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.
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.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Space is necessarily nothing.
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.
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.
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.
You've just been proven correct good Sir. www.abovetopsecret.com...
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.
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.
nothing can not expand.
Incorrect. It's a uniform expansion so there is no way to measure the effect if space is truly expanding.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.)
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.
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.