[Ethos]

Scientists are almost unanimous when it comes to the concept of Universal Expansion. This issue has been going over and over in my mind with clockwork regularity lately and I continue to be puzzled concerning it.

Physicists contend that space is expanding and they propose the redshift of distant objects as their proof. I presume they use our local frame as the standard when determining the difference between these apparent velocities. And it stands to reason that the notion of receding galaxies is probably very correct. But here is where I must part company with the common perception of Universal Expansion.

To use the term; "Universal Expansion" suggests the expansion of space itself. If space itself is expanding, then the space between particles should also be expanding and I see no evidence for this. Nevertheless, it does appear that distant galaxies are moving away from our local frame with great velocity.

Allow me to make this simple point: There is a vast difference between the notion that space itself is expanding and the very simple logic of receding galaxies!

.....................Ethos

[Vern]

My own take on this is that the notion that space and time are variables is the greatest tragedy that has ever happened to physical science. It is the single greatest barrier to grasping the true nature of the universe. [] Disallow it, and the construct of matter becomes obvious. All of the why questions that are now forbidden become answerable.

But, true believers have no problem with this question. They will say that the local forces are great enough to prevent local expansion.

[JP]

If space itself is expanding, then the space between particles should also be expanding and I see no evidence for this.

Why should you expect to see evidence for this?  The expansion is a tiny factor on the scale of our day to day lives--too tiny to really see.

[LeeE]

My own take on this is that the notion that space and time are variables is the greatest tragedy that has ever happened to physical science.

Do you mean that you think space and time are invariant?

How do you explain the results of the experiments that have proven that the rate of time varies due to both gravitation and movement?

[Vern]

How do you explain the results of the experiments that have proven that the rate of time varies due to both gravitation and movement?

Yes; I suspect that space and time are invariant. I would contest the words, proven, and, due to, in the quote. Those are assumptions. The results of the experiments may be due to the distortion of matter due to motion. Matter may distort when it moves because its most elemental constituents must always move at the invariant speed of light. Given this scenario, relativity phenomena develops naturally in flat space-time.

Time is a count of the vibrations in atomic states. The states would repeat more slowly because the vibrations would need to move laterally as well as vibrate; they must then cover a greater distance while never exceeding invariant light speed.

 

[Vern]

Observation suggests that empty space is three dimensional nothingness. It has the properties of electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. We have never observed any other property of space. We can imagine that space also has some property that allows it to distort, as in gravity wells. Then if we accept that, we can imagine that the same property can allow space to expand, and so accommodate our creation in a Big Bang.

I too suspect that space is not expanding and can not expand.

[Ethos]

I too suspect that space is not expanding and can not expand.

Absolutely,........Space is just an infinite place where mass and energy reside.

A while back, I was reading an article that theorized expanding space was responsible for the gravitational effect. The conclusion was drawn that because space itself is expanding, the cumulative effect for every particle within the earth growing, resulted in an acceleration of it's surface away from the center. Quite ridiculous when you think about it but this is where we end up when we propose obsurd theories when the more logical and simple explanations are forsaken.

Space is just a place where things can be put. It is not expanding! It is true that distant objects are receding from our local frame but that does not require the expansion of space. Think about it; If all of space were expanding, we would never notice it because the growth would be uniform. Not only would distant objects grow at the same rate as everything else, our bodies along with the eye that ultimately makes the judgement about size and distance would also grow. If this were the case, we would never see any of this proposed expansion. From our perspective, everything would remain unchanged.

...................Ethos

[Vern]

A while back, I was reading an article that theorized expanding space was responsible for the gravitational effect. The conclusion was drawn that because space itself is expanding, the cumulative effect for every particle within the earth growing, resulted in an acceleration of it's surface away from the center. Quite ridiculous when you think about it but this is where we end up when we propose absurd theories when the more logical and simple explanations are forsaken.

I came across that expansion hypothesis also. I think there is a problem explaining orbital dynamics with it. I also like the  more logical and simple explanations. It troubles me that folks seem willing to scrap the logical and simple for the exotic and magical. The evidence for an expanding universe is photon energy loss. There are three different explanations for this loss.

(**)One, space expands and the wavelength of photons increase in the expanding space.
(**)Two, distant objects are receding and producing a Doppler effect.
(**)Three, photons do a little dance with electrons in free space and lose energy to them.

One and Two can be true only if we abandon certain laws of nature that hold true for everything else. Three can be true and we need abandon nothing. It is the most simple explanation. Occum can be happy.

Edit: Lyndon Ashmore presented a paper at the CCC2 conference in September 2008. He proposed that if space is expanding the distance between hydrogen clouds in space should have been less in the past than they are now. This distance can be observed in what is called the Lyman forrest. Observations indicate that the distance was the same in the past as it is in the present.
Wiki on Lyman-alpha_forest

In astronomical spectroscopy, the Lyman alpha forest is the sum of absorption lines arising from the Lyman alpha transition of the neutral hydrogen in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars.

These absorption lines result from intergalactic gas through which the galaxy or quasar's light has travelled. Since the absorption and emission of light follow the laws of quantum mechanics, only photons with specific energies can be absorbed. This causes each individual absorption line. The forest is created by the fact that photons that come to us from distant light sources show Hubble redshift that depends on the distance between us and the source of light.