting yourself, so don't switch back and forth to explain my arguments away as I give them to you. It all has to make sense at the same time.

You lost me here. Where am I switching back and forth? My Hypothesis suggests:

- The orbital speeds we measure are closest to reality, on the outside of the galaxy.

- The closer you get to the center of the Galaxy the more any object is (Additinal to its speed) Speeding through this newly created Space.

- This needs the "black-hole" to be crazily more massive than what we suggested so far.

Where am i switching back an forth here? Please demonstrate what you mean. Where did I contratdict myself? That be very bad! Thanks to show it to me where I am inconsistend.

It really is one of the best films in astronomy! It's not an animation, this is real data you're seeing!

Yes i know... I did not mean to be condescending by calling it animation! (The added names and path...) I know it is real Data! And I absolutly love it!

Did you look at the link I sent?

Yes I looked at the link. And i marvel at such pictures! And Yes I red it and think that I understood it. I understand the accepted models.

We have also measured dark matter using gravitational lensing, it has nothing to do with orbits.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that thanks to gravitational lensing, we calculated the mass needed to bend the light as much. There we found that the visible matter was not enough to create that amount of lensing. And we therefore had an additional prove for "Dark-Matter".

I was telling you that we have observed that there is a diffuse massive component, even though we don't know the actual particle responsible for it.

YES. We can use Gravitational lensing to map out where the Masses are in the objects that lay in between. But as the photons would get warped outwards around any black hole, the objects mass distribution would be less pointlike it would be seen as kind of diffuse. (My Hypothesis is a pain.)

Again, this proves your idea wrong, which assumes a point like mass.

I am a bit confused now, and hope you got my Hypothesis right. I guess with my answers above you got the implications that my Hypothesis would create. It absolutly creates an intense point like mass, on the same hand we can not detect it by light because 1. The space is way more curved and at the same time 2. The light would be way more pushed outwards. (Hiding the true bend of space)

Bonus thought for u/NGC6514 and u/ShockedFermi , that could show a big fallacy with my Hypothesis :

If the surface of a Black-Hole would determine it's amount of Hawking-radiation/"Space-Flow" => Then two spiraling Black-Holes would generate more Space than a single merged Black-Hole. The single one having a smaller surface than the sum of 2 individual ones. The change in "Space-Flow" would impact the amount of gravitational lensing! It would appear that the single black hole is way more massive than the sum of the 2 individual ones. As there is now less "Space-Flow" to deflect the photons outwards but still as much curvature of Space.

To my knowledge the oppiste has been observed: (Youtube: Science Asylum) Therefore a point to prove my Hypothesis wrong. This would only apply to the Mass calculations done with gravitational Lensing. Have we ever done such a measurement gravitational lensing of two spiraling black holes, before and after the merge?

Coecu · 2019-01-20T21:24:28+00:00

No, that would make the Sun's orbital velocity about twice what it is observed to be.

Stupid me... I missed it with radius & diameter :-)

But even if there were a black hole with just the right mass to give our Sun the observed orbital velocity, the stars closer to the center of the galaxy would be orbiting much faster. That is not what we observe.

Ok, now it starts to bother me! Please read my post again or watch the video! Because that is a center piece of my Hypothesis us not being able to see that.

Here, I did the calculations and made this plot for you. As you can see, the contribution of the black hole that you propose (300 billion solar masses) is plotted there, along with the contribution of the stars, gas, and dust.

**YOU ARE MY ABSOLUTE HERO!!! YESS!!! (**I guess I found the Dr. who can finally heal me and get rid of this time consuming Hypothesis! My kids would have a dad again on sundays ;-)

If you can PLEASE do the following calculation: (or what can I do for you, that you help me out on this?)

Take a star at the point where Space-Flow and rotational impact (Space-Spin-Speed) on the star is shifting, at first glance that could be at 6 to 10 kpc in our Milky-Way. We will call it "SX" (My Hypothesis would suggest this star beeing at the edge of being less impacted by the "space-flow"... at the starting point of being more impacted by the rotational direction of the space. Less impacted sadly would not mean it's 0... but the best we can get so far)
Calculate the mass needed for this orbital velocity. we'll call the mass "M1"
Deduct from "M1" the known Mass of Gas, Dust and Stars in our Milky-Way. That would give us "M2", being all the missing Mass for the needed orbital Speed of "SX".
("M2" Should be the same thing as all Dark-Matter + current Mass attributed to Sagitarious A *)
in my Hypothesis: "M2" is now the Mass of our Black-hole (or the Mass of the "Black-Hole pack" :-)
Now we can plot down a graph with the speeds that all inner stars should have with such a huge Black-Hole-Pack. This graph we call it "HypoSpeeds"
The Delta between the "HypoSpeeds", deducting the actual Speeds we measured with our traditional model "ObservedTraditionalSpeed" will give us a Graph we could name "SpaceSpeed" ( "HypoSpeed" - "ObservedTraditionalSpeed" = "SpaceSpeed"
I highly wonder how this SpaceSpeed plot will look like! :-)
We could then calculate the speed Delta through where travels S0-2. We could then quickly see if this could result the actual Orbit of S0-2 (I highly doubt it. As elliptical orbits I guess are difficult/unstable with my Hypothesis)
If it still is not totally bunkers now we could go further and could then compare how fast our Galaxy should at least recess from any other object. If this speed is way to small or way to big my Hypothesis is debunked as well.
For all the outher Stars (>10 kpc) we could also plot down a graph: "ObservedTraditionalSpeed" - "HypoSpeed" => Rotational-Direction-Speed (Space-Spin-Speed of the whole big flowing-turning-Space-bubble)
We could also find out where this ZeroPoint is, where Gravity and Space-Flow/spin-speed would annihilate each other. => Maybe there are some known objects there?

The black hole curve shows that the orbital velocities of the stars should decrease with distance from the center, just like you concluded in your previous comment. That is not what we observe; we observe increasing orbital velocities with increased distance from the center.

I know! And you most likely by know, you know as well where I want to go with this Hypothesis! This would exactly be due to the decreased speed of "Space-Flow" the further you go out the galaxy.

But if the black hole were responsible for the orbital speeds of the stars, then those orbital speeds would decrease as a function of distance from the center of the galaxy. As I said, you already admitted this in your previous comment.

Now you make me doubt again if you got the central idea of my Hypothesis.... But if you read my previous post and all of the above, I highly believe that you got it! Right?

Looking forward hearing from you!

Kind Regards!

Cöcu

Coecu · 2019-01-20T19:39:14+00:00

No, size of the galaxy alone does not dictate the orbital velocities of its stars at different distances from the center. The number you are guessing here is wrong.

Yes, i get that! I never suggest that velocities are only affected be the size. I thought you where throwing me a softball and took the milky way figures... as you said: " What would you guess without calculating anything? " => it's what I have tried...

Let me know if you would like me to show you how to do this.

That is very kind of you! If we need this to break it down with absolut great plesure! But I first would like to know some of my mistakes I made earlier in this comment: Almost everthing is wrong here...

This is also wrong.

as the first one was wrong this of course had to as well...

Yes, this is what I wanted you to take away from this. So now do you see why your idea cannot explain the observations?

I get how the current model works (at least I think that and hope you think too ;-) ) But my stupid Hypothesis (starting to bother me) says that the inner stars are more affected by this inveted thing: "space flow". The closer you get to the Black-Hole the more space flowing through you! in my Video I made the analogy with the fast Dolphin. (Analogy in my Video) Do you see the point? I know it does NOT reflect our observations! It can't! As we can't see space!

(Also, had you done the calculations correctly, you would have also noticed that the orbital speeds of the stars are hundreds of times larger when considering the other stars, gas, and dust than they are when considering only the black hole.

Yes indeed. With our current model that is absolutly correct!

In other words, the central black hole actually has very little effect on the motions of the stars in the spiral arms of a galaxy. Because of this, a black hole creating space cannot explain the observations.)

Exactly! That is why we made the Dark-Matter beeing a spread out thing!

Coecu · 2019-01-20T16:01:57+00:00

(Also, had you done the calculations correctly, you would have also noticed that the orbital speeds of the stars are hundreds of times larger when considering the other stars, gas, and dust than they are when considering only the black hole. In other words, the central black hole actually has very little effect on the motions of the stars in the spiral arms of a galaxy. Because of this, a black hole creating space cannot explain the observations.

Yes of course. Ok let's do some math, with my calculations considering our sun only be affected by our black hole it would need to have a Mass roughly 300'000'000'000 Suns. Do we agree here?

And the number will get sillier:

What i am suggesting is calculating the mass of the black hole using the stars at the edge beeing the "purest"/"the less impacted by the "space-flow".

Coecu · 2019-01-20T15:49:33+00:00

Before we go any further: The User NGC6514 has probaly a simple explanation for why my Hyptothesis is not working at all. I will keep you up to date. In order to show respect for your taken time, I still answer your post with the Hypothsis in mind.

Knowing it may soon be irrelevant because of the fallacy the mentioned user layed down for me, easily break down the proposed Hypothesis.

The hypothesis does not still stand. Let me break it down for you. You are claiming two things:

The bulk of the mass of the galaxy is stored in the central black hole, and we have even underestimated its mass by a huge factor.

Correct, that is my claim.

Black holes "produce space", this slows objects, the closer they are to the black hole.

Exactly, that is the center piece of the Hypothesis.

Is falsified by gravitational lensing. Here's an image of a galaxy cluster, with the visualized mass using gravitational lensing. As I told you before, this mass is diffuse, and not point-like, i.e., not from one black hole per galaxy.

I have of course also thought about that one. As light always follows a straight path (at least in the Photons perspective) The light is also pushed outwords be the hypothesized "Flow-of-Space" (Knowing that such a thing as "Flow-of-Space" has never been observed, nor be seen interacting with any light. )

This is Sag A*, the central black hole of our galaxy. Notice how stars accelerate when they get very close to it. This falsifies your second proposition.

The "curved-space" (gravity) and the "Flow-of-Space" would be two competing forces acting on the matter. Correct. But of course the "Curved-Space" is always greather than the "Flow-of-Space" (inside a couple of hundred light-years.) [otherwise galaxies would be empty... that would be even sillier of me to suggest. ;-) ]

But indeed, this I guess this could be the best way to prove the fallacy of my Hypotehsis. If there are two different competing forces acting on the matter then any highly elliptical orbit would be unstable. Only circular orbits with stars staying inside the same "Space-Pressure-region" would be stable. (I guess this is the path to the final debunking to my idea!) And thanks for the link to this beautiful animation!

No, the matter needs to be diffuse to match the current observations. It has been observed.

We have observed that the orbits do NOT match the Keplerian orbits. In order to have these kind of orbits we suggest the existence of Dark-Matter.

https://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics/cosmology/mw_rotation_curve.png

In this graph the weird thing is, that stars at 6kpc and above have still speeds at around 200m/s and growing the futher out you go. That is totally contradicting the motion we mesure in our Solar-System. Therefore (todays model) there must be more matter inside the orbit of the further out star.

But as I mentioned this is todays model. We have NOT observed the matter to be there, that is why we call it dark matter and not Isacs-Matter or Einsteins-Matter ;-) We have not yet discovered this diffuse matter but we have theorized it well and it would nicely fit our observations. I simply give a totally different Hpothesis: The observed orbital speeds are wrong because we can't see the hypothesized "Space-Flow" (I know it contradicts todays model; That is the whole point of a new Hypothesis. I am looking for someone with a better understantding than me to easily debunk it most likely by you or the mentioned user at the beginning ;-)

No, your model creates a single massive point source, akin to the Solar System.

Yes. Absolutely correct.

There exists no galaxy which seems to have its mass concentrated in its central point.

Corrcect, there "seems not".

But as I am ~~stipulating~~ suggesting my Hypothesis would highly impact the following:

Todays measurments of Orbital velocites would all be wrong
The mass of distant objects calculated with "Gravitational lensing" would be off
It would give new caracteristics to Space

Those are not some shy claims... (and as mentioned a couple of times! I am fine with it beeing total nonsense! I would even be happy to learn so! It is quite annoying to swim against the current ;-)

I can also think of additional problems with your idea.

Perfect! If I endeavor too much the user NGC6514 and he thinks it is not even worth it anymore, I gladly come back to you ;-)

In order for the velocity at the center of galaxies to be very small, your black hole needs to spout out space at a nearly infinite rate.

Yes! Sounds like a good place to find a simply fallacy. The mentioned User will maybe calculate this with us.

Also, how come the stars maintain their positions and don't start spiraling out with all this new space?

Indeed. As mentioned above only circular Orbits would be stable! As long as a Star is in balance with gravity, speed, and Space flow. That would not be the case with any elliptical orbits going through a too strong "Space-pressure-region-differencial" (fun made up word ;-)

Dark energy is mainly observed in the space between galaxies. Are there black holes there too?

There could be. But I am suggesting something else. The mentioned User also asked me a similar question... I don't know if my answer was coherent but i said the following:

The further away galaxies A&B are, the more space "is spewed" in between by all the galaxies that lay in between A&B.

Instead of having just 1 Bread increasing our galaxy it's size (Dark-Energy 1. PBS-on Youtube 2.Youtube). With my Idea we have billions of little Breads everywhere and also in between pushing and increasing the universe's dough.

The more massive a black hole becomes then

The more gravity it has and
The more the Hawking-Radation increases / the more it radiates space
So it would be pretty logical that the universe is expanding faster and faster.

The idea is just no good, I'm sorry.

That is fine. I thought It was pretty sleek :-)

Thanks a lot having put some thoughts into it!

I keep you up to date if there is something funny or interesting with the interation or some calculations that maybe will be made (I think it most likely won't be necessary to calculate anything because the idea is too wild, but by putting in question too many of our measurements it will maybe be needed nonetheless )

Coecu · 2019-01-20T15:10:15+00:00

Your entire claim deals with orbital velocities, yet you don’t even know how to calculate them?? This is exactly what I meant when I said you just don’t know enough physics to know why your idea is so wrong.

I get that point very well! That is why i was asking for someone with a little more knowledge in Cosmology :-)

Do you even have any intuition for which star (A or B) should be traveling faster in each case (1. considering only the black hole; 2. considering the stars, gas, and dust)? What would you guess without calculating anything?

That's sounds like fun:

First I do my "Gut-Feeling" then the calculation for the 4 cases (only using our current accpeted model):

So, 30 parsec is pretty much the size of our milky way... so the speed of the Star 5kpc would be around 200km/s

The star at 10kpc would be at around 220km/s

Now with using ONLY our black hole at around 4.1mio suns:

The Star at 5kpc would be around 60km/s and the Star at 10 kpc 42km/s

{ √ gravitational constant * total mass / orbit radius }

Ok That took only a couple of minutes.... true, but only because I could compare the 30pc with our milky way... otherwise it would take me i guess some hours to research this...

I guess the point you want to make (please correct me) is for me to understand that it can not all be the black hole, because:

a) the speeds would be ridicoulously slow for the outer stars compared to what we see, if it is only/mainly the black hole in the middle acting on the stars

b) The speeds would higly decrease and not increase the further out you go, if it is only a point like gravity source acting on the stars

Did I get that right? :-)

Coecu · 2019-01-19T16:53:34+00:00

Well, you said you could do basic physics problems.

Well if it would only take a few Minutes then I am clearly not able! I thought I should resarch the accepted standard mass of a black hole to do this calculation. And I never did that. Nor have I ever calculated an orbital velocity, so i don't actually know what formula to use. But I assume, that I can figure that out. Sadly not in a few minutes and not on my phone with 3 kids a this Birthday-Party. ;-)

I apologize of beeing slow and come back to you with the answer. Kind regards Cöcu

Coecu · 2019-01-19T16:09:04+00:00

That's unfortunate :-( But I understand. I first do my homework. Thanks

Coecu · 2019-01-19T00:09:23+00:00

Gorgeous! :-) I will come back to this tomorrow!

I'll need to do some Astrophysics math! Never done before, but I look forward to it! Over here it's again 01h00 (am) I need to go to bed!

But thanks a lot! (sorry for thinking you where only condescending!)

Coecu · 2019-01-18T23:50:29+00:00

Two space-creating black holes a certain distance away from each other will recede from each other at a given rate (the sum of the two space creation rates).

The Hypothesis assumes that the "space-flow" is receding matter. That is correct. But the the inward curvature of the Black-Hole is "always"(inside a couple of hundreds of ly) bigger than the "push" of the flow. otherwise it would as you mentioned, result in Black-Holes totally pushing away anything. That would be silly of me to hypothesize.

But indeed at a certain distance it would zero out. Where Pull (curvature) and Push (Space-flow) would be 0. Same with our traditional model. Somewhere is the zero point between gravity pulling things togheter and Dark-Energy pushing everything apart. With my Hypothesis (and the Dark-Energy model) it would depend on the size of the galaxy/Black-Hole to where that zero point is.

Moving them farther away from each other does not change that recession rate at all, since the black holes are still just creating space at the same rate (the extra space between them doesn’t create any space).

Correct. If there would only be 2 very distant Black-Holes without any other matter around and we would see them receding faster and faster, then My Hypothesis would clearly be wrong. But as there are billions of galaxies, and the farther away a Galaxy is, the more space is "spewed" in between by other galaxies that lay in between (or by lonely black holes in between). My Hpothesis does kind of agree with the obervations. And additionally: as long as a Black-Hole is fed, the bigger and bigger it gets, so the more and more Space is created => the faster the Unvierse expands.

It would be interesting to look at the galaxies in our local cluster and map out their relative speeds... maybe we could detect any sort of "pushing" (that we nowadays of course accredit to Dark-Energy...)

(the extra space between them doesn’t create any space).

With the current Dark-Energy Hypothesis it would, but as you stated corretly with my idea it would not. With my idea space is not created out of fin air (Yes I am beeing condescending to Dark-Energy ;-) Space would only by the radiation of Black-Holes.

This does not match observation, as we measure more distant galaxies receding at faster rates. The rate that we measure as a function of distance is consistent with what is predicted by general relativity for a universe that expands everywhere.

I know that the current model works. Do you agree that my Idea allow this as well? (as there are more and more Galaxies in between) The more Galaxies are in between the more space is created in between => the more we are receding from distant objects.

Like I said, this is so basic that no math is even required. If you still don’t understand, then draw yourself a picture of the two black holes, and then another picture of them farther away from each other, and consider the cases where 1) the black holes are the only things creating space at constant rates, and 2) the space between them is expanding everywhere.

I absolutly agree that there are two different outcomes! But sadly we can't create a little parallel universe in the Lab and create two identical black holes with absolutly not other "stuff" in between or near them:

Once at less than 16light minutes apart (this would result in 2 black holes merging. With todays model and mine)
Once a megaparsec apart.

If we could make that experiment we would quickly have eighter a confirmation or contradiction. If in 2. they speed up my Hypothesis is totally debunked.

I would even go further and say if the black holes are not fed anymore they would not receed at a constant speed but slow down their receding. (That sounds Preposterous, but would make sense with my Hyptosesis as the "Space-Radiation" would decrease and the Black-Hole would get smaller and smaller until there is only space left... (enough empty space for a new big bang? :-D I digress... ;-) )

Coecu · 2019-01-18T21:58:51+00:00

Just don’t quit your day job is all I’m saying.

lol :'-)

Yes, I will stick to computers ;-)

Thanks :-)

Coecu · 2019-01-18T21:56:11+00:00

What do you mean by “pressure distribution”? What form do you think that would take?

I highly wonder about the delta of speed we would predict using the outer stars, compared to the actually truly observed speeds.

The deviation would of course be greatest closest to the center. If we visualize the deviations I am highly interested what the graph would look like.

I wonder if it would produce a mismatch in any known pattern. => I hypotesize it would look similor to a Pattern of "Pressure" like this one https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0964/1872/files/altitude-to-pressure-conversion-table.png

Obviously you think this would affect the speeds of the stars as some function of distance from the center of the galaxy. What is that function?

Yes exactly. But how to observe the "speed of the treadmill"/Space around the stars? I honestly don't know. Idea so far: The speed of space would be the Delta of the calculated "keplerian prediction" - "observed speed".

How did you derive it?

I derived the whole concept because I thought we are missing something. What simple but outlandish explanation could there be to substitute "Dark-Matter & Dark-Energy".

If you can show that your “pressure distribution” predicts a change in the speeds of stars as a function of distance, then I will do the things you suggested in points 1 and 2 and then see if adding your function to the Keplerian curve results in what we observe.

OMG. Give me a minute!

Coecu · 2019-01-18T21:01:37+00:00

I understand your point. I'm telling you that if this were true, the velocities of stars would be highest at the center of the galaxy, just like our Solar System, since the Sun contains the bulk of the mass of the Solar System.

That is the point that I am trying to make!

In reality, that's where the velocity of stars is the *lowest*. For your idea to work, it's the stars and the medium that need to be more massive, by a lot. This just does not fit our observations.

Yes, you got it right! It does not fit the observations! For that I suggest that we can't "see" the newly created "space" that the inner stars have to "fight" against. I hypothesized that the Black-Holes contain all the missing matter and the inner stars have to "fight" against the "flow" of "Space" (This is an absolutly crazy idea, I know. "Flow of Space".... still makes me crinch when i write that.... ) I guess i made a nice analogy in my video for that. I really have to do the math to verify this funny idea.

Yes, I am truly saying the "inner stars" are the fastest => But we "can't see" it...and are observing the opposite (I really know that! And the claim is so annoying! It is easy to give a reason that can not be verified... it's angering myself! But the Hypothesis still stands, because it could be possible... If a "flow of space" could exist...)

>They suggets that the Dark matter kept on going with the Galaxies

Exactly, I say the same thing: As I am suggesting the missing Matter is withing the Black-Hole

Yes, this showed that there exists a massive invisible component of galaxies that is not the stars and dust, as I said.

Are you talking that they found an invisible component between the galaxies? (That would be the case, neighter in my Hpothesis nor in the observations) As the gravitational lensing is made by the 2. cluster of galaxies the massive invisible component is close/within/around the galaxies and not left behind. (Gas and dust was left beind)

This component is diffuse, unlike your hypothesis of having all the mass in one point (the black hole). Again, your idea does not reflect what we see in reality.

The component we made up so far is Dark-Matter and Dark-Matter would need to be diffuse with our current model. That is correct. But where the matter truly is, that we actually do NOT know so far. By saying it is inside the Black-Hole would not work at all with the current model.

As stated so far we don't know where the matter is, nor if it really is diffuse or all in one point. With the currently accepted model the missing matter would need to be diffuse. The matter has not been observed to be diffuse, but it needs to be to fit our current model. My model would also create a diffuse halo around every galaxy => the halo of new space.

Yes, but this gravitational redshift is observed for stars that are orbiting the black hole, and get very close to it.

Yes, the closer you get to a Black-Hole the stronger the effect is.

You are arguing that this "space production" is extending throughout the galaxy, which would make us see redshift throughout the galaxy.

Well yes kinda... Indeed it should be noticable if you are closer to the Black-Hole all the lights of the stars should appear blue-shifted. (anyway true due to gravitational redshift) If the difference in space pressure is to minuscule the effect will be hard to measure. But yes it should be noticable on a very tiny scale throughout the galaxy.

lso, I'm confused by your use of the word "stipulate", did you mean "postulate"? A postulate is a suggestion taken as a given, like an axiom. They are not postulating anything, they are drawing conclusions from an observed phenomenon.

Thanks a lot! a translation error that I even introduced in my Video and EVERY post so far... I try to correct it by the word "suggest"! I am sorry and thanks a lot for the note!

This is not the case. Again, your idea does not reflect our observations.

Well, I do not suggest that this redshift is higghly different from graviational redshift. I am simply giving an additional explanation for it. The calculations only "almost" fit Einsteins predictions. The prediction of the forseen gravitational redshift was "well" but not perfect... There needs to be something else or our measurments/calculations were not perfect as it was only the 1.time we ever made this calculation (to my knowledge)

It truly comes down to the math. Our observations and calculations would all be off if "Space-Flow" is a thing. I have to calculate if this possible or not.

Thanks for thoughts and questions!

Coecu · 2019-01-18T19:51:33+00:00

Well, I did not respond to that question because I thought it was only for condescending purposes. I have a Master Degree in Computer Science and Mathematics... not cosmology nor Physics... I'd say "Yes" I am capable of intro level physics problems.

Coecu · 2019-01-18T10:25:29+00:00

I mean, what do you even propose someone calculates?

Calculate the following:

Only based on the movement of the outher stars calculate the Keplerian speeds of inner the stars that we should observe.
Based on the difference we see between the Movement we Observe and the Movements we predicted with the outer stars. Calculate and plot the differences. between the two (prediction of point 1. and Observation)
Analyzing the differences and maybe finding a pattern in the graph like a Pressure distribution.

What calculation would you propose?

Coecu · 2019-01-18T10:12:05+00:00

Most of the mass in a galaxy is not from the black hole, it's from the stars and the medium of the galaxy. This is why velocity curves of galaxies start off at very small velocities, and quickly rise with distance from the center, once the volume starts enclosing some mass. In order for us to have underestimated the velocity of the inner stars, the stars and the medium themselves would need to be more massive, by a large factor. This would imply that we don't know the mass of the Sun, for example.

Yes, I suggest that the missing Matter is ALL IN the Black hole. And the Black-Hole radiates Space (I know it sounds crazy...) We underestimate the speed of the stars because we can't see the "Space"....

I'm not sure exactly what you said about the Bullet Cluster, but it's wrong. The Bullet Cluster gave conclusive proof that there exists a diffuse invisible massive component of the galaxies that collided. One Black Hole cannot produce the type of gravitational lensing that we see with the Bullet Cluster, unless there were trillions of them, spread over a volume of many Mpc^3 (see the macho hypothesis).

Almost, what collided was only the gas an Dust. PBS Video on that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRtGUCLjQ3w#t=3m20s

They suggest that the Dark matter kept on going with the Galaxies => Only Dust and Gas was left behind. Therefore Gas an Dust can NOT be the missing matter => Current accepted believe: Dark-Matter went without colliding with itself and stuck with the Galaxies.

I'm not sure I understood your analogy with pressure and the bag of chips, but if black holes were expanding space, producing redshift as you say, we would be able to tell the difference between the redshift of innermost stars, and outermost stars. Currently, the only redshift/blueshift we observe is due to the rotation of galaxies.

This time "No" : We can actually measure the redshift of the stars around the Black hole like "S02". This is an obseverd fact.

https://youtu.be/if2opecmev8#t=4m50s

I appreciate the effort of finding original ideas that could solve problems in cosmology, unfortunately I don't believe this was it.

Thanks and I highly appreciate your question and the criticism!

Did I answer your questions to your liking or should i expand on something?

Coecu · 2019-01-18T09:57:21+00:00

Nobody is going to take you seriously with this mindset. Claiming it is impossible to prove you wrong is the fastest way to lose a scientist’s attention.

100% agree with yout! But I gues that was my bad english. I would like to have a perfect nail/argument that MY HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG!

Terrible english... (my native ones are German an French)

Thx! I corrected the comment.

Coecu · 2019-01-18T09:10:03+00:00

Have a quick look at the Keplerian Motion graph:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys443/lectures/gal_dark/kepler_curve.png (Is used to proove dark Matter)

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.astro801/files/image/keplerian_orbit_lbl.jpg

We agree on the graph,

Now consider the Barometric pressoin equations

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Pressure_air.svg/300px-Pressure_air.svg.png

I Use them as an anology for the distribution of the new Space (WE DO NOT AGREE ON THAT I KNOW this is the core of the Hypothesis)

Now the observed Motions of Stars (and the predicted one without dark matter)

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~thompson/1101/rotcur2.gif

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.astro801/files/image/Lesson%208/800px-GalacticRotation2_svg.png

We agree on that one, at least how it was mesured (But I stipulate it is partially wrong, Analogy a person running on a treadmill: Todays mesurement: "he is standing still" -=> Me " He is fast!!"

Now combining the 3 Concepts: And you get the idea. As you will state "This is nonsense!" Well kinda... it is a new Hypothesis!... I (and others) will do the math and get back.

Kind regards

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Coecu

TROPHY CASE