Expansion

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

Within our universe what looks like empty space is full of particles, fields, and energies. That, in some theories, is what defines the universe.

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.
Xris
Posts: 5963
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Expansion

Post by Xris »

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.
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

Xris, I agree completely but--- there is by that definition probably no such thing as empty space. If space is simply a metaphor for something that we can stick a ruler through that will work, up to a point. IF it's only that though we run into trouble with light and gravity.

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".
Wooden shoe
Posts: 1510
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Re: Expansion

Post by Wooden shoe »

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.

-- 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.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

The popular "Big Bang Theory" seems to require a beginning which would imply a size and an age for the universe.

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 :!:
Wooden shoe
Posts: 1510
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Re: Expansion

Post by Wooden shoe »

Mechsmith.

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
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Present awareness »

Expansion is everywhere. A seed expands into a tree. A baby expands into an adult and the universe expands into empty space.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

Yes, there is a problem with the words that we use. The BB Universe is necessarily limited. I prefer "Cosmos" which is all that is known or postulated. Then we can postulate a disordered void if necessary.

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 :roll:

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.
Wooden shoe
Posts: 1510
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Re: Expansion

Post by Wooden shoe »

Mechsmith.

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.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Present awareness »

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.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
Mechsmith
Posts: 210
Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm

Re: Expansion

Post by Mechsmith »

The Hubble "Deep Field" purports to show an age of fifteen billion years according to the American system. 15X10>9 vs.15X10>12 (British) The better our equipment the older the universe becomes. In my lifetime the Universe has picked up another seven billion years.(American)

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 :(
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Expansion

Post by Atreyu »

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.
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.

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 --
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.
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.

-- Updated July 15th, 2014, 3:36 am to add the following --
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.
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.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

Indeed the widening spatial separation between galaxies is entirely apparent and is completely explained by General Relativity. 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, and the true philosopher owes his allegiance to Occam economy and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. That which is unnecessary cannot be.

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
A Poster He or I
Posts: 1104
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander

Re: Expansion

Post by A Poster He or I »

Obvious Leo said,
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,
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.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Expansion

Post by Obvious Leo »

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.
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.

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
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021