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: 1642
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

-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.

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.
Corollaries are extensions of theorems. I think you may mean initial assumptions or postulates?

As to "Space does not expand. Matter expands in space," this is problematic without treating space as a type of program treating space similar to random access memory while the program simply assigns a virtual space datum that links the arbitrary memory spaces. In other words, you are treating space as 'virtual' while matter as 'real'. Does some piece of matter have some formula on one side of it that says, now count to 50 to get to the next piece of matter?

Given this might be the first you've heard challenging this, you may be initially confused. But the point is that if space is itself not anything, information about distances themselves between matter would be indifferent to assigning matter to memory spaces randomly but then require some program that creates a virtual space. To me, if space is treated virtual, this can only work when you also treat matter as equally virtual to some program. This is because, as I have expressed in other threads, you could reverse the interpretation to see how odd the constructed theory looks by treating space as what is 'fixed' and matter as being the virtual data that shrinks IN space:
bigbang_metric_expansion.jpg (21.59 KiB) Viewed 414 times
Take the distinctly different sized spaces at different times and make them one size. This would treat the space as fixed and each successive image would then have smaller galaxies.

I made this drawing elsewhere to show this:
A paradox of Expansion.41...png (9.47 KiB) Viewed 414 times
I think you CAN create a computer-like model that makes all reality virtual. But that would be distinctly a whole theory on its own. What the assumption of space as being a literal nothing came from the original confusion about whether space had substance to it (an ether-ial medium). While Einstein originally assumed this for his Special theory, he dropped it for his General theory as it treats space (and time) as real, not virtual.

I just quickly edited the first image to try to mimic what I mean of the second one in context for clarity.
Expanson.2sm.png (40.34 KiB) Viewed 407 times
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Atla
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:26 am
I predict that in somewhere between 10^4 and 10^30 years from now
I wanted to write 10^14 and 10^40 years

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
Okay, I skimmed over it and see that Age hasn't yet caught up but suggested something confusing about light spreading out.
It was "atla" who said that IT IS A FACT that light does NOT diminish over distance, but spreads out instead.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
But they are NOT brighter. They APPEAR brighter, because the observer is closer to the light.

If we stick to the actual and real Truth from the outset, then things do NOT start to APPEAR puzzling and confusing in the end, like they are now to most human beings.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The intensity of light drops off as the square of the distance.
When you say "drops off" do mean 'dims'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
You can bring in as many mathematical equations as you like but in simple and easy to understand terms; Does light diminish over distance?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
From http://www.photokonnexion.com/main/wp-c ... ty_002.jpg, this image expresses this:

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
What do you mean by 'static' and 'possibility'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
Does the light direct from the sun onto earth have as much intensity as the exact same light that comes from the sun but then reflects off the moon onto earth?

If yes, then how?
If no, then photons do NOT remain bright "overall".
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
What do you mean by 'fixed space'?

And, are you saying that the light coming from say a star, 1 and a trillion zeros after that 1 distance away from earth, if there is a star at that point, which was let us say the same size as the sun, would still produce a "general quantity of average light" on earth?

If yes, then what do you mean by a "general quantity of average light", and more specifically what do you mean by "average light"?
If no, then okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The closer light sources are fewer but brighter.
So, are you saying that a tiny little star, for example, that gives out very little light is brighter to say us on earth, than a star that is millions of times bigger and a million times brighter also, but say only 10 miles further away than the first star is from earth?

If yes, then how is this possible.
If no, then okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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 the size of some thing further out is NOT also smaller.

It really is much BETTER if we stick with the actual and real Truth of things. That is: if we Truly do want to SEE the actual and real Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
BUT has a larger sphere to place twice as many light sources, there is no line of sight that is dark...
A light source can only be seen if it is coming direct from the source or reflected off of some thing. A supposed larger sphere supposedly placing twice as many light sources is of NO actual significance if there is NOTHING for that light to be reflected off nor from.

Are you also TRYING TO suggest that looking into a black hole that there is NO line of sight that is dark?

If yes, then it is false that light can NOT escape from a black hole?
If no, then okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
..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.
This area of SUPPOSED, or inappropriately CALLED, "dark space" is just the part of the Universe, which is outside of the observable, which do NOT forget just changes with the introduction of more useful tools, could be lit up with and by an infinite of stars, which is just another part of an infinite Universe.

Does this help. Be sure to read that link to the wikipedia OR type "expansion" into YouTube to see likely better explanations than this.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
Are you following this better now or still have some contention?
Who are you talking to exactly.

Also, instead of TRYING TO explain some thing, which might actually be completely and utterly FALSE and WRONG, why NOT just LOOK AT what IS instead?

Why NOT let us LOOK AT the actual and real FACTS that WE AGREE WITH, instead of TRYING TO come up with and make up explanations of what COULD BE?

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

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.
Name one, or more if you like, psychotic delusions I have, not for me, because obviously the Truth will NOT break through my 'psychotic delusions' but so maybe "scott mayers" and "others" have some examples of what you are actually talking about and referring to.

They may even be able to help you to break through my psychotic delusions and SHOW me the Truth of things?
Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:47 am
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).
LOL WHY is it supposedly "logically" impossible to have an infinite past?
Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:47 am
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?
When do you propose the observable universe was uniform, and then when was it supposedly not uniform?

What do you mean by 'uniform' and 'not uniform'?
Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:47 am
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?
Why MUST there be other parts outside of it? And, what do you mean by 'it'?

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am
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.
And is there NOT enough "interpretations" of and with "assumptions" going on now already?

This is, after all, WHERE the Truth of things IS FOUND.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am
What they agree on is to the evidence of expansion.
But what do "they" agree on is actually expanding?

The Universe, Itself?

A part of the Universe?

Just the observable part?

Or, some thing else?

And, what actual evidence do they have for this expansion?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am
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.
I thought this thread was about The Expanding Universe -, well that is part of the title of the thread anyway.

The Expanding Space - would be a title for another thread would it not?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:44 am
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.
EVERY time you use the word 'expansion', 'expands', or 'expanding' are you ALWAYS just referring to 'space' expanding?

If yes, then can you explain what 'space' IS, and HOW it could expand?
If no, then what others things do you refer to when you use the 'expansion', 'expand', 'expanding' word?

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:00 am
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.
I thought there were other possibilities also, but I was told that it can only mean one thing.
Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:00 am
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.
Again, WHY ASSUME ANY THING at all?

As I have repetitively stated: ASSUMING prevents you from SEEING the actual and real Truth of things. (This is obviously because bias confirmation comes into play.)
Atla wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:00 am
The idea that the Big Bang was a beginning is logically impossible, we don't need to mimic creation stories in science.
So, to you "atla", the idea that some thing was a beginning is 'logically impossible' and so to is an infinite past is "logically impossible", is this correct?

If yes, then what IS or could be 'logically possible'? If a beginning and an infinite past are both "logically impossible" as you say they are, then what else does that leave?
If no, then why did you say such things?

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

-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.
This is what I have observed, anyway.

If any one thinks/assumes/believes 'space' itself expands, then could they please explain how this could possibly happen?
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am

Some corollaries follow:
1. The known universe is contained in a finite section of space.
And is that a physical finite barrier or a conceptual one.

When you say "known universe" what do you mean by "known"?

From what I have observed and thus so far have SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOW, the "known" Universe is infinite and eternal and NOT in a finite any thing.
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
2. Space is infinitely large.
But space HAS TO BE finite in size. Matter makes sure of this FACT.
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
3. We don't know what's happening in space outside the known universe.
Again, by "known" do you mean observable with the physical eyes, or some thing else?
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
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.
Ah okay so you are only talking about some conceptual "boundary" that some human beings imagine exists, correct?
-1- wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 am
Enough of this bullshit that "space is expanding". It is not, and I personally guarantee it for you.
If you 'personally guarantee' that 'space' is NOT expanding, then I will NOT suggest that 'space' CAN expand in one sense, like I was going to do.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:41 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
Okay, I skimmed over it and see that Age hasn't yet caught up but suggested something confusing about light spreading out.
It was "atla" who said that IT IS A FACT that light does NOT diminish over distance, but spreads out instead.
It was you who I saw mention the flashlight question and you seemed not to distinguish intensity of light verses stretching of light. So I did mean you. A fixed amount of energy given off as light remains constant in the universe. The intensity of only one light source spreads out but with many dimmer ones in the further reaches of space, the quantity of photons remains the same. So the light from any distance in space in a static universe would be contribute equal quantities of photons and thus be equally bright. Only if the space expanded could the light's effect diminish because the wave stretches (towards the red) but the whole energy of it remains the same.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
But they are NOT brighter. They APPEAR brighter, because the observer is closer to the light.

If we stick to the actual and real Truth from the outset, then things do NOT start to APPEAR puzzling and confusing in the end, like they are now to most human beings.
Ah...you still make the mistake. You think that the quantity of light (number of photons AT each source) is the same at all distances. This is not true. The quantity of photons is less FROM EACH source; but since each distance further has MORE stars (sources), these add up to the same. The closer you are to the star, the MORE photons hit you. When it is so far that it is a tiny dot, the amount of photons just from that one star is only a tiny amount. That's what the image of the squares show above.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The intensity of light drops off as the square of the distance.
When you say "drops off" do mean 'dims'?
If at distance A, the star shines with X photons, at distance 2B this reduces to X/(2^2). It divides the amount of quantity of photons. The picture above illustrates it without a need for the math. That shows small squares as all the same size sides. The sides are also equal to the distance away from the source. So after the first distance (one square) from a source, it splits the photons between the next distances 4 squares of the same size. This makes it dimmer. But the further away you are, the more stars exist at that further distance which adds back the light lost. So if there were only one close star, at the second distance, there can fit 4 stars there, and so on.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
You can bring in as many mathematical equations as you like but in simple and easy to understand terms; Does light diminish over distance?
Yes. But that is the quantity of light, not the KIND of light. The KIND of light, such as something purple, will look green and something green might look red, etc, the further away something is.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
From http://www.photokonnexion.com/main/wp-c ... ty_002.jpg, this image expresses this:

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
What do you mean by 'static' and 'possibility'?
Sorry, I mean the Static type of space, as the defaulted possibility. So the paradox is a paradox under the assumption of a fixed (or non-expanding, but infinite) space. This was your interpretation of space that you thought could not 'expand' when it is already infinite in size. The paradox is repaired by expansion.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
Does the light direct from the sun onto earth have as much intensity as the exact same light that comes from the sun but then reflects off the moon onto earth?
If yes, then how?
If no, then photons do NOT remain bright "overall".[/quote]
Clever question! It reflects most of what is normally reflected off the type of matter on the surface of the moon. But it absorbs some of it because it is not a perfect reflector. However, the energy distribution of the mix of various different waves of light from the sun average out. So the general quantity of the average spectrum of light still gets reflected. You are correct to think of this though. I believe there is much more to this that I just said and is what is needed to know to rule out absorption. The Wikipedia pages summarizes this concern but still doesn't get into all the details. We'd have to look into this later. I have some physics books on light and notice it is more in depth than I thought at first. So I can't comment much further on this factor other than to say that stars are millions of times greater than the planets that revolve around them normally,
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
What do you mean by 'fixed space'?
Static but infinite, like what you explained you believed it is. (non-expanding)

And, are you saying that the light coming from say a star, 1 and a trillion zeros after that 1 distance away from earth, if there is a star at that point, which was let us say the same size as the sun, would still produce a "general quantity of average light" on earth?

If yes, then what do you mean by a "general quantity of average light", and more specifically what do you mean by "average light"?
If no, then okay.
I might have answered this above but no, the tinier area of space we see, the smaller the dot of light, the less quantity of photons coming from it but the distribution of the average light from that star is the same based upon its contents (and relative size to the sun).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The closer light sources are fewer but brighter.
So, are you saying that a tiny little star, for example, that gives out very little light is brighter to say us on earth, than a star that is millions of times bigger and a million times brighter also, but say only 10 miles further away than the first star is from earth?

If yes, then how is this possible.
If no, then okay.
I'm a bit confused but I would hold off on this question because we'd need to understand other things first. We'd need to determine how the close stars were first determined as their distance AND what they contain by the kind of spectra they make. Larger stars are ones that are bigger and can burn heavier elements that make their appearance different. Different stages also change their appearance. But this is too hard of a question yet to answer here yet.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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 the size of some thing further out is NOT also smaller.

It really is much BETTER if we stick with the actual and real Truth of things. That is: if we Truly do want to SEE the actual and real Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
BUT has a larger sphere to place twice as many light sources, there is no line of sight that is dark...
A light source can only be seen if it is coming direct from the source or reflected off of some thing. A supposed larger sphere supposedly placing twice as many light sources is of NO actual significance if there is NOTHING for that light to be reflected off nor from.

Are you also TRYING TO suggest that looking into a black hole that there is NO line of sight that is dark?

If yes, then it is false that light can NOT escape from a black hole?
If no, then okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
..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.
This area of SUPPOSED, or inappropriately CALLED, "dark space" is just the part of the Universe, which is outside of the observable, which do NOT forget just changes with the introduction of more useful tools, could be lit up with and by an infinite of stars, which is just another part of an infinite Universe.

Does this help. Be sure to read that link to the wikipedia OR type "expansion" into YouTube to see likely better explanations than this.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
Are you following this better now or still have some contention?
Who are you talking to exactly.

Also, instead of TRYING TO explain some thing, which might actually be completely and utterly FALSE and WRONG, why NOT just LOOK AT what IS instead?

Why NOT let us LOOK AT the actual and real FACTS that WE AGREE WITH, instead of TRYING TO come up with and make up explanations of what COULD BE?
I can't answer much of this because it needs more here. As to your last questions, I can only explain, reference, link or suggest HOW you might experiment yourself.

I have a recommendation that MAYBE you might like. It is a book that is now 'free' for viewing (but still has new ones you can buy):
https://archive.org/details/HogbenMathe ... heMillion/

It is a mix of math and science and it shows step by step HOW they discovered certain real facts in a way of discovery. Download (and I recommend buying) the book and read it. Although there are more pertinent material about the science done in the same fashion, you may want to see some samples of HOW things were determined historically and in an interesting way.

Oh, and I recommend this to anyone here, by the way.

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am

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.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:22 am
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.
Okay.

The history that you provided so far, which we have been LOOKING AT, is revealing some great insights into WHERE these ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, which some human beings have and continue to hold onto, actually came from.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am

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.
So, what IS the actual evidence for 'expansion'? AND, what EXACTLY IS supposedly EXPANDING?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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').

Okay, if that is what you prefer, then let us use them. So, is the 'observable universe' expanding or is Totality expanding?
If it is one but NOT the other, then how is this possible?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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).
I am NOT SURE what is with the 'trust' 'your thinking' 'applies' mean to the whole.

From what I have observed the VIEW I have now is Totality is infinite and eternal, and if there are separate and distinct different 'universes', whatever they may be, which you will have to define, since you made them this way, and if there are these now separate and distinctly different areas/regions of Totality, then what do you propose could possibly separate them?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
But let's stick with the Obler's paradox for the moment.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
Okay but why ignore them?

Is it said that it is a fact that light can NOT escape from a black hole. Is this correct or not?

Also, if you NOT wanting to LOOK AT and/or discuss what I have been just been POINTING OUT, then that is one thing. But there is NO jumping ahead here, which I can SEE. I do, however, OBSERVE a reluctance to LOOK AT these things I am pointing out and SHOWING.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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.
In a sense I agree.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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,
To whom?

Where is the actual confusion in that?

Also, if you give up on TRYING TO use the only thing that you have, which you believe/hope backs up and supports your ALREADY held BELIEF, then we can start moving forward and away from being stuck here where we are.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
If it was only a phase that you went through, then does that mean you have come out of it, and now have started ASSUMING things again?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
This may be what 'you' ASSUME but it is NOT what I assume at all.

To me, 'reality' is KNOWN, just like Truth is KNOWN. These came about from NOT ASSUMING nor BELIEVING any thing. The 'subjective' and/or 'objective' nature of ALL of this is a discussion another time, possibly in another thread, but you seem to be drifting away from the answer question at hand here. That is; Is Totality actually expanding or not?

You have used some "olbers paradox" to make a point. I asked some clarifying questions regarding that. But as usual these questions are NOT being answered.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
Otherwise, you have to assume that I don't exist except in your mind.
Now, you are taking this so far off track that it will really start becoming harder to bring it back.

For your information, and once again, I do NOT 'HAVE TO' assume any thing. If 'you' want to talk about 'I' existing or NOT, then you will have to explain and answer the question Who am 'I'? Are you up to that yet? And, if you want to continue down this seeming never-ending distracting and off track path, please explain EXACTLY what the 'Mind' IS?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
And further, can you NOT assume your own existence?
So, you bring up some thing that has just about NOTHING WHATSOEVER about what we WERE discussing, and then ask say things as ridiculous as this.

I will TRY TO bring this back. Is Totality expanding or not?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
You CAN ASSUME whatever you like. I am obviously NOT stopping you nor do I even want to. I just found it much more helpful in SEEING the Truth of things.

What do you think/assume/believe IS expanding EXACTLY?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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?
That is from your, subjective, perspective. From my, subjective, perspective 'paradox' means a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated does prove to be well founded or true.

So, which one do you propose is the, objective, and ACTUAL and REAL Truth?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
Agreed.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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' as you might them for finding something contradicting but WITHOUT resolution. (I'm just making fun, only)
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:56 am
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.
So what?

Now, it was either a 'paradox' or an 'argument'. Decide on which one, and then get back to me.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am

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.

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.
Usually when people put links to "others" writings, that means they do NOT KNOW how to just express it simply and easily, themselves, which might be because they do NOT understand it themselves.

I asked three very basic simple clarifying questions regarding this supposedly Totality would be lit up like day ALL the time proposition. They are;

1. If light diminishes with distance, then could that explain WHY the "sky" is NOT lit up like daytime all the time nor evenly spread out EVERY where?
2. If light can NOT escape black holes, then there could that by WHY there are patches/spots of "sky" that are NOT lit up like daytime all the time and evenly spread out EVERY where?
3. If there are NOT objects distribute evenly EVERY where, from which light could be reflected, then could that explain WHY the "sky" is NOT lit up all the time and evenly EVERY where? (Or maybe there are objects which are blocking light from being reached on earth, which is causing NOT a lit up like daytime "sky" all of the time?)
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
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."
This means that if any one is Really and Truly interested, then they would be asking clarifying questions to me to SEE if I can actually do what I am proposing I can do.

If some is Really and Truly interested, then that means they are Truly curious to SEE and DISCOVER if there is actually some thing new or more that could actually be discovered and/or learned, and NOT ASSUMING nor BELIEVING that they ALREADY have the answers.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
You said this before and seem to be stating that you have a theory with perfect closure.
If you have been taking NOTICE I have been stating it with such confidence that I have been stating that it is NOT even a theory at all, but rather a Truth that brings closure to and of the theory of Everything and the Unified theory, as well as answering ALL of the meaningful questions in Life.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
If so, that's fine. But why mention it if you aren't actually intending to speak it?
But WHY do YOU ASSUME that I am am NOT actually intending to speak it?

I can NOT just provide answers to questions that are NOT asked.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
You then at a point before said after I questioned you on this that you had no theory nor interest.
Did I say I had NO interest or NO 'real' interest in this? (with 'this' being just if the Universe (or Totality for you) is infinite or not). 'This' is just a small part of what I am Truly interest in.

And, a 'theory' is just more or less a supposition, idea, belief without proof, assumption, or hypothesis about what COULD BE. So, I have NO theory, but what I do have are VIEWS of what IS.

What IS is the Truth of things, which is REVEALED, discovered and/or learned IN what IT IS that is in agreement with and by ALL.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
Again, if you still hold this, why say it at all?
Can you now SEE just how much your ASSUMPTION of what I meant IS ACTUALLY completely different from what I ACTUALLY MEANT?

This is WHAT HAPPENS when things are ASSUMED.

Now instead of HOLDING ONTO this ASSUMPTION, and LOOKING AT and SEEING my writings from this ASSUMED perspective, and instead just asked me a clarifying questions in the beginning like: Do you have a theory with perfect closure? And, Do you really have no theory nor interest? Then ALL of this would have cleared up way much earlier and the Truth would have been KNOWN much earlier also.

Finding/discovering the Truth of things really is that simple, easy, and quick.

The Truth about simple things like whether Totality is infinite or finite, eternal or beginning, et cetera can also be discovered, found, or learned in the exact same very simple, easy, and quick was as well. That is IF any one is Truly interested in KNOWING them.

Age
Posts: 4665
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:41 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
Okay, I skimmed over it and see that Age hasn't yet caught up but suggested something confusing about light spreading out.
It was "atla" who said that IT IS A FACT that light does NOT diminish over distance, but spreads out instead.
It was you who I saw mention the flashlight question and you seemed not to distinguish intensity of light verses stretching of light. So I did mean you.
If I did or did NOT distinguish intensity of light verses stretching of light was of no real consequence to the answer of my clarifying question, but now that you have accused me of some thing, what you PROPOSE I said EXACTLY that suggested "something confusing" about light spreading out?

I asked an EXTREMELY simple question; IF light does NOT diminish over distance, (as proposed by some one), then does that mean any light can be seen from any distance away?

Because the question was SO SIMPLE and SO STRAIGHTFORWARD, and the answer would be SO simplistic, I did NOT see any NECESSARY reason to introduce any such thing as 'distinguishing intensity of light verses stretching of light'. If the Truth be KNOWN I still SEE it as UNNECESSARY.

Now, would you care to answer that VERY SIMPLE question yourself, if you possible could?

Or, maybe answer this question first: Does light diminish over distance or can ANY light be seen from any distance away?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
A fixed amount of energy given off as light remains constant in the universe. The intensity of only one light source spreads out but with many dimmer ones in the further reaches of space, the quantity of photons remains the same. So the light from any distance in space in a static universe would be contribute equal quantities of photons and thus be equally bright. Only if the space expanded could the light's effect diminish because the wave stretches (towards the red) but the whole energy of it remains the same.
Okay. Great.

Now, so is the reason that I can NOT see a flashlight when there is direct line of sight say over 1000 miles away because what you call 'space' IS expanding?

If yes, then what IS 'space', to you?
If no, then what other reason is there that I can NOT see the light?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
But they are NOT brighter. They APPEAR brighter, because the observer is closer to the light.

If we stick to the actual and real Truth from the outset, then things do NOT start to APPEAR puzzling and confusing in the end, like they are now to most human beings.
Ah...you still make the mistake. You think that the quantity of light (number of photons AT each source) is the same at all distances.
If I have made a mistake it might be because people will NOT answer my clarifying questions. Now that you appear to be doing answering, then this hopefully will help me in NOT make what you call "mistakes".

And, by the way I have NEVER thought the quantity of light is the same at all distances EVER.

In fact, some might say from what I have written so far that the opposite appears to be rather more true.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
This is not true. The quantity of photons is less FROM EACH source; but since each distance further has MORE stars (sources), these add up to the same.
You are TRYING TO add an assumption, from some thing else, into a very straight simple question I asked.

Also, HOW do you KNOW there are MORE stars (sources) out past the OBSERVABLE universe?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
The closer you are to the star, the MORE photons hit you.
Okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
When it is so far that it is a tiny dot, the amount of photons just from that one star is only a tiny amount. That's what the image of the squares show above.
BUT I would LIKE my question ANSWERED FIRST: Can ANY light be SEEN from ANY distance?

If yes, then great.
If no, then WHY NOT?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The intensity of light drops off as the square of the distance.
When you say "drops off" do mean 'dims'?
If at distance A, the star shines with X photons, at distance 2B this reduces to X/(2^2). It divides the amount of quantity of photons. The picture above illustrates it without a need for the math. That shows small squares as all the same size sides. The sides are also equal to the distance away from the source. So after the first distance (one square) from a source, it splits the photons between the next distances 4 squares of the same size. This makes it dimmer.
FINALLY, we got there.

So the answer is YES, correct?

By the way ALL the other stuff was already understood the first time I saw it.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
But the further away you are, the more stars exist at that further distance which adds back the light lost.
That is ONLY completely on the ASSUMPTION that there actually IS MORE STARS.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
So if there were only one close star, at the second distance, there can fit 4 stars there, and so on.
But if light gets dimmer, which is what you just said, then light from the stars (sources) to far away can NOT been seen, correct?

If no, then what do you mean?
If yes, then this could leave spots without light, correct?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
You can bring in as many mathematical equations as you like but in simple and easy to understand terms; Does light diminish over distance?
Yes. But that is the quantity of light, not the KIND of light. The KIND of light, such as something purple, will look green and something green might look red, etc, the further away something is.
Who cares?

I just wanted an answer to my question.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
From http://www.photokonnexion.com/main/wp-c ... ty_002.jpg, this image expresses this:

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
What do you mean by 'static' and 'possibility'?
Sorry, I mean the Static type of space, as the defaulted possibility. So the paradox is a paradox under the assumption of a fixed (or non-expanding, but infinite) space.
Again that is IF the beginning of the so called "paradox" even holds some APPARENT absurd or contradictory point to it. The actual Truth would have to be KNOWN first for any APPARENT contradiction to be in the "paradox".
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
This was your interpretation of space that you thought could not 'expand' when it is already infinite in size. The paradox is repaired by expansion.
You REALLY do have to get that ASSUMPTION that I have EVER even thought that space could NOT expand out of your system. That ASSUMPTION is REALLY distorting how you LOOK AT my words and what you SEE in and from them.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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).
Does the light direct from the sun onto earth have as much intensity as the exact same light that comes from the sun but then reflects off the moon onto earth?

If yes, then how?
If no, then photons do NOT remain bright "overall".
Clever question!
But it is NOT a "clever" question at all to me. It is, however, just another straightforward SIMPLE clarifying question that I would LOVE answered the first time I ask them. Of course this does NOT mean you, nor any one "else" HAS TO answer them. But if they do NOT want to be answered, then just leave them alone instead of going on with reams of writings about other stuff.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
It reflects most of what is normally reflected off the type of matter on the surface of the moon.
IF 'it' means light from the sun, then the light from the sun would just reflect off the moon correct? (To me, using words like "most of what is normally reflected" and "off the 'type of matter' on the surface of the moon" only distracts and TRIES TO deflect away from what the Real and True answer IS. Especially now because I have NO idea what is or is NOT "normally reflected" nor if when you say "type of matter on the moon" you are inferring there are different answers under different situations or not.) The answer if you are unaware is either YES or NO.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
But it absorbs some of it because it is not a perfect reflector.
Okay so NOT all of the light gets reflected.

So, the SIMPLE answer to the SIMPLE question is NO. Is this correct?

There is a quick, short, easy and simple path to get somewhere, and there are long, tedious, complex and hard paths to get somewhere.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
However, the energy distribution of the mix of various different waves of light from the sun average out.
So, both sides of the earth are light up equally when there is what is called a "full moon" on the other side of the earth from where the sun, when there is direct line of sight between ALL of the sun and ALL of the moon. Is this correct?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
So the general quantity of the average spectrum of light still gets reflected. You are correct to think of this though. I believe there is much more to this that I just said and is what is needed to know to rule out absorption. The Wikipedia pages summarizes this concern but still doesn't get into all the details. We'd have to look into this later. I have some physics books on light and notice it is more in depth than I thought at first. So I can't comment much further on this factor other than to say that stars are millions of times greater than the planets that revolve around them normally,
What do you mean the stars are millions of times 'greater' than the planets that revolve around them normally?

If you are talking about as a light source, then ONLY stars give off light. Planets do NOT. Planets only reflect light, from a close enough sun, to an observer close enough to see this.

But maybe you meant 'greater' in relation to some thing else completely?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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.
What do you mean by 'fixed space'?
Static but infinite, like what you explained you believed it is. (non-expanding)
PLEASE I am begging you now. STOP ASSUMING/BELIEVING that I BELIEVE any thing. It distracts away from what I am WANTING to learn and/or discover.

Also, thank you for clarifying that question.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
And, are you saying that the light coming from say a star, 1 and a trillion zeros after that 1 distance away from earth, if there is a star at that point, which was let us say the same size as the sun, would still produce a "general quantity of average light" on earth?

If yes, then what do you mean by a "general quantity of average light", and more specifically what do you mean by "average light"?
If no, then okay.
I might have answered this above but no, the tinier area of space we see, the smaller the dot of light, the less quantity of photons coming from it but the distribution of the average light from that star is the same based upon its contents (and relative size to the sun).
Okay, thank you again for clarifying.

Now, I can EASILY understand that the 'average light' from a star is just dispersed or spread out as it moves away from its source, if this is what you have been wanting me to understand. But that was really of NO interest to me. I really just wanted to KNOW if any light can be SEEN from ANY distance as was being proposed here, in this forum. Because what I have heard before, and thus had observed, was that light diminishes over distance and can NOT be seen if far enough away, which is the VIEW I had before.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
The closer light sources are fewer but brighter.
So, are you saying that a tiny little star, for example, that gives out very little light is brighter to say us on earth, than a star that is millions of times bigger and a million times brighter also, but say only 10 miles further away than the first star is from earth?

If yes, then how is this possible.
If no, then okay.
I'm a bit confused but I would hold off on this question because we'd need to understand other things first. We'd need to determine how the close stars were first determined as their distance AND what they contain by the kind of spectra they make.
Well to the first part is WAS determined because I MADE IT SO, as to the second part if it is going to make any REAL difference, then I will allow you to explain 'WHAT' EXACTLY would make the difference?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Larger stars are ones that are bigger and can burn heavier elements that make their appearance different. Different stages also change their appearance. But this is too hard of a question yet to answer here yet.
Okay fair enough. But if I was to say that both stars are made up of the EXACT SAME things but one is just as I have already said; a millions times bigger and a million times brighter, and this one is the one 10 miles further away then the much smaller and duller one, then is it still the case that the closer to light source the brighter it is?

Does that make is much easier for you to answer that question here now?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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 the size of some thing further out is NOT also smaller.

It really is much BETTER if we stick with the actual and real Truth of things. That is: if we Truly do want to SEE the actual and real Truth of things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
BUT has a larger sphere to place twice as many light sources, there is no line of sight that is dark...
A light source can only be seen if it is coming direct from the source or reflected off of some thing. A supposed larger sphere supposedly placing twice as many light sources is of NO actual significance if there is NOTHING for that light to be reflected off nor from.

Are you also TRYING TO suggest that looking into a black hole that there is NO line of sight that is dark?

If yes, then it is false that light can NOT escape from a black hole?
If no, then okay.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
..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.
This area of SUPPOSED, or inappropriately CALLED, "dark space" is just the part of the Universe, which is outside of the observable, which do NOT forget just changes with the introduction of more useful tools, could be lit up with and by an infinite of stars, which is just another part of an infinite Universe.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 8:23 am
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?
Who are you talking to exactly.

Also, instead of TRYING TO explain some thing, which might actually be completely and utterly FALSE and WRONG, why NOT just LOOK AT what IS instead?

Why NOT let us LOOK AT the actual and real FACTS that WE AGREE WITH, instead of TRYING TO come up with and make up explanations of what COULD BE?
I can't answer much of this because it needs more here.
What do you mean by 'you can not answer much of this because 'it' needs 'more here'?

What is 'it'?

What is 'more'? More of 'what' EXACTLY?

And 'where' is 'here' EXACTLY?

So, what is 'it' that needs 'more' of what, and where is 'here' that this 'more' is needed?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
As to your last questions, I can only explain, reference, link or suggest HOW you might experiment yourself.
But I have done the "experiments" already. Observed the outcome. SEEN the results, and have expressed my VIEW I SEE happens. The WRONGS in my VIEW is what I would dearly love to be made aware of.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
I have a recommendation that MAYBE you might like. It is a book that is now 'free' for viewing (but still has new ones you can buy):
https://archive.org/details/HogbenMathe ... heMillion/
Okay thanks. But I can NOT actually ask any clarifying questions to that one, like I can on here, in this forum.

I also can NOT get any feedback nor comments on what is seen to be WRONG in my VIEW, by reading other writings, like I can in a forum like this one.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
It is a mix of math and science and it shows step by step HOW they discovered certain real facts in a way of discovery.
I really do NOT care HOW any one discovered certain real facts.

HOW ALL facts are discovered and come to light happen in more or less the exact same way. That is; by LOOKING AT things from the Truly OPEN perspective and from the Truly curious and wondering perspective also.

And, because I am very slow and simple I find it hard to follow and understand, that what, is essentially very simple and easy, is made out to be complex and hard. So, reading MORE is NOT really helping me. I would like help to communicate better instead.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:44 pm
Download (and I recommend buying) the book and read it. Although there are more pertinent material about the science done in the same fashion, you may want to see some samples of HOW things were determined historically and in an interesting way.

Oh, and I recommend this to anyone here, by the way.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1642
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

@Age,

Sorry again for not answering quicker. I'm not online as much in the last few days but WILL try to respond to as much as I can as long as you are not in a hurry. You write a lot to respond to and I need time to get through them bit by bit.

I'll jump first to respond to the point of linking you to the "Cosmological Principle" earlier. [I actually agree to your point about redirecting to links. I felt it was sufficient and clear of one to explain matters I did not need to rewrite.] But...

The principle is an "assumption" of convention for science. Because science is only a group project, people have to agree to a minimal set of conditions before moving forward. The principles are just conventions that require assuming first that what we live in the SAME world that we have to assume is consistent universally. This means that we need to separate subjective beliefs about reality, such as religious Cosmological origin stories from the activity of observing the skies.

The general Cosmological Principle is that we are not in any 'special' place such that the physics here is the same everywhere in this Universe. We ran into problems in previous times of believing that Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Universe itself was 'made' FOR us specifically. So this is just a set of statements that say first and foremost that the universe is perceptibly the same no matter where you are in SPACE and that the distribution is assumed to be the same. The Steady State theorists felt this was not sufficient and opts to add that TIME as also something we have to add to make the principle of assumption more complete. We thus, cannot assume that in time NOR space that reality was different than our local capacity to understand things. If not, we could include the religious miracles believed about the past, for instance. If we place Adam and Eve as our literal first humans with some God that created us in a time where magic was 'normal', then this kind of thinking would defeat the universality of the study of science.

Because evolution is understood as a 'fact', some think that the Big Bang CAN still possibly be determined to have a different past than it is now. This enables the Big Bang to be viable. I personally think that this was a politically intentional convention because it still allows all science we study for most purposes to be valid regardless of any actual Cosmic origin 'stories'. Since science, as an institute involves the need to raise money and political supports, if you include the Perfect Cosmological Principle (that's what the Steady State Theory added of time), that there is little room for ANY religious origin story. This tends to piss people off and make them NOT want their personal, corporate, religious, or governments to fund the effort as well. Belief still has a role in moral conventions and as long as it is deemed less important to worry about, such as what is or is not true about the Universe as a whole, then allowing for flexibility of science in these areas concerning historical facts about it should not be as big a concern. I disagree but think this may be why the Perfect Cosmological Principle and the Steady State theory is preferentially undesired by many.

So, I'll leave on this point for now and get back to you later on the rest.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:26 am

That's a good argument against an infinite universe idea.
not really, space may be expanding faster than light to traverse the distance to reach us (so never does - hence space is black)
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:26 am
So the logical picture is that the universe is unchanging and finite.
not necessarily.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:06 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:36 am
You cannot hold the Big Bang interpretation AND a Static one simultaneously.
The easy part is explaining away expansion: if the observable universe is expanding then other part(s) of the universe must be contracting or "time" flows backwards there or whatever. And our observable universe will end in a Big Rip so the expansion here will reverse eventually (there's nothing strange about this since the rate of expansion already changed at least 3 times, so it will probably change again).

The difficult part is understanding that all our conception of time are linear, but time may be a closed loop so the distant future and the distant past are the same moment in time (same spacetime event).
nonesense. refer to the Arrow of Time.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 am
But, because light diminishes over distance, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
Overall light doesn't diminish, it just spreads out, so we would have infinite brightness.

hobwash, light like all forms of energy is a wave and particle, and like all forms of energy diminish with the square of the distance.

like gravity.
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
Also, because there are black holes, from which light is said can NOT escape, then could this help explain WHY the sky is NOT infinitely bright?
only if there are trillions and trillions of them out there - and to date it looks like 1-2 percent of all matter is inside of BH, the rest - the 98 percent we see as "the universe".
Atla wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:31 am
in an infinite static universe i think we would have infinitely big black holes, since an infinite amount of stuff has fallen into them and the bigger they are the more slowly they are said to evaporate. so in that case no light could reach us / we humans couldn't be here at all because we too would have been sucked into black holes. none of this makes much sense..
for the above to be apt you have to assume time is infinate. do date its not.

gaffo
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

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

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:56 am

Why would you think such a thing?

Did you think about what is at the end of a black hole AND what then happens to that thing?
you bring up a good point - via Atla's assumption of a BH becoming so big as to envelope the universe. not so, the more mass you pump into a Singularity, the slower it grows in size.

so a small one is easy to make bigger, a huge one - even after dumping a few billion of stars into it - its only slightly bigger.

2-million solar mass BH (like the one we have in our Galaxtic Core) - has a radius of around 30 million miles. you dump 30 billion more into it, it might be 300 million radius. still smaller then our solar system.

as to "what happens to that thing" - well no-ones knows (the math's fail in answering that - we can assume it is no longer the same "Thing" - but still existings in some way, since it still exerts gravity upon the rest of things as before (no change in gravity at all - so we know the "Thing" called gravity is more fundamental than the thing called matter (since matter is obliterated in the singularity (not i said matter, not mass).

mass = matter here, inside the BH not so. mass = something more fundamental than matter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests