The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:26 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:41 am
Age wrote:
Can a person NOT believe it is happening when it is
Yes they can but the principle is the same : not believing something that is true / believing something that is false
Though if something is demonstrably true when there is evidence to support it then it no longer has to be believed
To you, what is 'space' exactly?

How does 'space' expand?

And,

What is the actual evidence that 'space' is expanding?

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:02 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:41 am
Age wrote:
Can a person NOT believe it is happening when it is
Yes they can but the principle is the same : not believing something that is true / believing something that is false
That 'principle' is from YOUR definition of things.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:41 am
Though if something is demonstrably true when there is evidence to support it then it no longer has to be believed
I agree and I have said almost the exact same. BUT, people CAN STILL believe it. Just because some thing 'no longer has to be' some thing, that by itself does NOT mean that it will instantly stop 'be'ing.

gaffo
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:43 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:15 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:00 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am

WHERE is the actual "evidence" that the Universe is expanding?
Redshift via Edwin Hubble early 1920's.
But if some stars/galaxies are blueshift, then how does that then conclude that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If galaxies are moving closer to us, as you just said andromeda is, then some could say that that, combined with the other blueshift galaxies/stars, is evidence that the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding.

If redshift is evidence for an expanding Universe, then what is evidenced by blueshift?
numerical analysis, Andromeda is blueshitfted (why - logic concludes duo to our mass (Milyway) and Andromeda's proximity to us (so yes "we" being of less mass - are moving toward Andromeda moreso then vise versa - though of course we are moving toward each other.

all the rest of the observed galaxies are moving away from us, and why/how we conclude the universe (space more aptly) is expanding.

thanks for reply BTW.

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
@Age

I was hesitant to respond to a prior post in which you again rallied back on me about 'assumptions', something that others here are also a bit frustrated with you on.
They are NOT the only ones who feel those frustrated feelings.

I'm trying not to be rude and know that this may not be something you intend. So I want to just note in this post something about 'assumptions' that I don't want to raise again and won't respond to again because it is getting exhausting to try.[/quote]
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
The word "assumptions", can literally be translated as "As YOU, the same it is for ME". It's not important if this is the literal origin of the word but it stands to reason that this is the intentional meaning as it is for things like logic and/or science.
That is one translation. Another is If you ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME. It is also not important if this is the literal "origin" as well. If some WANT to use that word, from that interpretation, then they might, like you just did, USE it, and then also state: it stands to reason that this is the INTENTIONAL MEANING as it is for things like GUESSING what is right or true BEFORE what is right and true is even actually known.

Does this 'stand to reason' also, or only YOUR one definition/interpretation 'stand to reason'?

Absolutely ANY thing can 'stand to reason' because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If ANY thing appears to 'fit in with' views already obtained, then 'that' will TRY TO be used to "justify" one's own position. (That is; if they are HOLDING ONTO one position).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
As such, assumptions are ONLY the pretenses BETWEEN two or more people that is needed to move forward with anything.
Lol is that the "ONLY" thing they ARE?

Are you at all aware that different human beings give different definitions to words?

Are you also aware that there can be many different definitions to just one word, so to say and/or imply that A word has ONLY ONE meaning/definition just SHOWS how closed some people are and can be.

One reason human beings are confused about things is because there are so many different definitions and meanings to the individual words they use. But CLARITY clears up this self-caused, which by the way CLARITY is what can move people forward with anything MUCH FASTER than ASSUMPTIONS ever did or could.

In fact Honest CLARITY is THE quickest, simplest, and easiest path, thus the BEST, I have found to moving forward to FINDING and SEEING/ UNDERSTANDING the actual and real Truth of things.

I found, and continually witness, hitherto how ASSUMPTIONS actually prevent the Truth from being found and can actually cause more confusion than clarity. This can be OBSERVED clearly in this forum.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
When I question the world, I default NOT to assume anything in my own investigations of my reality.
When you use the word 'reality', how are you interpreting/defining that word?

How CAN you "investige" 'reality'?

When I LOOK AT ANY thing, and ALL things as One. I am OPEN and NOT believing ANY thing. I also do NOT like to make any ASSUMPTIONS at all.

That way I can SEE things for how and what they REALLY ARE.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Because I cannot read through another mind,
Lol Have you ever read my writings where I suggest to ask "others" clarifying questions so that a much better and truer understanding of what they are actually saying and meaning can be found?

If NOT, then that is A reason WHY I ask so many clarifying questions and WHY I continually ask to be challenged with and by clarifying questions also
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
I require gambling that those other beings out there, like you and all other 'people' in my perspective are only sensations with respect to my consciousness as far as I can tell.
Who cares?

I cannot control most other things outside of my mind.

This is twice you have used this 'mind' word. Would you care to clarify want the 'mind' actually IS?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
This tells me that reality is greater than I am at least with respect to my present self. All of reality COULD be only MY universe but because I cannot MAKE other things fit perfectly to my will, I have to infer this means that there are other factors out there that I have to try to try different things in order to see if those things I'm sensing is like me. When I 'poke' this world of my senses, the feedback I get needs to 'bounce' back something I expect and when this occurs and can continue to test, those things out there that 'reflect' my call tells me they are something that 'senses' me as I sense it.
Who cares?

And, the REASONS WHY you "cannot MAKE other things fit" US OBVIOUS, for reasons ALREADY given.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
This is the 'assumption' factor.
Which partly explains WHY you can NOT "make" things fit.

TRYING TO 'MAKE' things happen is another reason WHY are STILL investigating and looking for answers.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
I cannot KNOW anything for certain unless it reflects me perfectly. When it reflects back to me (ie. feedback), if it is absolutely what I expect [like a 'ping' that bounces back to acknowledges something is out there], the sensations that are perfectly in my control DEFINES ME. So, for instance, when I 'look' out and see some face in front of me that moves in every way exactly as I do, it confirms to me that is 'me'. That I happen to be looking in the mirror can be one such experience.
Who cares?

Reality is not as predictable for all things. For those things that I may try to ping but cannot get a reflected expected acknowledgement from, I infer this as something perfectly not me nor like me. If I cannot manipulate it at all and I am unable to get it to feedback as I wish, these things I am sensing for which I'm trying to test are things that are NOT me nor LIKE me.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
As to other people, though, I would sense some partial power to ping. If I have hope to communicate with it, it needs to reflect back some things that I send (ping) and then I have to acknowledge its own pings to me. Once this is done, we have a 'link' to each other. This is the 'assumption' in its most basic form.
You forgot to add that that interpretation/definition of 'assumption' is what 'assumption' is, TO 'ME' "scott mayers".

As you proposed it just now it is like you are proposing that that is the ONLY interpretation/definition in it's most basic form.

There are, after all, MORE basic forms of that one word.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
So assumptions are only a type of agreement that is 'pretended' for the sake of further communicating.
Again you forgot to add the word that that is TO 'ME' "scott mayers".

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
I'm using some terms related to computing (like ping and acknowledge) because these are the first steps for any two things to communicate like this. For everything my computer does on the Internet, it pings, waits for an expected copy in a given time. If it comes, then I wait for it to send its own distinct ping (computers can do this simultaneously but animals need to 'prove' it is acknowledgable too).
So what? And who cares?

But if you really want me to 'ping' back with my views on what I am seeing in your views, then what I see is you want reflect back to you 'that' what 'refects' with your views. You WANT to see a reflection of yourself, in "others" (views) so that 'you' cab substianted as being true and right. You only want to SEE 'that' what ONLY relects your own views. But do not be to concerned with this as you are not alone. EVERY other adults human being also does this exact same thing.

Adults do NOT LOOK AT what IS, rather they LOOK AT and FOR 'that' what they ALREADY ASSUME and BELIEVE is True.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
My point is only to express that assumptions are required ONLY between two or more beings. We still don't actually KNOW each of us are 'real' beings like ourselves.
If you say so.

But all of this seems like a very long convoluted way if just saying that no matter what you say you are still unsure if it is correct or not.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Science is a subset of philosophy that restricts communication and procedures to the lowest common denominator and is specifically a logic of the senses. As such, a stricter set of assumptions have to be negotiated about senses, the logic used and agreed procedures. This doesn't require being a part of an institute. So we here could DO science among ourselves in the same way we discuss other philosophical things.
And this helps EXPLAINING WHY you human beings are STILL searching for the Truth of things. I have already told you the best way to the truth (of things).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
I don't know if this suffices and won't care nor respond if this is not something you care to agree to or not. So this is the last I'm mentioning this point and don't want to argue with you on this.
People do NOT want to 'argue' whenever they do NOT like to LOOK further into their own words to SEE if they are actually correct or not.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
What is needed to understand for the topic of expansion is some principle assumptions.
And by any chance are those ASSUMPTIONS you want to remain and be agreed with and/ or accepted are those ones that you put forward?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
One is the Cosmological Principle. I prefer the Perfect Cosmological Principle which assumes things in the past or future has to be of the same kind of physics that respects the senses we use locally.
Now what a coincidence. You WANT to ASSUME 'that' what ALREADY fits in with your ALREADY held VIEWS.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Working definition of the Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.

I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.

But just to inform YOU that is NOT going to help you find 'that' what you are LOOKING FOR.

By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?

gaffo
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
Local gravitational effects will not be immediately affected by the overall expansion of the Universe
And this is why some galaxies will be blue shifted - because in cosmic terms they are relatively close
yes, but not phrased so well.

Gravity effect all galaxies to each other, but only ones of big enough mass to others near them will offer a pull of thier gravity enough to overcome the expansion of space to allow for the "Blue shift" observation - via one in the big galaxy seeing smalls ones near them blue shifted/ or / via one in any of the small galaxies per the big one heading toward them.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
This also applies to any bodies that are relatively close to each other such as moons / planets / stars
yes of course, gravity is weakened by the square of distance of other object.

gaffo
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:33 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:21 am
I wrote:
Space does not expand
Space is not a static medium but one capable of distortion in many forms due to the effects of general relativity

yes, frame dragging? is the term (no sure - mem is poor) - ie. gravity is so extreme near Event Horizons, that space (whatever that is) is "pulled into the BH" faster than light - this is why/how not only matter, but faster massless stuff like light even cannot excape the BH - for even if the beam of light is traveling outward from the BH, the space where the light resides is "falling in faster than light speed" - and so the light though moving through space, is still falling into the BH because the space where the light resides is moving faster in the opposite direction!) - literally.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:21 am
And dark energy is the mysterious force responsible for the expansion of space both within and without galaxies
I don't believe in DM ( i believe in DE, since 1998 where empricism showed that the universe's expansion is not slowing, but the reverse, so forced to believe in DE - whateve that it). To date there is no empirical evidence to show the existance of DM however (the one using Xenon showed nothing - and so still await proof of DM existing myself).

thanks for post BTW

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:43 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:15 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:00 am


Redshift via Edwin Hubble early 1920's.
But if some stars/galaxies are blueshift, then how does that then conclude that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If galaxies are moving closer to us, as you just said andromeda is, then some could say that that, combined with the other blueshift galaxies/stars, is evidence that the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding.

If redshift is evidence for an expanding Universe, then what is evidenced by blueshift?
numerical analysis, Andromeda is blueshitfted (why - logic concludes duo to our mass (Milyway) and Andromeda's proximity to us (so yes "we" being of less mass - are moving toward Andromeda moreso then vise versa - though of course we are moving toward each other.

all the rest of the observed galaxies are moving away from us, and why/how we conclude the universe (space more aptly) is expanding.

thanks for reply BTW.
If 'all the rest of the observed galaxies are moving away from us' is true, then this goes against those galaxies that appear blue shifted.

Does blue/red shift indicate direction of movement?

If yes, then why is there said to be more than just andromeda galaxy, which is blueshifted?

If no, then what does?

Also, is red/blue shift absolute evidence or just an indication of direction of travel?

gaffo
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:21 am


But "closeness" or not has NO bearing on blue nor red shifted.

it does when the bodies in question are close to each other and have enough mass to allow their collective gravitational forces to overcome the expansion of space.

as in the Milky Way and Andromeda's mutual Blue shifts WRT to each other - in spite of space expansion.


surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
This also applies to any bodies that are relatively close to each other such as moons / planets / stars
or as it does to objects of higher mass and farther apart.

see above for an example.



surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
So, are you saying that moons, planets, and stars no matter where they are in the Universe are contracting together depending on if they are close to each other?

????????? physics is assumed to be constant, so yes a small moon orbiting an Earth in a timbuk too Galaxy will be bound as a moon, as ours is here.

and that moon way over there has no apprecable effect upon us nor via versa.

gravity's power lessens via distance by the square of.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
If that is what you are saying, then could you explain how this is possible in an expanding Universe?
non sequitor.


surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
What is 'relatively close' in relation to, actually?
what is "close" depends upon mass and distance.


surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
Remembering that ' "local" gravitational effects' also applies to things like galaxies as well as solar systems, stars, planets, moons, and other objects.
yes gravity affect all things in the entire universe.

your point? do you have one? do you have a basic understanding of cosmology?

gaffo
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:43 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:15 am


But if some stars/galaxies are blueshift, then how does that then conclude that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

If galaxies are moving closer to us, as you just said andromeda is, then some could say that that, combined with the other blueshift galaxies/stars, is evidence that the Universe, Itself, is NOT expanding.

If redshift is evidence for an expanding Universe, then what is evidenced by blueshift?
numerical analysis, Andromeda is blueshitfted (why - logic concludes duo to our mass (Milyway) and Andromeda's proximity to us (so yes "we" being of less mass - are moving toward Andromeda moreso then vise versa - though of course we are moving toward each other.

all the rest of the observed galaxies are moving away from us, and why/how we conclude the universe (space more aptly) is expanding.

thanks for reply BTW.
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am


If 'all the rest of the observed galaxies are moving away from us' is true, then this goes against those galaxies that appear blue shifted.

nope, because AFIAK only Andromeda is Blueshifted - why? because only it and us are by far the most massive galaxies in our Local Group. whirlpool is big too, but far away in our local group so not influneced by MW mass to move toward us faster than space expansion. (all other galaxies "dwarf Galaxies" (Magelenic Clouds (L & S) are such) in the LG (20 or so?) are much smaller, and if they are near us they should be Blue shifted too - ive not educated myself upon them (here is your chance!).
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am

Does blue/red shift indicate direction of movement?
yes. that is all it indicates.

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
If yes, then why is there said to be more than just andromeda galaxy, which is blueshifted?
???????? you refer to our neighoring Dwarf Galaxies? i've not investigated them, but assume they are moving toward us if they are near us due to our Galaxies greater gravity to full them in toward us.



Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
Also, is red/blue shift absolute evidence
evidence? of what?

space expansion - noting that all galaxies other than Andromeda (and nearby Dwarfs) are moving away from us? yes i think that is evidence of an expanding universe myself.


Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
or just an indication of direction of travel?

same thing in this regard.

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:29 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:15 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:19 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:12 am


nope.

everything expands - space and matter.





nope, not sure where you got that idea.




yes



nope. space is finite, it was "smaller 13 billion yrs ago, its larger now, and will be larger still in the future - but finite.



we can reasonably assume its expanding at the same rate as space in the observable universe.




yes



lol, if you say so. my bad. i have been corrected.
gaffo

You seem to speak as if you KNOW, for sure, what happened and what will happen.
I "know" nothing more than what has been conventional dogma since the last 70 yrs or so.

nothing more - nor claim more, I just post what the dogma of the last 3/4 century is - and do date see no reason to reject that dogma.

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
How did you come to obtain this "knowledge"?

via reading such dogmatic textbooks about the Cosmos back in the 1970s' and 80s'.

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
Can you inform me/us:
ibid, see above.
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
Did the Universe begin?
yes, 13.8 billion years ago, per emprircism and said dogmatic textbooks.
So, no matter what period you live in, you would believe whatever is written in dogmatic textbooks, is this correct?

You sound exactly like those people who claim things, because "it is written in a book".

What is 'empiricism', which states that the Universe began?

To some people, in the dogmatic (text)book it is also interpreted that the Universe began. And when questioned about this it is said, This is observed, and it is written, in the book: so it must be true.

Now, my question is; If the Universe is said to have began and is finite, and expanding, then what is the ACTUAL evidence for any or all of these three things.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:15 am
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
If so, when? How? And, from what exactly?

13.8 billion yrs ago.

no clue nor do the textbooks offer - how, nor from what.

anymore than they can explain the nature of reality inside the Event Horizons - nor at the Singularity (maybe they differ? or not??? - no awswers, no clue). they offer answers only to what is empirically provable and where "maths" work to explain concepts.
What is the "empirical" evidence that 'space' expands AND that the Universe began?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:15 am
there are realms - "The primordial Singularity", Black Holes - where empricism is not doable to offer answers. nor math, for it is limited and cannot explain the nature of reality inside any/all Black holes.
What empricism has been done and/or maths that SHOWS how space expands.

You would have to KNOW what some thing is for empricism to be doable on it and for maths to explain 'it' (whatever it is).

Also, to be able to observe space 'expanding', then one would have to be able to first see space correct?

Has any one observed space yet?

If yes, then what does it look like and how EXACTLY does space expand?

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:22 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:21 am


But "closeness" or not has NO bearing on blue nor red shifted.

it does when the bodies in question are close to each other and have enough mass to allow their collective gravitational forces to overcome the expansion of space.
as in the Milky Way and Andromeda's mutual Blue shifts WRT to each other - in spite of space expansion.[/quote]

But it is stated that some distant galaxies are blueshifted.

So how does what you are saying here account for the fact that some galaxies which are further away from redshifted galaxies are blueshifted?



The rest is incorrectly quoted to some one else.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
This also applies to any bodies that are relatively close to each other such as moons / planets / stars
or as it does to objects of higher mass and farther apart.

see above for an example.
I have, and I have previously been questioning, about what you are saying here, to other people. I am STILL waiting for an explanation.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
So, are you saying that moons, planets, and stars no matter where they are in the Universe are contracting together depending on if they are close to each other?

????????? physics is assumed to be constant, so yes a small moon orbiting an Earth in a timbuk too Galaxy will be bound as a moon, as ours is here.
Okay great. So the fact is some parts of the Universe can be OBVIOUSLY observed to be contracting while some parts if the Universe are just said to be expanding, correct?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
and that moon way over there has no apprecable effect upon us nor via versa.

gravity's power lessens via distance by the square of.
Agreed, but not really related to my questions though.

Are you able to explain HOW it is possible for the Universe to expand!

Age
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Age » Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:23 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:21 am


But "closeness" or not has NO bearing on blue nor red shifted.

it does when the bodies in question are close to each other and have enough mass to allow their collective gravitational forces to overcome the expansion of space.

as in the Milky Way and Andromeda's mutual Blue shifts WRT to each other - in spite of space expansion.
But it is stated that some distant galaxies are blueshifted.

So how does what you are saying here account for the fact that some galaxies which are further away from redshifted galaxies are blueshifted?



The rest is incorrectly quoted to some one else.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
This also applies to any bodies that are relatively close to each other such as moons / planets / stars
or as it does to objects of higher mass and farther apart.

see above for an example.
I have, and I have previously been questioning, about what you are saying here, to other people. I am STILL waiting for an explanation.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:11 am
So, are you saying that moons, planets, and stars no matter where they are in the Universe are contracting together depending on if they are close to each other?

????????? physics is assumed to be constant, so yes a small moon orbiting an Earth in a timbuk too Galaxy will be bound as a moon, as ours is here.
Okay great. So the fact is some parts of the Universe can be OBVIOUSLY observed to be contracting while some parts if the Universe are just said to be expanding, correct?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
and that moon way over there has no apprecable effect upon us nor via versa.

gravity's power lessens via distance by the square of.
Agreed, but not really related to my questions though.

Are you able to explain HOW it is possible for the Universe to expand!

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
@Age

I was hesitant to respond to a prior post in which you again rallied back on me about 'assumptions', something that others here are also a bit frustrated with you on.
They are NOT the only ones who feel those frustrated feelings
Requoting in reflection to Scott, Age wrote: I'm trying not to be rude and know that this may not be something you intend. So I want to just note in this post something about 'assumptions' that I don't want to raise again and won't respond to again because it is getting exhausting to try.
Understood.
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
The word "assumptions", can literally be translated as "As YOU, the same it is for ME". It's not important if this is the literal origin of the word but it stands to reason that this is the intentional meaning as it is for things like logic and/or science.
That is one translation. Another is If you ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME. It is also not important if this is the literal "origin" as well. If some WANT to use that word, from that interpretation, then they might, like you just did, USE it, and then also state: it stands to reason that this is the INTENTIONAL MEANING as it is for things like GUESSING what is right or true BEFORE what is right and true is even actually known.

Does this 'stand to reason' also, or only YOUR one definition/interpretation 'stand to reason'?

Absolutely ANY thing can 'stand to reason' because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If ANY thing appears to 'fit in with' views already obtained, then 'that' will TRY TO be used to "justify" one's own position. (That is; if they are HOLDING ONTO one position).
...and is why I asserting the what is meant for assumptions BETWEEN two or more agreeing people. The 'assumptions' you are referring to is the definition of a ONE-SIDED, non-negotiated assumption we make of the world as the other person. That is the ONLY reason they present one as an 'ass'. It in context means that WHEN WE MAKE assumptions of Nature, Nature acts as the 'U' in "as yoU, me". While this is normal, it is what makes discussions in context BETWEEN people a distinctly different 'you'. And when you are discussing with another person, one needs to be open to negotiating among the people involved what is to BE the 'assumptions'. That is what I mean when discussing science. It has a set of negotiated assumptions that agree NOT to allow extraneous biases against the other person when you are trying to communicate.

This goes TWO ways, just as you already agreed to differences of perspective of the different definitions. What good would it be to NOT agree to our terms (presumptions) in common? We use the same words in different contexts. The assumption definition you are thinking of the (2) below when I'm speaking of the (1):
Google Definition wrote:as·sump·tion
/əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/

noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
"they made certain assumptions about the market"
synonyms: supposition, presupposition, presumption, premise, belief, expectation, conjecture, speculation, surmise, guess, theory, hypothesis, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, thought, suspicion, notion, impression, fancy;

2.
the action of taking on power or responsibility.
"the assumption of an active role in regional settlements"
synonyms: acceptance, shouldering, handling, managing, tackling, taking on;

The second one is about power of an individual person or group to dictate the terms (have power to assume one-sided). You are mixing the two when these are distinct meanings.

I know that this may not be the precise meaning you mean. In fact, but as you further say,...
Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
As such, assumptions are ONLY the pretenses BETWEEN two or more people that is needed to move forward with anything.

Lol is that the "ONLY" thing they ARE?

Are you at all aware that different human beings give different definitions to words?

Are you also aware that there can be many different definitions to just one word, so to say and/or imply that A word has ONLY ONE meaning/definition just SHOWS how closed some people are and can be.

One reason human beings are confused about things is because there are so many different definitions and meanings to the individual words they use. But CLARITY clears up this self-caused, which by the way CLARITY is what can move people forward with anything MUCH FASTER than ASSUMPTIONS ever did or could.

In fact Honest CLARITY is THE quickest, simplest, and easiest path, thus the BEST, I have found to moving forward to FINDING and SEEING/ UNDERSTANDING the actual and real Truth of things.

I found, and continually witness, hitherto how ASSUMPTIONS actually prevent the Truth from being found and can actually cause more confusion than clarity. This can be OBSERVED clearly in this forum.

The STOP assuming the second definition HAS to be included in the first. I agree with you to what you say about that meaning. It is different than the assumptions one makes BETWEEN people. These kind of assumptions are like the rules of a game two or more people are playing. If you propose NO assumptions, you equally propose NO rules to any game. How do you think that others will perceive the person coming along to play a game demand that you want to play but demand your preference to have no rules? That's not team playing, it is selfishly expecting others to comply to your POWER to assume only. That you assume "no assumptions" SHOULD be permitted when you want to play with others is no different than demanding that YOU are the one to define HOW we are to play.

So I'm only saying that science is about sensing things that we need to negotiate some guidelines of conduct, rules we PRETEND for the sake of moving on. It makes it hard to PLAY the game if we can't get a shared agreement to the rules. Demanding no rules is identical to saying ALL rules of discussing science has to always be permitted OR that you and only YOU, get to define the rules arbitrarily and everyone else has to follow.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
When I question the world, I default NOT to assume anything in my own investigations of my reality.
When you use the word 'reality', how are you interpreting/defining that word?

How CAN you "investige" 'reality'?

When I LOOK AT ANY thing, and ALL things as One. I am OPEN and NOT believing ANY thing. I also do NOT like to make any ASSUMPTIONS at all.

That way I can SEE things for how and what they REALLY ARE.
If you were given two or more different pictures, although the pictures themselves can be treated as speaking for themselves factually, the link between them is NOT OBVIOUS. This is again your own bias about reality that you are demanding of what you think is 'fact'.

If I gave you the Rorschach test that uses ink blots, is this following image 'obvious' of some FACT that it is a skeletal hip?:
inkblot-158309_960_720.png
inkblot-158309_960_720.png (44.96 KiB) Viewed 223 times
I'm not saying it IS a hip because it is just an inkblot that tests how others are thinking. The point is that anything we 'observe' certainly has some FACT of it with respect to reality apart from our opinion of it. But if you insist that we are not allowed to guess at what they mean, you falsely presume that YOU alone think you KNOW what the reality is or are demanding that you ASSUME control of the way others are required to express what they see as fit to your own.

This is all I can say. I'm not responding to any more of this. I think you understand but are not wanting to let it go for some other unknown reason.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am

@Age, on the topic:

You, Age, now agree to the Expansion of space and thus must have likely followed the logic once you have had some time to absorb it. I also agree that you cannot rule out the possibility that we might discover space NOT expanding. But I now challenge you to the thought experiment I presented by presuming that space doesn't expand and then noting how it still leads to logical confusion that also makes expansion more likely than not.

This is the post: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&start=90#p407195

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: The Expanding Universe -- Why and How We Know It Is Expanding

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Working definition of the Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.

I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.

But just to inform YOU that is NOT going to help you find 'that' what you are LOOKING FOR.

By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?
I didn't label it.The original "Cosmological Principle" was thought initially to be sufficient. The "Perfect" addition was to ADD that this principle needs to include time, not just space and matter in any one time. The proponents of the first Steady State theory added this because they felt the Big Bang theorists cheated by leaving that point out. The word, "perfect" is used in math and science not to mean 'excellent' but to be specific. Another word used as an option for this is the word, "proper".

"I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise."

This is what I meant about your interpreting some fact as SO obvious as though it speaks for itself. This is NOT assumed and your own assumption that it is obvious, only justifies how the Steady State theorists thought as well when the Big Bang theory does not. The Big Bang theory assumes a literal 'origin' because they allowed for the possibility that reality WAS distinctly different in appearance at different TIMES. Many also think that in the future the universe will keep expanding but that no more matter nor energy will be added. As such, they think that the FUTURE of our Universe will be dark and cold. This goes against the idea that in different times, we should see the same thing.

If I have a recipe for a loaf of bread, I find it more reasonable to assume the recipe will successfully make a loaf of bread in the future. But if in the future the same formula were to fail even if done PERFECTLY as is the original recipe maker meant, then there would have to be something missing in the future that is NOT PERFECTLY fit to the recipe. For instance, maybe the ingredient of flour in the future EVOLVED so that it no longer could be used to make bread. While possible, we can't ASSUME anything LESS than the what we can know today. This is the contextual kind of meaning of 'perfect'. If we look at evidence that is confusing, instead of assuming what we are observing had some strange reality, the proposal to rephrase the principle to be strictly 'perfect' to our capacity to observe here and now, means that they are proposing to only treat the appearance as an appearance only.

The appearance of our universe to have an origin, then, is proposed by the Perfect Cosmological Principle, to be treated as an illusion rather than the reality because it CAN be an illusion and would not impose some magical reality. It may be the case that that apparent point IS a beginning. But then it only raises more paradoxes as we've already been discussing should it be an 'origin'.

So you already agree to the Perfect Cosmological Principle in principle as I do. And you proposed too that we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that this is wrong. So you are sharing the same view as I do o this and to assumptions in general.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests