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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I always thought that when they said the universe is expanding, it meant the galaxies (matter/energy) are moving around each other further from their originating point inside of space, not that the dark nothingness of space was moving and expanding. It is nothing, it is neutral.

Whoever said matter is 99.9+% empty space is correct, I think. Energy is constantly moving and expanding in the black emptiness of space which is nothing and infinite. If all the matter and energy in the universe started at a single point and expanded to where it is now, it would still be contained inside of the same amount of vast empty black space as there is today.

At least I think. We can never be certain because every time we think we have it correct a new discovery is made. Now we believe there are multiple universes outside of our visible universe. That would change almost everything. That would mean the universe is not everything any more, it is just one of many similar to galaxies. That means we need a new term for all that is and ever was. I purposed infinitentity in another thread. At least you are thinking against the grain and outside of the cube!

But maybe, it is not the matter and energy that moves. Maybe, it is the black empty space that moves, and since we can only see matter and energy it looks like it is doing the moving, when really it isn't and is still? But that just hemorrhages your being, don't even re-read it.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


If everything , including thoughts and what not has already happened and has yet to happen, then why would space expand?

If whatever is going to happen has already happened , then how could space expand ?

IMO It is at a constant infiniteness to which we can't comprehend ( atleast at this level of being )

What we see as an expanding universe is just a representation of our consiousness expanding and our learning and understanding of life, the universe, existence.. expanding...

Our overall perception of life is increasing, and soon enough how we think about life and existence will change too..

our universe isn't expanding, rather our bubble within the multiverse is increasing....



Just a few thoughts that randomly came to me while reading your post...

Good topic btw..



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I don't buy space expanding either it's just another claim to protect the big bang theory if space expanded as claimed we would be able to observe it locally as an example the distance to the moon would be slowly growing.

Without space expanding on it's own they would have to address why the universe could expand faster than light speed or just admit the big bang theory is wrong.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
I don't buy space expanding either it's just another claim to protect the big bang theory if space expanded as claimed we would be able to observe it locally as an example the distance to the moon would be slowly growing.


Firstly, the distance between the earth and moon are slowly growing, by a few centimeters a year.

but anyway, going back to the expanding ballon example, place 2 grains of sand on the outside of the balloon, blow up the ballon so it is rigid enough to measure. note distances. blow balloon up more, note differences have changed. this is how the universe's expansion was explained to me in 2 courses on astronomy. the ballon is space-time, and the sand is... something in the universe.

and i would like to see the OP's sources on the topic, they seem to have been left out of the post by mistake.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Space is necessarily nothing.


Your entire argument depends on this premis. It is wrong. I see that it is a sensible concept, and intuitively seems true. It's not though; experimentally we can show that it is not. If you create a "perfect vacuum," you will still find stuff in it, namely vacuum energy. Perfect vacuums as you imagine them do not exist. Space is only necessarily nothing if you choose to define it that way. But if you make that choice, you are defining something that is not part of our reality. In our reality, "empty" space contains vacuum energy, necessarily.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Something's stopped the expansion of space?!

--Oh, you mean the other definition.

Something is not "Retarded" just because you can't understand it.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Yeah I used the moon as an example (maybe not the best one) but really I was thinking about every object in the solar system if empty space is expanding it should be quite obvious even just looking locally.

I mean it is no small phenomena if we can see around 13 billion light years in each direction and big bang theorists claim the universe is only about 13 billion years old.

I think it's safe to assume we are not at the dead centre of the universe so that would suggest no matter were we were we would be able to see around 13 billion light years of expansion.

So by my reckoning either space is expanding faster than lightspeed which we should easily be able to see or the big bang theory is wrong and not just a little wrong but hugely wrong.

I know scientists tend to claim that the initial expansion was faster than now but that doesn't make sense either as even gases should not be going faster than light speed and to claim that physics was different then is a cop out.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.



Science disagrees with you
An atom is made up of 99.99999999% "nothing"' and the rest is actual matter.

Here is a fascinating speech by guy who knows what he's talking about:
A universe out of nothing- Lawrence Kraus



[edit on 31-3-2010 by XyZeR]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
dark matter on the other hand is not a "thing" - its a fudge factor used by physicists to make equations agree with observation.


Dark matter is any matter which cannot be "seen" by our detectors on earth (instruments which can detect only a certain wavelength range of the electromagnetic spectrum.)

All scientist know roughly the range of the electromagnetic spectrum which can be "seen" by our instruments with our technology.

To assume that all matter in the universe just so happens to fit exactly into the small range of the electromagnetic spectrum which can be "seen" by our technology is inconceivable.

Anything outside this range is called dark matter.

To admit that our technology can only see a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum is, by definition, to admit the existence of dark matter.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.




And here I was thinking this thread was going to be an interesting, enlightening debate.

Thanks for proving me wrong!



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




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.
You've just been proven correct good Sir. www.abovetopsecret.com...



Atoms are not space, they are matter.

Atoms are 99.9999999% space, and they are constructed from vibrating energy.



nothing can not expand.
I agree. I'm not exactly sure how science paints the picture, but I believe it's something more like the distance between the galaxies gets larger as they zoom off every direction into space, yet everything that came from the singularity remains intricately entwined in an unseen manner, creating the illusion that everything and everyone are completely separate from one another, when really our universe is one big expanding bubble/web of interconnected energy and quite possibly possesses a consciousness of its own...and I believe space is truly infinite and fractal...and if you could travel far enough you would find other bubbles of expanding matter (universes) similar to our bubble of expanding matter - we live in a multiverse.

reply to post by Teknikal
 




I don't buy space expanding either it's just another claim to protect the big bang theory if space expanded as claimed we would be able to observe it locally as an example the distance to the moon would be slowly growing.
Incorrect. It's a uniform expansion so there is no way to measure the effect if space is truly expanding.

[edit on 31/3/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





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.


But it is observed. On large scales, our universe is homogenous.

www.universeadventure.org...




Without space expanding on it's own they would have to address why the universe could expand faster than light speed or just admit the big bang theory is wrong.


You are indeed right, according to big bang theory, space expands faster than light if the distance is big enough. Redshifts which could indicate faster than light expansion are indeed observed.
This is not in conflict with relativity, because relativity does not forbid faster than light expansion of space.

en.wikipedia.org...




Yeah I used the moon as an example (maybe not the best one) but really I was thinking about every object in the solar system if empty space is expanding it should be quite obvious even just looking locally


This effect is too small to be even measurable on a scale of our solar system, or galaxy. It depends linearly on a distance between two objects.
Hubble`s constant is about 75 (km/s)/megaparsec.

www.astro.ucla.edu...




Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding? This question is best answered in the coordinate system where the galaxies change their positions. The galaxies are receding from us because they started out receding from us, and the force of gravity just causes an acceleration that causes them to slow down, or speed up in the case of an accelerating expansion. Planets are going around the Sun in fixed size orbits because they are bound to the Sun. Everything is just moving under the influence of Newton's laws (with very slight modifications due to relativity). [Illustration] For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You appear to keep repeating the same argument, causing the entire thread to appear as a simple misinterpretation of words. What exactly is nothing giving rise to? These so called "rises" have been explained as other forces over and over again. Space is not nothing, and the void you refer to is not giving rise to anything.

That probably didn't help much. Maybe I'm the one who's confused here.



Cheers,
Strype



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Space is necessarily nothing.


Your entire argument depends on this premis. It is wrong. I see that it is a sensible concept, and intuitively seems true. It's not though; experimentally we can show that it is not. If you create a "perfect vacuum," you will still find stuff in it, namely vacuum energy. Perfect vacuums as you imagine them do not exist. Space is only necessarily nothing if you choose to define it that way. But if you make that choice, you are defining something that is not part of our reality. In our reality, "empty" space contains vacuum energy, necessarily.


I don't dispute vacuum energy.

I dispute the coordinate systems of general relativity that say space bends.

Vacuum energy is real tangible measurable energy that exists within a given volume of space.

Vacuum energy is obviously not bending space.

Vacuum energy is also not well explained by any principle of special or general relativity.

When GR says space bends, it literally means nothing bends and that bending of nothing imparts real force.

This is totally ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


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]


You are illustrating my own chief concern with this argument, which is the fact that the dynamics generated by or affecting ONE grain of sand in the balloon, regardless of size, is quite a different thing than the dynamics both generated and affected by the mass and gravity of MORE than one particle or grain of sand, or planetary body.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


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]


Why should galaxies grow in size if there is no gravity?

This is the opposite of what standard theory says. Standard theory claims galaxies grow in size because they gravitationally attract matter and that matter was homogeneously distributed at the creation of the universe.

According to standard theory, without gravity, we would have all matter in the universe evenly spread across all of space as individual atoms of matter in a total homogeneously distributed cloud.

(I of course find this to be ridiculous because even particles the size of visible dust do not attract into large bodies in space. Saturn's rings being a prime example of this.)



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


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]


Why should galaxies grow in size if there is no gravity?

This is the opposite of what standard theory says. Standard theory claims galaxies grow in size because they gravitationally attract matter and that matter was homogeneously distributed at the creation of the universe.

According to standard theory, without gravity, we would have all matter in the universe evenly spread across all of space as individual atoms of matter in a total homogeneously distributed cloud.

(I of course find this to be ridiculous because even particles the size of visible dust do not attract into large bodies in space. Saturn's rings being a prime example of this.)



By growing in size I did not meant accreting matter, but getting bigger with no change in mass. I was answering this quote of yours, although now I am confused what you meant by it:




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.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The beauty and beast of cosmological theory …
We can all be right, and we can all be wrong. (Not really … but ..)
Until anything has been disproved … Then,
It is all a matter of perspective and view.
Anyone read The Day the Universe Changed – James Burke (or see the 1985 BBC documentary)? The revised version (1995) has additional material and updates - more in line with current thought than the original.
The title begs the question -. What day did the universe change?
The answer is, and I think it rather poetic …
Every day.
Huh?
Every day … we gain more knowledge and validate more proposed theories, our view of the universe changes.
As to the universe expanding … You all have discussed that has been the prevailing thought since they detected red shifting of the visible light of the observable stars and galaxies. (Hubble Redshift, not Doppler).

Okay, Here's one not mentioned - (Unless these ole tired eyes missed it)
Anyone read The Final Theory - Mark McCutcheon?
He seems to think EVERYTHING is expanding.
Yeah, really –All of it. The earth, you, me, my dogs … every grain of sand, everything in the cosmos … Expanding. Forever.
I know, it is a bit hard to get your mind around the concept. But, it is explained very well in layman’s terms and as well in mathematical equation that seems to check.
Here’s an example .. okay, two ..
#1. Gravity. We all know in Einstein’s space it is curved near objects (like a well, but that is oversimplified) And, the well draws in nearby bodies.
So,
How does it draw US in and keep us on?
You’ve heard the Law of Conservation of Energy? Energy and mass are the same thing, Right? And, Newton’s First – At rest tends to stay at rest? And, For an object to move there must be a force put upon it … yada yada.
Remember the amusement park rides that spin you out in a car (and would launch you if not connected)? That’s what Earth is doing to us.
So, where is the energy coming from that is keeping us from floating right off the planet as it spins? The 'well' doesn't factor in. That's for bodies in motion in space. I know, we use an equation to account for the pull of gravity in theories … but … Where is the energy component in those theories? I'll tell ya. There isn't. It is 'assumed'.
Conservation. For gravity to work, it must convert matter to energy. And, enough energy (force) to hold everything nicely in place ...
or everything we know is completely false.
Yeah, they don’t really nail that down in your physics class, do they?

#2. The ‘Sling Shot Effect. They use it all the time when launching something beyond earth’s orbit. By flying towards a planetary body, velocity is gained from the gravitational pull. Speed rapidly increases as the object encircles the body in a close orbit. The object then straightens it’s flight path out of the orbit and ….
The object Maintains it’s speed?
Wait a second –
Did the planet shut of it’s gravitational pull just as the object left orbit?
Um, no.
Oh. Well then the object increased it’s engine thrust to compensate. Right?
Um, no. We actually gain velocity and maintain it to within a few kps of what it reaches when leaving the “Sling Shot”.
So, the planet isn’t pulling on it?
Well, yes. It is.
And you don’t add thrust?
No, silly. That would defeat the purpose. We are conserving fuel by doing this.
Uh-huh.
But you’re violating the Law of Conservation of Energy by doing it, as well.
Mathematically and physically It shouldn’t work!
But, it does .... Ask yourself why? I can tell you NASA will say, "It's basic physics". No ... It's flawed physics.
Things that make you go …. Hummm.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LatentElement
 


1. Force does not equal energy. Energy is defined as force times distance, so energy is not needed for you to just stand on Earths surface, because you are not accelerating relative to earth.
In the same way energy is not needed for a collumn to suport something.

2. The slingshot effect does not work like that, your final speed relative to a planet being slingshoted is not changed. Only your speed relative to other planets or sun could be changed by slingshot. The momentum is conserved, because the spacecraft also affects velocity of the planet being slingshoted.

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you meant Oberth effect, but there is also no violation of physics here.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I found this explanation which says, "It depends on your choice of coordinates".....

Are galaxies really moving away from us or is space just expanding?


This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates. In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways.


I don't think Mnemeth accepts the redshift data the way mainstream science does, but I do, so, there is no question in my mind the galaxies are moving apart. Looking at some examples might help us interpret what this really means.

Example 1. An astronaut outside the ISS and tethered to it throws a baseball, and the ISS observer will see the baseball moving away from the astronaut. Is the space between the astronaut and the baseball expanding? The distance is, but I don't think there's an appreciable increase in the spacetime between them from the frame of reference of an observer in the ISS. The baseball is moving away from the the astronaut because it's moving THROUGH space, not because space-time itself is expanding.

Example 2. An astronaut has a special device that will propel a high intensity flashlight away from him at 50% of the speed of light. The flashlight goes past the moon and the ISS observer measures the high redshift of the flashlight, while also measuring the distance to the moon. The observer finds that the moon hasn't really moved much, aside from its orbit, it's moving away from the Earth at less than an inch per year. Now if spacetime were expanding, both the flashlight and the moon would move away, but the moon is relatively stationary, so it's safe to say the redshift we see on the flashlight is due to the flashlight moving THROUGH space-time from the perspective of the observer on the ISS, not because of the expansion of space-time itself.

Example 3. Instead of an astronaut looking at the redshift of a flashlight, we now have an observer in one galaxy observing the redshift of another galaxy moving away at 50% of the speed of light. How does this example differ from the example where the astronaut launched the flashlight? Clearly the flashlight was moving through space-time. How do we know that the galaxy is not also moving through space-time just like the flashlight was? They both appear to have a high redshift indicating a recessional velocity of 50% of the speed of light from the observer's perspective.

I think the confusion lies in physicists telling us that the redshift is caused by an expansion of the space-time between the galaxies. To me this is a very non-intuitive and confusing view, but as the source I quoted states, it's possible to convert the more intuitive (to me) view that the spatial positions of the galaxies are changing because they're moving THROUGH space, to the view that the galaxies have fixed positions in a space-time which is itself expanding. General relativity allows the conversion from one reference frame to the other. But I can see why some people find it confusing.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join