## 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

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

A simple thought experiment. (Or maybe not so simple. But worthwhile to consider to understand the claim of cosmologists and Quantum Mechanics.)

The idea of an expanding universe baffles most, because we do not have an absolute scale in space to which to compare the expansion. Similarly if you have two rods, side-by-side, you can only tell one is expanding if it gets longer in comparison to the other one. In space we don't have a stagnant, non-expanding "space" to which to compare the expansion, therefore many deny that the expansion is happening. There is no reference to measure the expansion. Yet the expansion happens, and we know it happens.

We know because there is another way of looking at it, which proves that expansion is happening to an "absolute and stagnant" referencial scale, as if one had existed.

This is what you need to see with your mind's eye: five dots side-by-side. ...... if you increase the size of each of these dots, into the size of an o, then the line becomes ooooo

Obviously ooooo is longer than ..... but we can't have a direct tool to measure this, since our tool is expanding at the same rate.

But the expanding dots each push against their immediately surrounding expanding dots. So if we fix the centre dot as our point of view, then the two exteme dots, that is, the two dots farthest from the centre, will be displaced larger distance over time compared to the centre dot, than its immediately next situated dots.

Think of it this way and now I will number the dots, to identify them. And since I can't draw circles or larger dots on this screen, I will use the graphic (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) to represent each dot which are identified by their own numbers.

If each become twice as big as before, and at the same rate of expansion (that is, difference in size, or growth, over time), then the next observed state will be

(.1.)(.2.)(.3.)(.4.)(.5.)

And the next after is

(..1..)(..2..)(..3..)(..4..)(..5..)

And the next is

(....1....)(....2....)(....3....)(....4....)(....5....)

And the next is

(........1........)(........2........)(........3........)(........4........)(........5........)

if you could measure this (and I wish you to take out a ruler and measure the distance) then you'll notice that (1) and (5) are separating twice as fast from each other, as (1) and (3) and as (3) and (5).

And in fact this is precisely what we observe in the state of the known (observable) universe: the farther an object is from our point of view, the faster it is speeding away from us. And the two end-pieces of any distance measured within the seen universe will be separating twice as fast from each other as either of the two points and their geometric middle.

This is why we say the universe is expanding, and we can describe and understand that it is expanding by observing the outward increase of speed between any two points the farther the points separate from each other.

That is, the uniform increase of speed as a function of increased distance between two points is the geometrical proof of an expanding universe.

This was demonstrated without using an "absolute" or "referencial" scale.

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

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

The exact same phenomenon can be experienced when you zoom in on a very-high-resolution photo.

In information science this is the low/high fidelity distinction.

From a zoomed-out perspective you could see "the whole" at a low fidelity.
From a zoomed-in perspective you can see parts of "the whole" at higher fidelity.

It boils down to bandwidth. At the highest possible fidelity your cognitive systems cannot grasp "the whole" all at once. There is simply too much information for your brain to unpack all at once.

Subsequently at high fidelity (zoomed in perspective), the "edges" of the photo appear to be much further away than they really are.

I would say that "expanding" is saying too much. There appears to be more information in the universe than there was before.
And it appears that we (the observers) are zooming in and the edges appear further than before.

Almost as if we are in a black hole (which sucks in information) and almost as if we are falling towards an event horizon.

It's worth while taking Rogers' fixed point theorem into account here

If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

Translated into English. If the universe (F) was to be understood in its entirety it has a fixed observer.

Here's a toy to grasp the notion of "fidelity": http://sh-meet.bigpixel.cn/?from=groupm ... nstalled=0

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Logik wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:25 am
The exact same phenomenon can be experienced when you zoom in on a very-high-resolution photo.

In information science this is the low/high fidelity distinction.

From a zoomed-out perspective you could see "the whole" at a low fidelity.
From a zoomed-in perspective you can see parts of "the whole" at higher fidelity.

It boils down to bandwidth. At the highest possible fidelity your cognitive systems cannot grasp "the whole" all at once. There is simply too much information for your brain to unpack all at once.

Subsequently at high fidelity (zoomed in perspective), the "edges" of the photo appear to be much further away than they really are.

I would say that "expanding" is saying too much. There appears to be more information in the universe than there was before.
And it appears that we (the observers) are zooming in and the edges appear further than before.

Almost as if we are in a black hole (which sucks in information) and almost as if we are falling towards an event horizon.

It's worth while taking Rogers' fixed point theorem into account here

If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

Translated into English. If the universe (F) was to be understood in its entirety it has a fixed observer.

Here's a toy to grasp the notion of "fidelity": http://sh-meet.bigpixel.cn/?from=groupm ... nstalled=0
You are being the same asshole as you always have been, Logik. Your assumptions are false and you are full of shit. Your conclusions are garbage. You are not worth the breath to say your alias. You are nothing. You are smut.

This is my opinion of you. I put you on IGGI for this reason some time ago. You are so fucking stupid that you can't even notice yourself.

Some people enjoy arguing with idiots like you. I don't get any enjoyment out of it. Either you leave me alone, or else I will ignore your posts. Your choice. Once in a while I may interject with posts of messages of my absolute deploration of your opinions.

I have no more to say to you.

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

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

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:59 pm
You are being the same asshole as you always have been, Logik. Your assumptions are false and you are full of shit. Your conclusions are garbage. You are not worth the breath to say your alias. You are nothing. You are smut.

This is my opinion of you. I put you on IGGI for this reason some time ago. You are so fucking stupid that you can't even notice yourself.

Some people enjoy arguing with idiots like you. I don't get any enjoyment out of it. Either you leave me alone, or else I will ignore your posts. Your choice. Once in a while I may interject with posts of messages of my absolute deploration of your opinions.

I have no more to say to you.
Somebody got triggered.

I'd venture a guess why? The paradigm of "information" is not a perspective that's available to you due to lack of knowledge, so you think it's "word salad" because you can't make sense of it.

A hypothesis that has some merit since you keep tackling the man and not the argument...

gaffo
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:58 am
A simple thought experiment. (Or maybe not so simple. But worthwhile to consider to understand the claim of cosmologists and Quantum Mechanics.)

The idea of an expanding universe baffles most, because we do not have an absolute scale in space to which to compare the expansion. Similarly if you have two rods, side-by-side, you can only tell one is expanding if it gets longer in comparison to the other one. In space we don't have a stagnant, non-expanding "space" to which to compare the expansion, therefore many deny that the expansion is happening. There is no reference to measure the expansion. Yet the expansion happens, and we know it happens.

We know because there is another way of looking at it, which proves that expansion is happening to an "absolute and stagnant" referencial scale, as if one had existed.

This is what you need to see with your mind's eye: five dots side-by-side. ...... if you increase the size of each of these dots, into the size of an o, then the line becomes ooooo

Obviously ooooo is longer than ..... but we can't have a direct tool to measure this, since our tool is expanding at the same rate.

But the expanding dots each push against their immediately surrounding expanding dots. So if we fix the centre dot as our point of view, then the two exteme dots, that is, the two dots farthest from the centre, will be displaced larger distance over time compared to the centre dot, than its immediately next situated dots.

Think of it this way and now I will number the dots, to identify them. And since I can't draw circles or larger dots on this screen, I will use the graphic (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) to represent each dot which are identified by their own numbers.

If each become twice as big as before, and at the same rate of expansion (that is, difference in size, or growth, over time), then the next observed state will be

(.1.)(.2.)(.3.)(.4.)(.5.)

And the next after is

(..1..)(..2..)(..3..)(..4..)(..5..)

And the next is

(....1....)(....2....)(....3....)(....4....)(....5....)

And the next is

(........1........)(........2........)(........3........)(........4........)(........5........)

if you could measure this (and I wish you to take out a ruler and measure the distance) then you'll notice that (1) and (5) are separating twice as fast from each other, as (1) and (3) and as (3) and (5).

And in fact this is precisely what we observe in the state of the known (observable) universe: the farther an object is from our point of view, the faster it is speeding away from us. And the two end-pieces of any distance measured within the seen universe will be separating twice as fast from each other as either of the two points and their geometric middle.

This is why we say the universe is expanding, and we can describe and understand that it is expanding by observing the outward increase of speed between any two points the farther the points separate from each other.

That is, the uniform increase of speed as a function of increased distance between two points is the geometrical proof of an expanding universe.

This was demonstrated without using an "absolute" or "referencial" scale.
I understand what your point is but think you are in error, for the "dots" are "expanding too!", i also noted your "the geometrical proof" above. space expansion doe not have to do with geometry, since the "dots and the spaces between the dots" are ALL Expanding, as are the measuring stick to measure them!

gaffo
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:59 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:25 am
The exact same phenomenon can be experienced when you zoom in on a very-high-resolution photo.

In information science this is the low/high fidelity distinction.

From a zoomed-out perspective you could see "the whole" at a low fidelity.
From a zoomed-in perspective you can see parts of "the whole" at higher fidelity.

It boils down to bandwidth. At the highest possible fidelity your cognitive systems cannot grasp "the whole" all at once. There is simply too much information for your brain to unpack all at once.

Subsequently at high fidelity (zoomed in perspective), the "edges" of the photo appear to be much further away than they really are.

I would say that "expanding" is saying too much. There appears to be more information in the universe than there was before.
And it appears that we (the observers) are zooming in and the edges appear further than before.

Almost as if we are in a black hole (which sucks in information) and almost as if we are falling towards an event horizon.

It's worth while taking Rogers' fixed point theorem into account here

If F is a total computable function, it has a fixed point.

Translated into English. If the universe (F) was to be understood in its entirety it has a fixed observer.

Here's a toy to grasp the notion of "fidelity": http://sh-meet.bigpixel.cn/?from=groupm ... nstalled=0
You are being the same asshole as you always have been, Logik.

again none of my business, so feel fine to tell me to fuck off. ;-/.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:05 am

again none of my business, so feel fine to tell me to fuck off. ;-/.
I think Logik is everyone's business, and so it should be.

I have replied to him in other threads, and it always leads to dismerited arguments. Always, without even one exception. It was a clear insightful question when someone else accused him of being the old user who went under the name "timeseeker". Timeseeker was the first one I put on IGGI, and it is obvious now, althogh I did not recognize it on my own, that the two are one and the same. Just plain impossible to deal with in the long run, and Logik will always stick around for the longest run there is. The only way to deal with him is not to engage him. If you engage him, he will argue eventually that black is white, and white is black, and if you prove him wrong, which happens quite a bit, he will come back with some belittling remark that tries to nullify the value of your argument.

Logik is the ultimate naysayer, the quintessential contrarian. He will take a stand only as long as you don't prove to him that his stand is the same as yours, then he will quickly, very quickly, turn around and argue against some technicalities, or call your argument on some technical names to dismiss your argument's value.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:02 am
I understand what your point is but think you are in error, for the "dots" are "expanding too!", i also noted your "the geometrical proof" above. space expansion doe not have to do with geometry, since the "dots and the spaces between the dots" are ALL Expanding, as are the measuring stick to measure them!
The only thing to consider is that the speed of distancing is commensurate with the distance between two points.

This can only happen if the object (not space) called "known universe" or "observable universe" is uniformly expanding. No other explanation has been proposed (to my knowledge) to explain the phenomena with reason.

gaffo
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:25 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:05 am

again none of my business, so feel fine to tell me to fuck off. ;-/.
I think Logik is everyone's business, and so it should be.

I have replied to him in other threads, and it always leads to dismerited arguments. Always, without even one exception. It was a clear insightful question when someone else accused him of being the old user who went under the name "timeseeker". Timeseeker was the first one I put on IGGI, and it is obvious now, althogh I did not recognize it on my own, that the two are one and the same. Just plain impossible to deal with in the long run, and Logik will always stick around for the longest run there is. The only way to deal with him is not to engage him. If you engage him, he will argue eventually that black is white, and white is black, and if you prove him wrong, which happens quite a bit, he will come back with some belittling remark that tries to nullify the value of your argument.

Logik is the ultimate naysayer, the quintessential contrarian. He will take a stand only as long as you don't prove to him that his stand is the same as yours, then he will quickly, very quickly, turn around and argue against some technicalities, or call your argument on some technical names to dismiss your argument's value.
you guys been here longer than me so take you word about the guy, just did'nt like the strong language you used, no biggie, thanks for reply Sir.

ps i really was not my busness. .

gaffo
Posts: 3219
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:29 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:02 am
I understand what your point is but think you are in error, for the "dots" are "expanding too!", i also noted your "the geometrical proof" above. space expansion doe not have to do with geometry, since the "dots and the spaces between the dots" are ALL Expanding, as are the measuring stick to measure them!
The only thing to consider is that the speed of distancing is commensurate with the distance between two points.

This can only happen if the object (not space) called "known universe" or "observable universe" is uniformly expanding. No other explanation has been proposed (to my knowledge) to explain the phenomena with reason.
don;t follow your argument - objects and space are expanding (everything is - including the measuring sticks)

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

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

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:25 am
...and if you prove him wrong, which happens quite a bit...
You can't prove anybody 'right' or 'wrong' without objective epistemic criteria for 'rightness' and 'wrongness' https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/

And objective an epistemic criterion cannot practically be decoupled from ethics/morality so you end up also needing objective MORAL criterion for 'right' and 'wrong'.

So whatever criterions for "rightness" and "wrongness" you seem to have established for yourself - please do share them with us!
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:25 am
call your argument on some technical names to dismiss your argument's value.
Without an objective criterion the "value" of your argument cannot be asserted either. If you haven't figured this out yet - you have wasted your life doing sophistry, not philosophy.

The "some technical names" you haven't taken into account is fundamental statistics/probability theory. Through a finite dataset - an infinite number of Mathematical curves can be fitted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve_fitting

Which is why all the evidence for "expansion" can be explained through the lens of an entirely different paradigm. Information.
Funny you should speak of dots when you can't even connect them. Philosophy without technical understanding sure is proving to be sophistry.

And with all of that said - you would be right. If you are indeed here to 'win arguments" then engaging me would definitely go against your better judgment. Wisdom isn't about "being right". It's about figuring out how and why you might be wrong. That's why you need "some technical names".

Your insults suggest that you have no desire whatsoever to look at the evidence from a different paradigm, so I can only imagine this is going to get resolved Planck's way. And it seems to me you are far closer to the finish line than I am...

Atla
Posts: 2813
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:25 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:05 am

again none of my business, so feel fine to tell me to fuck off. ;-/.
I think Logik is everyone's business, and so it should be.

I have replied to him in other threads, and it always leads to dismerited arguments. Always, without even one exception. It was a clear insightful question when someone else accused him of being the old user who went under the name "timeseeker". Timeseeker was the first one I put on IGGI, and it is obvious now, althogh I did not recognize it on my own, that the two are one and the same. Just plain impossible to deal with in the long run, and Logik will always stick around for the longest run there is. The only way to deal with him is not to engage him. If you engage him, he will argue eventually that black is white, and white is black, and if you prove him wrong, which happens quite a bit, he will come back with some belittling remark that tries to nullify the value of your argument.

Logik is the ultimate naysayer, the quintessential contrarian. He will take a stand only as long as you don't prove to him that his stand is the same as yours, then he will quickly, very quickly, turn around and argue against some technicalities, or call your argument on some technical names to dismiss your argument's value.
Strictly speaking, he isn't quite a contarian because he can neither understand the other's position, nor does he have a position of his own, nor does he understand what it is to counter something, because he literally can't understand anything. (The parts of his brain/mind responsible for understanding aren't really working.)

What a strange, human-like creature. Studying it, I mean him, was worth it for me. I was involved with one of these creatures before and now I understand a little better what happened.

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

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

Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:49 pm
What a strange, human-like creature. Studying it, I mean him, was worth it for me. I was involved with one of these creatures before and now I understand a little better what happened.
Human-like

Congratulations. You keep earning the dehumanization badge by letting your true colors to the surface

Your vitriol amounts to nothing more than "You don't think like me! B-a-a-a-a-a-aaaad!"
Last edited by Logik on Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:49 pm
Strictly speaking, he isn't quite a contarian because he can neither understand the other's position, nor does he have a position of his own, nor does he understand what it is to counter something, because he literally can't understand anything.
Here's a thought.

"To learn" , "to understand" and "to know" means different things in different paradigms. So, we lack shared understanding not only on metaphysics, but on metacognition too? And then there is this thing called the butterfly effect.

Then there is the fact that all human communication fails except by accident even when people have a shared foundation.

Not to mention your own admission that it's futile to try and agree with you on anything. So your attitude is just another spanner in the works.

I'll let you join the dots, sophist

Although it sure does beg the question, your argument is founded on "understanding" (or lack thereof) so is your presence on this forum driven by your need to "be understood"? Would you like a hug?

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:49 pm
Strictly speaking, he [Logik] isn't quite a contarian because he can neither understand the other's position, nor does he have a position of his own, nor does he understand what it is to counter something, because he literally can't understand anything. (The parts of his brain/mind responsible for understanding aren't really working.)

What a strange, human-like creature. Studying it, I mean him, was worth it for me. I was involved with one of these creatures before and now I understand a little better what happened.
There were times when I had thought Logik was a computer program written by some ambitious student of philosophy, computer science or math, and the writer was trying out the capabilities of his code on this site.

Obviously there is some background factual material stored in the program, which is quoted at more right than at wrong times. The bridging from one set of thought to another you, Atla, explain with the person's inability to understand; I explain it with the code-writer's dilemma how to make his program continue and keep its converstation partner engaged.

It is smoke and mirrors. When the code senses danger that the conversation is coming to an inescapable and mainly FINAL conclusion, then it raises some "smoke" and creates "mirrored" images that can be taken for reality by the less prepared thinker. The smoke the program creates is invariably a new concept just thrown in, normally in the shape or form of the semantic construct "yeah, what you are saying is xxxx" where xxxx is an obscure-to-laymen but a well-known thought to experts. The experts (which I am not) can easily identify the concept, and they may decree it valid or invalid at the time it is brought up. We, and mainly I, however, am not an expert, and let the code (a.k.a. Logik) carry on in this new vein in the conversation.

The code is good, but it is not perfect. It is not perfect because it is set up for failure, recognizable failure, and that is unavoidable, inasmuch as some conversations and topics of discussions have a definite, satisfactory, and final ending, which is exaclty what the code has been created to avoid.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests