If this is true, then I think you have just resolved Olbers' paradox!

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

Bad choice of words (well, I did put it in quote marks).

How about "such bubbles would have more EM energy going into them than going out, if you count each photon crossing the boundary only once."

Of course, it's trivially true that, absent absorption inside a sphere, any sphere will be a net 'emitter' so long as it contains a souce anywhere inside it (all photons entering 'from outside' will also exit, absent absoption).

But this is an aspect of the OP's idea that I think we need to have him clarify, before we can consider it further, don't you agree?

Maybe the “bubble” idea was not a good way of explaining it…let’s talk some numbers.

The sun is radiating at some 4 x 10^26 watts (www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3.htm). There are about 100 billion suns in our galaxy, but most are not as big and bright as the sun. Let me make a very conservative estimate, and assume that there are “only” 1 billion sun-equivalent stars in the galaxy (if someone has a better number, please supply it!). Then the galaxy’s total power output is 4 x 10^35 watts. That is a lot of energy. Where is all that energy going? It is going “into space.” That is, the energy output of visible matter is powering the expansion.

Since all the numbers become “astronomical,” it is better to do the calculation on a per-kilogram basis. Our sun has a mass of roughly 2 x 10^30 kg (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub.../sunsize.shtml)
. So its energy output per kilogram is [4 x 10^26 watts]/[2 x 10^30 kg] = 2 x 10^-4 watts/kg, or 200 microwatts/kg. While the sun may be “typical,” it is not representative. For every kilogram of matter in a sun-like star radiating away energy, there may be 1,000 kg just sitting there, doing nothing. If we add in “dark matter” (questionable, but just to play it conservative), there is an additional factor of about 10 times as much non-radiant mass. So to get the power output per kilogram of the galaxy, I’ll divide the sun’s output by 10,000. Thus, the power output of the galaxy is estimated at 2 x 10^-8 watts/kg or 20 nanowatts/kg. Again, this is a very crude “guestimate,” and I welcome better numbers, but this will suffice for here and now. Finally, since I converted the expansion to an annual basis (#20), I’ll do the same for the energy output, so the estimate for the galaxy’s annual output is: [2 x 10^-8 watts/kg]*[3.15 x 10^7 sec/yr] = 0.63 joules/kg/yr.

Since j/kg/yr is not very intuitively helpful, we’ll change it to more familiar units. Star by converting to foot-pounds of energy per kg/yr: [0.63 j/kg/yr] * [0.73 ft-lb/joule] = 0.46 ft-lb/kg/yr. Now we get rid of the pounds & kilograms: [0.46 ft-lb/kg/yr] * [0.45 kg/lb] = 0.21 ft/yr, or about 2.5"/yr. In other words, the galaxy is radiating energy “as if” every bit of matter within it is “falling” 2.5 inches per year in earth’s gravitational field.

So there is one side of the equation: a rough estimate of the energy output of visible matter is 0.63 j/kg/yr, or -2.5 inches per year at the surface gravity of the earth.

There are two problems with Peter Wilson's idea:
1) it contains no new physics, so should not reach any conclusions that the current standard model is not already reaching, unless it can show that an error is being made in the standard analysis. No such argument is given.
2) it contains no useful numbers that would merit the conclusions. Despite prompting by Nereid, the response has only been to quantify the expansion as "very slow". What does that tell you? It takes an unbelievably small energy to rip apart a helium nucleus. Would you then care to rip apart one right now? The point is, the magnitude of numbers is not what matters, it is the comparison between numbers, or equivalently, the magnitude of ratios of numbers. What comparisons are offered in this analysis that could be used to judge whether expansion is "fast" or "slow"? The idea is not at all a bad idea. In fact, it's so good of an idea that it has already been included in the standard theory. Its impact, however, is negligible in the grand scheme-- photons are playing no currently important role in the dynamics of the universe for the last few billion years. This is all well understood, there are no new ideas being presented here, all that is happening is calculations are being suggested that have already been done. Been there, done that.

That is my point exactly! You do not need "new physics" to explain the expansion! The "standard model" presupposes an explosion, then uses GR to track how the explosion evolves. And the results look nothing like what we see! Hence, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the singularity problem, the missing magnetic monopole problem, the ancient galaxy problem, the acceleration problem... The Big Bang model is a completely wrong on 6 of its 8 predictions. But instead of re-examining the initial hypothesis, one ad-hoc conjecture after another has been "piled on:" Inflation, dark energy, colliding branes in extra dimensions... None of these "theories" have a shred of observational evidence, except that they "save" the Big Bang theory!

This is not science. (www.cosmologystatement.org/) If a theory yields 6 completely wrong predictions (and the microwave background is only half-right...but that is another subject), then it is time to try another hypothesis.

The Big Bang model has tried to explain the present expansion in terms of a singular event in the past. This approach has completely failed. What I am saying is, look for an explanation in the present.

Presently, the moon’s orbit is expanding, because presently, the earth is spinning. Presently, the sun is expanding, because presently, nuclear reactions are taking place in its core. Presently, the Atlantic Ocean is expanding, because presently, geologic forces are at work beneath it. And presently, the universe is expanding, because presently, something is causing it to expand.

And that "something" could be any number of things, but radiant energy is one obvious source. I have estimated the quantity of radiant energy (two posts up). It is such a crude estimate, it could easily be off by 2 orders of magnitude (OOMs), either way. Do you agree that my number for the radiant energy is "in the ball park" (within 2 OOMs)? If not, what is it? If visible matter is not radiating energy at about 1 joule/kg/yr, then what is the rate?

I will quickly concede that the theory is inadequate...if the numbers are wrong. But before we can agree or disagree whether the numbers are right, we have to agree on what the numbers are.

"expansion" would be a much more suitable termOne of the many, common misunderstandings about the BB (see here for an attempt to set the public record straight)Before you get too carried away with these, don't you think it might be sensible idea to check them out? Maybe they're not the kind of 'problems' you seem to be claiming (e.g. 'singularity problem' - without a theory that unifies quantum theory and GR, this cannot go away)And which 6 (8) would they be?Oh my goodness, another collection of misunderstandings, errors, and plain nonsense. Please do read the webpage for which I provided a link earlier in this post.Oh dear, Peter Wilson, to what extent have you checked out the claims on that website? Would you be prepared to defend them, here in the ATM section of BAUT (under the BAUT rules)?

If you aren't prepared to defend the claims made there, why do you feel it is appropriate to repeat them here, in BAUT (a science-based discussion forum)? I'm serious; the number of BAUT members who post here with cases that amount to little more than "the concordance model MUST BE WRONG! {insert your favourite non-science/nonsense internet website here} said so!! I read what's on those sites AND THEY MUST, MUST BE RIGHT in what they write!!" is depressing (or perhaps it's the number who are utterly unable to defend such claims, when challenged to do so).Really? Please provide a link to a much-cited, peer-reviewed paper which makes such claims (not an internet popularisation).Oh good, you are making a clear assertion - so now we can attack your claim with glee and fervour (per the BAUT rules), and you will defend your claim?And if you would like to take the time to read up on GR, you will see that the 'expansive' capability of radiation is already included in the equations, when GR is applied to the universe as a whole.

Further, you will learn that there was once a 'radiation dominated era', but now it's a 'matter dominated era' (in modern cosmology, these terms are precisely defined, tested, and match good observational and experimental results very well).

If you'd like to continue with your idea, I'll happily continue to question you about it; in particular, about your estimates, how you derived them, how you think they apply, etc. Yes? No? Maybe (need more time to consider)?

Need more time & space, Thank you.

I have been trying to present my idea in a "conversational" mode, the basic format of this forum. But this "paint-by-number" approach is getting a little frustrating for me, and (obviously) for the reader as well. On the other hand, trying to present the whole idea at once is a little bit like a snake trying to swallow a pig. But I am going to have to do something like that, in order to get the whole idea "on the table," so it can be evaluated (digested?) in a fair and consistant manner.

So give me a day, or two, or four, to "put it all together," while keeping it reasonably brief. (That is the hard part: providing enouhg information to make it understandable, without "explaining it to death" and losing everyone in the process.)

ITMT...I estimated the magnitude of "light energy" in post #33, arriving at a figure of 1 j/kg/yr, or 2.5" of elevation per year @ earth's surface (+/- 2 OOMs). Perhaps you can tell me where I lost you, or which part you disagree with. I wish I could just Google it, and present a number that everyone agrees with (as I did with the mass and energy output of the sun), but cosmologists use parameters, not numbers. For the life of me, I have been utterly unable to figure out how to convert their parameters into numbers, so I have had to navigate my own way through the data, with the result that my calculation appears unfamiliar, and is (evidently) hard-to-follow.

Peter, the problem is not with the numbers, it is with the fact that you are using the same physics as is already being used in Big Bang calculations. As Nereid pointed out, the radiation is already in there. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here, just look at the calculations that already include radiation. They find that radiation is not playing any important role in the current behavior of the universe. If you are suggesting that these calculations, which have been checked and rechecked by people highly qualified to do such calculations, are incorrect, then you have to be able to say where they made their mistake before you ask us to do the same for you.

Okay, perhaps I should have qualified that with, “In its original incarnation…” And OK, I did exaggerated a wee-bit. But if we were keeping score:

In its original incarnation, BBT predicted chaotic expansion, like a core-collapse SN remnant. Instead, it is highly uniform. The Horizon problem. Strike-one. Iioi, BBT predicted that the expansion should either quickly fly apart to near-zero density, like a bomb going off in space, or matter should quickly fall back together, like the dreaded asteroid heading our way that we blast apart with a bomb, only to have it lump back together. Instead, the expansion is “perfectly balanced” between these “more likely” outcomes, like a pencil on end. The Flatness problem. Strike-two. The Singularity Problem: the SP is actually BBT's Ground Assumption. Every theory has to have a Ground Assumption. Technically, it is not a wrong prediction. Ball-one. The missing magnetic monopoles: only in some versions. Ball-two. The ancient galaxy problem: Well, they could have formed real quickly… It was a foul ball, in the stands, and the fan did interfer, but because the fan did not reach into the field-of-play, it is not fan interference. Count remains, 2-and-2. Iioi, BBT predicted the expansion should be slowing down. Instead, it is speeding up. Complete swing and a miss. Strike-three. Hit by dark energy, calls the ump, take a base.

And Pleeeese… The reference to the cosmology petition was not meant to say, “See this petition? Its signed by a bunch of people so it must be right!" The point is, I am not completely alone in thinking the theory should have been out on strike three. (And to encourage people to sign it. )

I am well aware that these “historic” deficiencies have been rectified in the current model. Talk.origins does an excellent job of summarizing the current thinking, and putting it “all in one place.” Thank you.

To quote, “When Einstein first tried to (apply GR to the whole universe), he found that it predicted the universe should either expand or contract.” This was pre-dark energy. If you think about that statement for a moment, you realize you could ask a contestant on the Cash Cab show: “Einstein’s theory of General Relativity predicts that the universe will either expand or contact. Which of these two options is the universe actually doing, expanding or contracting?” The clueless-contestant could flip a coin. Heads, its expanding…[coin-flip]…heads it is! Yeah! Got it right!

When the expansion was accepted as fact, it was quickly appreciated, likewise, that the expansion could be either speeding up or slowing down. Actually measuring which way it was changing was out of reach at the time, but people highly qualified to do such calculations set about calculating it. And it was unanimous. All twelve (someone once said, “Only twelve people in the world really understand GR”) agreed: tails, it should be slowing down. Final answer: the expansion should be slowing down. Then in 1998, Perlmutter et al made history by finally measuring which way it was going, and the observations said: heads again! (What are the odds? ) The expansion is speeding up!

I do not know where the pre-dark energy model went wrong, and I do not have to show that the present BBT is in error. All I know is the original modelers, “highly qualified to do such calculations,” had about six decades to check and recheck their math, before the measurement could actually be made, and they had a 50-50 chance of getting it right…and they got it wrong.

And I should read up on GR?

Let me draw an analogy here. When I was going to school (Berkeley —where else? and why would I specifically mention Perlmutter?—in the late 70s), I was taught in chemistry that the Casimir effect could be explained in terms of electrostatics, the same thing that holds a piece of dust to a vertical pane of glass. You just assume that electrical charge is not perfectly smoothly distributed around the molecules, and that it randomly fluctuates, and it follows from these two assumptions that dust will stick to the glass, and the plates in the Casimir experiment will be pulled together. Two completely different models--random charge fluctuation and virtual particles popping in and out of existance--yield the same result. What does this mean?

It means that if I were trying to shoot-down virtual particles (which I am not, but if I were trying to), and to prove that "electrostatics" was the correct explanation, I would have have to show where the virtual particle assumption is wrong. And I would have to justify the randomly-fluctuating-charge-distribution assumption as superior. Because if you examine the assumptions carefully, both are somewhat ad-hoc and arbitray, yet they both yield the correct answer. But such is not the presenet case. The "pros" had their chance (with not-bad odds), and they got it wrong.

What I do have to do is show that GR, in its original incarnation, sans dark energy, predicts that OUR universe, the one we have come to know and love, should expand. But that's not all. I must also show that the expansion should accelerate. Gotta' make both shots.

That I will do. In the next post. Unless there are more objections.

Since I cannot identify the error in the original prediction that had the expansion slowing down instead of speeding up, I suppose it is unfair to expect readers here to identify a mistake in my reasoning, unless I made a real blunder (has happened). But, the BAUT reader will have two models to choose from: The BBT, nicely outlined in talkorigins; and DEILE, to be summarized here, shortly, in a few days. The reader can then decide which theory "to buy."

Now does that seem fair?

The judges are re-tallying the score:
The things you are counting as failed predictions of the BBT are not predictions at all, they are aspects of the puzzle that the BBT does not explain. Thus they are to be viewed as incompletenesses of the theory, not errors in the theory. You can count them as flaws or problems, as any incompleteness would be, but that's more like having an olympic ice skater who does not include certain difficult jumps in her program, as opposed to jumps that she tried and ended up on her bumpty. When scientific theories fall on their bumpty, they are replaced. When they are incomplete, you just practice those difficult jumps a bit harder until you are ready to put them into your program and go for the gold.

In your baseball analogy, I'd put the BBT in the role of the pitching team, not the batters. The goal is to win the game, not pitch a perfect game. So when you are overmatched by the other team's heavy hitters, you intentionally walk them, and go after the ones you know you can get out. That's what BBT does-- it puts in a few intentional walks that after we develop a better changeup we can go after, but for now we'll just strike out the hitters we have in our back pocket.

Now, this is not an ideal state of affairs, but be patient. The changeup is coming. Or maybe we'll have to bring in a relief pitcher, who knows, but frankly there's nobody warming up in the bullpen at the moment. To sum it all up, I'll borrow from Winston Churchill: the BBT is the worst of all cosmology theories, except for all the rest.
Yes, that is right. Lots of luck, we have your Nobel prize waiting if you pull it off.

BAUT is based in Sweden?

Well, somebody has it waiting, that is-- I'm afraid my input will not be solicited.

For those who may have just joined the thread: So far, Peter has made the preposterous claim that dark energy is light energy, which, according to all the experts, is completely wrong, because according to their math, based on the equations of GR, light plays but a trivial role in the expansion of the universe today. He has shown that the value of H has been, shall we say “exaggerated,” by expressing it in kilometers per second (per megaparsec), instead of the usual APR, which would be 0.00000000073%. And he has “guessed” that the current radiant energy is 1 j/kg/yr, but no one is impressed, because the experts have already worked radiation into their equations, whatever its magnitude. Peter has babbled a little about infinity, saying nothing clearly wrong, but he has not used it to support his theory, either. The stakes? Same as every other “new theory” posted on BAUT: it either falls into the scrap-heap of the archive, never to be viewed or posted on again, unless some newbie suggests it, and the moderator has to explain: No, light-energy does not explain dark-energy, see here. Or, it wins a Nobel-prize. In simple terms, it’s a binary outcome.

That is pretty much where it stands now.

At this point, I would like to suggest a “virtual” office-pool, along these lines: 1) One person, one vote; one vote, one Euro. 2) Do not vote on whether you think the theory is right or wrong, because Peter has not yet explained it, and you cannot possibly have evaluated it yet. Wager on whether it will be accepted, not whether you accept it now. 3) The standings remain invisible until the pool closes, March 31. 4) A to-be-determined amount of time will be provided after April 1, in order to evaluate the theory, at which time Peter will be required to either present an actual explanation (AE), or we all assume it was a big AFJ. With BAUT having a virtual army of volunteer critical thinkers, evaluation of the AE, once provided, shouldn’t take long. 5) The kitty gets split equally among whoever is right.

The idea is that if the theory is wrong, and the majority are right, then nothing really changes, as usually happens. If 99 people bet it’s an AFJ, and one guy (me) is still thinking that it will be accepted, then I lose my Euro, and those who “got in on it” now have 1.01 Euro. It was a convoluted April Fools gag if there ever was one, but nothing ever came of it. Except ,01 Euro.

Ken G, does BAUT have the technology to set up a pool by such rules? (If not, see below.)

Here is the difficulty in explaining the theory: I believe Newton was deeply aware that his theory was flawed. He knew it worked in the solar system, but Newton let his mind wander, as he was wont to do, and thought about how it would work at infinity. And when he did that, he saw a paradox, which I will explain when I provide the AE, due on 1-4. Newton knew something wasn’t right, but couldn’t imagine how to resolve it, and his equations “worked,” so he just left them alone. But I believe he was “troubled” by the paradox, and that the instantaneous speed of the field-change (the “speed of gravity”), in his equations, in particular, bothered him.

About two centuries later (history is not my specialty, so don’t quote me on that), Einstein, using tools in mathematics which were completely unknown in Newton’s time, resolved the infinity-paradox, and also slowed-down the field-change, from infinite, to a pedestrian 1.0 (Cosmologists use parameters. In cosmological terms, c, the speed of light, 3 x 10^8 m/s, equals 1.0 .)

So early in the 20th century, Einstein resolved the problems with the Newtonian model, using math that only 12 people really understood. But he was frustrated, because he had to use this “fudge-factor,” the now-infamous Cosmological Constant (CC), in order to "make the model fit the observations.” Because with the instruments available at that time, the rate of expansion rate was thought to be zero. That 73 ppt/yr expansion rate we discussed earlier? That is the number they thought was zero. But when the observations finally came in, it wasn’t zero. It was close. But not zero. Einstein kicked himself. His original equations, sans the cosmological fudge-factor, had been correct after all! The universe does expand! But Einstein did not “blunder,” he was just doing his job: making a model that fit the observations! And the observations at the time had the expansion rate pegged at zero.

Okay, so where are we with all this? Well, until 1998, Einstein’s “GR Rev-2,” or as I prefer, “GR-Lite,” (no DE) was considered Gospel. Then after 1998, CCR burst upon the scene (Cosmological Constant Revival). Here we will just call it GR-Full-Body, although some of its backers prefer “GR-Original Recipe.” GR-FB includes dark energy, in a form yet-to-be-determined, and all that it entails. So there is no disagreement over the basic idea: General Relativity rules. The only bone of contention is this: Is General Relativity correct in its original form, Rev. 1, GR-FB? Or did Einstein get it right the second time, Rev. 2, GR-Lite? That is what the reader is wagering on. Experts say, GR-FB, Rev. 1. The dark-horse candidate (PI) Peter Wilson, says, No, GR-Lite, Rev. 2, is the correct answer.

I am assuming some readers will have difficulty understanding the AE, equations-and-all, once I present it. But I would like to point some things out that most readers will understand, in order to influence the wagering.

First, I am an engineer. And in order to become one, you have to go through this secret ritual, where you take the Engineer’s Creed, as an oath: Rev. 1 shall be better than Rev. 0, and Rev. 2 shall be better than Rev. 1. Granted, science is not engineering, but if you want to play it conservative, Rev 2 of a scientific theory is usually the odds-on favorite over Rev. 1. Keep in mind that while he was alive, GR-Lite was Einstein’s “final answer.” That can’t be too risky, can it? You can bet 1 Euro on ol’ Albert, no?

And let’s be clear on the numbers involved here. Remember the “excess precession” of Mercury’s orbit that Newtonian gravity could not explain? Remember how GR explained it? Let’s take a look at that number for a moment, which—if I am not misteken—is 46” (arc-seconds) per century. Which is 0.46”/yr. Which equals 0.0076’/yr. Which is the same as 0.000013 deg/yr. And if you consider the whole thing to be 360 degrees, the residual precession is 3.5 x 10^-7/yr, or 35 ppm/yr. Einstein used GR to explain a “residual effect” on the order of 35 ppm/yr. Keep in mind, the “residual” I have to explain using GR is smaller than that! And I have one whole j/kg/yr of light energy at my disposal. Again, using GR to explain a “residual effect” even smaller than 35 ppm/yr is not a long-shot, is it?

Furthermore: Recall that pre-CCR, the acceleration rate was assumed to be negative, not positive. How negative? Can anyone dig this up, say before March 31, what the actual magnitude of deceleration was supposed to be? In other words, I am going to pull a rabbit-out-of-my-hat of this size (www.myspace.com/4infinities) on 1-4. How big was that turkey that they failed to produce when the observations finally came in? If some one could come up with the magnitude of the negative answer (deceleration being considered negative) that the “experts” predicted, and compare it to the magnitude of the positive value of the observations which I must explain, this may influence the betting in a positive way (PI).

And so I do not receive any, “You never told us that!” kind of messages, let me reveal a certain “fact about my past:” I always knew expansion was accelerating. I just didn’t know why. How did I know? I cheated. Used a time-machine to look into the future, and see what the answer was. Think of it this way: Under shell # 1 was decelerating expansion; under shell # 2 was static expansion, no change; under shell # 3 was accelerating expansion. All the kings horses and all the king’s men placed their bets on shell # 1, deceleration. A few idiots bet on shell # 2. After 1998, however, people starting “coming out of the woodwork,” proclaiming: I knew it was GR-FB all along. I admit here I didn't "know all along:" I cheated. I peeked under the shells when nobody was looking. And we all know what that means: If he cheated once, chances are he'll cheat again.

And if the “pool” suggested above is beyond the technical/budgetary/time constraints of BAUT, how about a “traditional” on-line poll? Does the reader:

A) Like GR-Lite because it sounds great?
B) Like GR-Lite because it is less filling?
C) Prefer “original recipe” GR-FB?

Are there any further questions before we open the pool?

Peter, B lite please.

I can't speak for the forum, but my guess is that it would not want to be used for money changing hands. Why don't you just use an anonymous poll? The software can set up a poll for you, it's done a lot. (I've never done it, click on some options).
Newton didn't like action at a distance, and neither did Einstein, so that was a big motivator.

Without much work, a simple estimate is possible by taking the speed of light and dividing by the age of the universe, this is the scale of the acceleration in the non-exponential mode we find ourselves in, so that would be (negative) 10^(-9) m/s^2.