You seem to have made a multitude of poorly qualified statements, even assuming a lot of what you are debunking/agreeing with is theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
The expansion of the universe is a manifestation of the principle of Conservation of Energy.
|
...or entropy, or chaos theory. Einstein's Special Relativity goes a good way towards properly defining how the conservation laws should be applied.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Everywhere in the universe, matter is "falling together," radiating energy "into space" as it does so. What happens to all this energy radiated "into space"? It causes "space" to expand! General Relativity allows for this. In GR, space can bend and stretch, and it does so in such a way that the total energy content of the universe is constant. Space expands in GR as naturally as water flows downhill.
|
Space
is expanding, this is not in debate. And unless you believe in parallel universes or magic, yes, the energy output must equal the energy input. Space can be said to be both "ripping" and agglomerating into black holes at the same time though. This is only if you are concerned with physical mass, and properties exerted through weak forces, such as gravity. Since the matter calculation is short some 96% of known "visible" matter, theories turn to discussions of
dark matter and
dark energy, which is what I thought this thread would be about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Except for the trivial case of a cold, collapsed body, all gravitational systems either expand or contract. Contraction always tends to occur near "centers of mass," and expansion tends to occur away from the center. The sun's core is contracting, but its outer envelope expanding. Satellites near to earth spiral in; those beyond the geosynchronus orbit spiral away. The cores of globular clusters contract; their outer halos expand or get torn apart by tidal forces. The core of a supernova collapses, the outer parts blown away.
|
Cold, collapsed bodies will do something too, as they posess mass. Reactions in the sun are not good examples either. Total mass due to loss of photons & radiation don't truly represent an "expansion" over time. Nearly 100% of all radiated energy from Sol will be captured by other celestial bodies. Eventually the sun will "contract", as you say- it will become a black hole on its own or in conjunction with another massive body. Stars have been seen thus far to merge with others, via black holes, while spinning further outwards into the fringes of the Universe. New galaxies aren't exactly spontaneously forming in the middle of intergalactic space.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Wilson
Since all gravitational systems are unstable, either contracting or expanding, and since all contraction tends to take place "locally," it logically follows that on the largest scales, the residual effect must be expansion. The universe is in almost perfect balance...but not quite. Locally, the net effect is contraction, accompanied by the release of energy. Cosmically, the net effect is expansion. The expansion of the universe, acceleration and all, is due to "balancing the books" on energy.
|
"Unstable" is a subjective term. The visible universe agglomerates locally, as I have said, while at the same time, being spun outwards. You are correct that the net result is expansion of the Universe. I don't see how the perfect balance result you claim is arrived at. Gravitational effects are largely unexplained without the benefit of theoretical "dark matter" and "dark energy".