It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Expanding Space Is Retarded

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
think of it in a way of the old cathode-ray tube, ordinary old tv. solid matter can exist in a vacuum, if you take a tube, put two solid objects in it (cathode and anode coils), take out all of the air, you are left with a vacuum tube or various other things such as incandescent light bulbs. The objects will not expand to fill the tube, nor will they explode. In the case of the Universe, matter is held together by gravity, thus creating the various objects in space. Dark matter is not a filler in the void of space, only the base elements that are beyond our understanding at the present time. The void in space actually has quite a bit of matter in it, just spaced out quite far. The density of space is around one atom per cm3. Earth is around 5 grams per cm3, big difference.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Space is not void. It has a non-zero energy density. Energy density = pressure X temperature. Since the energy density is non-zero both pressure and temperature are necessarily non-zero also. Since pressure is non-zero, and the definition of pressure is force per unit area, "empty" space exerts a force. It's as simple as that. Your error is to assume that space lacks any physical properties. It does not. The "energy" link above described vacuum energy for "empty" space. If you would like more information I can provide it.

If you will doubt the existence of vacuum energy, I challange you to provide a better explanation for the experimentally observed Casimir Effect.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


nothing can not expand.



Absolutely correct, it cant expand, it cant contract, it cant interact it cant , infact, exist at all cos then there would be nothing with no potential for anything to ever happen.

Nothing is just a concept that has never yet manifested.....ever !



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Space is not void. It has a non-zero energy density. Energy density = pressure X temperature. Since the energy density is non-zero both pressure and temperature are necessarily non-zero also. Since pressure is non-zero, and the definition of pressure is force per unit area, "empty" space exerts a force. It's as simple as that. Your error is to assume that space lacks any physical properties. It does not. The "energy" link above described vacuum energy for "empty" space. If you would like more information I can provide it.

If you will doubt the existence of vacuum energy, I challange you to provide a better explanation for the experimentally observed Casimir Effect.


Space is necessarily nothing.

If you are describing "energy" or matter you are describing "something" residing within a given space.

If the volume of space this "energy" or matter resides in expands, that expansion exerts no force upon the energy or matter within it.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The singularity from which the expansion of the universe began was far from being "nothing". It contained all of the energy which now exists and then some. As the universe expanded that energy was able to convert into matter. This conversion reduced the energy level. The remaining energy is becoming more diffuse as the universe expands but is still there in the form of the microwave radiation which fills the universe.

While "space" may be nothing. Space-time is something. It is existence and it is expanding.

[edit on 3/30/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
example:

I have a 10' sphere in zero gravity that has a perfect vacuum inside of it.

If I expand that sphere outwards to 20', nothing changes within the first 10'.

If I was able to float inside the middle of the sphere, I would not notice any force acting on me as the sphere expanded.

I would simply see the walls moving away from me, I wouldn't experience anything different happening to me though.

The volume of space may have expanded, but expanding the space of a vacuum does not impart any force upon the objects residing within that vacuum.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Energy and matter are not space

The theory says space expands, not energy and matter.

If energy and matter were to expand along with space, the second example in my OP would be true.

Everything would grow in size, but no force would be imparted upon that matter to force it away from the center. Everything would be homogeneously distributed throughout the expanding volume.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your example is not valid.

You are comparing two different phenomena.

An expanding sphere within our current perception of space/time is NOT the same as the over-all expansion, of which we, and all matter, are a part.

We cannot step out of it, so to speak, but we can observe the effects from within.

You should try to find some books or programs to study string theory, and hyper-dimensions...good books on cosmology, for starters, or check local Science Channel listings.....

[edit on 30 March 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your example is not valid.

You are comparing two different phenomena.

An expanding sphere within our current perception of space/time is NOT the same as the over-all expansion, of which we, and all matter, are a part.

We cannot step out of it, so to speak, but we can observe the effects from within.

You should try to find some books or programs to study string theory, and hyper-dimensions...good books on cosmology, for starters, or check local Science Channel listings.....

[edit on 30 March 2010 by weedwhacker]


My example is perfectly valid.

The expansion of a volume of space matter resides in does not in itself impart force upon matter.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Your example is not valid. You are expanding the volume of your sphere within "space" which already exists. The expanding universe is creating more "space".

BTW, where do you propose to find "zero gravity"?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





The expansion of a volume of space matter resides in does not in itself impart force upon matter.


The expansion of a volume of space causes distance between matter to be increased.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





The expansion of a volume of space matter resides in does not in itself impart force upon matter.


The expansion of a volume of space causes distance between matter to be increased.


no, it does not.

in order for distance to increase between objects a force must act upon them to move them apart.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Scientist don't know what the heck they are talking about! Stop using the word "Retarded" don't you know that that is a prohibited word? Sarah Pallin will get really,really mad at you..you betcha! How about intellectually challanged? or better yet itelekshually challenged.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





The expansion of a volume of space matter resides in does not in itself impart force upon matter.


The expansion of a volume of space causes distance between matter to be increased.


no, it does not.

in order for distance to increase between objects a force must act upon them to move them apart.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by mnemeth1]


Yes, a force of expansion must act between objects to accelerate them apart. This force is proportional to distance between these two objects, increasing in magnitude with this distance increasing. Its all quite simple.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit to add: In order for distance between objects to increase a force is in fact not directly required, inertia also plays a major role.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hi mnemeth1,

I have to agree with you menmeth1.

Space is a Constant in size, it can never expand or contract by ITSELF.

Things in space can expand or contract, but space itself is always a constant.

Something new may be introduced into a space or taken away from a space, but space itself is always constant.

Bodies like planets, stars and comets may exist in space and their distances from each other may expand or contract, but they are not SPACE; they only exist within SPACE.

SPACE contains EVERYTHING, the "container" called SPACE never expands or contracts.

Each molecule in space takes up the same amount of space in one shape or another, just like a liquid can be changed into a solid or a gas. The molecular structure may have expanded or contracted; but it did so in SPACE. SPACE contains EVERYTHING, no matter how you look at it.

If water is frozen into an ice cube its molecules are more condensed, contracted (each molecule is still taking up the same amount of space, but they are now packed closer together); but space never changed, because Space contains everything. When water is heated to steam, the molecules have expanded away from each other, but those same molecules that exist at far distances from each other still contain the same space, size and weight even though their shape has changed (they never changed the amount of space that already exists in the Universe).

I agree with mnemeth1 in his original disclosure that space itself cannot expand or contract.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Hi mnemeth1,

I have to agree with you menmeth1.

Space is a Constant in size, it can never expand or contract by ITSELF.

Things in space can expand or contract, but space itself is always a constant.

Something new may be introduced into a space or taken away from a space, but space itself is always constant.

Bodies like planets, stars and comets may exist in space and their distances from each other may expand or contract, but they are not SPACE; they only exist within SPACE.

SPACE contains EVERYTHING, the "container" called SPACE never expands or contracts.

Each molecule in space takes up the same amount of space in one shape or another, just like a liquid can be changed into a solid or a gas. The molecular structure may have expanded or contracted; but it did so in SPACE. SPACE contains EVERYTHING, no matter how you look at it.

If water is frozen into an ice cube its molecules are more condensed, contracted (each molecule is still taking up the same amount of space, but they are now packed closer together); but space never changed, because Space contains everything. When water is heated to steam, the molecules have expanded away from each other, but those same molecules that exist at far distances from each other still contain the same space, size and weight even though their shape has changed (they never changed the amount of space that already exists in the Universe).

I agree with mnemeth1 in his original disclosure that space itself cannot expand or contract.


if so then how would you explain gravitational distortion or light bending around galaxies ? If it is not 'space' that is distorting then what causes the effect ?

I'm just wondering if the word 'space' is influencing peoples perception.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
if so then how would you explain gravitational distortion or light bending around galaxies ? If it is not 'space' that is distorting then what causes the effect ?

I'm just wondering if the word 'space' is influencing peoples perception.


dusty plasmas can distort light.

I don't see any proof that "gravitational lensing" is due to gravity and not some other mechanism grounded in reality.

We can observe halos in space, but we can not prove that those halos are caused by gravity, we can only speculate.

ALSO

There is a HUGE body of evidence that suggests gravitational lensing is wrong.

The Einstein cross is the perfect example of this. The Quasars are not oblong in shape, they change in size, they change in intensity, and have imparted rotation. - all things that fly in the face of gravitational lensing theory.





[edit on 30-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

"Dusty plasmas"? Well maybe they could cause a dimming effect. But not a bending.

Einstein's theory of the bending of space was demonstrated by the observing starlight traveling past the Sun. He predicted it, and it was confirmed. Mass bends space and causes light to appear to follow a curved path.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
If space is expanding like a balloon, then the red shift should not exist, because light itself would expand as well.
If the red shift is real, then it means light does not expand like a balloon, and therefore it is actually moving...but the rapid expansion of the universe would not be possible, since nothing can move faster than light.
Where does that leave us? There is only one possibility: new space is continously created! The void multiplies and pushes matter away. This is consistent with the red shift and with the rapid expansion of the early universe.
And if one thinks of gravity as the result of the void's pressure and not of the attraction of matter, the mystery of galaxies staying in formation is easily solved!



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Yes, a force of expansion must act between objects to accelerate them apart. This force is proportional to distance between these two objects, increasing in magnitude with this distance increasing. Its all quite simple.

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit to add: In order for distance between objects to increase a force is in fact not directly required, inertia also plays a major role.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Maslo]


If its all "so simple" - then why does it say this?


The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature


I also contend that inertia is just as ridiculous an explanation as an "unknown" force.

Matter in an expanding bubble would not have any inertia imparted to it by the action of expanding space. Such inertial force would be grossly insufficient to explain the observed "velocities" of galaxies.

Given the assumption that inertia was somehow magically imparted at the required levels (by a mechanism as yet unexplained?), it does not explain the non-homogeneous observed properties of space.

Given that space expanded homogeneously, matter should be homogeneously distributed.

This is not observed.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join