# Can we measure 'expansion'

• 112 Replies
• 29960 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« on: 13/03/2009 16:10:36 »
If space is expanding, shouldn't that be measurable inside our solarsystem?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #1 on: 13/03/2009 16:26:42 »
I would be more inclined to accept the notion of expansion if there was even a measure of it within our own galaxy.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #2 on: 13/03/2009 17:06:53 »
Do you not accept Hubble's data? Remember, the attractive forces within a galaxy could mean that the mean expansion could be less than the effect between galaxies. Using the Hubble constant, you could work out how much you'd expect over galactic distances.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #3 on: 13/03/2009 18:40:44 »
Take a look here. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20927.msg236644#msg236644
If that is correct, shouldn't the same phenomena happen here? Even if gravity 'won' I still think we should notice it as it seems to state that the gravitational effects should be weaker inside any 'mass' distribution, or am I thinking wrong here. Would it be as lights 'redshift' with the exception of us not noticing anything at all?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Burt Brinn

• First timers
• 3
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #4 on: 13/03/2009 19:16:00 »
From what little I understand of expansion, I heard that it is the space in between molecules that is expanding.  So I would expect that your ruler would be experiencing expansion also.  But that is just me going out on a very fragile limb.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #5 on: 13/03/2009 19:36:02 »
Do you not accept Hubble's data? Remember, the attractive forces within a galaxy could mean that the mean expansion could be less than the effect between galaxies. Using the Hubble constant, you could work out how much you'd expect over galactic distances.

I accept Hubble's data and the gigantic amount of data accumulated since. But I don't like the idea of space expanding. I keep looking for someone to come up with a better explanation that will fit the observations. I know that we do not presently have such a better explanation.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #6 on: 13/03/2009 20:09:11 »
Better? I think it's really quite satisfying. It's a lot less bollocks than many other ideas I've read on these pages!
But I'm increasingly convinced that there's no 'right' answer. The best answer is the one which ties most things together.
Why should there be an ultimate truth, in any case?
Time to turn off the switch when that happens.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2009 20:11:15 by sophiecentaur »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #7 on: 13/03/2009 22:22:47 »
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2009 22:29:07 by Vern »

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #8 on: 13/03/2009 22:52:46 »
I think you are looking for a solution which involves very familiar concepts. That is too much to ask for. After all, if you lived in 1909, you wouldn't be able to understand what has happened in the subsequent 100 years using the familiar ideas of the day.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #9 on: 13/03/2009 23:36:50 »
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.

I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'spacetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 11:18:33 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #10 on: 13/03/2009 23:53:41 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
I think you are looking for a solution which involves very familiar concepts. That is too much to ask for. After all, if you lived in 1909, you wouldn't be able to understand what has happened in the subsequent 100 years using the familiar ideas of the day.
I think that one idea that was popular around the year 1900, if we had incubated it, would have provided a much better view of nature than the current developments provide. That idea was: the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

That idea is not incompatible with any experimental evidence that we can find. However that idea is incompatible with just about every modern theory.

I felt kinda blind sided when I woke up one morning and all of a sudden it was okay to consider the universe as expanding at an accelerating rate; I didn't see that coming. I didn't see any great study that defined the properties of space that would demand that expansion. The only properties of empty space that I know about are magnetic permeability and electric permittivity.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2009 23:59:52 by Vern »

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #11 on: 14/03/2009 00:07:56 »
Quote from: yor_on
I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'sapcetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly
I get the feeling when reading about new concepts that are accepted within the scientific community that some entity somewhere imagines themselves capable of describing nature such that nature gleefully becomes as they describe it. I suspect that we can only hope to discover what nature is like. We can not dictate that it must be this way or that way.

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #12 on: 14/03/2009 10:42:55 »
We have to accept the notion that empty space is not simply empty space. That is the part that don't sit well with me. Not only is space something; but it is something that can expand and an accelerating rate and take gigantibillions of galaxies worth of mass with it. Such space must generate unimaginable power to do that.

We don't know of anything in our physical experience that can do that, nor do we have any physical laws of nature that can predict that kind of expansion.

I think you have a good point there Vern.  I wonder if anyone have counted on how much energy it would take to move the milky way But then again I'm not sure what energy  would be seen as before it's in our 'neighborhood'. I don't write 'sapcetime' as I suspect that this vacuum may have a different view on it than we do? Even though it all should belong together, possibly

But the Milky Way and other galaxies are not moving due to expansion. Nothing is pushing them apart. Space is expanding but the galaxies are stationary within space.

In any case, whole superclusters of galaxies are moving due to gravity and that is a very weak force compared to EM, and the weak & strong forces.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #13 on: 14/03/2009 11:28:07 »
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too. So either it is a 'force' acting upon space. In that case the energy inherent in that force seems to be enormous, or else it's something totally different and 'force'  shouldn't be used for describing it, assuming that there is a expanding universe and that the culprit is vacuum.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #14 on: 14/03/2009 11:43:13 »
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too.

But that implies the galaxies are moving due to the expansion and they aren't. Within their bit of space they are stationary apart from their movement due to gravity.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #15 on: 14/03/2009 13:45:33 »
I don't think I have ever seen an in-detail description of just exactly how this expansion of space is taking place. Space is expanding, but galaxies are not? The concept seems to still be evolving. The scenario is a little different each time I get a description of it.

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #16 on: 14/03/2009 14:14:40 »
The expansion is happening inside galaxies but the force of gravity is stronger and is holding it in check. At least, that is what the theory says.

Just a thought:

Could that explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces? That it is being acted against by (is in opposition to) expansion? If there is this other force trying to push everything apart while gravity is trying to pull it all together, that would surely have the effect of making gravity appear weaker than it really is.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 14:20:04 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #17 on: 14/03/2009 14:21:33 »
Okay, that makes sense; I had heard that before. I didn't know if we had settled on that concept. If we know that much, we must also know how great is this force, and it must then be a fifth force of nature. Maybe it is mediated by an expansiton, or maybe even a Chronaton. Unification theorists should love that []
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 14:23:50 by Vern »

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #18 on: 14/03/2009 14:24:14 »
Okay, that makes sense;

Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #19 on: 14/03/2009 14:39:16 »
I keep going back to the question; why are we forced into this weird concept of expanding space? It is because we see that starlight is Doppler shifted toward the red and that the amount of this red shift is consistently greater the farther the light source. But now, we're saying it is not Doppler shifted at all. Light is being stretched out by expanding space.

I keep thinking that surely there will soon be some reasonable explanation that will forgo all this weirdness.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #20 on: 14/03/2009 15:08:07 »
DB you are correct in that it's space that is expanding, but that must 'push' on those galaxies too.

But that implies the galaxies are moving due to the expansion and they aren't. Within their bit of space they are stationary apart from their movement due to gravity.

I don't agree DB, the galaxies are moving due to the expansion, relative any frame of reference. It may well be so (in fact, it must be so:) that they don't experience any expansion themselves, but just like floating islands in the ocean are moving so are those galaxies moving in spacetime.
Movement, is after all, when all is said and done, the distance between two frames of reference growing as seen in time, at least in our spacetime. Inflation was outside what we call spacetime today as I see it, expansion takes place inside it. )
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 15:27:13 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #21 on: 14/03/2009 15:49:58 »
Quote
but just like floating islands in the ocean are moving so are those galaxies moving in spacetime.

No, it's very different. The ocean isn't expanding. It is currents (water & wind) that push floating objects around. These are no such ccurrents in space.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #22 on: 14/03/2009 16:09:28 »
Yes, it was only a analogue:) and you could say that there are forces of 'density' acting on the island but not on the galaxies, that is if we presume space to be a 'perfect vacuum'. But I still say that the galaxies are moving (accelerating in fact) relative us and that this should, in our spacetime at least, imply some 'force' being involved. What this idea say is that space is suddenly 'isolated' into islands of galaxies with all the 'normal' physics working. But outside those you have 'space' that somehow 'grows/expands', similar to how a underwater spring can 'push' objects aside as it sprouts under water. Either space has distance as a quality, and then the distance between objects are growing in space, or if distance is a outdated description I think I will leave it to you to define what a 'space' between two points represent, if not a distance.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #23 on: 14/03/2009 17:12:03 »
It's a strange 'force' if so, strong enough to push whole galaxies, but so weak that it can't do anything inside our solarsystem.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #24 on: 14/03/2009 18:38:46 »
Quote
But outside those you have 'space' that somehow 'grows/expands', similar to how a underwater spring can 'push' objects aside as it sprouts under water

The space inside galaxies would expand if gravity were not holding it in check. The force is acting everywhere but in some places is more noticeable as there is less gravity.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #25 on: 14/03/2009 20:04:42 »
Is the Hubble constant big enough to get a measurable amount of expansion within a galaxy? Someone do the sums for us please - I'm off up to have a bath 'cos I stink of fibreglass resin.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #26 on: 14/03/2009 22:46:28 »
I found this calculator Now if we can get a good translation of the units they use into the units we know about, we might just be able to get a number.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #27 on: 14/03/2009 22:54:29 »
Way to go Vern
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #28 on: 14/03/2009 22:58:04 »
That calculator is gibberish!  []
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #29 on: 14/03/2009 23:10:17 »
Here's the home page of the calculator. It seems legitimate. Dr. Chris Haines seems to be a Phd working in a graduate school in Italy.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #30 on: 14/03/2009 23:19:44 »
It is certainly not easy from a layman perspective

------Quotes--

Omega_M ~ M/L x j/\rho_c, where M/L is the field mass-to-light ratio, j is the field luminosity density and rho_c is the closure density. A wide range of potential systematic effects are explicitly controlled by independently deriving the mean cluster mass profile (finding good agreement with theoretical predictions), the cluster light profile, the redshift evolution of both cluster and field galaxies, the differential evolution between the two, and the field and cluster efficiencies for the conversion of baryons into galaxies

We conclude that Omega_M=0.19 +/- 0.06 where the errors are objectively evaluated via resampling methods. The redshift evolution of the numbers of clusters per unit co-moving volume over the 0 <= z <= 0.6 range is found to be very slow, as is required for consistency with a low density universe. The evolution of galaxy clustering in the field is compatible with a low density universe, and strongly disfavors models of galaxy evolution that associate low density halos with individual galaxies.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9711272

---------

Lambda: A constant term (labeled Lambda) which Einstein added to his general theory of relativity in the mistaken belief that the Universe was neither expanding nor contracting. The cosmological constant was found to be unnecessary once observations indicated the Universe was expanding.

As for that equation  ' H0 ( km s-1 Mpc-1 ) '

And Look back time http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/619/1/L103/18425.web.pdf

The phenomenon that, owing to the finite velocity of light, the more distant an object being observed, the older is the information received from it. A galaxy one billion light-years away, for instance, is seen as it looked one billion years ago.

--------End Quotes.........

Ah, are we ready to calculate now?
« Last Edit: 14/03/2009 23:30:17 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #31 on: 15/03/2009 00:06:09 »
Well, I'll do it, then
The Hubble constant is 72km/s /MPc and the galaxy is about 0.1MPc across.
That means the recession of the most distant stars in our galaxy due to Hubble expansion is only 7.2km/s.
That's very very small wrt c so you will not detect it by red shift.

Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.

Red shift is significant much much further away.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2009 00:07:52 by sophiecentaur »

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #32 on: 15/03/2009 00:47:21 »
SC - Andromeda receding? As in Messier 31 Andromeda? Are you sure about that?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #33 on: 15/03/2009 02:38:17 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.
But I think Andromedia is approaching us at about 30 km/s and accelerating toward us. And in 15 billion years or so we will be colliding with Andromedia. But the solar system probably can't survive that long.

But I guess the question at hand can't be advanced by the cosmic red shift. I think we were hoping to find some evidence that would help indicate whether our galaxy is expanding internally. It seems that evidence can not come from studies of the local red shift.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #34 on: 15/03/2009 09:39:30 »
I said Andromeda is receding due to Hubble expansion- that's nothing to do with how it's moving 'in it's own right'. The few km/s of space expansion is, of course , swamped be the galaxy' a motion. There will be stars within Andromeda which are traveling away from us due to their motion within their galaxy  and objects near those stars which are moving towards us.
The hubble calculation just tells you the expansion of space and the average motion at that distance..

(typo edit - the ipod is too damned smart!)
« Last Edit: 15/03/2009 10:08:28 by sophiecentaur »

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #35 on: 15/03/2009 09:41:12 »
Ah, my apologies SC. I misunderstood what you meant.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #36 on: 15/03/2009 12:22:32 »
DB you say a very interesting thing here.
"The space inside galaxies would expand if gravity were not holding it in check. The force is acting everywhere but in some places is more noticeable as there is less gravity."

What we are getting 'more' of is 'vacuum'.
When we talk about something getting 'more' of something, we usually refer to it in form of density. In this case though we are referring to a 'nothing' getting more. So, by what should we be able to proof the existence of a larger amount of 'nothing'. Yep, that's my thought too, there is only one 'objective' referrer of such a state, namely 'distance'. So are we getting larger 'distances' inside the solarsystem due to expansion? Apparently not, only outside our galaxies.

Now why is it this way? Apparently gravity is thought to be the arbiter of where expansion can or can't place 'new nothings' in our spacetime. Try to consider whether it is possible to place 'nothing at all' beside another 'nothing' and then say that we doubled the amount of nothings:). We know that there exist a vacuum and we know that it has a distance to it. From that view it's not implausible for a new addition of 'nothing' to widen the distances between 'nothings' aka 'vacuum'. But what the heck would that have to do with gravity? Either gravity is a implication of relativity and spacetime, and so is nothing more than the universal 'rollercoaster' acting upon every mass, its 'rides' created by mass in time. Or gravity is a 'force' carried by Higgs 'particles/bosons'. If we accept those ideas then what we call the 'expansion' of 'nothing', as a vacuum in fact is, must be a relation of matter/mass as gravity is created by matter/mass, no matter how one turns it around.

And that makes most sense to me if matter/space would be a symmetry, where you get both for the price of one, so to speak. And in that context the whole idea of distances becomes suspect, as we already know that distance is nothing more than a relation to acceleration, uniform motion, and density, and of course, how the whole idea of placing 'nothing' beside 'nothing' in any way should be able to lengthen a distance
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #37 on: 15/03/2009 12:57:08 »
But it isn't "nothing,is it. It's full of virtual particles.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #38 on: 15/03/2009 12:58:50 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Even Andromeda which is 0.77MPc away is only  receding at 55km/s due to Hubble.
Yes; I noticed that you limited your explanation to -- due to Hubble. and was not confused by it.

The idea that space inside a galaxy can expand, but the galaxy does not expand because gravity overcomes the expansion; that idea seems troubled. What of the behaviour of gravity that might need adjustment so that orbits of heavenly bodies would obediently conform to this new expanded space.

The whole idea of expansion seems a little ad-hoc and not well thought through.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2009 13:01:00 by Vern »

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #39 on: 15/03/2009 21:25:45 »
I would like to recant my statement about gravity altering things. The fact is that you can allow space to expand at the Hubble rate without needing to modify it due to gravity - unlike gravity, its effect gets bigger and bigger with distance and needn't be considered between stars.

5 am not sure about the 'not well thought out" comment. I'm sure it has had a bit more attention than any of the posted  new theories on this forum. I think the point about space expanding is that space only exists by virtue of the mass within it - as the masses spread out, so does the space.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #40 on: 15/03/2009 21:35:18 »
The main problem I have with the expansion theory is the part that allows expanding space to carry matter along with it such that the matter is not constrained to the speed of light. We can never observe that; we can only assume it happens because we know of things that are separated by distances that require faster than light speed to get the separation in the time allotted.

I am inclined to search for some other answer.

I have no problem at all with the notion that space expands because things move further apart. I have a problem with the reverse. Things move further apart because space expands.[] It just seems like a crutch go get around a problem with the big bang concept.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #41 on: 15/03/2009 23:24:50 »
Is there a causal 'direction' between the two processes? Why not let them happen together without a "because"? The "because" could well come from outside the model - in the same way that the BB does.
It seems that, yet again we try to explain things only using familiar terms and find it doesn't work.
Sounds like a cop out, I know, but...

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #42 on: 16/03/2009 12:32:22 »
It is easy to get side tracked; causality is a side issue; the key issue is; can things in space gain distance between themselves and other things at a greater rate than the speed of light?

This question has great implications. If things can behave in such a way it immediately falsifies the concept: the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

That is no small thing. If it is so, it is the first observed reality since Maxwell's postulate, that falsifies that concept.

You can find anything on the internet but it is interesting to see that others are thinking about this.

Bolding is my own.
Every test of this theory has held true - all it would take is one single exception and the theory would need tweaking (or simply discarded and new theories based on the new observations formulated).
Based on the data alone, and the newer technologies which have, in every case, confirmed Maxwell's postulate, it is very reasonable to be confident and sure that this is, at least in part, the way the universe works.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 14:13:25 by Vern »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #43 on: 16/03/2009 23:13:14 »
To be honest, I'm not sure what 'virtual particles' is:)
I know we have some kind of, ah, 'boiling energy' in spacetime that seems to express itself both as 'relative particles' and 'relative photons'. and we have pretty good mathematics describing them too, as well as indirect evidence for them. But a vacuum is by definition empty space?
Awh

I mean, you can take your trailer and drive it through any spot of 'space' and there won't be a bump!! As you seem to say DB, it may be our definitions that is dubious here. But then if I may ask, what's behind a vacuum?

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #44 on: 17/03/2009 00:15:53 »
But then if I may ask, what's behind a vacuum?

The person doing the housework!  []

Seriously, though, I'm not sure what you mean by that question.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #45 on: 17/03/2009 12:01:29 »
Well, if vacuum is containing such a lot of 'energy' it can't be made of 'nothing' it seems to me. Also if it is what allows for expansion then that too seems to imply that a vacuum isn't made of 'nothings'. Maybe it's a 'weak link' in spacetime? But then again, if that is the deal here then one have to ask what 'spacetime' is? Is it both what we can measure as being consistent in time, and those fluctuations we believe 'vacuum' to have (virtual particles/photons), inherent energy and 'expansion'.

Then the question seems to be, are they a part of what we call spacetime, or are they some kind of 'rips/exceptions' in our new model? If they are a needed part of spacetime, won't we need to 'modify' our ideas? As well as the idea of 'dimensions'? To me it all seems to hinge on the way we choose to describe spacetime, it is when we find the right way and the right words for explaining it, that the real paradigm can take place. It's always like that, it seems to me, when we don't have the 'right' words for describing a phenomena.

And that seems to me to mean that Einsteins model is a description of what is in 3D + time, but what we need is a new description of what the model should be seen as with those other parameters 'counted in'. And that takes us back to the concept of 'dimensions' and what our definitions really say about them. Perhaps they are all wrong Perhaps we need some new conceptual thinking of what distance is, for example. I believe in Einsteins model, as far as I understands it, but I'm not sure the 'descriptions' we use are the best, it's like we are looking at spacetime via a mirror made by preconceptions anchored in our history. LeeE seems to wonder about it for example, and I'm sure you do too DB. Another preconception of mine is that there will be a 'simple' way of describing spacetime in words, accounting for all phenomena we see, we just need to 'turn our heads'. Not that I know how, though

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• 2072
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #46 on: 17/03/2009 13:02:28 »
Quote from: yor_on
LeeE seems to wonder about it for example, and I'm sure you do too DB. Another preconception of mine is that there will be a 'simple' way of describing spacetime in words, accounting for all phenomena we see, we just need to 'turn our heads'. Not that I know how, though
There is that 'simple' way of describing nature, yor_on. John Wheeler expressed the same concerns that you express in your quote above.
Quote from: John Wheeler
Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise.
I think that James Clerk Maxwell gave us that principle nearly a hundred and fifty years ago. The problem is that we have not yet accepted it. My guess, as DoctorBeaver noted before, is that we have about another hundred and fifty years to go before we accept it.
It is this: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

I knew that Maxwell had nailed it when I realized that the postulate emboldened above completely explains relativity phenomena in flat space time, and refutes any notion of Einstein-Minkowski space-time.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 13:07:59 by Vern »

#### DoctorBeaver

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12656
• A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #47 on: 17/03/2009 13:50:05 »
Quote
And that seems to me to mean that Einsteins model is a description of what is in 3D + time, but what we need is a new description of what the model should be seen as with those other parameters 'counted in'.

We know that Einstein's models aren't complete even though he was a genius and a revolutionary thinker. For instance, he never tried to explain how matter warps spacetime. But even he was held back to some extent by pre-conceived beliefs. He couldn't at first accept that his calculations precluded a static universe and included the Cosmological Constant as a kludge. He did, though, finally accept the error of his ways where that was concerned.

With his ability to "think outside the box" I wonder what he'd come up with if he could come back to life now and see all the new knowledge we have acquired, all the new theories that have been devised, since his death.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 14:54:30 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

#### JukriS

• Sr. Member
• 115
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #48 on: 17/03/2009 14:06:13 »
Space dont expanding at all!

Energy expanding in sopace who dont expanding!

Also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and with that energy, expanding photons pushing themselfs far away same way what photons wexpanding!

thats why old light it is redshifting1

You cant see, heard, taste, smell or feel space1

You cant make any test with space!

There is no drawing force at all1

Only force is pressure!

We can explain everything with change of pressure!

All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the  pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).

We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not expand or curve.

Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.

The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human energyconsentration.

In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could you describe how does the space expand?

It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.

So the space does not expand or curve!

The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is how it goes!

When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...

It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area, where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.

That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.

So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe, outside which the energy would be less denser.

Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in a visible universe.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• 12339
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Can we measure 'expansion'
« Reply #49 on: 17/03/2009 15:17:23 »
Jukris, I looked at your site, if you have a hypothesis you should place it in 'New Theories' instead of 'copy and paste' it to here. This is more or less 'mainstream physics' we are discussing, even though we discuss some 'weird' subjects like expansion. And none writing here is doing any polemics. It's not a 'religious subject' to us. So place your hypothesis in 'new Theories' and see what happens
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."