If you had asked that you would have posted a screed about how economic theory was faith-based and you had a feeling that if we just raised the prices on everything everybody would have more money and there would be more jobs. PROVE ME WRONG!
Do you see the difference? It’s a critical one for getting good feedback.
What, exactly, do you think hasn’t been adequately answered? Why isn’t ‘because it wouldn’t look like what we observe’ (i.e. anisotropic in opposition to the isotropically accelerated expansion we see) an adequate enough justification for a negative answer?
There is a very simple refutation of kaltkalt’s hypothesis. It’s implied above but not called out in simple terms.
If the universe were rotating about a center (causing an apparent centrifugal force), then there would be an observable center to the universe. We would be able to spot one point that everything was moving away from.
But that’s not what we see. instead, we see everything moving away from everything else, equally, with no center.
Of course, the other objections are also valid, mainly that a rotating universe wouldn’t have an apparent centrifugal force (due to general relativity), and that the problem isn’t the expansion but the fact that the rate of expansion is increasing (the spinning hypothesis would need to have it spinning faster and faster, which doesn’t simplify things much).
What causes the matter in the universe to continue to spin, otherwise they would just fly outwards. I still strongly suspect that the OP is trying to create his own religion as he still uses the arguments creationists use and not scientific principals which he claims to believe in.
I don’t get this. You seem to understand that DM and DE are just temporarily placeholders for open questions about our understanding in the universe. That much is true.
Then in the very next sentence you say that there will be a “replacement” for DM and DE. So the very question will become nullified? Are you predicting that in the future, astronomers will realize that the thousands of measurements and simulations about galaxy orbits, rotation curves, and redshifts were all wrong? DM and DE are not the answer to any question, they are the questions themselves! Unless the question itself becomes meaningless, DM and DE will not go away. We will learn about what is causing them.
Here’s an example: retrograde motion. It’s the apparent backwards motion that planets sometimes do in the night sky. Ancient astronomers puzzled over the cause of retrograde motion just as heavily as we do today about dark energy. Now we know that it’s actually due to the Earth itself being in motion around the Sun. But that doesn’t mean retrograde motion was “replaced” or that our heliocentric solar system model does not use retrograde motion anymore. Retrograde motion is still a thing, we just now know what actually causes it.
Seems there’s disagreement on whether a spinning universe would cause all the things in it to accelerate or move at a constant velocity.
Yumble:
Okay, so regarding (what we now know is) retrograde motion - imagine their solution at the time to this backwards motion mystery had been to call it Dark Motion and say the phenomenon was cause by invisible particles pushing certain astronomical objects backwards at certain times. That explains it. But i’d be skeptical of that answer.
I’m the same with DM and DE. I readily acknowledge the respective mysteries that DE and DM are both cited to explain just like I would accept the motion that Dark Motion would have been intended to explain. I just think the actual answers to those mysteries will be far more complex and amazing than “mysterious invisible force” and “mysterious invisible matter”.
It’s worth pointing out that dark matter and dark energy are not on equal footing on the “mysterious” scale. Originally dark matter was just the name given to the mysterious way galaxies rotate, but we’ve come a long way since then. There is pretty solid evidence that backs up the idea that dark matter is an actual particle, similar to a neutrino, but more massive. Many physicists believe that within a decade we will have our first confirmed detection of a dark matter particle.
Dark energy, on the other hand, really is a placeholder for “I dunno” at the moment. In my retrograde motion analogy I’m mostly referring to dark energy.
But it only does so by momentum acting against a centripetal acceleration implicit in the rotational reference frame. So the question then becomes what is causing that centripetal force. Further the expansion would be maximized by simply cutting everything free and letting the universe expand into space according to its own momentum. But then your rotating reference frame has no basis and you still won’t get accelerating expansion faster than light.