Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: IzzieC on 13/03/2018 14:41:16
-
Patrick asks
I've been told space is expanding at an ever-increase rate. Is the rate of expansion the same across the whole universe and what would be the current rate of expansion? Also, why don't I see the effects of space expanding around me? My two-year old is expanding, but last time I checked my wife was about the same size.
What do you think?
-
The expansion of the Universe is not the applicable over all scales. It only applies at scales large enough that local forces aren't strong enough to overcome it. Your 2 year old son is not expanding because the bonds between the molecules holding him together prevent it. The solar system is not expanding because the gravity of the Sun prevents its. Our galaxy isn't expanding because its own mutual gravity holds it together. Even our local group of galaxies is gravitational bound together against the expansion of the universe (Evidence of this is the fact that our neighboring galaxy of Andromeda is actually decreasing its distance from us). It isn't until you get past the scale of galaxy clusters that these clusters are far enough apart that their gravitational attraction to each other is not enough to stop them from being pulled along with the expansion of the universe as a whole.
-
.....what would be the current rate of expansion?
I understand t the expansion rate of the Universe is reckoned to be 67.3 kilometres per second per megaparsec. You probably know that a megaparsec is defined as a distance equal to 3.26 million light years.
-
Thanks for the replies to my question. 67.3 kilometres per second per megaparsec is a really minute rate of expansion - something like 2.18*10^-13 % expansion per second? So even if we didn't have forces holding things together, presumably we'd never notice the effects locally...
My follow-up question was how it can be that, with a tiny expansion rate like that, we can have galaxies flying apart faster than the speed of light due to expansion! Is the answer that the further the distance the more intervening expanding space there is? About 4458 megaparsecs for it to be speed of light?
-
"One parsec corresponds to the distance at which the mean radius of the earth's orbit subtends an angle of one second of arc".
A parsec is not defined as 3.26 lights years that is its approximate value
-
Is it possible to suggest that the idea of the "expanding universe" theory is problematic on large scales, as technically the faster than light expansion and those objects there will never be visible to us...........problematic for a "theory of everything". As, how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for because they are in the realm of the faster than light expansion of space? The mechanics of objects in that faster than light expanding region could really confirm or deny a big bang or not, yet we can't see that because it is faster than light, right?
As we are lead to believe, there was an initial expansion, an infinitesimal array of points of space expanding, then local laws set in, , "then" faster than light expansion steps in "not" for a perimeter, because there is no perimeter, every point in space is the perimeter. That's another problem. To say local laws are above and beyond the accelerating expansion it must be said is nonsense.
-
A parsec is not defined as 3.26 lights years that is its approximate value.
I plead guilty to sloppy use of language!
-
..how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for because they are in the realm of the faster than light expansion of space?
But they are accounted for, even if we can’t see them.
That's another problem. To say local laws are above and beyond the accelerating expansion it must be said is nonsense.
There must be a misunderstanding here. Do you mean local measurements?
-
how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for
Surely, a theory is a scientifically/mathematically constructed idea about how things might be, or might work. If all the relevant factors were actually known; their description would be a factual account, not a theory.
-
Space is not something that can be seen. The objects that populate space can be seen and not just in the visible spectrum. Space is dimensional in a similar way that time is. We can determine the distance between objects. That does not mean we can actually 'see' it. Around 99% of anything is empty space. What we can actually see is an illusion in this sense.
-
Can we see space expanding?
Space can't be seen so no. What we see is objects which are in the space that is expanding and we see those objects receding at an increasing rate.
-
The responses since my last post in this thread haven't nailed anything relevant to the question the post is asking.
Colin, "how" can objects that aren't visible be understood? What if the proposed big bang had a faster than faster light speed "shell" at the time everything went faster than light in terms of spatial expansion? How do we know? Whats a "shell" ? That's my point, "how would we know"? Plus, the valid question of space being expansive "everywhere", as was the condition of the initial big bang, has not been addressed. Faster than light expansion "has to" be relevant to any point in space anywhere. There's no "perimeter", that's an idea of reference of an observor. And "local laws", well, yes local measurements give rise to local laws that are "understandable".
Bill S, yes, that's fast. Almost absurdly so.
Trackpick, check your calculations.
As absurd as it sounds, the CMBR and red-shift effect may not be due to a proposed big bang event. If the jury isn't still out there, allowing such a possibility, we could be missing out on key insights. I know of a theory that clearly states the CMBR and red-shift effect are not due to a big bang effect. That theory requires though to prove a new phenomena science can't predict with its current models, obviously (and I won't be talking about that theory in this section). If that theory can though, science is in trouble on the "expansion of space" subject.
It's good though to hear the reasoning behind why our own space has no measureable expansion here on Earth, yet elsewhere in galaxies far far away its off the charts, especially in places we are not allowed to see owing to the faster than light effect.
The only evidence for any expansion in this reality of ours is "cynicism"; it pushes us away further from each other, yet some of us don't register that. "Cynicism" is one of the only things that I consider to be pre-meditated, and thus faster than our own time, sadly, yet it has nothing to do with the expansion of space unless you're medicated for that purpose (and yes, who knows?). Thankfully, science isn't designed to be cynical.
-
"how" can objects that aren't visible be understood?
Well, this is a problem faced by science for a long long time.
Newton couldn't see gravity but he could observe its effects and describe its actions.
Consider Copernicus. No one could send out a probe to view the solar system, but there were anomolies in the motions of the planets (moveable stars) that puzzled even the ancient Greeks. Brilliant Arab mathematicians came close, but Copernicus and his contemporaries spent a great deal of effort on observation, meticulous record keeping, and some very neat mathematical analysis.
Obviously, there are some things we will never be able to go out and test and many cosmological ideas are current consensus of those working in the field. I for one am very willing to listen to anyone with an alternative who has put in as much mental effort and analysis as, say, Alan Guth or Stephen Hawkins - people who really understand the detail. Problem is there are a lot of uninformed guesses out there which don't take account of basic tested physics, but that's what New Theories section is for. Good ones are few and far between.
-
Colin, "how" can objects that aren't visible be understood?
Simple. If we are speaking about something which we hold to exist then we hold that to be true because it interacts with its environment. We understand dark matter (which can't be "seen" in the conventional sense) because it has gravitational mass and as such has an effect of the orbits of matter in galaxies. We detect things like neutrinos (which can't be seen) by observing what creates it and use principles such as conservation of energy and momentum to detect their existence and location
What if the proposed big bang had a faster than faster light speed "shell" at the time everything went faster than light in terms of spatial expansion?
The universe doesn't have a shell. However its quite common to observe matter in the universe racing away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. And you can't even speak of speed if you don't at the same time state what the speed is relative to.
How do we know? Whats a "shell" ? That's my point, "how would we know"? Plus, the valid question of space being expansive "everywhere", as was the condition of the initial big bang, .... etc
You can learn all you'd like to by picking up a book on astronomy. It's too unwieldy to explain everything one needs to know to understand the big bang theory in one thread and threads are not used to teach theories but to answer questions about a theory which one took the time and effort to start learning. Have you made such an attempt? From what I see so far you don't seem to know what "big bang" means or what it means for the universe to expand. Far too many people make the mistake of thinking that the big bang theory is about an event, i.e. a "bang" which started it all when in fact no such event is to be found in the big bang theory. Not because we don't believe that such event occurred but because there's no way to determine that such an event happened. A person in another part of this forum made the same mistake. However they did not like being corrected. :(
-
Well, whoever that was, lets hope they find an answer to what we're still debating.
No expansion here (in this quadrant of a universe) is a red flag.
Are we ever going to see expansion here?
-
Well, whoever that was, lets hope they find an answer to what we're still debating.
No expansion here (in this quadrant of a universe) is a red flag.
Are we ever going to see expansion here?
I find it odd to be discussed in the third person in a forum like this. Lol!
-
@opportunity While you are babbling I am studying the Wronksian theorem. You should try learning.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronskian
-
Ok, I wasn't trying to bake any muffins here.
How's the studies going though?
-
Well, whoever that was, lets hope they find an answer to what we're still debating.
The answers are very well known so nobody needs to find them.
-
Colin, "how" can objects that aren't visible be understood?
Simple. If we are speaking about something .......
.......A person in another part of this forum made the same mistake. However they did not like being corrected. :(
Then, I said "Well, whoever that was, lets hope they find an answer to what we're still debating."
Ok, so that person was you......that's the alleged third person I was referring to. Should have been obvious. It was in direct response to your reply. Apologies if you thought I was making "you" the third person. I mean, when I read my reply to yours I still can't see how I made you the third person......
Maybe this topic is a little hot for some and blinds us from seeing the facts?
I'm still a little stunned no one has answered my questions though other than saying what I have allegedly done wrong in terms of forum protocol or how great they are with what they're currently studying. Try studying Medicine, many many abstract concepts there that are "factual". I've had the benefit of not only studying Medicine, yet understanding the "flaws" in Medicine theory, namely taking an incorrect history. For instance, much of Medicine is based on taking a good history, yet the history the patient provides is not exactly honest most of the time. I know this having worked in Medical Insurance and seeing some of the claims and associated facts that come through that treating Doctors themselves are not aware of. I'm no stranger to facts.
-
Ok, so that person was you......that's the alleged third person I was referring to. Should have been obvious. It was in direct response to your reply. Apologies if you thought I was making "you" the third person. I mean, when I read my reply to yours I still can't see how I made you the third person......
First you say "...that person was you......that's the alleged third person I was referring to[/i] and then you say "Apologies if you thought I was making "you" the third person. "
Were you or were you not referring to me?
Regarding " when I read my reply to yours I still can't see how I made you the third person......" When you post a response right after mine referring to someone then it implicitly means me. If not then I recommend being more precise in the future.
Maybe this topic is a little hot for some and blinds us from seeing the facts?
Not really. The problem is always that people refuse to learn the physics before taking a stand on it. That always always always leads to failure.
I'm still a little stunned no one has answered my questions though ...
They were answered. That you don't understand or disagree with it is another issue entirely.
...other than saying what I have allegedly done wrong in terms of forum protocol or how great they are with what they're currently studying.
Nobody here ever says or thinks that ... well .... at least not I or Colin or Jeff or evan etc. Listen to them. They know what they're talking about.
Try studying Medicine, ...
I have and I do. I've been stricken with several horrible medical problems since 2000 and I refuse to be ignorant on the topics so I learn what I'm able to and its save me some suffering in certain cases. In another area I learned more than my doctors and in fact am writing an article on it.
many many abstract concepts there that are "factual".
If something is abstract it cannot be factual at the same time so you must mean something else. Please clarify. Otherwise:
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abstract
Abstract
1 - Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
1.1 - Dealing with ideas rather than events.
1.2 - Not based on a particular instance; theoretical.
1.3 - (of a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/factual
Factual
1 - Concerned with what is actually the case.
1.1 - Actually occurring.
I've had the benefit of not only studying Medicine, yet understanding the "flaws" in Medicine theory, namely taking an incorrect history. For instance, much of Medicine is based on taking a good history, yet the history the patient provides is not exactly honest most of the time.
And who can blame them. More often than people are aware of, telling the truth can not only lead to harassment but can lead to death. As a solid example consider the following case study
The Other Victims of the Opioid Epidemic Susan A. Glod, M.D., N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2101-2102
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1702188
The poor victim had nothing to hide when it came to his addiction to cocaine. When he got cancer he had so much pain that he agreed to take narcotics whereas before that he avoided them like the plague. Read the article to see how abusive medical personnel were to him because he had the label "addict" attached to him and he was going to take narcotics. If it doesn't piss you off then I doubt you're human.
I could tell you horror stories about my own experience with abusive a-holes. It even led to me being refused to go to the ER once when I had crippling chest pains. I had doctors perjure themselves on the stand before a judge to get me to stay in a hospital where I was after a suicide attempt.
Hey! Even God lies when appropriate. Although most Christians are either too ignorant or too stupid to know about it. Jews on the other hand are much smarter. :)
-
Ok, you're venting. That's cool.
The criminal justice system weighs up "problems". You/we can have problems and still get through. It's the "relevance" though and "weight" of the lies that is weighed up (I forgot to mention I've worked in a legal context).
I wouldn't approve any funding to prove the big bang, let alone space expanding in this quadrant, miniscule as it seems, of the apparent universe.
Studying Medicine, and here's the armchair problem, is not just being a "patient"......
First, you get a "cadaver" in "anatomy". This with histology and biochem basics.
Then histology and biochem go to a new level.
Then in year 4 you apply that knowledge to "patients"....for another 3 years before you're qualified.
"That's" not arm-chair Medicine.
It's hard to explain to someone who bases their medical understanding on being a patient.
The "problem" with Medicine is simple....."how do the vastly difficult concepts of each facility of learning work with each other"? For instance, a drug is applied to treat a problem in a certain defined region of medical classification......how does that impact on the other regions of the body, the other systems. Is that arm-chair Medicine?
Any Doctors in the forum?
-
Ok, you're venting. That's cool.
No. I'm not venting by any means. If there's not an expletive in every other sentence in a post I make then its not a vent. I'm describing facts. Nothing more and nothing less - Period.
I wouldn't approve any funding to prove the big bang, let alone space expanding in this quadrant, miniscule as it seems, of the apparent universe.
That's due to two reasons (1) you're not a cosmologist so it makes no difference to you and (2) its not possible in any science to prove a theory. Do you think I make recommendations for the fun of it? No. I make them for good reasons and in this case you made a serious error.
Before you post again PLEASE read more on the philosophy of science. Here's great place to start
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf
Then go here: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/common_misconceptions.htm
Watch the two videos of the following misconceptions
1) Physicists Have Proved That The Big Bang Did Happen
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_03.mp4
2) Physics Is About Proving Things
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_04.mp4
Alan Guth is one of the worlds leading cosmologists. He's also a good friend of mine. He's probably the nicest more generous person on earth too. He's an amazingly wonderful person. :)
Studying Medicine, and here's the armchair problem, is not just being a "patient"......
It's hard to explain to someone who bases their medical understanding on being a patient.
You confused learning medicine with learning to become a doctor. They are not the same thing.
Medicine is the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease.
Learning medicine means learning that science. However learning to become a doctor means learning how to become a practitioner of medicine and that's different. I can learn all the facts that a doctor knows. That means I can learn medicine. However that doesn't make me a doctor. When you finally decide to start learning the philosophy of science you'll learn these things. Until then we'll have to keep correcting these kinds of mistakes. Especially the flaws regarding "proof" that you keep making.
Is there a good reason you don't want to learn the philosophy of science or are you doing it and not saying you are? If that's the case I recommend choosing better material to learn from.
Please don't confuse this constructive criticism as being insults. Also, please don't assume you know what my emotions on a subject are because I don't appreciate someone claiming I'm venting when in reality I'm describing the reasons people lie and why its virtuous in those cases.
-
No no, not insults.
Look, my Father was a Doctor, so the code was ingrained.
We weren't patients.
Yet, I consider I went above and beyond "normal" practice in using a legal leverage in Insurance.....getting facts any medical experience "does not" want the time for.
I didn't do that deliberately, that path, it just seemed like a missing piece.
I can't talk about any of that, not allowed to, period.
I still have to say that space not expanding "here" is a little "odd".
-
Sorry, sport. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean to me and no idea what that has to do with this thread.
Learn the philosophy of science. Okay?
-
Sorry, sport. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean to me and no idea what that has to do with this thread.
Learn the philosophy of science. Okay?
I know you've offered links to your learning, but can you provide it again so I can take a look....I'm sure you're sincere.
-
I know you've offered links to your learning, but can you provide it again so I can take a look....I'm sure you're sincere.
They weren't links to my "learning". They're links to my knowledge. The main website is here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/
The section on misconceptions is here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/common_misconceptions.htm
There is a lot of literature here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/other.htm
I highly recommend reading
Expansion of the Universe - This PDF file consists of Chapter 14 of Cosmology: The Science of the Universe - 2nd Ed. by Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press, (2000). See pages 270-301.
The link is here: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/expansion_of_universe.pdf
The philosophy of science article to start with is here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf
I know that some of us may appear arrogant, that we "know so much more than you etc." Some people really are arrogant so don't get me wrong. But for some of us its nothing more than what we've done to get to the state of knowledge that we presently have and for which we love to share. And its not as if we all think we're right. Far from it. Often than not my acquaintances and friends correct me when I make a boo-boo. But the farther away I get from when I graduated the more I learn, the more experience I obtain and the less boo boo's I make. If i had to describe what I've read it would be in terms of the height of all the texts I've read and that would be several feet. The number of homework problems I've had to solve is in the thousands. And I shiver at the thought of how many hours I had to study. The thought of it actually creeps me out a bit. And all of us who do this are just as skeptical as the next guy. But its a healthy skepticism since we know how to approach it.
Bye the way. I make no claims as being flawless. In fact I have always admitted my limitations. For example: to this date I don't know the multiplication table. But that didn't stop me from getting a second major in math. In fact it didn't even hinder my being the best math major my alma mater has since 1990. :)
That was Merrimack College in Andover MA in case anybody wants to verify that.
-
I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.
I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.
Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?
-
niche
I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.
I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.
Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?
Sorry. I have no idea what any of that means.
-
niche
I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.
I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.
Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?
Sorry. I have no idea what any of that means.
I'd like to talk about your interests but it seems off-topic here.
-
There's always the "Just chat" forum and PM. Feel free.
-
I'm still a little stunned no one has answered my questions
Which questions are not answered?
The OP’s question was answered in #1
You asked:
“how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for because they are in the realm of the faster than light expansion of space?” Which has been answered.
“"how" can objects that aren't visible be understood?” Has been answered.
“What if the proposed big bang had a faster than faster light speed "shell" at the time everything went faster than light in terms of spatial expansion? “ which has been answered.
You also make statements like “No expansion here (in this quadrant of a universe) is a red flag” whereas that was also answered.
As @PmbPhy implied we can’t write a textbook for you on a forum, but somehow I’m not convinced you are really looking for answers, you spend a lot of time criticising physics you don’t understand, but haven’t bothered to learn much about.
We ofen find your posts confusing and it would help us if you would make your questions clearer as they are often intermixed with broad statements, misquotes and confusing terminology.
-
Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.
"I have highlighted" above and beyond "anyone else" the mechanics of the proposed Big Bang.
For instance, I have recognised the "initial" explosion event, sub light speed, I have recognised that such an event happened as though it was in "every point of space", I have recognised that local laws developed in that process, .....
"and I have recognised" the faster than light expansion that occured "after" all those dishes were done.
Now, the "problem" you haven't recognised is "where" that FTL happened......you're saying its not from every point in space but a mythical perimeter.....too far away from "us" for local laws to apply?
I think its rude for anyone to repeat themselves. I'm sorry for being rude, but you haven't answered this question. In your defense it's probably an oversight, which is why I am asking the question a final time, ideally.
-
Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.
YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.
-
Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.
YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.
No actual answer to my post?
-
but you haven't answered this question. In your defense it's probably an oversight, which is why I am asking the question a final time, ideally.
I think it may be that we are assuming you have read and understood our posts, which is likely not true.
Now, the "problem" you haven't recognised is "where" that FTL happened......you're saying its not from every point in space but a mythical perimeter....
I certainly didn’t say that, nor am I aware of anyone else saying it. @PmbPhy said clearly there is no shell.
Yes there is a limit to what we can see, but just as we have a horizon on earth it doesn’t imply it is a perimeter with nothing beyond or a shell on which ftl is occurring. That limit is a physical one and in no way mythical.
How the expansion occurs throughout all space was explained by @Janus in #1.
too far away from "us" for local laws to apply?
No one has said local laws don’t apply at all points in space, this is an interpretation you have made.
We have no reason to believe that the laws of physics change from one area of space to another* just as we don’t expect the laws of physics to change between equator and arctic, but what does change are the conditions. @Janus very clearly explained how conditions change when comparing those conditions within our local galaxy and those between galaxies further away.
*there are suggestions that gravitational laws might change at extremes of range between objects, or within black holes. Also that inertia might operate differently at very low speeds, but these are still being debated and we would still expect them to operate consistently over all space.
Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.
YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.
@opportunity Unfortunately you have lost a unique opportunity here. @PmbPhy has worked closely with some of the top physicists working on early universe and has an inside track on the detail.
-
Colin2B, you've answered well.
In the absence of any other explanation for space, despite space not expanding "here", you're a "winner" and I credit you.
-
@PmbPhy has worked closely with some of the top physicists working on early universe and has an inside track on the detail.
Let me be clear on this point. Those top physicists are friends of mine. We've discussed the physics often over the last 20 years. I've been criticized heavily for mentioning them but that was by internet nutjobs freaks so I don't care. Alan Guth is one of my good friends. In 2014 he (and two others) won he Kavli prize (which is the Norwegian equivalent of the Nobel Prize) for the inflationary model of the universe. He received $1,000,000 for it. I suppose I shouldn't mention this but what the hell. Alan has used some of that to pay for my physics website. He also sat and did videos for it. He's also helped me financially when I needed it when my health was a risk and I was suffering. He's a wonderful person like that.
I spent a huge amount of time studying general relativity and cosmology and know the physics solid, although far from Alan's level of understanding. So its in that context that I've "worked" with them. It's not as if them and I are worked on papers or anything like that. I like to be precise about these things so as not to put on airs that I don't rightly deserve.
Colin - Your attempt at helping him is more than admirable. However there is a time to give up and that time has long past.
-
@opportunity If you are intending to prove how much better informed you are on the subject then you have failed to produce any evidence to back up your assertion. To ask questions implies that you are willing to take the time to consider the answers you have been given. You are not spending enough time to do this. You are immediately challenging those answers with responses that do not rebut the ideas with evidence. That seems to imply that you are employing the tactics of a troll.
-
Fascinating thread! I think it has covered the OP reasonably well, but, like a quantum particle, it has taken a wide variety of paths. :)
One thing I would like to add arises from:
The universe doesn't have a shell.
As far as we know, that is the case, but the history of scientific progress indicates that if evidence of a shell/boundary were found, most scientists would be open minded enough to pick up the idea and run with it. Possibly after a lot of initial kicking and screaming.
A good example of this is the response of the geological establishment to Wegener’s ideas. Of course, there are still those who maintain that he was wrong, that the Earth’s tectonic plates don’t move, but their motives seem rarely to be geological or scientific.
-
The criminal justice system weighs up "problems". You/we can have problems and still get through. It's the "relevance" though and "weight" of the lies that is weighed up (I forgot to mention I've worked in a legal context).
I too have worked with the Criminal Courts, but I find it difficult to spot the significance of this to the OP.
-
I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.
Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.
-
I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.
Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.
The Universe is expanding in our local neighborhood. It's expanding just as fast in the Milky Way as it is in the Andromeda and just as fast there as it is in the distinct quasars. That's the thing you don't seem to understand: metric expansion of space does not consider us to be at the center of some geocentric expansion event where space expands slowly in the Solar System and faster and faster as you move further out from it. That's only an illusion.
If you were in a quasar billions of light-years from Earth. you would see the exact same thing as we see on Earth: things further away from you would seem to be moving away from you faster and faster as the distance increases. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that concept, then think about dots on the surface of an inflating balloon. The rubber on the balloon's surface is stretching at the same rate in all locations, but the dots that are far apart from each other will move faster relative to each other than those dots that are near each other. That's the key. If you were standing on one of those dots, the dots far from you would be moving away from you faster than those nearby. This would be true no matter which dot you chose to stand on. It's the same kind of thing for the metric expansion of space.
-
I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.
Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.
The Universe is expanding in our local neighborhood. It's expanding just as fast in the Milky Way as it is in the Andromeda and just as fast there as it is in the distinct quasars. That's the thing you don't seem to understand: metric expansion of space does not consider us to be at the center of some geocentric expansion event where space expands slowly in the Solar System and faster and faster as you move further out from it. That's only an illusion.
If you were in a quasar billions of light-years from Earth. you would see the exact same thing as we see on Earth: things further away from you would seem to be moving away from you faster and faster as the distance increases. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that concept, then think about dots on the surface of an inflating balloon. The rubber on the balloon's surface is stretching at the same rate in all locations, but the dots that are far apart from each other will move faster relative to each other than those dots that are near each other. That's the key. If you were standing on one of those dots, the dots far from you would be moving away from you faster than those nearby. This would be true no matter which dot you chose to stand on. It's the same kind of thing for the metric expansion of space.
Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.
Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?
Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.
-
Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.
Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?
Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.
So is it that you are asking what is causing space to expand? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking.
-
Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.
Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?
Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.
So is it that you are asking what is causing space to expand?
The "FTL" to be precise.
"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?
-
The "FTL" to be precise.
Any positive rate of expansion, no matter how small, will result in faster-than-light recession velocities at some sufficiently large distance. If space was expanding a thousand times slower than it is now, then the distance away from us at which recession appears to be superluminal would be a thousand times more distant.
"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?
No, because the Solar System is much too small for the recession rates between any two objects inside of the Solar System to be faster-than-light. For a distant quasar beyond our Hubble Horizon, the entire Solar System would be receding away from it faster-than-light. However, the space inside of the Solar System itself would still be expanding at the same rate in the quasar's frame of reference as it would for ours (much, much slower than light).
-
The "FTL" to be precise.
Any positive rate of expansion, no matter how small, will result in faster-than-light recession velocities at some sufficiently large distance. If space was expanding a thousand times slower than it is now, then the distance away from us at which recession appears to be superluminal would be a thousand times more distant.
"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?
No, because the Solar System is much too small for the recession rates between any two objects inside of the Solar System to be faster-than-light. For a distant quasar beyond our Hubble Horizon, the entire Solar System would be receding away from it faster-than-light. However, the space inside of the Solar System itself would still be expanding at the same rate in the quasar's frame of reference as it would for ours (much, much slower than light).
No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised. "Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws, "over" the idea of "every point in space"?
-
No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised.
I don't know what you mean when you say "jump". There's nothing special about superluminal recession rates compared with subluminal ones. The only difference is distance. Nothing is actually moving faster than light through space.
"Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws,
What do you mean when you say "over" local laws? No laws are broken by faster-than-light recession.
"over" the idea of "every point in space"?
I don't understand what you mean.
-
No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised.
I don't know what you mean when you say "jump". There's nothing special about superluminal recession rates compared with subluminal ones. The only difference is distance. Nothing is actually moving faster than light through space.
"Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws,
What do you mean when you say "over" local laws? No laws are broken by faster-than-light recession.
"over" the idea of "every point in space"?
I don't understand what you mean.
Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states. You haven't explained how that works, how space acts differently in such a manner.
-
Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states.
What is a "superluminal state"? What "bubble"?
You haven't explained how that works,
I don't see how the balloon analogy isn't sufficient to explain it. Nothing fundamentally different is happening when the recession rate is 0.3c, 0.9c or 1.5c between two objects. The same thing is responsible for all of it. The only difference is distances between the two objects.
how space acts differently in such a manner.
Differently from what? I'm afraid part of the problem here is that I am having difficulty understanding the wording of your sentences.
-
Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states.
What is a "superluminal state"? What "bubble"?
You haven't explained how that works,
I don't see how the balloon analogy isn't sufficient to explain it. Nothing fundamentally different is happening when the recession rate is 0.3c, 0.9c or 1.5c between two objects. The same thing is responsible for all of it. The only difference is distances between the two objects.
how space acts differently in such a manner.
Differently from what? I'm afraid part of the problem here is that I am having difficulty understanding the wording of your sentences.
English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English. You're not answering my question.
"Superluminal" is FTL.
-
English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English.
Very good. Still doesn't help me understand some of your sentences.
You're not answering my question.
Because I apparently don't understand the question. I'm trying to figure out what it is that you are asking and why the balloon analogy does not answer the question.
"Superluminal" is FTL.
I know.
-
English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English.
Very good. Still doesn't help me understand some of your sentences.
You're not answering my question.
Because I apparently don't understand the question. I'm trying to figure out what it is that you are asking and why the balloon analogy does not answer the question.
"Superluminal" is FTL.
I know.
That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.
-
That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.
I am actually trying to understand what you are asking. I'm not being snarky. This is genuine confusion on my part. Why does the balloon analogy not suffice? Why do you say it fails?
-
That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.
I am actually trying to understand what you are asking. I'm not being snarky. This is genuine confusion on my part. Why does the balloon analogy not suffice? Why do you say it fails?
The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?
-
The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?
There's the problem again. I don't know what you mean when you say "DNA". I know that you don't mean literal DNA, but what you mean by that metaphor I do not know. Are you saying that space stores an information sequence of some kind?
-
The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?
There's the problem again. I don't know what you mean when you say "DNA". I know that you don't mean literal DNA, but what you mean by that metaphor I do not know. Are you saying that space stores an information sequence of some kind?
Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?
-
Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?
I think so. It's based on nothing more than the observation that the recession speeds of objects increase as their distances from each other increase. Nothing special is required to explain recession rates between two objects being above the speed of light. It's not any different than if those same objects were only recessing from each other at 100 kilometers per hour. The same principle is at work, only the scale has changed. It's not at all like moving linearly through space faster-than-light.
-
Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?
I think so. It's based on nothing more than the observation that the recession speeds of objects increase as their distances from each other increase. Nothing special is required to explain recession rates between two objects being above the speed of light. It's not any different than if those same objects were only recessing from each other at 100 kilometers per hour. The same principle is at work, only the scale has changed. It's not at all like moving linearly through space faster-than-light.
I like what you've said, and it can be read nearly everywhere on the subject, "yet" the recession is exactly that, a mathematically derived concept. This mathematically derived concept canvasses all of space it seems, without any attention to the underlying (every point of space) big bang, no?
-
Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?
Opportunity, I was a little surprised when you said that English was your first language. It is mine, and I too studied Latin, but neither of those facts helps me to understand some of your questions, nor what it is about the answers provided that you find unsatisfactory.
Perhaps you would have the patience to help me out a bit?
where's the expansion,
My answer would be “everywhere”. Do you have a problem with that? If so, what is it?
"what" is the DNA, spatially
I couldn’t attempt to answer this, because I completely miss the significance of the analogy. I would need some help there.
we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space,
What is a “paradoxical infinite point”? Is it what is more usually referred to as an infinitesimally small point? You probably realise that I sometimes take issue with the infinite/infinitesimal, but what do you identify, here, as a paradox?
Perhaps, if we could pick our way through a few points at a time, we could get somewhere positive.
-
we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space,
I missed a point I meant to include. I'm not aware that anyone claims that the Universe expanded from a point in space. If that really is your understanding; that could be the root of the problem.
-
I'm being polite. I think we've thrown the idea around already in this forum the big bang was like a multitude of points, like on a golf ball, that expanded. What's your take on the "initial conditions" of the big bang, those spatial and temporal dynamics? The Big bang is a theory, don't get me wrong, and its an idea that found itself notoriety from two key issues, the red shift effect and the CMBR.
-
OK, let’s take a deep breath here and step back for a moment. There seem to be communication problems here that need resolving.
The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?
There's the problem again. I don't know what you mean when you say "DNA".
No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised.
I don't know what you mean when you say "jump". There's nothing special about superluminal recession rates compared with subluminal ones.
"Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws,
What do you mean when you say "over" local laws? No laws are broken by faster-than-light recession.
As you can see from the above quotes, people here are finding it hard to understand your questions and your comprehension of the replies seems to be limited. I was also about to ask whether your first language is English, but apparently it is.
Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.
True, questioning is not trolling, but certain ways of behaving are.
- trolls use obscure, technical sounding language which does not clearly state the question. They can then repeatedly parrot “you didn’t answer the question”.
- trolls will ignore answers to questions and reintroduce their own ideas eg “local laws” - which we explained are your idea not ours.
- trolls will denigrate science, theories etc. Pseudo scientists also do this to try and give weight to their own pet theory.
- trolls will also disrespect the person trying to help with comments like “Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.” This is a particular tactic of adolescent trolls.
- they will also do the following:
I hate blowing smoke, but relative motion to "what" in the middle of nowhere? Yes, flat space time, yet the same flat space-time that is responsible for FTL spatial expansion?
what you do here is quote out of context. If you look to the post previous to that one you will see that you have misunderstood and taken it out of the context.
You do this quite a bit, misread and misquote articles and standard texts.
The question is being asked, “why are you here?” Are you here to push your own theory? Are you here to snipe at science? Or are you here as a genuine seeking of understanding. The jury is out and folks are getting irritated with you lack of ability to communicate. Can you please improve your communication and take time to understand what has been said.
Also, please be aware that science is not about proof, nor about finding deep root-causes. It is about observation, measurement and modelling to predict the behaviour of systems.
-
I like what you've said, and it can be read nearly everywhere on the subject, "yet" the recession is exactly that, a mathematically derived concept.
It isn't just math. It's objectively measurable.
This mathematically derived concept canvasses all of space it seems, without any attention to the underlying (every point of space) big bang, no?
The Big Bang need play no part in it. We don't need to know anything about the Big Bang in order to observe that redshift is correlated with distance.
-
Opportunity, I hesitate to follow Colin’s post before you have replied, but if, as I hope, you are looking for clarity, this could constitute a first step.
I'm being polite.
I have no recollection of suggesting otherwise.
Can we have a go at clarifying the points in my earlier post. Unum post alium, fortasse?
where's the expansion,
My answer would be “everywhere”. Do you have a problem with that? If so, can you specify the problem?
-
The current discussion seems better for a separate thread. I asked (or intended to ask) my original question within the context of a current accepted understanding of physics (*). The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics, so I think opportunity should start a new question/thread and then the discussion can move there? Doing so will also give it more visibility to others. Ta.
*: let's not nitpick over this phrase please
-
That sounds like a good idea; especially if we could try to eliminate misunderstanding and lack of clarity from the start.
let's not nitpick over this phrase please
Nitpickers on TNS? Never! :)
BTW. was your original question answered adequately?
-
The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics,
I think it is more to do with opportunity’s understanding of the answers. Asking questions for clarification is a good way to increase understanding, but we seem to have hit a problems getting clear questions.
As @Bill S askes, has the thread, and in particular the reply #1 by @Janus, made the answer clear for you?
-
The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics,
I think it is more to do with opportunity’s understanding of the answers. Asking questions for clarification is a good way to increase understanding, but we seem to have hit a problems getting clear questions.
As @Bill S askes, has the thread, and in particular the reply #1 by @Janus, made the answer clear for you?
Yes I'm very happy with the answers I got. My question was answered way back in this thread :-) My understanding is that the rate with which space expands is really minute and at small scale the effects are insignificant and clobbered by other forces. At large scale, a minute rate of expansion is still going to result in huge effects and they're not overcome by other forces (gravity has an insignificant effect at long distances).
-
Yes I'm very happy with the answers I got. My question was answered way back in this thread :-)
OK, I’m going to lock this thread for the time being so that it doesn’t drift further off topic. Anyone with related, but different questions can open another topic.
I will review this if necessary.