No, instead you resort to unknown and likely non-existent physics :lol:FlatEarth":2gdpvax7 said:Yes, it is conjecture on my part, but you make an incorrect statement when you say it is not supported by observation. What I've done is to try to explain logically what is observed without resorting to an unknown and likely non-existent force.origin":2gdpvax7 said:This is your conjecture and is at odds with the scientific community. Your conjecture is not supported by current theory or observation.
Sure, that's what a Big Bang is - the beginning of expansion. No problem there.FlatEarth":2gdpvax7 said:1. Expansion of space-time was initiated at the BB and continues unabated.
This is certainly controversial - given what we know of the matter and radiation contents of the universe, in the past both of those should have dominated the universe's energy content (radiation for the first few hundred thousand years, then matter for the next few billion years). Because these things exert an attractive gravitational pull, both of those eras - the radiation-dominated era and matter-dominated era - almost certainly exhibited a decelerating expansion. In the next few years we'll be able to probe back and see what the expansion actually looked like during the matter-dominated era, but we're pretty sure that's what we'll see.2. Expansion of space-time accelerates and has always accelerated.
So you've made a claim just by stating it, without giving any backing or evidence, while science makes the opposite by using well-established physics to make a prediction from solid data. You may be right, but it's much, much more likely science is
Well, if you're defining force that way, then there's no theory of dark energy which I know of which can be called a force. Various ideas include: a vacuum energy, whose gravitational effects would be repulsive; a so-called "scalar field", which would do the same; and modifications of Einstein's equations of gravity which would cause the expansion to accelerate at late times; but if you don't consider gravity a force, then neither would any of these (which are effects of gravity) be.3. The expansion of space-time is not driven by a force, but is analogous to gravity which is a distortion of space-time and not a force.
My point being, I'm not sure you're disagreeing with the current theories here, and if you are, then your ideas are so far not very well defined.
Matter expanded at the same rate as spacetime? What does that even mean? Matter's expansion is different from that of spacetime? Technically, matter doesn't expand at all - it's spacetime that expands, and matter that expands along with it. I'm guessing this is just a misunderstanding you have - if you're actually suggesting that the current theories are wrong and matter does have an expansion of its own, bear in mind that there's no evidence for such a thing and no basis in known physics, so you already have two strikes there4. Matter initially expanded at about the same rate as space-time, but gravity and other forces emerged which caused matter to expand at a slower rate, and allowed stars and galaxies to form.
Well... that's true... gravity between objects gets weaker as the distance between them expands...5. Galaxies continued to expand away from each other, and the effects of gravity gradually decreased as the distance separating them increased.
I'm really not sure what you mean here, except just "since the universe's expansion is accelerating, galaxies are accelerating from each other," which just about any scientist will tell you is clear.6. And finally, galaxies began to separate at accelerating rates that more closely align with the ever accelerating expansion rate of space-time as the effects of gravity faded.
Don't take this as hostility or my just parroting "This is not what is taught, therefore you are wrong." These are the immediate issues I see with the ideas you've put forth.