Study finds 'lumpy' universe cannot explain cosmic acceleration

Jun 19, 2014 by Amanda Siegfried
“Because we have eliminated one possibility, researchers can now focus on examining other possible theories as a cause of cosmic acceleration,” said Dr. Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, an associate professor of physics.

(Phys.org) —Astrophysicists at The University of Texas at Dallas are helping to better define the nature of the cosmos by examining why the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating pace.

In the last century, scientists developed the Big Bang model, which posits that the universe began when a single point containing all the matter in the universe exploded some 13.8 billion years ago. Since then, the universe has been expanding.

In 1998, researchers observed light from exploding stars called supernovas, and found that the universe is not expanding at a constant rate, nor is it slowing down, as would be expected from the force of gravity pulling all matter together. Instead, scientists found that the expansion is speeding up.

To explain this observed "," astrophysicists have devised several competing theories. Thanks to UT Dallas research, one of those theories can now be crossed off the list.

"Because we have eliminated one possibility, researchers can now focus on examining other possible theories as a cause of cosmic acceleration," said Dr. Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, an associate professor of physics who recently published a scientific study. Two of his graduate students, Austin Peel and Dr. Michael Troxel, who recently earned his PhD, are co-authors of the paper, which was a highlighted study in the journal Physical Review Letters and was featured research on the American Physical Society website.

The theory the research refutes is related to the "lumpy" universe concept, which contends that the force of gravity between pieces of matter has created some areas in the universe of clumped matter and other areas that are practically void. If the lumpy universe theory were true, this clumping creates certain expectations about how quickly the different parts of the universe should expand.

But in his research, Ishak-Boushaki found the theory incompatible with observations of the rate at which groups of galaxies form clusters.

Ishak-Boushaki said the only way cosmic acceleration could take place in a lumpy universe is if there are other conditions present that would explain observations of the galaxy clusters. In particular, figuring a mathematical term called the "cosmological constant" into the theory's calculations can explain the accelerated expansion in a lumpy universe. This term, more commonly known as "dark energy," is a little understood feature of the universe that astrophysicists are exploring as one of the underlying causes of cosmic acceleration.

Without something else at work, Ishak-Boushaki said that his team's calculations "have shown definitively" that the lumpy universe theory alone cannot account for cosmic acceleration.

Ishak-Boushaki said the next step in his research will be to work on the remaining possible theories for cosmic acceleration, including the possibility that the mathematical theories of gravity may be a bit off. But the work has broader applications as well.

"The questions surrounding cosmic acceleration are some of the most important issues in cosmology and physics because they relate to other fields of study," he said. "The cosmological constant emerges in a unified theory of physics, and it touches research areas like . That's why agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy are interested in these questions."

Explore further: Researchers shed new light on dark energy, cosmic speed-up

More information: Mustapha Ishak, Austin Peel, and M. A. Troxel. Stringent Restriction from the Growth of Large-Scale Structure on Apparent Acceleration in Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 251302 – Published 19 December 2013. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/… ysRevLett.111.251302

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Prof explores universe through gravity lens studies

Apr 30, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The National Science Foundation recently awarded Dr. Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, associate professor of physics at UT Dallas, a $222,000 research grant for his investigations of the gravitational lensing technique ...

Have cosmologists lost their minds in the multiverse?

May 13, 2014

The recent BICEP2 observations – of swirls in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background – have been proclaimed as many things, from evidence of the Big Bang and gravitational waves to something ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2014
The "cosmological constant"....more commonly known as "dark energy," is a little understood feature of the universe that astrophysicists are exploring as one of the underlying causes of cosmic acceleration.


Good luck! So far it has left us all in the dark.
Next in line to be struck off the list of possibilities ought to be the Big Bang theory.

TopCat22
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 19, 2014
It is very simple. There is no big bang. The universe expands by the constant creation of space-time emanating spontaneously from every point everywhere at the same time. This means that as new space-time emanates between any two points it expands the distance between the two points exponentially (exponentially in both in distance and speed). If we run the clock backwards from here and today, it would appear that the universe began at one point. This is then the illusion of a big bang created because the information and structure of the universe becomes diluted and rarefied while the matter and energy appear more and more concentrated to the point of an illusionary infinite density of a singularity. The big bang is therefor simply an illusion of the calculations and observations.
SolubleFish
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 19, 2014
@TopCat22

Dude, take your drivel elsewhere. Your comments give the distinct impression that you enjoy hearing yourself speak, or reading what you've written.

But it's all nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. Saying non-falsifiable things in a comments section does not impress anyone but yourself.
MrPressure
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TopCat22
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 19, 2014
Dear @SolubleFish ... I respect your right to comment however your post is but a fart after digesting my clearly articulated observations,

If you have something thoughtful to contribute to this topic of discussion please feel free to post something worth reading.

Thank you for considering my original thoughts which have clearly gone in one of your eyes and out the other without encountering anything but dark mater in between.
no fate
4 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
Topcat- Your theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion...for the same reason every single expanding space theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion, we can measure the motion. If all was expanding equally and spacetime was being created as you say, the expansion would be imperceptible to us. But if it is any consolation, I understood what you were saying alot more than MrPressure.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
@ Doiea-Skippy you steal the theory from Socratic-Skippy. If you are copying cat his theory you should at least get it right like he does otherwise peoples will get confused with who is telling the truth.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
@Uncle Ira: The authors of ideas aren't important, their ideas are. Do you think, that the validity and arguments for relativity depend on Einstein's opinions, for example? Of course not - once some theory gets postulated, it's life becomes independent on life of its founder. The name calling has absolutely no significance here.


I did not call you no name. That is the lie you telling on me. Knock it off, okayeei? All I was telling you was that the Socratic-Skippy, he used to be the Zephir-Skippy, had that idea first so you should give him credit for it just to nice about it.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Stevepidge
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2014
Topcat- Your theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion...for the same reason every single expanding space theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion, we can measure the motion. If all was expanding equally and spacetime was being created as you say, the expansion would be imperceptible to us. But if it is any consolation, I understood what you were saying alot more than MrPressure.


Not sure about his theory, but how would it be imperceptible? Space is still expanding and objects would still be red shifting in relation to our location. Just curious.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wolf358
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2014
How about, "The universe isn't expanding; _we_ are shrinking." X-)
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 19, 2014
I could swear I heard a Huge Bang sometime ago....didn't you?

Hint: Photon-blue shifting and the Pioneer Anomaly. Go re-figure your math.
Doiea
Jun 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SolubleFish
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
@TopCat22 - a pox on you, sir.

Indeed my post is a fart - the result of severe indigestion from consuming half-baked ideas such as yours.
Gawad
5 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
had that idea first so you should give him credit for it just to nice about it

This is indeed nice of you, but it's completely unnecessary, as no other person on the world actually understands this subject with exception of Zephir. So if you find such an explanation, no discussion about its authorship are actually required.


You mean with the exception of yourself. Hey, Zeph, are you working on the hypothesis that you can get banned on the same day you create a new sock puppet? It's looking good so far!

Hummm, what was the acronym again for that crackpot theory you keep pushing?
katesisco
1 / 5 (12) Jun 19, 2014
Exploring the idea that the globular clusters are compressed galaxies, could anyone estimate how large these globular clusters would be if the distance between the stars was similar to our Milky Way?
I am trying to get my mind around this idea of expanding/compressing universe of the astronomers Burbidge. It shrinks down, it blows back up.
I like this idea due to the fact that astrophysicists have discovered that our bh are localized through the age of the universe. While the claim is still made that the expansion continues, the local galaxies are 'contained' in a bubble. Far away galaxies are 'contained' in their bubble. Like pool balls on a table --each separate--in a pool hall. It is proposed that they 'merge' --Well, if that was true, there would be one bh of immense size. And there isn't, so what I think happens is that the bh --actually mazed light which I call Light Terminus starbodies) attract because of magnetic energy and the bh of the separate galaxies join.
katesisco
1 / 5 (11) Jun 19, 2014
Additionally, once this happens the energy overloads space/time in which the newly larger bh sits, and causes a warp in space time that allows the galaxy to relocate instantly inside its bubble many light years away with a much reduced bh due to the energy needs to shift space time.

SOMETHING has to be responsible for the creation of the ancient globular clusters and compression fits but what an energy requirement it must take.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2014
This is indeed nice of you, but it's completely unnecessary, as no other person on the world actually understands this subject with exception of Zephir. So if you find such an explanation, no discussion about its authorship are actually required
@Doiea-Zephir
considering YOU are zephir, this is actually comical... however, spam is spam, no matter if you fry it, grill it, toast it, saute it, whip it, grind it, or add cheese...

unfortunately, the only reason that "no other person on the world actually understands this subject with exception of Zephir" is because it is your personal delusion... and that is SO hard to share and get all the details right, as it changes daily
what was the acronym again for that crackpot theory you keep pushing?
@Gawad
Which one? DAW/AW or the other conspiracy BS stuff?
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (16) Jun 19, 2014
Hey, Zeph, are you working on the hypothesis that you can get banned on the same day you create a new sock puppet?

He is under the (mistaken) apprehension that his 'wisdom' might get preserved for posterity, here. Fortunately for posterity the mods have started to delete his posts when they delete his accounts. So his presence has become even more ephemeral to things thant it was before (if that is at all possible)
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2014
Topcat- Your theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion...for the same reason every single expanding space theory cannot relate to cosmic expansion, we can measure the motion. If all was expanding equally and spacetime was being created as you say, the expansion would be imperceptible to us. But if it is any consolation, I understood what you were saying alot more than MrPressure.


Not sure about his theory, but how would it be imperceptible? Space is still expanding and objects would still be red shifting in relation to our location. Just curious.


Spatial expansion is totally different than the space between objects increasing. If all space is expanding, this would include the space occupied by matter. The universe in this case is one giant IRF in which one of the properties is that everything is expanding equally. Therefore the effect could only be observed outside that reference frame.

Hope that helps Steve.

TopCat22
1 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
since space-time is compressed around massive objects and less so in between this could also help explain the dark matter & dark energy conundrum which could more simply be that space-time expands faster and more densely around large masses such as galaxies and such. A good theory manages to address multiple observations such as the big bang and dark mater and dark energy. These could all be illusions of the natural property of expanding space-time that expands at different rates depending on its local density governed by the gravitational flux in any given point.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2014
@SolubleFish said ...

Indeed my post is a fart.


We agree on something. LOL
Drjsa_oba
not rated yet Jun 19, 2014
If space was expanding equally or unequally everywhere the universe would expand at ever increasing rate e.g accelerated expansion . Matter would still attract matter through various forces (nuclear and gravity) and would not expand in line with space itself.
Drjsa_oba
not rated yet Jun 19, 2014
interestingly enough an expanding space might be somewhat noticeable in intergalactic distances by changed gravity effects - don't think anyone has attempted to measure this and until they do it cannot be ruled out.
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
See another good theory "Lumpy" being held back buy this stupid big bang and acceleration crap. There is more to this than a big explosion and some stupid bubble expanding into nothing. Dump the CRAP! You might as well say we live in some giant aliens fart thats coming out of his butt. (Explosion & Expanding)
Bob Osaka
not rated yet Jun 20, 2014
Great. So now we know one less way to build a lightbulb. Szekeres is out. Absolutely agree that the mathematical models of gravity "may be off a bit" or rather insufficient. How to even begin such a calculation, with all the "noise," is the really big question.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
Of what use of this Research through continued misleads.
Search Origins-Space Cosmology Vedas Interlinks -prime Concepts and Base concepts.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
Space -Time Energy Concepts must be understood with comprehension of Cosmological Index and Cosmic function of the Universe. Need to search Origins
humy
5 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2014
It is very simple. There is no big bang. The universe expands by the constant creation of space-time emanating spontaneously from every point everywhere at the same time. ...the big bang is therefor simply an illusion of the calculations and observations.


Interesting theory. All such alternative theories should be explored. But, unless I misunderstanding what you imply by your theory, which is a sort-off steady state theory with no beginning of the universe, I see at least two big problems with this theory if it is correct:

1, the concentration of matter should forever get less and less so that, by now, the concentration of matter would be so thinly spread that we shouldn't be able to see distant galaxies like we see today.

2, the second law of thermodynamics would mean all the stars would have gone out by now.

The only way around that I think is for new matter and energy to continually spontaneously form -something we have no evidence for.
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2014
since space-time is compressed around massive objects and less so in between ....


Do you have an example which demonstrates this?

nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2014
All these illogical stories, theories and speculation about the origin of the universe, the logical conclusion is that many do not understand themselves, how can they know something true about the one who has formed them. Big Bang never able to happen. Whose brain it can well imagine that something so big can "bear" from nothing. And this is nothing before the Big Bang, what was it and how it seemed, was there some space, some substance, some energy or anything from what the universe was created. Let us now allow our little awareness that something she says, which we serve when we want to know something that we were not Jasmim and visible? I guess this is our consciousness (individual), which has nothing to do with matter or energy that constitute the salient part of the universe (let's call it COSMOS). Means we discern and learn by means of something else, the modern day science does not want to admit, or than that It has a profit. The present theory contaminate our consciousness, similar to the use of force to impose genetically modified food or pharmaceutical "confused drug" more harm than they used sick. Today, humanity is really "sick" with regard to the recognition of the existence of spiritual entities of the universe. That "nothing" of what caused all must be what science calls "dark". It is a dark substance that needs to call the ether. Ether fills the infinite universe and of the ether was created (my) COSMOS are expressed, manifested part of the universe, which represents the material and all kinds of energy (galaxies and everything in them and around them). Cosmos is expanding and partly arises and disappears, and has all the features of the modern day science knows and what he sees and knows, it is a spiritual entity of the universe. From the ether created everything and it all returns by certain laws, we do not want to know, with all these processes managed ABSOLUTE AWARENESS OF THE UNIVERSE, as the most powerful state that we do not understand, and we are part of (our consciousness and soul) . Without this we can not continue, and this needs to remember everyone who uses our awareness. This will be my contention for all times and all of this can be attributed to my attitude and personality.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2014
@Gawad
Which one? DAW/AW or the other conspiracy BS stuff?


Good point; which one indeed! I was thinking of the one that involves electron ducks farting bubbles at the water surface. So, yeah, DAW/AW, but that's not his preferred acronym for it ;^)
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2014
@Gawad
Which one? DAW/AW or the other conspiracy BS stuff?


Good point; which one indeed! I was thinking of the one that involves electron ducks farting bubbles at the water surface. So, yeah, DAW/AW, but that's not his preferred acronym for it ;^)


I think he called it the AWT model of the everything.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2014
Interesting theory. All such alternative theories should be explored. But, unless I misunderstanding what you imply by your theory, which is a sort-off steady state theory with no beginning of the universe, I see at least two big problems with this theory if it is correct:

1, the concentration of matter should forever get less and less so that, by now, the concentration of matter would be so thinly spread that we shouldn't be able to see distant galaxies like we see today.

2, the second law of thermodynamics would mean all the stars would have gone out by now.

The only way around that I think is for new matter and energy to continually spontaneously form -something we have no evidence for.


We do have evidence of new matter and new energy continually and spontaneously forming out of nothing... some examples are Hawking Radiation ... Casimir Effec ... the mater antimatter pairs of particles spontaneously arising in space.... to name a few
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2014
these spontaneously generated particles if shown to increase in density around massive objects could account for the Dark Mater and Dark Energy assuming that as we get closer to the event horizon of black holes the density of space approaches infinity and the generation of spontaneous mater and energy increases accordingly.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2014
since space-time is compressed around massive objects and less so in between ....


Do you have an example which demonstrates this?



Yes its part of the Albert Einstein Theories on Gravity.

It is also why your GPS is adjusted by atomic clocks. The satellites in space orbit in a space-time that is less compressed and less dense and their time is not the same as time on the earths surface.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2014
We do have evidence of new matter and new energy continually and spontaneously forming out of nothing... some examples are Hawking Radiation ... Casimir Effec

These effects do not create mass out of nothing. e.g. the matter that is created in Hawking radiation is lost by the black hole. With other effects you get particle antiparticle pairs which are just a converson of energy into matter (by E equals m c squared). There's no free lunch, here.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
We do have evidence of new matter and new energy continually and spontaneously forming out of nothing... some examples are Hawking Radiation ... Casimir Effec

These effects do not create mass out of nothing. e.g. the matter that is created in Hawking radiation is lost by the black hole. With other effects you get particle antiparticle pairs which are just a converson of energy into matter (by E equals m c squared). There's no free lunch, here.


energy and mass are one and the same thing ... they are equivalent .... Energy = Mass!

The Casimir Effect is clear proof that Space-time spontaneously generates energy out of nothing .... proof of the ultimate free lunch.

otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2014
2, the second law of thermodynamics would mean all the stars would have gone out by now
@Humy
very good point, Humy... Would nuclear fusion even be capable under such conditions? this would also rule out nuclear fusion under Reg's expansion theory as well... cool!

glad you chimed in.
I was thinking of the one that involves electron ducks farting bubbles at the water surface
@Gawad
you forgot to mention the water strider! don't forget the water bugs and the fact that the perspective yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah! :-D
I think he called it the AWT model of the everything
@Ira
should be DAFT (Dense Aether Flatulence Theory)
it fits him better... very Socratic!
humy
3 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2014


We do have evidence of new matter and new energy continually and spontaneously forming out of nothing... some examples are Hawking Radiation ... Casimir Effec ... the mater antimatter pairs of particles spontaneously arising in space.... to name a few


But neither of those two effects can explain why all the stars would have gone out by now if that 'steady state theory' (if I may call it that) was correct.
I also should point out that:

1, according to theory, Hawking Radiation indirectly comes from the mass of the singularity thus is not new energy but energy coming from mass and it also doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics.

2, The Casimir effect also doesn't result in any net new energy forming and it also doesn't break the second law of thermodynamics.

P.S. just noticed I made a logical error in my previous post. what I said wasn't quite totally correct.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2014
The second "law" (or should we now say rule) of Thermal Dynamics by Newton is wrong when you try to apply it to many of the currently unexplained observations.

If you draw a closed frame around the apparatus and consider the Casimir Effect there is new energy being made out of nothing. The pressure on the backsides of the plates is pressure force and some energy is required to make the force that is felt.

The reason they call it an "Effect" is because it is not fully unexplained and insulting to the collective conscience to call it something that would more clearly say that Newton was wrong and his second law is not really a law ... but more like a rule that is shown to be breakable.

Sorry ... but the Hawking Radiation comes directly from the mass that spontaneously generates out of nothing in space-time ... half of which is then annihilated. Half of the energy mass comes from the singularity and the other half comes spontaneously out of nothing at all.
Uncle Ira
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
The second "law" (or should we now say rule) of Thermal Dynamics by Newton is wrong when you try to apply it to many of the currently unexplained observations.


Skippy, the google-Skippys are telling ol Ira that Newton didn't have a law of Thermal Dynamics first one or second one. Google is telling me he had the second law about force and mass stuffs. Also the seconld thermal law belongs to some Skippy named Boltzmann-Skippy after Newton-Skippy was dead and dust for a long time.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
@ Top-Skippy. I'm looking at the stuffs google is telling about those laws. It's got some good stuffs to look at you should take a peek.

That Hawking Radiators and the Casimir Effectors don't have nothing to do with Newton-Skippy. Back when Newton-Skippy was doing the science stuffs they didn't know anything about them things yet. Those things were found by the not so long ago Skippys who some are still alive. Newton-Skippy didn't seem to know about the tiny little under the atoms things. I'm not sure if he knew about the atoms because I haven't read that far yet.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2014
ooops on the Newton bit .... crossed wires in the brain about whose law it is anyway... but does not change my arguments on the point under discussion.

Sorry Newton. Your laws are still good.

Casimir and Hawking are still breaking the laws Thermal Dynamics.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
ooops on the Newton bit .... crossed wires in the brain about whose law it is anyway... but does not change my arguments on the point under discussion.


Not only the who's law it was, but also which law you thought was the right one for your "theory". You getting the law inventors AND the different laws mixed up. Skippy that is going to cost you in the "Top-Skippy is a science smart Skippy" department.

Casimir and Hawking are still breaking the laws Thermal Dynamics.


You still got the wires crossed Skippy. You really should try reading up on some this that the google has about it. It is really interesting stuffs. But if you keep making up crazy wrong stuff, you might earn your self a silly looking pointy cap.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
about the one who has formed them. Big Bang never able to happen... nothing before the Big Bang, what was it and how it seemed, was there some space, some substance, some energy
Well you're right, the universe may well have been created by some intelligent entity, but we know for sure that it was not the entity described in the holy books which I assume you are referring to. THAT entity has been thoroughly disproved because he describes things in writing which we know didn't exist and which never happened.

If there is a creator beast out there somewhere then only scientists are capable of finding him. And they are doing it in the only possible, by examining the evidence. And chances are this god cares nothing about what you eat or who you sleep with or whether you work on sunday or what you may be begging him for at the moment.

Meanwhile scientists HAVE examined your books and have shown us that they are only evidence of human deception, and avarice, and ignorance.
humy
not rated yet Jun 22, 2014
The second "law" (or should we now say rule) of Thermal Dynamics by Newton

By Newton? No. You have got your physicists mixed up there.
If you draw a closed frame around the apparatus and consider the Casimir Effect there is new energy being made out of nothing.

That doesn't count as "new energy" in the context of the second law because you cannot extract it to feed a perpetual motion machine that outputs some useful energy that you didn't put into it -Sorry! -that's cheating!
Sorry ... but the Hawking Radiation comes directly from the mass

Exactly! And since mass has an equivalence to energy ( think E=MC2 ) , no new energy is created but rather the energy in the rest mass is merely converted into its massless radiation form. The fact that the energy is emitted, in this case, some distance away from the mass and in 'empty' space is irrelevant! -because it is STILL not NEW energy!
nswanberg
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
Holow blcak holes solves all.
Code_Warrior
not rated yet Jun 23, 2014
If you draw a closed frame around the apparatus and consider the Casimir Effect there is new energy being made out of nothing. The pressure on the backsides of the plates is pressure force and some energy is required to make the force that is felt.

The force results from a difference between the allowable energies on the outsides of the plates and the allowable energies in between the plates. The allowable energies in between the plates are highly constrained by the geometry of the plates because you must consider 2 conducting boundaries in close proximity, whereas the energy on the outside has fewer constraints because you only need to consider 1 conductive boundary on either side. Just because something has a force on it doesn't mean energy is being created. A raised platform held above the Earth's surface by a structure has a force on it, that doesn't mean that energy is constantly being created to hold the platform in place.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
since space-time is compressed around massive objects and less so in between ....


Do you have an example which demonstrates this?



Yes its part of the Albert Einstein Theories on Gravity.

It is also why your GPS is adjusted by atomic clocks. The satellites in space orbit in a space-time that is less compressed and less dense and their time is not the same as time on the earths surface.


Einsteins theory of gravity is not an example it is a theory. The examples you listed are a distance effect, not a density effect. A clock in space still ticks off a second at the same rate it does on earth. Time does not move slower or faster in regions of increased density.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
... A clock in space still ticks off a second at the same rate it does on earth. Time does not move slower or faster in regions of increased density.


Time is compressed (is faster) on the earth than in orbit (is slower) relative to each others perspective of the other position. As you get closer to a blackhole it keeps getting slower till it stops at the event horizon (which is the point of infinite density of the space-time fabric (again this is relative to us in our space-time).

Now look back in time and you see everything moving from one point outward in every direction moving at an accelerating pace. Let's assume instead of a physical singularity at the big bang we are seeing a point of infinite density (of space-time) that is only illusionary because just beyond that point is just more space-time moving faster than the speed of light away from everything moving in the opposite direction. All you need now is a mechanism for creating the space-time between the space-time.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
as above .... No Big Bang Theory is required.... except to make a great sit-com.

To us we see a point of infinite density relative to us... but if there was a way to travel faster than light you could travel through and just get more of the same space-time where ever you go and will always see a point for to the horizon that looks like a singularity because its always moving faster than you can see it no mater how fast you go ... there is no speed limit to how fast the universe is expanding. It is expanding at an infinite speed relative to everything inside it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
As you get closer to a blackhole it keeps getting slower till it stops at the event horizon.

I guess that would make your "Holy Shit! Reverse thrusters, Sulu!" come out REALLY SLooooowwwwww... If ya ever even finished it, at all...

"Now look back in time and you see everything moving from one point outward in every direction moving at an accelerating pace. Let's assume instead of a physical singularity at the big bang we are seeing a point of infinite density (of space-time) that is only illusionary because just beyond that point is just more space-time moving faster than the speed of light away from everything moving in the opposite direction. All you need now is a mechanism for creating the space-time between the space"
Wow... You live in a "legal recreational pot" state, don't ya....
George_Rajna
Jun 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.