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: 3605
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 12:57 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am

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.
Are you able to explain how the Universe is expanding?
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.


gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
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.

Does gravity affect those things without mass?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
your point?
First I want to know, from people here, does space expand or does the Universe expand?

Then I want to know what space is and how it could expand? As well as be informed about how the Universe, when defined as ALL-THERE-IS, could expand?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
do you have one?
Yes to SHOW why you human beings are STILL so slow in discovering the Truth of things.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:49 am
don't you have a basic understanding of cosmology?
That all depends on what you mean by 'basic understanding'?

Basic relative to what exactly.

My understanding could be very basic, very simple, or very new and far advanced, but relativity plays a huge part in questions like yours here.

By the way you have incorrectly quoted this to the wrong one also.

Age
Posts: 3605
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 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
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!).
AFAOK, according to the facts, there are distant galaxies that are blueshifted. So, who is Right? You or them?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
Does blue/red shift indicate direction of movement?
yes. that is all it indicates.
Finally. Thank you.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
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?
No.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
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.
Moot.

To distant galaxies.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:45 am
Also, is red/blue shift absolute evidence
evidence? of what?
So, you split my one sentence in half and respond like this.

Obviously, when the WHOLE question is SEEN you would KNOW what 'what' IS.

The question read: Also, is red/blue shift absolute evidence or just an indication of direction of travel? And you are TRYING TO make out that you do NOT know what the 'evidence' word is in relation to really. Come on you can do better than that.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
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.
LOL @ just another ATTEMPT at a diversion tactic to NOT address THEE issue, which I am POINTING OUT.

Further to this, this is your ATTEMPT at an argument.

P1. All galaxies other than andromeda (and nearby dwarfs) are moving away from us.
P2. P1 is evidence.
Therefore, Space expansion.

TRY again.

Where is the ACTUAL evidence that all galaxies other than the ones you list are moving away from us, which supports the 'space expansion' theory?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am
or just an indication of direction of travel?
The OBVIOUSNESS of your ATTEMPT at deceiving is NOT working. The only ones who are being deceived here are the ones ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING things. You are deceiving yourselves.

If any of you had just been answering my clarifying questions Honestly and OPENLY, then you would already KNOW what the actual Truth IS.

The reason WHY you adult human beings take so long to SEE the Truth of things is because you will NOT even LOOK AT It. You are so focused on MAINTAINING your own ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS that you are to distorted AND to deceived to SEE CLEARLY.

You could NOT even SEE what one question, written in one sentence without any break, was referring to when what it was referring to can be clearly SEEN in the SAME question.

To make it as simple as I can for you; Is red/blue shift ACTUAL EVIDENCE for 'direction of travel'?

Are you NOW able to answer the question?

Age
Posts: 3605
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 3:07 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
You appear to be replying back to your own writings here.

Also, it states "Age wrote: ..." BUT I did NOT write that. YOU wrote that.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
Are you yet aware that "we" were just speaking from TWO different usages/definitions/meanings of the one word ASSUMPTION?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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'.
Yes OBVIOUSLY.

Are you only just becoming aware of this now?

We HAVE BEEN speaking from, and will continue to speak from, different definitions and meanings of the words we use. In order to overcome the confusion that this can and will do, then the best way I found is to ask each other clarifying questions. What i also found is if we do NOT ask clarifying questions but instead just make ASSUMPTIONS, then more confusion and unclear communication is caused, creating more and more misunderstandings.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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'.


But ONLY if you BElieve that there NEEDS to be ANY 'assumption' IN THE BEGINNING.

Some can just move forward, and by the way SEE things far quicker, without any necessity to make up an assumption of some thing, which may be WRONG any way.

You WANT to do things your way, and you BELIEVE that it is the better way. Go ahead. No one is STOPPING you. But just remember when you claim some thing as though it is either true, right, or correct, and I WANT TO, then I will question you about it.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
I think I asked you before, but what is 'science' to you? I have already provided my view on what 'science' IS.

When you 'discuss' science what do you actually discuss about?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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?
What good does it do to ASSUME some thing, which could be WRONG any way?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
Have I?

If yes, then will you provide the evidence for this?
If no, then okay.

You were making the ASSUMPTION that when I say 'assumption' that it MEANS what you SEE it as meaning.

I know that this may not be the precise meaning you mean. In fact, but as you further say,...
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
If two people are playing a 'game' and they make up the 'rules', then this is very different from two people LOOKING AT things to DISCOVER WHAT they ARE and HOW they WORK and MAKING UP ASSUMPTIONS BEFORE they even begin to LOOK.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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?
You could NOT have twisted and distorted this around any more even if you intentionally tried to.

ALL you are doing here is TRYING your hardest to make things 'fit in with' the assumptions and beliefs that you already have.

RULES (for games) and ASSUMPTIONS (for studying) IS two very different things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
That's not team playing, it is selfishly expecting others to comply to your POWER to assume only.
LOL But I am the one saying NOT to assume. YOU are the one who is saying WE MUST ASSUME. And, just coincidentally, the ASSUMPTION you want "others" to have and hold is the EXACT SAME one that you ALREADY have and are holding onto, correct?

You ASSUME and BELIEVE the perfect cosmological principle is the BEST one, so you EXPECT "others" to ASSUME this one also, that is; when you want them to SEE things the same way that you do.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
That you assume "no assumptions"
HOW could any one assume "no assumptions"?

You either assume some thing is true or is false. To say; you assume "no assumptions", is non-sensical.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
You are FREE to ASSUME as many things as you like. I have just said that ASSUMPTIONS prevent you from seeing the Truth of things. I am NOT demanding any thing.

You can KEEP ASSUMING as much as you like for as long as you like. I really do NOT care. Remember it is NOT me who is LOOKING FOR answers. It is YOU who IS.

If any one is demanding here, it is YOU. You say that assumptions MUST BE MADE before we start 'discussing science'. You insist that ASSUMING is actually PART OF THE GAME. There is also more to the list you have just made here TRYING TO make "justifications" for your VIEW that ASSUMING is necessary.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
And this is part of the reason WHY human beings through 'science' still can NOT get along and agree on things. IF you START with ASSUMPTIONS, then from then on things are just going to get worse.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
It makes it hard to PLAY the game if we can't get a shared agreement to the rules.
Why do NOT just say what it is you mean? Instead of TRYING TO use other words.

If you mean 'It makes it hard to DO science if we can NOT get a shared agreement to the ASSUMPTION (we are going to MAKE UP about what we BELIEVE is reality)?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
But I have NEVER demanded 'no rules'. Only you brought that word in to TRY and 'justify' YOUR POSITION, that ASSUMPTIONS are NECESSARY.

And I have NEVER said there is ANY rule. You are the one making up and demanding rules by saying WE MUST MAKE UP ASSUMPTIONS and AGREE BY THEM.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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'.
WHAT ASSUMPTION are you making up now?

And, WHAT are you talking about?

You are TELLING me WHAT I would or would NOT see, as well as TELLING me WHAT I would or would NOT do.

Please STOP 'assuming' ANY thing about 'me'. 'you' have absolutely NO idea who/what the 'I' IS, yet.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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

The OBVIOUS fact has ALREADY been SEEN, and thus is ALREADY KNOWN.

I'm not saying it IS a hip because it is just an inkblot that tests how others are thinking.
The title of this thread IS 'the expanding universe- why and how we know it is expanding.

First thing, 'we' do NOT know. Some might but NOT ALL. So, 'we' refers to a select group of ... Well that answer has to be clarified.

Second, IF any one KNOWS that the Universe is expanding, then How do 'they' KNOW this, and, considering it is in the title, also Why 'you' KNOW it is expanding.

Now, some people say 'space' is expanding instead of using the word 'Universe'. For these people WHAT is 'space'? HOW could sapce expand? How do you KNOW it is expanding, and, Why 'you' KNOW it is expanding.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
The point is that anything we 'observe' certainly has some FACT of it with respect to reality apart from our opinion of it.
But absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, (as I keep reminding people here). What is 'reality' if it is NOT a part of YOUR OPINION?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
That is one HUGE ASSUMPTION, or group of assumptions, you are MAKING HERE.

You are FREE to do whatever you like. But be prepared to be questioned.

I do NOT insist any thing here. I do NOT presume any thing here. I do NOT think that i alone think i KNOW what the reality is. I do NOT demand that I ASSUME control of any thing.

But YOU may be LOOKING INTO that mirror you were talking about, which is 'pinging' back to you right now. Those words you just wrote might be a strong reflection and ping?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 am
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.
What do you think I understand but are not wanting to let "it" go?

Also, what is 'it' that I supposedly do NOT want to let go of?

Again, could this be another 'ping'?

Age
Posts: 3605
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 3:31 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
@Age, on the topic:

You, Age, now agree to the Expansion of space
Within the first nine words you have already made another ASSUMPTION, which by the way is another completely WRONG assumption, ONCE AGAIN.

WHAT gave you the idea that I have agreed to such a thing as expansion of space?

I have YET to get an answer to What is 'space'? BEFORE I would even begin to think about agreeing to such a thing.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
and thus must have likely followed the logic once you have had some time to absorb it.
Although you might think that it was a nice way to slip the 'logic' word in, and make it appear as though it has some sort of resemblance in relation to the topic here, but it does not.

Absolutely NO logic has even been displayed yet, let alone been able to be followed.

NOT one person has provided a definition for the word 'space' yet. Let alone any thing that would resemble any 'logic' that has followed on from that definition.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
I also agree that you cannot rule out the possibility that we might discover space NOT expanding.
If people are going to TALK about 'space' as though it could even expand, then I want them to clarify What 'space' actually IS FIRST.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
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.
WHAT?

I am pretty sure that you will FIND IF you STOP making up these ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS, then you WILL start to SEE things much more CLEARLY. For instance, can you CLEARLY SEE 'space'?

Do you even KNOW what 'space' IS?
If you do, then will you provide us with what the answer IS?


Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
This is the post: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26470&start=90#p407195
I took up your "thought experiment". It did NOT lead to logical confusion, illogical confusion, nor any confusion, and it certainly did NOT also make expansion more likely than not, at all.

What i did note, however, is your ATTEMPTS to justify/prove that your already held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS are true, right, and correct.

If you want to discuss things like 'space' and 'time' and suggest that they do certain things, then the first thing to do, out of common courtesy is to explain what 'space' and 'time' is, from your perspective.

Age
Posts: 3605
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 3:56 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
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.
I NEVER said you did label it.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
The original "Cosmological Principle" was thought initially to be sufficient.
Just like ALL principles, and theories/assumptions for that matter, are 'thought' to be "sufficient", as they would NOT be expressed if they were thought to be NOT sufficient. But just because any thing is 'thought' sufficient that does NOT mean that they are even remotely sufficient. For example, the theories/assumptions about the Universe being started, being finite, and expanding are 'thought' to be sufficient, when CLEARLY they are NOT sufficient at all.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
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".
But both words detract from what the actual Truth IS.

"I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise."
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
This is what I meant about your interpreting some fact as SO obvious as though it speaks for itself.
But the facts do speak for themselves. Facts are what is used to SEE the actual Truth of things. If, and when, you LOOK AT the facts ONLY, then you will SEE how you can SEE the Truth of things. The two are entwined.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
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.

Why do you go on about the big bang, the steady state, the cosmological principle? They ALL have Truths and Falsehoods in them, which can be CLEARLY SEEN.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
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.
Who cares what is thought, by definition it is NOT known.

The Truth, which can be CLEARLY SEEN and thus IS OBVIOUS is much more exciting any way. Theories about what the Universe could be like and thinking about what the Universe could be like are all just ASSUMPTIONS any way. And, we ALL KNOW assumptions COULD BE completely and utterly WRONG.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
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.
Okay that is what you FIND. But really WHO CARES?

Some FIND the Truth of things a little bit more exciting than being told what you FIND 'reasonable to assume'.

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. [/quote]

Why NOT just forget about ALL of these principles, theories, assumptions, et cetera AND just LOOK AT what IS actually real and true, from the beginning?

These principle, theories, assumptions, et cetera are OBVIOUSLY NOT true, right, NOR correct.

OBVIOUSLY, over thousands and thousands of years, human beings are NOT really getting ANY closer to UNDERSTANDING, from what they have been doing continuously for these thousands of years. That is; making ASSUMPTIONS about what COULD BE.

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'.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
So you already agree to the Perfect Cosmological Principle in principle as I do.
Not really. What I agree to is 'that' what IS True, Right, and Correct.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:53 am
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.
So what now?

Absolutely EVERY thing else we might agree on also. But we will NEVER know if you do NOT provide your answer to What 'space' IS?

I ALREADY KNOW EXACTLY HOW 'space' expands. But I would really like to KNOW what 'space' IS to those who say 'space' expands, and HOW to them 'space' could expand.

'Space' expanding is a PART OF my VIEW of the the infinite and eternal Universe.

But if people do NOT answer my clarifying question nor do they ask me clarifying questions, then I can NEVER be able to SHARE nor SHOW what my VIEW actually IS.

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 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:31 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
@Age, on the topic:

You, Age, now agree to the Expansion of space
Within the first nine words you have already made another ASSUMPTION, which by the way is another completely WRONG assumption, ONCE AGAIN.

WHAT gave you the idea that I have agreed to such a thing as expansion of space?

I have YET to get an answer to What is 'space'? BEFORE I would even begin to think about agreeing to such a thing.
I read something wrong about some other conversation you were having then.

I'm ignoring all the other content that isn't related to the topic now. It's too much effort and only leads to confusion AND mistakes. Just make sure you appropriately quote by closing all quotes.

You don't want to hear what others have to say about what anything is and are proven to come back with an accusation of some assumption on them but not yourself.

So, what does 'space' mean to you?

Age
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:31 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:44 am
@Age, on the topic:

You, Age, now agree to the Expansion of space
Within the first nine words you have already made another ASSUMPTION, which by the way is another completely WRONG assumption, ONCE AGAIN.

WHAT gave you the idea that I have agreed to such a thing as expansion of space?

I have YET to get an answer to What is 'space'? BEFORE I would even begin to think about agreeing to such a thing.
I read something wrong about some other conversation you were having then.


Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
I'm ignoring all the other content that isn't related to the topic now. It's too much effort and only leads to confusion AND mistakes. Just make sure you appropriately quote by closing all quotes.


WHY are you telling me and us this?

Are you TRYING TO 'shift the blame of responsibility' onto some one else?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
You don't want to hear what others have to say about what anything is
This is so FAR removed from the actual Truth that it is becoming very laughable now.

I am the one who asks the MOST clarifying questions here. I do this so that I can HEAR and UNDERSTAND BETTER and FAR MORE about what "another" is ACTUALLY saying.

Accusing me of not wanting to hear what "others" have to say is absolutely ridiculous.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
and are proven to come back with an accusation of some assumption on them but not yourself.
I can back up and support my accusations, which can be discovered and seen throughout my writings, which is the complete opposite of when I am being accused of things. I ask for the evidence to be provided supporting "another's" accusation of me, and rarely if ever is there one provided. Just like now for example, we will SEE if any evidence can be provided by you. WHERE is the 'evidence' of YOUR accusation; that I do NOT want hear what others have to say about what anything is?

Just because I do NOT agree with or do NOT accept what "another" is saying, then that does NOT mean I do NOT want to hear what they have to say.

I am the one who WANTS to hear more and gain a better perspective from their point of view, and thus the REASONS WHY I ask so many clarifying questions to them.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
So, what does 'space' mean to you?
So, AFTER I am the one asking, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, the people who BELIEVE and STATE that 'space is expanding, 'What IS 'space'? and I have STILL YET to get a response, I am 'now' the one who is expected to provide a definition for the word 'space'. When just about all along I was the one NEVER claiming any thing about 'space'.

This goes against any concept of 'burden of proof' being on the one who is making the claim. But considering NO one, besides me, as of yet has provided A definition, so I will, provide a definition for the word 'space' AGAIN. 'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:19 pm

Age wrote:
Space to me means the distance between objects of matter ranging from the sub atomic particles of matter all the way
up to planets stars and galaxies
I agree with this definition and will add to it by saying that space [ spacetime to be more accurate since space and time
are interconnected ] is a dynamic medium that is for ever changing and is never static as nothing in the Universe ever is

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:19 pm
Age wrote:
Space to me means the distance between objects of matter ranging from the sub atomic particles of matter all the way
up to planets stars and galaxies
I agree with this definition and will add to it by saying that space [ spacetime to be more accurate since space and time
are interconnected ] is a dynamic medium that is for ever changing and is never static as nothing in the Universe ever is
Conceptual problem.

1. What is an 'object"
2. What units do you use to measure 'distance'?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:59 pm

An object is a physical form that has property and dimension
There is no one definitive measurement that is used so it depends on the actual distance in question
Though it would range from the Planck scale at the quantum level to light years at the classical level

Age
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:21 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:19 pm
Age wrote:
Space to me means the distance between objects of matter ranging from the sub atomic particles of matter all the way
up to planets stars and galaxies
I agree with this definition and will add to it by saying that space [ spacetime to be more accurate since space and time
are interconnected ] is a dynamic medium that is for ever changing and is never static as nothing in the Universe ever is
Besides the part on brackets, are you saying the rest as though it is any different to what I have been clearly expressing on a number of times already?

Also, what do you mean by 'medium' here?

Age
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:24 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:19 pm
Age wrote:
Space to me means the distance between objects of matter ranging from the sub atomic particles of matter all the way
up to planets stars and galaxies
I agree with this definition and will add to it by saying that space [ spacetime to be more accurate since space and time
are interconnected ] is a dynamic medium that is for ever changing and is never static as nothing in the Universe ever is
Conceptual problem.

1. What is an 'object"
Any thing of physical matter.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:26 pm
2. What units do you use to measure 'distance'?
Whatever units you feel like using.

You also have the choice to NOT use any units at all, as they are NOT a necessary part of life and living.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:25 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:24 pm
Any thing of physical matter.
Define 'physical matter'.
Define 'thing'.
Define 'any'.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:24 pm
Whatever units you feel like using.
So tell us what units you feel like using then?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3637
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

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

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:34 pm

Age wrote:
Besides the part on brackets are you saying the rest as though it is any different to what I have been clearly expressing on a number of times ?
Also what do you mean by medium here ?
I only added what I did because you did not specifically reference it this time but now that you mention it I do remember you saying it before
A medium is simply the physical plane that all of space resides within - its not a technical term as such and so its not really important to know

Age
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:25 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:24 pm
Any thing of physical matter.
Define 'physical matter'.
Some thing observable.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:25 pm
Define 'thing'.
Any of ALL, which has NOT been given a specific name, other than the 'thing' word, obviously.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:25 pm
Define 'any'.
Some or ALL.

How long are you going to ask me to define words for?

This could on for quite some time. Then, when we were getting to the end, or towards the end, you might have forgotten the definition I gave to the first few words and so you might want to then start all over again, which could even longer time. Do you KNOW what 'time' IS, or do you NEED that defined also?
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:25 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:24 pm
Whatever units you feel like using.
So tell us what units you feel like using then?
But I do NOT feel like using any units. They are completely UNNECESSARY to UNDERSTAND what IS, actually happening, with the Universe.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests