[opportunity]

Sure, I said in a previous response "If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?"

Maybe I should ask, "How do you think space expands in the absence of anything else"?

[guest39538]

Sure, I said in a previous response "If a point is nothing, and space is nothing, and you're creating a volume in space using 4 points, say, it's still nothing, right, despite how you change the point distances from each other, right?"

Maybe I should ask, "How do you think space expands in the absence of anything else"?

Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light.


real diagram.jpg (12.3 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2611 times)

The Hubble red shift observes the light reflecting off an object not of the space.  Things are moving away from the centre of observation into more space.
The dots we see in the night sky are the light we are seeing, between those dots it is neither light or dark, it is an illusion that it is dark.   It is transparent and clear, nothing. 
The distance you perceive by the sources of light is the distant the object is away from you and not the distance of space that goes beyond the observation of the particle boundary.

[guest39538]

Understand that space is the absolute reference frame and is 0 constant .

[guest39538]

crel.jpg (20.46 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2610 times)

[opportunity]

This is why it is good to get the OP involved in these posts.

"Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light."

Are you saying the observor reference, in any nominated position, in view of light in space, views the appearannce of space expanding as by the effect of light?

Or, are you saying, "the observor" is expanding" relative to space and light?

Give me a heads up there.

I think I might know what you're trying to say. Help me here: "the relative distances between focal observed objects in the universe are moving apart, even though our own focal reference is unaltered by the nature of spatial expansion between other focal objects in the universe and that obvious expansion?"

[guest39538]

, in any nominated position, in view of light in space, views the appearannce of space expanding as by the effect of light?

Yes you got it , because of the inverse and the fact that things moving away from us , observably contract to a point. 

[opportunity]

Ok, if I got it, explain what you just said then, because what you just said seems to be above and beyond what I have been trying to understand.


< This is a side topic question, "I'm looking for a book on the best "metaphors" of all-time.....can anyone help me there?".....cool if can >

[guest39538]

"metaphors

Let me put my Einstein head on.

Let us begin in thought with a Rocket at relative rest in respect to the platform. Let us plot a journey travelling away from the Earth and the Sun.  Let us set our velocity at the near speed of light creating an observed red-shift of the reflected light of the rocket as we observe .
Let us begin the journey where we observe with our eyes the rocket receding away from us and the Sun.  In observation we observe a red-shift of the light being reflected of the rocket. We also observe a visual contraction of the rocket as it recedes further away, where at a given point x, by eye the object is no longer visible or has observable dimensions. The rocket has reached the event horizon of sight point x.

Ok so far in understanding this?

[opportunity]

I'm assuming because the rocket is no longer visible "real-time" its because the time it takes for light for the transmission of the rocket to get to us, or it went FTL? Help me there.

Well, so, space is expanding, local effects are in play, nothing has been said from the OP about local gravitational effects and negative energy required there, nothing said also about how space distinct from local effects in stars and planets expands FTL?

Guys, the answer is out there, and we can only find it by these discussions.

You presented the idea of a craft near light speed in space expanding FTL....."can we see that"?...."from Earth lift off of space craft"?

Sounds like an experiment, right?

Why not send a signal at light speed that is traceable, and how that can disappear? Sounds stupid, I mean, how do we trace a signal other than having a reflection to be send the signal back. Point is, your proposition is hard to prove.

Other than that, will the object close to light speed be "altered" as we observe it as it enters the regions of space between local gravtiational phenomena? Is that the question?

[guest39538]

I'm assuming because the rocket is no longer visible "real-time" its because the time it takes for light for the transmission of the rocket to get to us, or it went FTL? Help me there.

It is not seen because of the transverse of the inverse of the receding object.


point object.jpg (17.93 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2554 times)

And you are right in they do not discuss.

[opportunity]

So, that looks ok, but what's the explanation for what you're proposing, the nature of space and light, that interrelationship?

The "transverse of the inverse"...is that a metaphor, or a scientific thing we're not aware of yet?

[guest39538]

So, that looks ok, but what's the explanation for what you're proposing, the nature of space and light, that interrelationship?

The "transverse of the inverse"...is that a metaphor, or a scientific thing we're not aware of yet?

The transverse of an inverse I  covered a while ago, it is a scientific thing you are not aware of yet.

There is no light /space relationship , there is only a light and substance relationship.   The only light you see is that of field and substance interaction. 
When you send a signal , you are sending that signal through the already existing n-field .    Energy is transferred from one body to another by the n-field acting as a conduit .

Back to the rocket for a minute.

Let us now imagine that the observable universe only contains the Sun and the Earth, our senses and perception would declare our universe radius is to the Sun. Now let us imagine our rocket wen beyond the suns radius , we could declare from our rocket that the observable universe is expanding.  However , once upon the rocket reaches position x, we then will declare our universe has contracted back to the sun.

Now hopefully you can see the metaphor for your book and I have helped you.

[opportunity]

Granted you've been thanked 82 times or so now, and granted I haven't been made aware of your pre-required thesis, "yet" where's the OP, right? Have we answered the OP's question? I mean, we can't derail this discussion, right?

[guest39538]

Granted you've been thanked 82 times or so now, and granted I haven't been made aware of your pre-required thesis, "yet" where's the OP, right? Have we answered the OP's question? I mean, we can't derail this discussion, right?

Most opp's start a discussion then abandon them , they post in boredom I think mostly. The title says what is space? We are discussing what is space and things involving space.
They would tell us if they didn't want us in this thread.   The importance of the thread is to learn and discover.  There are readers of this thread who may enjoy reading what we are discussing. It is educational all around as long we are discussing somewhere.

[opportunity]

I noticed that, you know....its cool though....see who falls for the question.

I fall for everything, that's me.

[guest45734]

OP, is this helping your question?

Yes

You can't change the distance between the points is the exact reason space is not and cannot expand.

Space is expanding at an accelerating rate between galaxies, the galaxies are in effect in free fall moving away from each other due to Dark Energy(quantum fluctuations). The concept of space expanding is perhaps confusing you, would it be better to state more space is coming into existence between galaxies, giving the effect of inflation like the surface of a balloon.

Gravity is caused by the absorption of quantum fluctuations and space(chicken and egg scenario both are dependent on each other). Inside your boxes if quantum fluctuations are reduced or completely stopped you will have a black hole which would collapse the space inside your box, due to the pressure of the quantum fluctuations outside the box.

Under Relativity as you approach light speed distances are contracted and time slows to a standstill, a photon does not experience time. It is generally accepted that time appears to slow down and distances contract when approaching light speed on the cosmic scale, why do you not accept that at the quantum level space can come into and out of existence continually due to quantum fluctuations, giving the appearance of expanding or contracting space on the cosmic scale.

[guest45734]

Most opp's start a discussion then abandon them

I am not most opps, I have not abandoned the subject but there may be a delay between responsesdue to not having continual access to a computer. I generally login once a day, today is an exception.

Do you have a thread on your N field theory

[opportunity]

I currently can't dispute what the OP is forwarding. I look forward to a paper. Keep me posted via personal email.

[guest45734]

Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light

The distance between most galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, those galaxies dont experience an acceleration as they move apart from each other because the space between them is increasing, the galaxies themselves are in effect in freefall and feel no acceleration due to the expansion of space between them.

[guest39538]

Space does not expand relative to anything, observation expands relative to space and light

The distance between most galaxies is increasing at an accelerating rate, those galaxies dont experience an acceleration as they move apart from each other because the space between them is increasing, the galaxies themselves are in effect in freefall and feel no acceleration due to the expansion of space between them.

No, you are just repeating what is written, you are not even thinking for yourself.  The space between the galaxies is not expanding, the measurement between the galaxies are expanding.  Please try to understand the correct semantics of what things mean.

I will explain in a simple diagram

space............................galaxy←measurement→galaxy.......................................space.

space...............galaxy←←←←←measurement→→→→→galaxy.......................space