It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Expanding Space Is Retarded

page: 1
12
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:21 PM
If the space between galaxies is nothing but a vacuum of nothing, it is impossible for that nothing to expand.

If we say space can "expand", then space must not be nothing. It must be something, and that something must have properties that allow for expansion.

If space is simply a volume and time in which matter resides, expansion of this volume would not lead to a visible expansion or dislocation of matter unless space also had properties that allowed it to act upon matter with force.

For example:

Imagine a partially filled balloon in zero gravity.

Within that balloon is a grain of sand directly in the middle of it.

If I was able to inflate the balloon (without disturbing the grain of sand), the volume of the balloon would have expanded, yet the grain of sand would remain unmoved itself since no force would be acting upon the sand to move it.

Thus, space as volume expanded, but no visible effects of this would be imparted to the matter within that space.

In order to move the sand by expanding the balloon, the sand must have a mechanism of force to act upon it. Thus space expanding by itself is not enough to explain why matter should be visibly moved by this expansion. In the balloon example, the grain could only be moved by air pressure. Air which has real mass and volume.

Now, let us say that all matter within the space of the balloon expands as a function of the volume of the balloon.

For example, as I inflate the balloon to twice its size, the grain of sand also expands to twice its size.

If the grain of sand were to represent galaxies suspended in space, we would still see no mechanism of movement or velocity away from each other. In fact, all we would see are things increasing in size.

Galaxies would appear to grow in size, not move away from us.

Again, a mechanism of force is required to explain why an expansion of space (which is nothing) should result in the movement of matter.

Newtons laws make it abundantly clear that in order for movement to occur, a real physical force must act upon that matter.

Thus, the big bang, black holes, and all other warping space nonsense must be considered just that - nonsense.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:26 PM
Space is NOT "nothing" it is full of a large amount of energy ant particle/antiparticle pairs. Google Dirac sea.

Of course there has to be a force behind the expansion. This is one of the reasons why they came up with dark matter and dark energy.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:26 PM
First, who said Space was a vacuum?

It is full of mater. Space is atomic soup.

The theory is the force of the big bang continues spreading this "soup" outwards from whatever the central point was. This is contested by the effects of gravity that force atoms (and then molecules, then matter, and eventually stars and galaxies) to clump together.

Thus we end up with galaxies that are moving away from us without stretching.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:30 PM
dark matter and atomic particles are not space.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:37 PM
First of all, no one really knows what dark matter is, and second of all, atoms are in fact 99.9999...% space.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:39 PM
Hi, science fans.

I would say:

It is not space that expands,
it is the distance between galaxies.
Right ?

Blue skies.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:50 PM
No one knows what dark matter is because dark matter isn't real.

Its a fictitious form of matter criminal looting physicists add to their equations to make them agree with observations.

Atoms are not space, they are matter.

nothing can not expand.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:52 PM

You said that in an expanding universe, galaxies will grow in size - and you are right, if there is no gravity, they will.

Imagine that we have expanding baloon in a vacuum, just like your analogy, but this time grains of sand inside of it are also mutualy attracted. Therefore, their final relative speed will depend on two forces - expansion of space, proportional to the distance between them and increasing with the distance increasing, and gravitational force, which also depends on their distance, getting weaker with the distance increasing.

If our two grains of sand are close enough that the net effect is attraction, they will attract, but this attraction would of course be slower if there is an expansion present, too.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Maslo]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:53 PM

It's silly to even start this conversation based on this vague sense that you have from hearing through the grapevine that the universe is expanding. Is that really how it happened? You're aware that people think that the universe is expanding, and that doesn't agree with your intuition, so you started this thread?

What is dark energy?
Dark Energy on wikipedia
Cosmological constant on wikipedia
NASA's explanation of dark energy
SDSS: The universe is expanding
Metric expansion of space on wikipedia
The Expanding Universe, big bang cosmology
UCLA's FAQs of cosmology

Don't harp on your intuitive rejections of the accepted theory until you learn about it. It's clearly the best interpretation of the evidence.

[edit on 3/30/10 by OnceReturned]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:59 PM
He isn't talking about "matter" stars, planets, gases, or even "dark energy", for that matter.

He's talking about the space, the empty void that all of this "stuff" currently resides in. Theories suggest that all of this "stuff" (including dark matter, dark energy) is expanding, but he is stating that the space it "expands in" does not expand, and is 100% constant an possibly unending.

The "expanding space" theory only holds water when held up with the "Big Bang" theory, and even then, what existed prior to the big bang..? Nothing?? Come on now, he's not refuting professional scientific theory. In my opinion, what he says completely makes sense. Call it a void, a vacuum, "nothing", it doesn't matter. The "space" that holds the expansion, doesn't expand itself, it just is.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by SyphonX]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:02 PM

that's right.

dark matter, dark energy, atoms, particles, matter, etc.. are not space.

they are "things" that reside in a space.

dark matter on the other hand is not a "thing" - its a fudge factor used by physicists to make equations agree with observation.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:03 PM
There's no such thing as nothing, everything is energy.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:05 PM
Recent news claimed that the 90 % of matter we missed that should have been there is actualy there here is a thread about it Astronomers Find 90% More Universe!

You could say dark matter becomes obsolete.
However Member Arbritage has told me dark matter does is not only imagined to fill up the missing matter. It's also an explenation for the rotational speed from stars in galaxies because if they are farther from the core they should slow down. but they don't

Who can explain me this ?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:10 PM

Spacetime exists. It provides the best explanation for how light bends around massive bodies. Light has no mass, yet its path is effected by gravity. The best explanation is that it is travelling in a striaght line through a curved medium; the medium being spacetime, curved by gravity.

Certainly you aren't really confusing space with nothing. When two objects are separated by a distance, they are not separated by no distance. They are separated by space. Their separation is not an illusion, there is something in between them. The space in between them is a real thing and it's called space. Not nothing. If the separation between two things were truely nothing, they would be touching.

Something can be 1 meter away or 3 meters away, there is a clear difference between these two states. The difference is the amount of space, and it's easily measurable. You can't have a measurable amount of nothing. Also, when you locate an object, you locate it in space and time. Without spacial coordinates and a temporal coordinate you won't be able to find it. These coordinates only make sense if they are coordinates on something that exists.

Spacetime and its geometery are used in actual physics equations which make actual correct predictions. Isn't that pretty compelling evidence?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:17 PM
Gas and Dust are VERY prominent in space. The Interstellar Medium is actually made up of stuff you would find on earth, or any other planet or star for that matter. Not leaves or soda cans or anything, but the building blocks of those things are found in space.

The problem with the Dirac Sea is that it is simply a theoretical model. then again, most of the stuff we "know" about space is still in the theoretical model stage.

All that being said, I dont Buy expansion, not for one minute.

If we were moving in any direction at any rate we would experience gyro gravitational fluxes, but we can predict orbits fairly well, so to me, that rules out expansion. Its possible that we are moving in baby steps, but THE ONLY indication of movement we have is Great Attractor

[edit on 30-3-2010 by drsmooth23]

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:22 PM

Space and time describe the void that matter resides in.

Space does not give rise to force.

No matter what method I use to describe the location of matter within a space and time, there is no way that nothing can give rise to a force.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM

I feel were you are comming from O.P but what if the BALLOON OR SPACE WAS MOVING AS ONE ENTIRE THING, causing the GRAIN OR GALAXY TO MOVE AT A CERTAIN SPEED ALSO.. Just a thought friend nice view.S&F for your efforts.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:35 PM
When you all ever get this figured out... please advise NASA how to 'expand space' between the surface of a planet and the bottom of a space ship. I mean in the fashion that the galaxies are behaving - not by using rocket thrust.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM

I recently read that warpspeed would kill you unless you have a protective shield of some kind.

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:55 PM
It is patently illogical to conclude that nothing can give rise to something.

This statement is true whether discussing the big bang which arose from nothing or the expansion of space imparting movement to galaxies with a force of nothing.

Nothing begets nothing.

new topics

top topics

12