Expansion
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
The field of gravity is an obvious one, as is light. The others could be "Dark Matter" Quantum particles etc. are not quite as obvious.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: Expansion
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
Is there space between the Earth and the Moon? Yes, it's measureable. No, it's filled with waves, light, and fields of various sorts which includes the denser areas that we call matter.
IF there exists a cubic volume that has none of those attributes then we can call it a void. However I suspect this void exists only in imaginations. It certainly cannot exist within the conglomeration that we define as "Universe".
However my interest is in showing that the evidence showing the "Expansion of the Universe" is based on an error in the attributions of the "red shift". It is simply the way light behaves in the field that we call the Universe. A mirage is simply the way light reflects when it encounters some atmospheric conditions. A rainbow is simply the way light refracts when it encounters a fog of water droplets. A visable spectrum from a prism is only the way different sizes of waves bend in a prismatic field.
A "Doppler Effect" probably is not the exclusive property of our traffic patrols. A rainbow is probably not Gods promise of no more floods. The "red shift" is probably not an indication of "Expansion".
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
- Location: Dryden ON Canada
Re: Expansion
Regards, John.
-- Updated Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:21 pm to add the following --
What tells us that the universe is finite? I have not seen any clarity on whether it is finite or simply unknown. Many speak of the universe expanding, however this speaks to the observable parts but not to the invisible.
Regards, John.
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
It's popular as it postulates a "Beginning" that the Abrahamic religions can live with. (Let there be light). A size that the mechanically minded can live with. No larger than the results of an expansion is possible, and this implies a "void" mentioned in the Old Testament.
That is where the "Finite Universe Theory" comes from.
Things on the Web you may wish to look at. No links, just google them if you are interested.
"The Big Bang Never Happened"; "The Harvard Tower Experiments"; The Hubble "Deep Field" observations; The CMBR probes, (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) Then make up your own mind
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
- Location: Dryden ON Canada
Re: Expansion
The problem I have is how posters use the word universe. It seems to me that their use of the word describes all that can be observed, while I believe it means that, plus what can not be observed.
If the BB is the proper theory, there does not have to be a limit to the space in which it happened.
Regards, John
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Expansion
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
Thence a BB Universe by definition is limited. A Cosmos could include all the "ordered universe" and the chaotic void.
Carl Sagan preferred "cosmos". So do I but the semantics seem hard to get across.
SO IF the BB happened the Universe is finite and mortal and defined by order. The Cosmos can include anything up to or past those limits. If the BB never happened then the Universe may be infinite and eternal and chaotic portions may be contained within it.
-- Updated July 13th, 2014, 10:54 pm to add the following --
PA, The evidence for "Expansion" is seriously flawed. The pages that I just mentioned in post #80 will give you a quick overview of some competing ideas.
The "red shift" only shows that light waves travel the same as other massive objects in gravity fields. The mass changes with speeds which are all relative. We have known that since 1915 with Eddingtons trip to South Africa to view the changes in apparent star positions when the path of starlight came near the sun. There have been better observations since
The CMBR is simply light from further objects "red shifted" to the microwave portion of the Electromagnetic spectrum.
The CMBR is an answer to Olbers Paradox. Olbers Paradox was used to show that the Universe could not be infinite. However observations show light at every point of observation. A star at every sight line is a characteristic of infinity. If we could go to even longer wavelengths the background radiation would probably be even more uniform.
P.S. Earlier (some weeks ago) you asked if the discovery of polorized light at the "edge" of the observed universe changed our minds. I have lost the article but those observations have already been seriously discounted. At least somebody in the scientific community is awake If I can find the article again I'll let you know. M.
-
- Posts: 1510
- Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
- Location: Dryden ON Canada
Re: Expansion
According to my Oxford the word universe and cosmos have exactly the same meaning.
I am aware of the redshift controversy.
Cosmology is still in its infancy, so to take anything as gospel is premature in my opinion. We are almost in the same boat as the ancients, who believed God did it.
Regards, John.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Expansion
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
As I see it the description of "universe" implies ordered. "Cosmos can include "chaotic". I think that this is why some theorists regard "Black Holes" as a portal to another "Universe". Mechanically it doesn't seem to work as the laws of quantum mechanics preclude getting much out of them. Too Chaotic Best, M
P.S. It's not only the ancients that think God did it
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Expansion
I agree that the more superior model is one with no beginning and no end. However, I believe that your view of how the Universe is 'expanding' is quite false. It isn't expanding into 'empty space' because there is no such thing. It's growing in terms of both matter and space, because the two always go hand in hand as far as our perceptive and cognitive apparatus is concerned. 'Space' is merely how we perceive matter. We can't perceive matter without space to contain in it. As new matter grows new space will always apparently grow along with it. And this in fact is what is happening. The galaxies are not merely moving away from each other. They are growing themselves as the space between them also apparently grows. As the galaxies move apart each galaxy eventually becomes a cluster of many galaxies.Present awareness wrote:The suggestion that the universe has a beginning is seriously flawed. In my view, it was always here. The very small potion of the universe that we are able to perceive, has been expanding for 13.8 billion years, out into empty space. If what we perceive is only 1% of what is actually out there, it would give an indication of how vast the universe really is, however, I believe the universe to be infinite, meaning it is endless, so no matter his much we perceive, it will only be relative to a limitless expanse.
The problem with bb theory and the current model is that it's assumed that only apparent space is increasing because fixed matter is moving away from itself. But the truth is that this would not be possible unless new matter was being created (pair production?) because space is always tied to matter (space/matter) and so the growth of one implies the growth of the other.
-- Updated July 15th, 2014, 3:18 am to add the following --
Quite right. Empty space and vacuums only exist in concept. That is why galaxies moving apart implies a growth of matter. It's not seen, nor even definable, it may not be matter as we know it. It may not even be what science calls 'dark matter'. But whatever it is, it is increasing, because the corresponding 'empty space' (which is how we 'perceive' it) is apparently increasing.Mechsmith wrote:Within our universe what looks like empty space is full of particles, fields, and energies. That, in some theories, is what defines the universe.
-- Updated July 15th, 2014, 3:36 am to add the following --
This is quite false. Space also includes the objects of mass themselves. You are merely talking about apparent 'empty space'. Space also houses the objects of mass. It is their 'container'. It is not a measurement of distance. It enables us to have a measure of distance. Without it, there would be no 'here or there', no 'left or right', nor any 'up or down'. Everything would be a singularity, and in fact it would be impossible to cognize or differentiate between any objects, or to even have a concept of a 'thing' or an 'object' without it. Its value is that it is the only way we can cognize 'matter' or 'stuff' in the first place. That is why I like to use the term 'matter/space', just as others use the term 'matter/energy'. Both expressions signify that the duality is only subjective and apparent to the perceiver.Xris wrote:Space is only a distance between objects of mass. It has no value other than a measurement of distance. It consists of nothing of value. I can not emphasise this point any clearer. There is no such thing as infinity in a measurable sense because you have to relate it to distance between points of reference. There is no beyond, no effects or understanding of the universe till this simple fact is accepted.
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Expansion
Those who still pine for the god hypothesis might also reflect on the Principle of Sufficient Reason because a spaceless universe has no beginning and it goes without saying that a universe with no beginning has no need of an external causal agent. The Necessary Being is no longer necessary.
Regards Leo
-
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
Re: Expansion
As far as I know, the relationship between gravitational strength and the speed of time's flow is entirely an extrapolation from General Relativity, and has been empirically proven (using acceleration instead of gravity which is allowed by GR's principle of equivalence). If I am right that only GR predicts this, then the speed of time's flow is actually in relation to the degree of curvature of local space-time. But you are saying space is illusory and that we have "spatialized" time. If space is illusory, doesn't that pretty much gut GR as a theory? In which case time dilation in a gravity well has no other theoretical explanation I'm aware of. Please clarify where I am wrong or where I have misunderstood your post.If we allow that the heretic Aussie might be right and that space exists solely in the consciousness of the observer, then the apparent expansion of the universe is entirely due to our spatialisation of time. We know that time is physical because it bears a precise inverse logarithmic relationship to gravity. This means that time passes more quickly between galaxies than it does within them for the simple reason that the gravitational field is weaker in the intergalactic wilderness than it is within the gravitationally bound galaxies. This is a completely uncontroversial proposition, and in strict accordance with GR, but it has significant consequences for the observer, the most misunderstood bloke in the history of physics. It means that the light from the observed galaxy will be red-shifted because it is moving away from the observer in time as time passes more quickly between them. Furthermore this recession will appear to accelerate, because as the strength of the gravitational field weakens between the observer and his observation then time will correspondingly pass more quickly. The 3 dimensional space is therefore entirely illusory because it is unnecessary to explain the observation,
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: Expansion
You are absolutely right that only GR predicts this but your form of language is not consistent with the prevailing paradigms in physics. "The speed of time's flow" is not a valid construct in physics because of SR, where the past, present and future are placed on an equal metaphysical footing and time does not "flow". Furthermore, since SR represents time as a dimension orthogonal to the three dimensions of space then time must have the same characteristics as the other three co-ordinates which are bi-directional. Thus the equations of physics are time invariant despite the fact that time is transparently uni-directional. In other words the time invariance of GR is based on a foundational assumption in SR and simply carried forward into the different relativity model. From this the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime is derived and the action-at-a-distance assumptions are extrapolated.A Poster He or I wrote:. If I am right that only GR predicts this, then the speed of time's flow is actually in relation to the degree of curvature of local space-time.
Unfortunately sometimes the most profound discoveries in science are perversely made in the wrong order and I often wonder how physics might have evolved if GR had been formulated before SR. The Minkowski paradigm would never have got off the ground because it would have been impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. The speed of time's flow would have been accepted a priori as a valid construct and thus time could have been quantised equivalently with gravity, with which it bears a precise inverse and logarithmic relationship. Time and Gravity would have been unified as two different expressions of the same thing, just as matter and energy were unified by SR. Space would have been seen for what it is, a construct of the consciousness of the observer with no ontological status. In this respect Einstein was absolutely correct because space and time cannot both be physically real, but sadly he was reluctantly persuaded by Minkowski to nail his colours to the wrong mast. He paid a heavy price for this error and was haunted for the rest of his life by dice-playing gods, spooky non-mechanical actions, and cats both dead and alive simultaneously. At least he had the balls to say that spacetime must never be regarded as physically real, but unfortunately those who followed in his footsteps lacked his moral courage.
Rather than rehash the entire argument I'll give you a simple example of what a coherent explanation looks like in a spaceless paradigm of reality. My example of the observed expansion of the universe may be inaccessible to many but even a player with only a passing knowledge of physics will understand how it works in the case of gravitational lensing, the so-called incontrovertible proof of the curved space.
In a spaceless universe the speed of light is equated with the speed of emerging time which is the speed at which reality comes into existence. This makes the speed of light the most inconstant speed in the universe because the speed of emerging time is entirely determined by the strength of the gravitational field, all the way down to the quantum level. The stronger the gravity, the slower the time passes and thus light slows down accordingly, since obviously light can't travel faster than time. In its own inertial frame it will always be measured as a constant of course, because the clock used for the measurement slows down along with everything else. All of the emerging reality slows down to the speed of emerging time, so the clock still ticks at 1 sec/sec, but a second in a black hole is not the same time interval as a second in intergalactic "space", a fact well known to science. You could say that light still travels at c in a black hole, AS MEASURED LOCALLY, but this speed has no meaning outside of its own inertial frame. To a non-local observer the light has slowed down.
Now consider a light source from a distant stellar object which must traverse an intervening galaxy between the observer and his observation. We know that galaxies are gravitationally bound and that therefore time passes more slowly within them than it does between them. As the beam of light hurtles towards the observer at c it is continuously speeding up and slowing down in the observer's inertial frame because the gravitational field is variable all the way down to the quantum level. In the intergalactic wilderness these variations in speed will be minuscule, because the fluctuations in the gravitational field will be minuscule, but when the beam of light encounters the gravitationally bound galaxy it will be slowed down more significantly because the speed of emerging time is being determined by the mass of the galaxy. In the spacetime paradigm we are taught to say that the beam of light is following the curvature of spacetime, an action-at-a distance conclusion which lends itself to no mechanical explanation. In a spaceless model we simply say that the beam of light is slowed down by the intervening galaxy simply because the speed of emerging time has slowed down. In his own remote inertial frame the observer observes this phenomenon as bent light. Bearing in mind that it takes a beam of light a hundred thousand years to traverse a galaxy the size of the Milky Way we can see that it wouldn't need to slow down a hell of a lot for this "bending" effect to be apparent.
This explanation is entirely mechanical and does not require us to attribute physical properties to a non-physical space. Wave/particle duality, "quantum" entanglement and "expanding space" are all reducible to common-sense explanations like this when the role of the observer is taken into consideration, because what the observer does is that he spatialises time in order to comprehend his observation. Both of the relativity models and also quantum mechanics do exactly the same thing because Minkowski's representation of time as a spatial dimension forces it. To "collapse a wave function" means "to spatialise time". It doesn't affect these models as far as their predictive power is concerned because they are modelled to predict what the observer will observe, which in this paradigm is obviously a hologram. Our perception of space is entirely illusory and the true continuum is not a four-dimensional one of space and time but rather a two dimensional one of time and gravity. This is quantum gravity.
Regards Leo
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023