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

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:45 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:34 pm
Age wrote:
Besides the part on brackets are you saying the rest as though it is any different to what I have been clearly expressing on a number of times ?
Also what do you mean by medium here ?
I only added what I did because you did not specifically reference it this time but now that you mention it I do remember you saying it before
A medium is simply the physical plane that all of space resides within - its not a technical term as such and so its not really important to know
Okay, fair enough.

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

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

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
Some thing observable.
Define 'observable'
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:10 pm
Any of ALL, which has NOT been given a specific name, other than the 'thing' word, obviously.
Define 'ALL'

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:10 pm
Some or ALL.
See above.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
How long are you going to ask me to define words for?
Till you get to a word that doesn't need to be defined.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
But I do NOT feel like using any units. They are completely UNNECESSARY to UNDERSTAND what IS, actually happening, with the Universe.
Maybe.

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
Some thing observable.
Define 'observable'
'That' which can be seen with the physical eyes.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:10 pm
Any of ALL, which has NOT been given a specific name, other than the 'thing' word, obviously.
Define 'ALL'
The whole quantity of a group.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:10 pm
Some or ALL.
See above.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
How long are you going to ask me to define words for?
Till you get to a word that doesn't need to be defined.
But there is NO word that "NEEDS" to be defined. So, you will stop now, that is; if you are honest person.
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:43 pm
But I do NOT feel like using any units. They are completely UNNECESSARY to UNDERSTAND what IS, actually happening, with the Universe.
Maybe.

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

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

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:07 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
'That' which can be seen with the physical eyes.
Define 'physical'
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
The whole quantity of a group.
Define 'whole' and 'quantity'.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
But there is NO word that "NEEDS" to be defined. So, you will stop now, that is; if you are honest person.
Define 'honest'.

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
So, what does 'space' mean to you?
So, AFTER I am the one asking, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, the people who BELIEVE and STATE that 'space is expanding, 'What IS 'space'? and I have STILL YET to get a response, I am 'now' the one who is expected to provide a definition for the word 'space'. When just about all along I was the one NEVER claiming any thing about 'space'.

This goes against any concept of 'burden of proof' being on the one who is making the claim. But considering NO one, besides me, as of yet has provided A definition, so I will, provide a definition for the word 'space' AGAIN. 'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
I gave a working definition HERE with your response:
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Working definition of the Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.

I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.

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

By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?
I cannot tell if you are agreeing or not to an actual definition I DID provide. You assert that you cannot see why anyone would assume otherwise which suggests agreement but then follow up with the additional informed condition that it will not help ME find that which I am looking for, which is making some assertion on your part that I don't understand.

What is 'that' to which I am “LOOKING FOR”?

If this the (1.0)Perfect Cosmological Principle that I stated is a meaning you agree to but are sure that is a process of thinking that would not help me express some successful proof to you, I require YOU to initiate the means for which would QUALIFY to you as proof of expansion. So,...

(1) first TELL me clearly what qualifies as a proof that COULD potentially prove that 'the Universe expands'. If there is none, there is no amount of words anyone could say that you would agree to.

(2) Next, because you are hesitant to agree to anything for some 'assumptions' I hold, to avoid the problem of me assuming that you interpret the words I use from a different lexicon you have than mine, I want you to set the 'working definitions' of all the significant terms to which I will either agree to or try to negotiate. You are holding the 'power' here and won't relent to assumptions that I keep seem to be making of you. As such, you now have the burden to at least set the definitions that I am forced to appeal to or challenge. How else can I try to prove to you something if the words I use even within sentences of an argument are also 'assumed'. If you want me NOT to assume anything of you AND you won't assume my own assumed definitions nor principles, for being 'assumptions', then I won't even assume you agree to any words I use without determining them first of you.

To determine even what you are challenging of me, I need to determine what you are asking in light of your own potentially hidden counter assumptions of what is 'true' by default about space. So ...

(3) If you agree to the first two things I ask you to assert, I need to ask you to accept the burden of telling me any default of belief that one not assuming anything SHOULD hold about space. That is, Is space defaulted to some pre-non-assumed state of being? If you hold a belief that there is some default state of existence of space, I need to begin from that to try to determine that you actually LACK a position or REMOVE the potential bias of some counter-predisposition you may hold to begin fresh with certainly NO assumptions.

Let's reset this argument to scratch between you and me here with these questions and suggested course of action I ask of you. These are NOT burdening you to any proof, but establishing the grounds of which your questions can be answered with better success or satisfaction.

If you agree to the course of action and answered the questions above, here is at least the starting definition of space you asserted:
This is your working definition of “space”:
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm

'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
What is “distance” to you?

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:07 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
'That' which can be seen with the physical eyes.
Define 'physical'
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
The whole quantity of a group.
Define 'whole' and 'quantity'.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
But there is NO word that "NEEDS" to be defined. So, you will stop now, that is; if you are honest person.
Define 'honest'.
I didn't see this when I wrote the last post to Age. I'm guessing that given if he holds that no word needs defining in what he responded to you, I'm not sure he'll comply with what I asked. If not, then there is nothing we can do to prove anything to him. I gave a reason why it is his burden to define the terms while not necessary for the proof of expansion. Maybe this will help.

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am

LOGICAL PROOF that Space MUST expand

I am at one precise place in space.

There is a space in front of me to which is at ANY sized distance.

I want to MOVE into that space. This means to "displace" the volume of space I was IN to get to another volume of space.

Either I JUMP to that new space in zero measure of any time or it takes time for me to get there.

If I JUMP there instantaneously with no time, then I accelerated to any given distance without a need for time. So this option is out or I'd be able to be anywhere and everywhere at once.

For the next option, since time does exit, this then allows me to get to the space ahead of me in some positive time greater than zero units. But this would have to be true of any positive distance no matter how small. Now if I began staying at the one spot for any duration, I am moving 0 distance/time before I begin moving to the new spot. To get to this different place would require I go from 0 to some X velocity greater than 0 in order to at least move. But in order to go from any non-speed to any positive one is 'acceleration'.

However, since I am never not moving, I'd have to be moving in SOME direction, even if it is in tight little circles around some point. Moving in a circle is 'accelerating'. That is, I would have to be accelerating to remain in one spot. But because of the fact that I am made up of matter and that matter is something that 'occupies' space, then the space that makes me up is itself always changing too. This means that space has to be 'accelerating' for me to even be allowed to move or I'd only always be only able to move in at one specific velocity in only one unique direction always.

I experience myself able to move in all directions.

Therefore, space requires acceleration on a mere logical basis and thus Space expands !
Scott Mayers wrote: P.S. In my own theory, I define space as BEING curves of change. As such, matter not only occupies space, it IS space. Each point in space must move at only one 'speed'. If it moves in curves, then this defines matter and, if it alters with both curves and in lines, where light is the fastest such curves in one direction, it defines light as the maximum kind of curve. Space that only translates points in one linear dimension is 'empty space'. Gravity is the effect of these lines everywhere as its effect upon curves and is the effect of 'shadowing' that occurs between different matter or energy. The 'cause' of curves (matter) is when two lines hit head on in EXACTLY opposing directions. The curves formed are spirals that move out from a center point for each of the two colliding rays.

All that is needed in this theory is for empty space to come from nothing. If space IS nothing, this suffices and closes the theory. Space as points themselves can be thought of as both existing and not-existing. If derived of an origin of absolute nothing on the level of Totality, then there is always an infinity of nothing to provide for this source. We would then have to accept that multiple universes exist: one for EACH point's possibility to exist and not exist. Time is just the collection of these universes with a continuity of points that combine to form apparent universes we perceive as being unique.

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:17 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:22 am
So, what does 'space' mean to you?
So, AFTER I am the one asking, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, the people who BELIEVE and STATE that 'space is expanding, 'What IS 'space'? and I have STILL YET to get a response, I am 'now' the one who is expected to provide a definition for the word 'space'. When just about all along I was the one NEVER claiming any thing about 'space'.

This goes against any concept of 'burden of proof' being on the one who is making the claim. But considering NO one, besides me, as of yet has provided A definition, so I will, provide a definition for the word 'space' AGAIN. 'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
I gave a working definition HERE with your response:
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:01 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:15 am
Working definition of the Perfect Cosmological Principle:(1.0) All things we sense are to be interpreted as 'equally' observable in kind to our local sensation in space, matter, energy, and time. Since Cosmology is about observing things at a remote distance that won't feedback information by poking it unlike things in a controlled lab, this means that we assume everything we see has no special place and so will interpret things anywhere to appear SIMILAR (isotropic) no matter where you are in the universe and has an equal similar distribution of things (homogeneous).
You can ASSUME that, if you like, for as long as you like.

I can NOT see WHY you would ASSUME otherwise.

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

By the way, does the adding of the word 'perfect', into that Principe title, make you feel better about assuming such a thing? Or, make the principle any better in any way?
I cannot tell if you are agreeing or not to an actual definition I DID provide.
This is because I write in a way, some times, to MAKE the people in this forum ASSUME things. I have expressed, on to many occasions, the reasons WHY it is much better to NEVER assume. But NO clarifying questions are ever asked about this, and people just keep ASSUMING. So, I now write KNOWING people will ASSUME. That way I have GOT INSTANCES of WHEN people ASSUME and EXAMPLES of WHY it is fair better to NEVER ASSUME.

However, I can NOT see why any one would assume otherwise is for the SAME reason why I can NOT see why any one would assume the definition you DID provide as well. I can NOT see why any one would assume ANY thing, at all. This VIEW is based on the OPEN principle.

I purposely wrote that in a way so that you could NOT tell if I was agreeing or not. This is to prove my point about how it is much better to NOT assume any thing at all.

If you can NOT tell if I am agreeing or NOT, then just ask me to clarify. This really is the best, and really the only, way to gain a True understanding of things, from "another's" perspective. This is WHY I say ASSUMING prevents one from KNOWING the Truth (of things).

If you do NOT ask a clarifying question, then you could have gone on for the rest of you life NOT telling if I was agreeing or not, or just ASSUMING one way or the other. But with one very simple clarifying question, and an OPEN and Honest reply, then you WOULD KNOW if I am agreeing or not, very quickly, simply, and easily also. This is WHY I say KNOWING the Truth (of things) can be KNOWN very quickly, simply, and easily.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
You assert that you cannot see why anyone would assume otherwise which suggests agreement but then follow up with the additional informed condition that it will not help ME find that which I am looking for, which is making some assertion on your part that I don't understand.


So, what do you THINK would be the best action to take to understand what I am "asserting"?

Do you really think that informing me that you do NOT understand is the best way, or, do you THINK that by just asking me a clarifying question in regards to 'what' it is EXACTLY that you want to become aware of would be the best, simplest, and easiest way to understand what i am "asserting"?

But anyway, I do NOT agree with ALL of the actual definition you DID provide. Although, to me, the general concept of NO matter where you are in the Universe 'things are relatively the same', could be agreed with.

You have informed us of WHY you BELIEVE it is NECESSARY to ASSUME. I have just informed that I can NOT see WHY any one would assume ANY thing. So, we have both put our VIEW forward.

You can NOT make me ASSUME some thing just like I can NOT make you NOT ASSUME any thing. We just are using a different definition for the word 'assume' here.

If, however, you would like to change the word 'assume' when used in reference to 'assuming things are relatively the same' any where in the Universe to we both 'agree' on that if we, from now on, LOOK AT 'ALL of this' and discuss from the perspective that 'things are relatively the same any where in the Universe', then I WILL agree and accept this. But then you may NOT agree with and accept the term/definition that 'things are relatively the same any where in the Universe'. If you do NOT agree with nor accept this, then what would you agree with and accept?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
What is 'that' to which I am “LOOKING FOR”?
ONLY 'you', 'your' True Self, would KNOW the answer to 'that', right?

But could it be ANSWERS?

Are 'you' LOOKING FOR 'answers'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
If this the (1.0)Perfect Cosmological Principle that I stated is a meaning you agree to but are sure that is a process of thinking that would not help me express some successful proof to you, I require YOU to initiate the means for which would QUALIFY to you as proof of expansion. So,...
But I DO NOT WANT nor am I SEEKING nor am I LOOKING FOR "proof" of any thing.

BUT what I have been asking for is WHAT 'evidence' do people, themselves, have and use to SAY that 'the Universe IS expanding'?

That could "QUALIFY" as proof.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
(1) first TELL me clearly what qualifies as a proof that COULD potentially prove that 'the Universe expands'.
WHAT qualifies as a 'proof' that COULD potentially prove that 'the Universe expands' IS the 'proof' you use.

Just tell me what 'evidence' you have for the Universe expanding, as that I is all I have been asking for anyway.

The 'facts', 'evidence', and/or 'proof' that you, yourself, use would suffice.

By the way has there been some sort of ASSUMPTION that I am LOOKING FOR "proofs", which COULD "prove" some thing to me here?

When I ask for 'evidence' of some thing, I am NOT asking that to 'prove' some thing I am just asking that to gain a better clarity of how you individual SEE things.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
If there is none, there is no amount of words anyone could say that you would agree to.
But this is like saying to the person who was stating that the earth revolves around the sun, when every one else is saying the opposite, What do you need as prove that the sun revolves around the earth. There is NO use asking the person what qualifies as "proof" that COULD potentially prove some thing, when the person is expressing their VIEW, which ACTUALLY opposes that ASSUMPTION/BELIEF.

Do you understand this?

The REASON WHY the observable universe LOOKS LIKE it is expanding BUT IT IS NOT is OBVIOUS, to me. Just like the sun revolving around the earth is/was just an optical illusion ALSO, so is an 'expanding Universe' just an optical illusion as well.

I am here in this forum to learn how to better communicate this VIEW, plus other things human beings BELIEVE are true, but which REALLY are NOT. I am NOT here LOOKING to be "proved" of things. I am here LEARNING how to express my VIEWS better.

I do NOT need "proof" of the things human beings BELIEVE are true. I need to learn how to communicate my VIEWS better.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
(2) Next, because you are hesitant to agree to anything for some 'assumptions' I hold, to avoid the problem of me assuming that you interpret the words I use from a different lexicon you have than mine, I want you to set the 'working definitions' of all the significant terms to which I will either agree to or try to negotiate.
Okay this is a great way to move forward. If the Truth be KNOWN this is roughly EXACTLY HOW peace on earth, FOR EVERY One, CAN be created, and WILL be achieved.

But anyway, If you want me to set the working definitions, then I just need to know one thing, that is; what is the goal you are wanting here?

Do you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding? Or,
Do you want to listen to my VIEW and ALL of the details, which will explain HOW I came to this VIEW?

If it is the former, then just write down ALL of the facts, which is the evidence, and therefore 'what' proves that the Universe is expanding. If those "facts" are irrefutable evidence, then I can NOT do any thing. You will have achieved your goal, by proving your point.

If, however, you want to do the latter, then are you prepared to just challenge me and ask me clarifying questions?

If it is the latter, then I found it better to have heard ALL of "another's" VIEW BEFORE dismissing it. But if one is LOOKING AT "another's" VIEW NOT from an ALREADY held ASSUMING/BELIEVING perspective, then they are Truly OPEN anyway to LISTEN to ALL of it.

So, either you want to prove to "others" that what you think, assume, and/or believe is true IS TRUE. Or, you are OPEN and want to SEE IF there is another picture that COULD possibly illustrate MORE, and explain in MORE and GREATER DETAIL a MORE or ANEW Truth.

My 'working conditions' are based on YOUR CHOICES and what you are prepared to 'work with'.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
You are holding the 'power' here and won't relent to assumptions that I keep seem to be making of you.

To me there is NO single/separate one holding the "power". If there is, then that destroys the power of communication, when Truth is FOUND. The 'power' is held within the ability of ALL to communicate OPENLY and Honestly WITH EACH OTHER.

Also, are you saying here that I am relenting to assumptions or that you are relenting to assumptions?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
As such, you now have the burden to at least set the definitions that I am forced to appeal to or challenge.
If your goal is to prove that the Universe is expanding, then it is up to you what definitions you use or want to use.

If, however, you are Truly OPEN and are WANTING to listen to what I have, to express, regarding my VIEW, then if you are going to allow me to define the words I use, then I could NOT ask for much more. I would, however, ask, and in a way expect, you to bring to my attention any definitions, which are becoming to incomprehensible, or just NOT feasible at all. I do, after all, WANT you to be able to UNDERSTAND ME and FOLLOW what I am saying ALL OF THE WAY. only AFTER I have expressed ALL of my VIEW, then is the better time to pick it ALL apart, with clarifying questions, and challenging ALL of the WRONG in it.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
How else can I try to prove to you something if the words I use even within sentences of an argument are also 'assumed'. If you want me NOT to assume anything of you AND you won't assume my own assumed definitions nor principles, for being 'assumptions', then I won't even assume you agree to any words I use without determining them first of you.
First, you will have to let go of the ASSUMPTION that I want you to 'prove' some thing to me.
Second, although I can SEE that what you are saying here would make sense, at the moment, I just can NOT see it.

The use of the word 'assume' so many times here could lead to an 'assumption' being made all to easily.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
To determine even what you are challenging of me, I need to determine what you are asking in light of your own potentially hidden counter assumptions of what is 'true' by default about space. So ...
But I was NEVER challenging you. I am literally just asking for what evidence is used to support the VIEW that the Universe is expanding.

To ASSUME that I had some potentially hidden counter "assumption" is only going to PREVENT you from being Truly OPEN and Honest, which just PREVENTS the Truth from being REVEALED.

I have NO hidden ANY thing. I have already CLEARLY expressed my VIEW on the Universe being infinite and eternal. So, there is NOTHING for you to determine about WHY I am just asking some very simple, straightforward questions. I am NOT here, in this forum, to challenge your VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, nor BELIEFS. I am just here to LEARN from them.

In this thread if I am informed of people's "fact" which they use as 'evidence' to 'prove' things, then that is what I would like. But I am NOT going to use that to challenge any thing here. I am wanting to use that to counter things that I wish to express some where other than in this forum.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
(3) If you agree to the first two things I ask you to assert, I need to ask you to accept the burden of telling me any default of belief that one not assuming anything SHOULD hold about space. That is, Is space defaulted to some pre-non-assumed state of being? If you hold a belief that there is some default state of existence of space, I need to begin from that to try to determine that you actually LACK a position or REMOVE the potential bias of some counter-predisposition you may hold to begin fresh with certainly NO assumptions.
1. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve ANY thing, which is WHAT I DO SAY, then that means that I NEITHER BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE ANY thing. Could you please tell me in your own words what this means, TO YOU? (You keep using the 'belief' word in relation to me. No matter how may times I inform you of what I just wrote. You are not the only one also. So there must be some thing in those seven words that is NOT being understood).

2. If you want to prove that the Universe is expanding, then it is up to you to define the words you use.

3. If, however, you would like to hear my VIEW on how the Universe is infinite and eternal, then it would be up to me to define the words i use.

After all, it is up to the one, telling their story, who is painting the picture here, so it is up to them to clearly and succinctly SHOW how they are defining the words they use. It is through defining words MORE CLEARLY that a BETTER picture can be SHARED.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
Let's reset this argument to scratch between you and me here with these questions and suggested course of action I ask of you.
Resetting sounds great. But I just want to make it clear that I am NOT here to 'argue' any thing. I have NOT yet formulated sound, valid arguments to SHOW what it is that I want to express YET, and that is WHY I am here to LEARN how to communicate better. Obviously if i had sound, valid arguments already, then I could just express them now. But I do NOT, so instead of arguing for a point-of-view, I just would like to express my VIEW instead.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
These are NOT burdening you to any proof, but establishing the grounds of which your questions can be answered with better success or satisfaction.
Any thing could be interpreted or assumed regarding my questions, but seriously just take my questions on their most basic and simplest LITERAL form. For example, if I ask: What evidence is there for the Universe is expanding? And, one piece of evidence is 'red shifting, then just state 'red shifting'. My questions really are just that SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:33 pm
If you agree to the course of action and answered the questions above, here is at least the starting definition of space you asserted:
This is your working definition of “space”:
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:26 pm

'Space', to me, means the distance between, objects of, matter, ranging from the sub-atomic particles of matter, all the way up to planets, stars, and galaxies, if you like, and the distance around matter.
What is “distance” to you?
A length.

Do you want to prove to me that the Universe is expanding? Or, would you like to hear, and are you OPEN enough to, HOW the Universe may well in fact be infinite and eternal?

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:07 pm
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
'That' which can be seen with the physical eyes.
Define 'physical'
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
The whole quantity of a group.
Define 'whole' and 'quantity'.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:04 pm
But there is NO word that "NEEDS" to be defined. So, you will stop now, that is; if you are honest person.
Define 'honest'.
I didn't see this when I wrote the last post to Age. I'm guessing that given if he holds that no word needs defining in what he responded to you, I'm not sure he'll comply with what I asked. If not, then there is nothing we can do to prove anything to him. I gave a reason why it is his burden to define the terms while not necessary for the proof of expansion. Maybe this will help.
In case you were unaware "logik" was going to ask me what is the definition for EVERY word forever more to PROVE that NOTHING can be gained and KNOWN from and through language. To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.

"logik" said they will stop asking to define words when there is a word that does not "NEED" defining. I stated that OBVIOUSLY there is NO word that "NEEDS" defining, (but people WANT words defined. I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.

Now, OF COURSE the defining of words, in relation to what you are talking about, is EXTREMELY and VERY NECESSARY, especially in relation to what this topic is ACTUALLY ABOUT.

By the way IF you asked me some clarifying questions about what my ACTUAL VIEWS are here, instead of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what they COULD BE, then you would NOT have to write all of that what you just did here.

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

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

Post by Logik » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:00 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.
Only goes to show how much you misunderstand. Given the symbolic-numeric distinction I lean towards numerics.
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.
Ohhhhhhh. Is THAT how it works?

Age. You would stop speaking if you were an honest person.

I guess that Truth will remain OBVIOUS to SEE.

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
LOGICAL PROOF that Space MUST expand

I am at one precise place in space.

There is a space in front of me to which is at ANY sized distance.

I want to MOVE into that space. This means to "displace" the volume of space I was IN to get to another volume of space.

Either I JUMP to that new space in zero measure of any time or it takes time for me to get there.
Are you standing on a material object like a planet earth, or are you just in space?

By the way do you BELIEVE that 'space expands', or ASSUME it is true?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
If I JUMP there instantaneously with no time, then I accelerated to any given distance without a need for time. So this option is out or I'd be able to be anywhere and everywhere at once.

For the next option, since time does exit,
Talk about being able to jump so that you are able to be anywhere and everywhere - How quickly did you just jump to the conclusion; 'since time DOES EXIST'?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
this then allows me to get to the space ahead of me in some positive time greater than zero units. But this would have to be true of any positive distance no matter how small. Now if I began staying at the one spot for any duration, I am moving 0 distance/time before I begin moving to the new spot. To get to this different place would require I go from 0 to some X velocity greater than 0 in order to at least move. But in order to go from any non-speed to any positive one is 'acceleration'.
If I recall correctly you have already expressed a similar idea previously, correct?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
However, since I am never not moving,
What do you mean by 'never not moving'?

Is this before or after 'acceleration' STARTED?

If this is 'after', then were you never not moving also 'before' acceleration started?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
I'd have to be moving in SOME direction, even if it is in tight little circles around some point. Moving in a circle is 'accelerating'. That is, I would have to be accelerating to remain in one spot.
WHY would you HAVE TO BE 'accelerating to remain in one spot'?

Is your definition of 'accelerating' here increasing in speed? Or, just moving?

'Acceleration' is some times used to define the increase of movement and not just the movement.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
But because of the fact that I am made up of matter and that matter is something that 'occupies' space, then the space that makes me up is itself always changing too.
What do you mean by 'space that makes me up'? And,

WHY would this space 'that makes you up' now also HAVE TO BE 'always changing too'?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
This means that space has to be 'accelerating' for me to even be allowed to move
HOW does this follow?

Is 'space' a 'material object' or 'made up of matter'?

Depending on your answer, if 'space' is not a 'material object' or is not 'made up of matter', then how exactly could 'accelerate'?

Also, an 'occupied space' may change in a sense when 'that' material object does NOT 'occupy' 'that' space any more, but how does this translate to 'space' also moving, changing, and/or accelerating?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
or I'd only always be only able to move in at one specific velocity in only one unique direction always.
WHY?

WHY could you NOT move at different velocities and/or different directions?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
I experience myself able to move in all directions.

Therefore, space requires acceleration on a mere logical basis and thus Space expands !
If you say, and BELIEVE, so.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
Scott Mayers wrote: P.S. In my own theory, I define space as BEING curves of change.


Are you able to elaborate on this at all?

As such, matter not only occupies space, it IS space.


So, matter and space is one and the SAME thing, is this correct?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
Each point in space must move at only one 'speed'.


So, matter moves only at one 'speed', correct?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
If it moves in curves, then this defines matter and, if it alters with both curves and in lines, where light is the fastest such curves in one direction, it defines light as the maximum kind of curve. Space that only translates points in one linear dimension is 'empty space'.


So, matter IS space but space that only translates points in one linear dimension is NOT space NOR matter but NOW 'empty space', is this right?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
Gravity is the effect of these lines everywhere as its effect upon curves and is the effect of 'shadowing' that occurs between different matter or energy. The 'cause' of curves (matter) is when two lines hit head on in EXACTLY opposing directions. The curves formed are spirals that move out from a center point for each of the two colliding rays.


Okay, but this getting way beyond me now.

This may well ALL be True or partly true, but I can NOT understand it, in the way it is written now.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
All that is needed in this theory is for empty space to come from nothing.


'Space', by definition, could be SEEN and UNDERSTOOD as actually being itself 'nothing'.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
If space IS nothing,


But you said before that matter is space, or did I get this wrong?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
this suffices and closes the theory.


But is it true that 'space that only translates points in one linear dimension is 'empty space'?, And, if space is matter, then only 'empty space' would be closer to being 'nothing', correct?

Also, how could space, which IS matter, if i have this right, become 'empty space' just because IF, and ONLY WHEN, it is only translating points in one linear dimension?

Also, what does 'space that only translates points in one linear dimension' actually mean?

Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
Space as points themselves can be thought of as both existing and not-existing. If derived of an origin of absolute nothing on the level of Totality, then there is always an infinity of nothing to provide for this source. We would then have to accept that multiple universes exist: one for EACH point's possibility to exist and not exist. Time is just the collection of these universes with a continuity of points that combine to form apparent universes we perceive as being unique.



Now this is all way to much for me. I am way to stupid to understand any of this now.

Age
Posts: 3594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:20 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:00 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.
Only goes to show how much you misunderstand. Given the symbolic-numeric distinction I lean towards numerics.
EVEN FAR WORSE.
Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:00 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.
Ohhhhhhh. Is THAT how it works?

Age. You would stop speaking if you were an honest person.

I guess that Truth will remain OBVIOUS to SEE.
1. But I did NOT say I would do this.

2. Only YOU said this. TRYING TO speak for "others" especially in regards to the "other" being 'honest' just is NEVER going to work like this here.

3. This, what you just TRIED TO DO, is very far REMOVED and DIFFERENT from what ACTULLY happened with you.

4. You said you would stop doing some thing, if some thing else happened. That some thing else happened, YET you did NOT stop doing what you said YOU WOULD.

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed May 01, 2019 3:08 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:25 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:07 pm

Define 'physical'


Define 'whole' and 'quantity'.


Define 'honest'.
I didn't see this when I wrote the last post to Age. I'm guessing that given if he holds that no word needs defining in what he responded to you, I'm not sure he'll comply with what I asked. If not, then there is nothing we can do to prove anything to him. I gave a reason why it is his burden to define the terms while not necessary for the proof of expansion. Maybe this will help.
In case you were unaware "logik" was going to ask me what is the definition for EVERY word forever more to PROVE that NOTHING can be gained and KNOWN from and through language. To "logik" the only thing that works in the Universe is 'symbolic logic'.

"logik" said they will stop asking to define words when there is a word that does not "NEED" defining. I stated that OBVIOUSLY there is NO word that "NEEDS" defining, (but people WANT words defined. I also pointed out that now "logik" would stop, that is; If they are an honest person. The Truth of this became quickly OBVIOUS to SEE.

Now, OF COURSE the defining of words, in relation to what you are talking about, is EXTREMELY and VERY NECESSARY, especially in relation to what this topic is ACTUALLY ABOUT.

By the way IF you asked me some clarifying questions about what my ACTUAL VIEWS are here, instead of MAKING ASSUMPTIONS about what they COULD BE, then you would NOT have to write all of that what you just did here.
He was mocking what you are incidentally doing by feeding it back at you. If you can't assume 'anything' as you can't overcome with concern, his questions justify HOW you are coming across. IF you are adamant on being so absolute on assumptions, then you'd have to question everything to show that your own approach is doomed to fail.

I opened a thread for your concern on 'assumptions' called, On Denoting and Assuming.... There you can take on this issue without interfering in the general process of different topics. It is its own topic and might be more fruitful to separate this issue. You are appropriate to think this as a 'beginner' but come across like a kid going through his "Terrible Twos" where they always ask 'why' of every little thing. I'm not calling you a child but saying that you are relatively a 'newbie' with respect to philosophical etiquette on this topic when you bring it up in this or other threads that bog down the general communication. So I hope that thread can at least permit you to delve more into it with sincerity.

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed May 01, 2019 3:30 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
LOGICAL PROOF that Space MUST expand

I am at one precise place in space.

There is a space in front of me to which is at ANY sized distance.

I want to MOVE into that space. This means to "displace" the volume of space I was IN to get to another volume of space.

Either I JUMP to that new space in zero measure of any time or it takes time for me to get there.
Are you standing on a material object like a planet earth, or are you just in space?

By the way do you BELIEVE that 'space expands', or ASSUME it is true?

This is a counter-argument by assuming that it either ISN'T known as true or indeterminate. It's not a formal one but can be put into one. The idea is to ask 'scientifically' by each of our own experience what it takes to take a step in any direction to some other different SPACE. It shows that if you exhaust all possibly imagined scenarios, we have to conclude that we cannot move if there were no such thing as space being constantly added (an 'expansion', that is).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
If I JUMP there instantaneously with no time, then I accelerated to any given distance without a need for time. So this option is out or I'd be able to be anywhere and everywhere at once.

For the next option, since time does exit,
Talk about being able to jump so that you are able to be anywhere and everywhere - How quickly did you just jump to the conclusion; 'since time DOES EXIST'?
This is a POSSIBILITY to test, not a conclusion. You either instantly GET to the place you are going (a 'jump') or you get there gradually. In math, this is called either 'discrete' or 'continuous'. In science, it is called 'quantum' or 'relative'. [Quanta means things are in whole number representations. Some might think of things as having a 'smallest' unit of space, for instance. If it is 'Relative' then there is no whole unit of space because you can start with any and there is always something 'relatively' greater or 'relatively' smaller no matter what size you begin with.

Age wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
this then allows me to get to the space ahead of me in some positive time greater than zero units. But this would have to be true of any positive distance no matter how small. Now if I began staying at the one spot for any duration, I am moving 0 distance/time before I begin moving to the new spot. To get to this different place would require I go from 0 to some X velocity greater than 0 in order to at least move. But in order to go from any non-speed to any positive one is 'acceleration'.

If I recall correctly you have already expressed a similar idea previously, correct?
Yes. I've done this in too many places I can't reference with ease of memory alone.

I'll separate the questions and answers since some of the others later may be nullified by earlier response. It is also easier to handle. So if I don't answer something later, ask me again. It might help if you hold off asking too many questions at once so that you don't need to repeat yourself. It is hard to cover all questions when I have other things I have to do in a given time.

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

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

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed May 01, 2019 4:13 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
However, since I am never not moving,
What do you mean by 'never not moving'?

Is this before or after 'acceleration' STARTED?

If this is 'after', then were you never not moving also 'before' acceleration started?
Good question. This I once asked but take for granted already knowing enough geometry and math. If you make a time-velocity graph, with time on the x-axis and velocity on the y-axis, changing velocity would be a curve and would mean something is accelerating. This can be a parabola shape in which the 'vertices' of its lowest point can exist at zero but the acceleration can be continuous from negative infinity to infinity. This takes understanding geometry and, helpful if you know mathematical Calculus.

But for your concern without the needed depth at this point, if you just presume it questionable and justified as 'impossible', then no movement is ever possible because you can ask this about changing acceleration (an acceleration of acceleration called a 'jerk') and an infinity of such changes of changes. Thus IF you are right to doubt some original acceleration, this holds true of acceleration of acceleration of acceleration of.....(times infinity). If this were true, then NO movement could exist at all.

What is true (but you may not require trusting it here) is that you cannot go from zero place to another by some constant velocity (zero being a constant one itself).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:12 am
I'd have to be moving in SOME direction, even if it is in tight little circles around some point. Moving in a circle is 'accelerating'. That is, I would have to be accelerating to remain in one spot.
WHY would you HAVE TO BE 'accelerating to remain in one spot'?

Is your definition of 'accelerating' here increasing in speed? Or, just moving?

'Acceleration' is some times used to define the increase of movement and not just the movement.
Again, appropriately good question but preferably needs mathematical Calculus to express and prove. But to give you an intuitive example, think of record player or disc. The record can spin because it is made up of things that don't actually spin on one exact point in space but makes circles. When you make the disc imaginarily so large, like that of a galaxy, the outer parts have to move very rapidly to keep up with those on the same radius closer to the center. But it can't because you can't have infinite speed. This argument is similar to trying to imagine, like our ancestors did, that the stars are what is moving around the Earth rather than that the Earth is spinning. IF the Earth wasn't spinning, then the stars further out would be going in gigantic large circles around us no matter how big. But if this were the case, there could be no MAXIMUM speed limit.

Does this suffice as an example? Points can spin in circles around a point that doesn't move, but it cannot be the center point an move without spinning. As such, either there is no such thing as a point where other things could circle around it or the point itself is spinning. If a zero-sized point were spinning, what possible speed could it be but infinite?

Another factor that you may not be aware of is that ANYTHING moving in circles OR spinning, has an acceleration that is directed perpendicular to any radius or line drawn through it. This requires some basic mechanical physics to demonstrate but again, you need some math, geometry, and an understanding of Newton's physics at least.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest