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

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Age wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am

What EXACTLY do you think my view IS?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 amYou cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
WHY can you NOT hold a big bang interpretation AND a static one simultaneously? The two are very compatible to me.
And this is why you are severely contradictory. The Big Bang was named precisely because it presumed a sudden instantaneous entry (beginning) of all matter and space in the Universe as a "BANG!". Both The Big Bang and Steady State theories are 'expansion' theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an expanding universe.

But let's stick with the Obler's paradox for the moment. The nature of the explanation provided by the Wikipedia link explains this clearly. The paradox is resolved IF space expanded. It's not the best evidence but as the first in line of this type of thinking, it was what introduced the idea of an expansion possibility.

NOW, had you presumed that ONLY what we observe in our particular space is all there is and no more, this would be 'finite', something that might potentially resolve the paradox but is contrary to your prior stance of an infinite universe. There are other possibilities the paradox may be resolved but I only thought to introduce this as the first 'why' some had inferred the Universe as expanding.

I'll have to read on to see what you guys discussed as I've missed a day or so. Maybe you already got past this?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Atla wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:21 am You are extremely contradictory. It's like you are making a collage of things you think are pretty regardless of their meaning and thinking it stands for saying they all fit together without a concern for consistency.

To be fair, just stick with one piece of historical step of discovery at a time. Do you reform your statement that Obler's paradox proves something static even though the ones raising it all thought it implied space as expanding? I want to know how you infer your counter-interpretation. Pretend we don't know what we known now. Assume the prior 'static' universe defaulted to prior to Einstein.
I'm talking about two "levels of looking at the world" and you are looking at it on one "level", so what I write may come across as word salad.

In the everyday, the prior to Einstein, and the Einsteinian sense, I see the world as dynamic. In this sense the observable universe is expanding. If it was static and infinite, then the sky should be infinitely bright, which it isn't. And in this sense it can't be static at all, because, well, it's expanding.
Okay, you seem to understand it a bit better now. I'm keeping this short since I'm assuming you and Age may have already resolved any differences?
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:44 am
Atla wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:21 am You are extremely contradictory. It's like you are making a collage of things you think are pretty regardless of their meaning and thinking it stands for saying they all fit together without a concern for consistency.

To be fair, just stick with one piece of historical step of discovery at a time. Do you reform your statement that Obler's paradox proves something static even though the ones raising it all thought it implied space as expanding? I want to know how you infer your counter-interpretation. Pretend we don't know what we known now. Assume the prior 'static' universe defaulted to prior to Einstein.
I'm talking about two "levels of looking at the world" and you are looking at it on one "level", so what I write may come across as word salad.

In the everyday, the prior to Einstein, and the Einsteinian sense, I see the world as dynamic. In this sense the observable universe is expanding. If it was static and infinite, then the sky should be infinitely bright, which it isn't. And in this sense it can't be static at all, because, well, it's expanding.
Okay, you seem to understand it a bit better now. I'm keeping this short since I'm assuming you and Age may have already resolved any differences?
What do you mean by "I seem to understand a bit better now". These things are so basic that I assumed you realized that they are implicit in what I write. I just pointed out that your Steady State idea doesn't satisfactorily solve the problems either, which is also pretty basic and obvious.

Age is mentally ill and seriously crazy, and also can't communicate, but 100% sure of himself, I can't beat some sanity into him but he just won't fuck off either.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Okay, I skimmed over it and see that Age hasn't yet caught up but suggested something confusing about light spreading out.

What Alta was referring to from the Wikipedia page is that if expansion occurs, it resolves the problem in that the wave of any particular light beam is stretched out making the wavelength larger (and frequency lower), NOT that the light from a flash light diminishes. This is something regarding the next piece of the puzzle about the intensity of light that 'spreads out from some source at angles that increase and make further light dimmer.

These are two different things. But this is the next step of the discussion if you can accept the interpretation of those thinking up the paradox as a problem. The reasoning is as follows:

Close stars are brighter. The intensity of light drops off as the square of the distance. So some light at some given distance, say one mile, is divided by the square of another mile further. So WHATEVER intensity of brightness some light source is a mile away, 2 miles away, the light is one divided by (2 squared). If it is 3 miles away, the original light from a mile away is one divided by (3 squared).

From http://www.photokonnexion.com/main/wp-c ... ty_002.jpg, this image expresses this:
Light Intensity dims as the square of the distance
Light Intensity dims as the square of the distance
download.jpg (11.97 KiB) Viewed 710 times
This does NOT mean that the light is 'lost' though. This means that the light (as photons) spread out and so there are less in the area of travel the further out they are. If the universe has any light energy, it is understood that light gets absorbed by atoms and then re-emitted. As such the explanation about it possibly losing intensity in a static possibility but maintaining the same quantity of photons still would remain bright overall because light either heats up whatever it absorbs (like a black shirt) or reflects it off (like a white shirt). If the light in a fixed space is averaged out by all the absorption and reflecting, there is still a general quantity of average light in that space at some given distance.

The closer light sources are fewer but brighter. At some distance twice that, there is the that squared of its distance as many possible light sources. This cancels out with the closer light source the same average amount of ADDED light. When this is multiplied by any distances further out, the average light source adds up to a bright sky. Also, though the size of something further out is also smaller BUT has a larger sphere to place twice as many light sources, there is no line of sight that is dark...

..and why the proposed spacial expansion. The 'stretching of light' is not the loss of intensity of light. The wavelength of the light keeps spreading out until the wavelength is no longer light waves but radio waves. So what is light very very far away shifts out of being what light is and requires a radio to detect. Of course, if this keeps going, you can imagine the wave length spreading out so far, it can't even be sensed with radio waves. This area of dark space is thus explained by expansion.

Does this help. Be sure to read that link to the wikipedia OR type "expansion" into YouTube to see likely better explanations than this.

Are you following this better now or still have some contention?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Atla wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:56 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:44 am
Atla wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:32 am
I'm talking about two "levels of looking at the world" and you are looking at it on one "level", so what I write may come across as word salad.

In the everyday, the prior to Einstein, and the Einsteinian sense, I see the world as dynamic. In this sense the observable universe is expanding. If it was static and infinite, then the sky should be infinitely bright, which it isn't. And in this sense it can't be static at all, because, well, it's expanding.
Okay, you seem to understand it a bit better now. I'm keeping this short since I'm assuming you and Age may have already resolved any differences?
What do you mean by "I seem to understand a bit better now". These things are so basic that I assumed you realized that they are implicit in what I write. I just pointed out that your Steady State idea doesn't satisfactorily solve the problems either, which is also pretty basic and obvious.

Age is mentally ill and seriously crazy, and also can't communicate, but 100% sure of himself, I can't beat some sanity into him but he just won't fuck off either.
I'd be patient with Age still. It doesn't help to be riled up by it. Sometime it only makes it worse.

The Steady State explanation assumes that the singularity is only an 'approach' rather than an actual zero point and that all matter is not actually crushed to a point there but that the apparent 14 Billion years is an illusion of parallel lines, like a railway track going off in the distance. The further away toward the apparent horizon point, we presume the wood ties are also placed parallel to each other but they appear to be bunching up towards that horizon.

Expansion can thus occur but would make the point on that horizon go further out. Imagine the ground of the imagined railway track stretching, something like how the 'horror movie' effect of a stretching hallway. The Steady State then presumes that if we were to go back 14 billion years, there would still be a Universe that appears 14 Billion years.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:33 am I'd be patient with Age still. It doesn't help to be riled up by it. Sometime it only makes it worse.
I think you underestimate the severity of psychotic delusions and the brutality needed to break through them.
The Steady State explanation assumes that the singularity is only an 'approach' rather than an actual zero point and that all matter is not actually crushed to a point there but that the apparent 14 Billion years is an illusion of parallel lines, like a railway track going off in the distance. The further away toward the apparent horizon point, we presume the wood ties are also placed parallel to each other but they appear to be bunching up towards that horizon.

Expansion can thus occur but would make the point on that horizon go further out. Imagine the ground of the imagined railway track stretching, something like how the 'horror movie' effect of a stretching hallway. The Steady State then presumes that if we were to go back 14 billion years, there would still be a Universe that appears 14 Billion years.
A problem is that then we have an infinite past, which is logically impossible (if we assume that the world makes logical sense, then this alone is enough to rule out Steady State).

Also, the observable universe seems to have been totally uniform about 13.8 billion years ago, so if we go back further, why was it uniform before that but not uniform after that?

---

Why don't you just assume that the Big Bang indeed happened, but it was not a beginning and only a part of our universe comes from this Big Bang, there must be other parts outside it?
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
Age wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am

What EXACTLY do you think my view IS?
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 amYou cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
WHY can you NOT hold a big bang interpretation AND a static one simultaneously? The two are very compatible to me.
And this is why you are severely contradictory. The Big Bang was named precisely because it presumed a sudden instantaneous entry (beginning) of all matter and space in the Universe as a "BANG!".
Okay, fair enough. IF that is WHY you can NOT hold them both simultaneously, then that explains it.

WHENEVER the words "big bang" are used in relation to the Universe, then they ONLY refer to an "ORIGIN" to the Universe. Is this correct?

If yes, then I OBVIOUSLY do NOT hold the big bang interpretation AT ALL.

From what I have observed, there was a bang, and relatively to us on earth it was a pretty big one too. However, from what I SEE, this was only one of possibly many bangs, which could happen, relatively, quite frequently. That bang, to me, however, may well have been where the singularity of ALL matter was, or where the singularity of some matter was. But when that singularity went bang, then that matter expanded. This bang explanation is VERY compatible with and can be held simultaneously with an infinite and eternal Universe. If, HOWEVER, any one wants to ASSUME and suggest that that WAS the origin, as in cause/creation, of ALL matter and space, then that is a completely separate and different issue. Doing that would put the PRE-SUMPTION before the actual and real FACT.

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBoth The Big Bang and Steady State theories are 'expansion' theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an expanding universe.
But WHERE is the "evidence", which affected the "interpretation, that the Universe is expanding.

WHERE is the actual "evidence" that the Universe is expanding? And what do you mean by "expansion" theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an "expanding universe". WHAT came first? Evidence that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, OR, theories that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

The MORE I LOOK into this the MORE I can SEE how so easily and simply human beings have become so confused about what IS the actual and real Truth.

Of course when things go off with a bang, they expand, this is obviously True, and which can be clearly seen when LOOKING back during the past 14 billion or so years. But this expansion, as I explained previously, in relative size and time could be ALL happening within a soccer ball that has been forgotten about and laying in some "kids" backyard, thus has not moved for the last 14 billion or so years. (When it is found it could be said things will be shaken up).

But just because the observable universe LOOKS like and/or IS expanding, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what the Universe, Itself, COULD BE like.



Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBut let's stick with the Obler's paradox for the moment.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am The nature of the explanation provided by the Wikipedia link explains this clearly. The paradox is resolved IF space expanded.
But there was NO paradox in the beginning, none that i could see anyway. Just because some people ASSUME that the Universe would be completely lit up if the Universe is infinite, then that does NOT mean that this would, or could, actually happen.

The very FACT that black holes exist AND the very FACT that light does diminish over distance, (contrary to the BELIEF of some) could well, literally, SHOW HOW the WHOLE Universe could NOT be evenly lit up.

Another FACT that could well SHOW that this ASSUMPTION that the Universe "should be" as bright as day ALWAYS could be WRONG is that there may well be NO stars at all beyond a certain point at or past the observable universe anyway. ALL matter after all could well have been in the singularity that went of with a bang, which was just ALL of the matter that once was expanding but then contracted back onto itself, "once again".
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am It's not the best evidence but as the first in line of this type of thinking, it was what introduced the idea of an expansion possibility.
So, you are telling me, that the "idea" of an "expansion possibility" could well be made on some thing that does NOT even resemble any sort of truth to begin with. Well that helps in explaining more and a lot.

As I keep saying it is BEST to NOT ASSUME any thing at all, and considering the olber's ASSUMPTION was the first in line of this type of ASSUMPTION thinking, then this is further proof of just WHY human beings are PREVENTED from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amNOW, had you presumed that ONLY what we observe in our particular space is all there is and no more, this would be 'finite', something that might potentially resolve the paradox
But I do NOT like to PRESUME any thing, for the actual EVIDENCE that has been produced by PRESUMING things BEFORE the actual and real Truth and FACTS are SEEN and KNOWN.

Even even IF what is observed where ALL-THERE-IS the OBVIOUS FACT that there is space (distance) around objects, and that the furthermost of ALL objects still HAS space out PAST IT, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT have a limit to it SHOWS that the Universe is STILL 'infinite', and NOT 'finite' at all.

IF there NEEDS to be a resolution to the "paradox", then the "paradox" NEEDS to be proven as being even somewhat True to begin with. A version of the "olbers-paradox", which I have read, BEGINS: IF stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous.

Now, is this an unambiguous FACT, which can NOT be refuted?

If no, then there is NOTHING to "resolve" YET.
If yes, then WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE that stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite Universe? And, if distance dims light, then WHY would distant stars, although more numerous, be "evenly" distributed AND necessarily effect what is seen in the observable universe by human beings on earth?

Light, after all, can only come from it's own source (stars) or be reflected off of a non bright object, so if there are not evenly distributed stars nor not evenly distributed reflecting objects, within the observable distance of light, which there is NOT, then light would NOT necessarily be dispersed and distributed evenly EVERY where throughout an infinite Universe. Black holes will certainly put a stop to that, right?

If this is correct, then the PRESUMPTION in the "paradox" is NOT even accurate, to begin with, and should be disregarded instead of being accepted as being true.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 ambut is contrary to your prior stance of an infinite universe. There are other possibilities the paradox may be resolved but I only thought to introduce this as the first 'why' some had inferred the Universe as expanding.
Surely some are NOT just "inferring" the Universe is expanding just based on that obviously illogical so called "paradox" and because some one ASSUMED UP the idea that there was a bang that create all matter and space?

By the way the observable matter expanding from a singularity that went bang is NOT at all contrary to my VIEW that there is an infinite Universe at all. If anything the two are more compatible now, then they were before. But this is ONLY if and when the bang about 14 or so billions of years ago is NOT ASSUMED nor PRESUMED to be the beginning nor origin of Everything-ALL matter and space.

This can all be explained very simply and easily in more detail if any one is really interested.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amI'll have to read on to see what you guys discussed as I've missed a day or so. Maybe you already got past this?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Atla wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:47 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:33 am I'd be patient with Age still. It doesn't help to be riled up by it. Sometime it only makes it worse.
I think you underestimate the severity of psychotic delusions and the brutality needed to break through them.
I've seen psychosis and also don't claim to always be sane myself. I'm thinking that if Age was actually insane, (s)he is more fit here and even more healthy for what I've seen others actually do in their actual psychiatric illnesses. Furthermore, if you knew someone was actually sick, wouldn't you rather be more willing to be compassionate for them then angry? I understand the frustration and I have it with him/her on another thread but won't let it defeat my own sanity.
Alta wrote:
The Steady State explanation assumes that the singularity is only an 'approach' rather than an actual zero point and that all matter is not actually crushed to a point there but that the apparent 14 Billion years is an illusion of parallel lines, like a railway track going off in the distance. The further away toward the apparent horizon point, we presume the wood ties are also placed parallel to each other but they appear to be bunching up towards that horizon.

Expansion can thus occur but would make the point on that horizon go further out. Imagine the ground of the imagined railway track stretching, something like how the 'horror movie' effect of a stretching hallway. The Steady State then presumes that if we were to go back 14 billion years, there would still be a Universe that appears 14 Billion years.
A problem is that then we have an infinite past, which is logically impossible (if we assume that the world makes logical sense, then this alone is enough to rule out Steady State).

Also, the observable universe seems to have been totally uniform about 13.8 billion years ago, so if we go back further, why was it uniform before that but not uniform after that?

---

Why don't you just assume that the Big Bang indeed happened, but it was not a beginning and only a part of our universe comes from this Big Bang, there must be other parts outside it?
I originally questioned the theory for many reasons that I don't want to introduce in this thread at the moment as it would digress off topic too far. The "Steady" in the theories name is LESS presuming as a default because it refers to that major factor of time being treated as we interpret it locally. That is, it presumes all factors of physics constant including all times. The Big Bang interpretation presumes that singularity as a literal beginning originally, and that anything we witness at a distance is to be presumed ONLY by our local physics. If it had some other physical laws at some earlier time, we cannot know this but can only infer this via some interpretation with extended assumptions.

What they agree on is to the evidence of expansion. But I'm not even wanting to assume any of these theories to determine her how science inferred that space expanded. This is what the thread is about only. Here we shouldn't even assume the 13.8 Billion years in this thread thus far as this is dependent upon proving first how space expands.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am I've seen psychosis and also don't claim to always be sane myself. I'm thinking that if Age was actually insane, (s)he is more fit here and even more healthy for what I've seen others actually do in their actual psychiatric illnesses. Furthermore, if you knew someone was actually sick, wouldn't you rather be more willing to be compassionate for them then angry? I understand the frustration and I have it with him/her on another thread but won't let it defeat my own sanity.
I knew you would say that but I'm not really politically correct.
Being compassionate that way with someone like Age (who at least openly admits to being mentally ill) only enables them and makes them more cemented in their insanity. That's bad for them and also bad for everyone else so if you ask me, such enablers are objectively harmful and should be "dealt with" as well.
I originally questioned the theory for many reasons that I don't want to introduce in this thread at the moment as it would digress off topic too far. The "Steady" in the theories name is LESS presuming as a default because it refers to that major factor of time being treated as we interpret it locally. That is, it presumes all factors of physics constant including all times. The Big Bang interpretation presumes that singularity as a literal beginning originally, and that anything we witness at a distance is to be presumed ONLY by our local physics. If it had some other physical laws at some earlier time, we cannot know this but can only infer this via some interpretation with extended assumptions.

What they agree on is to the evidence of expansion. But I'm not even wanting to assume any of these theories to determine her how science inferred that space expanded. This is what the thread is about only. Here we shouldn't even assume the 13.8 Billion years in this thread thus far as this is dependent upon proving first how space expands.
You seem to have a very specific interpretation of the Big Bang theory but there are countless possibilities. Obviously by default we should assume that the same physics applies to the entire universe, and that's perfectly compatible with the Big Bang the way I see it.

The idea that the Big Bang was a beginning is logically impossible, we don't need to mimic creation stories in science.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am What they agree on is to the evidence of expansion.
...
This is what the thread is about only.
Hehe well I can only wildly speculate. I tend to think that matter doesn't fall into an infinitely small point.

My best guess is more akin to a Steady state picture of space. The "size" of space is always relative to the "information content" of the observable universe. (But here I should stop for an hour and explain that "information" is just an abstraction of physical systems, it's physical information and not Shannon information, because at this step most people go crazy.)

If you have an almost perfectly homogeneous observable universe, space will be extremely small, which was the case 13.8 billion years ago. And since then the information content has been steadily increasing in the observable universe, space has been expanding.

Extra "information" may be leaking into our observable universe via quantum entanglement between parallel realms of our universe (which we percieve as quantum fluctuations). A picture where the entire universe comes from our Big Bang is logically impossible.

I predict that in somewhere between 10^14 and 10^40 years from now, once most of the stuff in our observable universe has fallen into black holes, the whole process will reverse and space will start to shrink again eventually leading to a Big Crunch, which is the same event as the Big Bang was.

Which brings up my biggest disagreement with modern science, they usually think that black holes have high entropy which is BULLSHIT.
Last edited by Atla on Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- »

guys. Space does not expand. Matter expands in space. When it is said "the universe expands" they mean the MATTER in the KNOWN (OBSERVABLE) UNIVERSE.

Keep this in mind, please.

Some corollaries follow:
1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.
2. Space is infinitely large.
3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.
4. Matter seems to escape the KNOWABLE BOUNDARY (which is not a real boundary or a "magical" boundary; it is just our farthest distance we can see and look at) of our observed universe at the Event Horizon.

Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

-1- wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am guys. Space does not expand. Matter expands in space. When it is said "the universe expands" they mean the MATTER in the KNOWN (OBSERVABLE) UNIVERSE.

Keep this in mind, please.

Some corollaries follow:
1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.
2. Space is infinitely large.
3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.
4. Matter seems to escape the KNOWABLE BOUNDARY (which is not a real boundary or a "magical" boundary; it is just our farthest distance we can see and look at) of our observed universe at the Event Horizon.

Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.
So you disagree with physics since Einstein?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

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

Post by -1- »

Atla wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:45 am
-1- wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am guys. Space does not expand. Matter expands in space. When it is said "the universe expands" they mean the MATTER in the KNOWN (OBSERVABLE) UNIVERSE.

Keep this in mind, please.

Some corollaries follow:
1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.
2. Space is infinitely large.
3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.
4. Matter seems to escape the KNOWABLE BOUNDARY (which is not a real boundary or a "magical" boundary; it is just our farthest distance we can see and look at) of our observed universe at the Event Horizon.

Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.
So you disagree with physics since Einstein?
you guys mix up concepts.
There is nothing i said that would make me disagree with physics since Einstein.

you talk about space expanding. look at your text. in many places you say that.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1848
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 »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
Age wrote: Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:03 am

What EXACTLY do you think my view IS?



WHY can you NOT hold a big bang interpretation AND a static one simultaneously? The two are very compatible to me.
And this is why you are severely contradictory. The Big Bang was named precisely because it presumed a sudden instantaneous entry (beginning) of all matter and space in the Universe as a "BANG!".
Okay, fair enough. IF that is WHY you can NOT hold them both simultaneously, then that explains it.

WHENEVER the words "big bang" are used in relation to the Universe, then they ONLY refer to an "ORIGIN" to the Universe. Is this correct?

If yes, then I OBVIOUSLY do NOT hold the big bang interpretation AT ALL.

From what I have observed, there was a bang, and relatively to us on earth it was a pretty big one too. However, from what I SEE, this was only one of possibly many bangs, which could happen, relatively, quite frequently. That bang, to me, however, may well have been where the singularity of ALL matter was, or where the singularity of some matter was. But when that singularity went bang, then that matter expanded. This bang explanation is VERY compatible with and can be held simultaneously with an infinite and eternal Universe. If, HOWEVER, any one wants to ASSUME and suggest that that WAS the origin, as in cause/creation, of ALL matter and space, then that is a completely separate and different issue. Doing that would put the PRE-SUMPTION before the actual and real FACT.
Yes, today's model has gone beyond the original theory and so it could be possible to have multiple 'bangs', etc. I'm trying to do here what you wanted on having less assumptions. Let's try to reconstruct the history of science on this before the Big Bang or Steady State theories as known.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBoth The Big Bang and Steady State theories are 'expansion' theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an expanding universe.
But WHERE is the "evidence", which affected the "interpretation, that the Universe is expanding.

WHERE is the actual "evidence" that the Universe is expanding? And what do you mean by "expansion" theories based upon the evidence and interpretation of an "expanding universe". WHAT came first? Evidence that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, OR, theories that the Universe, Itself, is expanding?

The MORE I LOOK into this the MORE I can SEE how so easily and simply human beings have become so confused about what IS the actual and real Truth.

Of course when things go off with a bang, they expand, this is obviously True, and which can be clearly seen when LOOKING back during the past 14 billion or so years. But this expansion, as I explained previously, in relative size and time could be ALL happening within a soccer ball that has been forgotten about and laying in some "kids" backyard, thus has not moved for the last 14 billion or so years. (When it is found it could be said things will be shaken up).

But just because the observable universe LOOKS like and/or IS expanding, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what the Universe, Itself, COULD BE like.
It is now being more carefully said by many that we are speaking of the "observable Universe though in the past people didn't even know that galaxies were anything but fuzzy-looking stars until Hubble, who is also the one to observe the evidence for expansion. To distinguish between the observable universe and any actual WHOLE, I prefer the term "Totality" to encompass this. This would just be the label of anything and everything whether we know it or not. Some prefer to use the word "Cosmos" as it doesn't have that "uni-" part that asserts only ONE and the "-verse" which some may confuse with the act of speaking (as in 'verses').

We don't NEED to know the literal facts of the Cosmos but it helps us find unified theories of the large as well as small so that we can use it for actual technology or simply out of speculative interest. Totality to me is actually more literally in favor of your 'assume nothing' concern. In fact, it could be true that absolutely everything exists but just separated into distinct universes and why you can at least trust that your thinking still applies to the whole (Totality).

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amBut let's stick with the Obler's paradox for the moment.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am The nature of the explanation provided by the Wikipedia link explains this clearly. The paradox is resolved IF space expanded.
But there was NO paradox in the beginning, none that i could see anyway. Just because some people ASSUME that the Universe would be completely lit up if the Universe is infinite, then that does NOT mean that this would, or could, actually happen.

The very FACT that black holes exist AND the very FACT that light does diminish over distance, (contrary to the BELIEF of some) could well, literally, SHOW HOW the WHOLE Universe could NOT be evenly lit up.

Another FACT that could well SHOW that this ASSUMPTION that the Universe "should be" as bright as day ALWAYS could be WRONG is that there may well be NO stars at all beyond a certain point at or past the observable universe anyway. ALL matter after all could well have been in the singularity that went of with a bang, which was just ALL of the matter that once was expanding but then contracted back onto itself, "once again".
You are jumping way ahead here. If you want to not assume anything, ignore the Black holes for now.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am It's not the best evidence but as the first in line of this type of thinking, it was what introduced the idea of an expansion possibility.
So, you are telling me, that the "idea" of an "expansion possibility" could well be made on some thing that does NOT even resemble any sort of truth to begin with. Well that helps in explaining more and a lot.

As I keep saying it is BEST to NOT ASSUME any thing at all, ...
This IS what I've done. But if you understand the meanings of 'assuming nothing', it also MEANS to assume absolutely everything possible as well, until you can prove otherwise.

I think this is what you need to try to understand. Just as zero times anything is still zero OR that dividing by zero leads to an infinity confusion, assuming nothing is indifferent to assuming absolutely everything. I don't disagree with your meaning. I already went through this phase you are going through in questioning this myself as have others within science and philosophy since ancient times to today.

Reality by each of us is 'subjective' and can only be convened among other beings to agree or disagree whether we share the same views. But we still don't KNOW this. We 'assume' this. Otherwise, you have to assume that I don't exist except in your mind. And further, can you NOT assume your own existence? I already agree to your meaning but the area of "epistemology" (knowledge) and "ontology" (reality) have begun with these questions and something distinct to discuss then the Universe. If you want to open or read likely many threads on 'assumption' open up a distinct thread on this question alone as we cannot get past your concern here alone.
Even even IF what is observed where ALL-THERE-IS the OBVIOUS FACT that there is space (distance) around objects, and that the furthermost of ALL objects still HAS space out PAST IT, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT have a limit to it SHOWS that the Universe is STILL 'infinite', and NOT 'finite' at all.

IF there NEEDS to be a resolution to the "paradox", then the "paradox" NEEDS to be proven as being even somewhat True to begin with. A version of the "olbers-paradox", which I have read, BEGINS: IF stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite universe, the sky should be as bright by night as by day, since more distant stars would be fainter but more numerous.

Now, is this an unambiguous FACT, which can NOT be refuted?
A "paradox" is "any APPARENT contradiction of reality". Relative to reality, realty already knows itself apart from our perception of it alone. The paradox is derived from Greek for meaning any more than one real truth when expecting something unique OR beyond what we know that seems confusing by its appearance.

It is only an apparent fact assuming you look and notice something is in conflict with other things you know. Some here might presume you a 'paradox' :P as you might them for finding something contradicting but WITHOUT resolution. (I'm just making fun, only)
If no, then there is NOTHING to "resolve" YET.
If yes, then WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE that stars are distributed evenly throughout an infinite Universe? And, if distance dims light, then WHY would distant stars, although more numerous, be "evenly" distributed AND necessarily effect what is seen in the observable universe by human beings on earth?

Light, after all, can only come from it's own source (stars) or be reflected off of a non bright object, so if there are not evenly distributed stars nor not evenly distributed reflecting objects, within the observable distance of light, which there is NOT, then light would NOT necessarily be dispersed and distributed evenly EVERY where throughout an infinite Universe. Black holes will certainly put a stop to that, right?

If this is correct, then the PRESUMPTION in the "paradox" is NOT even accurate, to begin with, and should be disregarded instead of being accepted as being true.
The 'paradox' is one unless one understands the problem AND some resolution to it. Obler's paradox is an argument about the assumption IF a 'static' universe exists and the argument expressing that light would be seen everywhere if that is in fact the proper reality. The original paradox also existed when no one knew that light had a fixed speed. So the original paradox was also about expressing a question without assuming light had a fixed speed.

After it was determined that light was limited, the question was then extended to be about why light should not fall through all spots without initial concern about absorption. Then, when absorption was thought of, this too was overthrown as a possibility because energy then was 'assumed' conserved. The point is that this is a historical paradox that only HINTS at something wrong under consideration of other assumptions UNTIL a new fact is revealed to repair it. If that one is corrected and another factor comes to light that reinstates it, it again needs another factor to resolve that. This paradox is NOT the significant factor of expansion and was treated as skeptical as you are now. So just take this puzzle as just the first step in making you question things as the history of science does in expressing it.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 ambut is contrary to your prior stance of an infinite universe. There are other possibilities the paradox may be resolved but I only thought to introduce this as the first 'why' some had inferred the Universe as expanding.
Surely some are NOT just "inferring" the Universe is expanding just based on that obviously illogical so called "paradox" and because some one ASSUMED UP the idea that there was a bang that create all matter and space?

By the way the observable matter expanding from a singularity that went bang is NOT at all contrary to my VIEW that there is an infinite Universe at all. If anything the two are more compatible now, then they were before. But this is ONLY if and when the bang about 14 or so billions of years ago is NOT ASSUMED nor PRESUMED to be the beginning nor origin of Everything-ALL matter and space.

This can all be explained very simply and easily in more detail if any one is really interested.
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 amI'll have to read on to see what you guys discussed as I've missed a day or so. Maybe you already got past this?
You are asking some of the same questions that the scientists have asked. The distribution is an 'assumption'. This is part of what is called the "Cosmological Principle" and is the appropriate question to deal with here.

I don't know what you mean by "This can all be explained very simply and easily in more detail if any one is really interested." You said this before and seem to be stating that you have a theory with perfect closure. If so, that's fine. But why mention it if you aren't actually intending to speak it? You then at a point before said after I questioned you on this that you had no theory nor interest. Again, if you still hold this, why say it at all?
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

-1- wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:52 am
Atla wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:45 am
-1- wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am guys. Space does not expand. Matter expands in space. When it is said "the universe expands" they mean the MATTER in the KNOWN (OBSERVABLE) UNIVERSE.

Keep this in mind, please.

Some corollaries follow:
1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.
2. Space is infinitely large.
3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.
4. Matter seems to escape the KNOWABLE BOUNDARY (which is not a real boundary or a "magical" boundary; it is just our farthest distance we can see and look at) of our observed universe at the Event Horizon.

Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.
So you disagree with physics since Einstein?
you guys mix up concepts.
There is nothing i said that would make me disagree with physics since Einstein.

you talk about space expanding. look at your text. in many places you say that.
Don't we know since Einstein that space is relative to the observer, there is no "absolute space"?
Maybe you mean that there is a relative space superimposed on an absolute space?
Post Reply