u/cgieseking

Total layperson here; no knowledge, understanding or expertise to speak of… So does any learned individual want to expound on this unsubstantiated and unstudied thought I had on a random Tuesday morning?

1.) At any time, there is a defined (but not necessarily finite) number of possible positions that anything (such as a particle) can occupy in the universe.

2.) Sometimes between two of these adjacent positions a third position is created.

3.) The creation of additional positions requires no impetus (in terms of force, energy, or anything else that we would typically regard as being capable of bringing about change), but rather is simply intrinsic to the definition of position. I.e. All positions are inconstant in their nature and therefore if something has a position that position is inconstant without a necessary “cause” of the changing position?

In other words, things change position because position itself is inherently changing.

EDIT: This post was removed for being low effort because it was not long enough. This is of course makes sense because as we all know, effort and length are directly correlated. That’s why all the best works in any field are as long as possible and brevity is universally considered inimical to the good conveyance of ideas. This is why all serious scholarly assignments have a minimum word length and not a maximum word length, because it’s good to practice saying things in as meandering and inconcise a way as possible. It is best to spare the reader no detail. As such I will start from the beginning:

I was born May 9th, 1997 on a Wednesday afternoon. It was overcast and drizzly that day, but only minutes after I was born… well that’s when it really started coming down…

Anyway, you get the idea and I’m sure you’re very tired of this joke at this point so hopefully the post is long enough now…

I recently watched a video by the YouTuber Astrum that talked about the discovery of dark energy and I had a question that I was hoping could be answered here.

The YouTube video said that because faraway galaxies were moving away from us at a greater velocity than the nearer ones we could conclude that galaxies are accelerating away from us as a result of the expansion of the universe. The video’s next assertion then says that this acceleration implies the existence of dark energy because acceleration must have a source of energy… My question is this:

I know I’m just a layman without a deep rigorous understanding of these concepts, but it doesn’t make sense to me why the “accelerating” expansion of the universe would necessarily imply the existence of energy causing that “acceleration.” My understanding of acceleration is that it is an object’s increased velocity over time. My understanding of velocity is the rate at which an object’s position in space is changing with regards to a particular vector. So in my mind, if space itself is expanding, this wouldn’t really be velocity or acceleration at all because the object is maintaining its position in space—but that position in space is just changing its distance relative to other positions in space due to the universe’s expansion. So it seems to me that the far away galaxies aren’t accelerating and therefore we wouldn’t have a reason to assume that there is a source of energy causing the apparent (but not actual) “acceleration.” Rather than assuming the existence of dark energy, wouldn’t a more sound conclusion simply be that objects position relative to one another are inherently inconstant? In a sense for every 2 adjacent positions in the universe a third between them is created every so often? Such a proposition would account not only for the expansion of the universe but also why the expansion appears to “accelerate.”