Expansion
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
I am for now going to think of gravity as a wind that is always blowing toward mass. Lets look again at the Hubble "Deep Field" photos. Around z8 in the Hubble scheme of things.
I will use photons or boats as it works either way. Consider the path of observed light. at emission it will have a specific frequency. On it's path to us it will pass several stars, galaxies and hydrogen molecules. As it approaches the first galaxy it will be blue shifted as the "wind" adds energy since they are both going in the same direction. They are also adding speed but but that would mean time is fixed and nobody likes to do that
Well our little boat-photon misses that rock in the sky but the wind changes now the photon has to go upwind. That's not as easy. The light is now red shifted as it loses energy going up hill. Uh-O I am going to spend a lot more time and energy going uphill than I gained going down. You don't need the Harvard Tower Experiments to show this, Just ride a bicycle through the mountains or on a windy day
As you can see every time our photon approaches and consequently leaves a star-galaxy-atom the result will be that it will be red shifted some. The emitter doesn't have to move at all.
This is just what Hubble noted. Except that he attributed it to motion and any query I have made regards the gravitational shift as inconsequential. Except for the fact the farther away a light source is the more gravity fields it will encounter. Eventually it will not be inconsequential
Therefore this (Hubble Constant) does not show that the Universe is expanding. It simply shows a cyclist-photon loses more energy going up hill than it gains going down. When it's going "down" it's going with the flow. Going up it's bucking it. We have a similar problem with sailboats. When you are going downwind your forward speed is subtracted from the wind which is much easier nicer ride than upwind when your forward speed is added to the wind. Us sailers call that "apparent wind".
Do you think I am wrong in suspecting a conspiracy The Abrahamic Churchs need a Creator, Big Bangers need a Creation Event. Are the Illuminati controlling physics research Questions for a different thread. Happy thoughts, M.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Expansion
So, if I am understanding you correctly, your above argument can be applied to argue against the idea that the MBR is strong evidence in favor of big bang theory?Mechsmith wrote:Leo, I had my dream and I will probably mix up my metaphors, perhaps intentionally Also I will avoid the petty stuff just to save paper. Like the fact that even an observed emission frequency is dependent on the mass of the object that it is emitted from. The bigger the star the redder the light etc.
I am for now going to think of gravity as a wind that is always blowing toward mass. Lets look again at the Hubble "Deep Field" photos. Around z8 in the Hubble scheme of things.
I will use photons or boats as it works either way. Consider the path of observed light. at emission it will have a specific frequency. On it's path to us it will pass several stars, galaxies and hydrogen molecules. As it approaches the first galaxy it will be blue shifted as the "wind" adds energy since they are both going in the same direction. They are also adding speed but but that would mean time is fixed and nobody likes to do that
Well our little boat-photon misses that rock in the sky but the wind changes now the photon has to go upwind. That's not as easy. The light is now red shifted as it loses energy going up hill. Uh-O I am going to spend a lot more time and energy going uphill than I gained going down. You don't need the Harvard Tower Experiments to show this, Just ride a bicycle through the mountains or on a windy day
As you can see every time our photon approaches and consequently leaves a star-galaxy-atom the result will be that it will be red shifted some. The emitter doesn't have to move at all.
This is just what Hubble noted. Except that he attributed it to motion and any query I have made regards the gravitational shift as inconsequential. Except for the fact the farther away a light source is the more gravity fields it will encounter. Eventually it will not be inconsequential
Therefore this (Hubble Constant) does not show that the Universe is expanding. It simply shows a cyclist-photon loses more energy going up hill than it gains going down. When it's going "down" it's going with the flow. Going up it's bucking it. We have a similar problem with sailboats. When you are going downwind your forward speed is subtracted from the wind which is much easier nicer ride than upwind when your forward speed is added to the wind. Us sailers call that "apparent wind".
Do you think I am wrong in suspecting a conspiracy The Abrahamic Churchs need a Creator, Big Bangers need a Creation Event. Are the Illuminati controlling physics research Questions for a different thread. Happy thoughts, M.
I am asking because, as a fellow opponent of big bang theory, this is the most common argument I hear from pro big bangers, but I myself do not oppose the idea that galaxies are 'moving' apart. Actually, I think the more proper way to cognize it is to say that the 'matter/space' between them is growing, but at any rate my main motivation is to be able to argue against big bang theory more intelligently.
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
The "red shift" could be simply an indication that the light we see has traveled through one or more gravity fields. This effect looks the same as a "Doppler Effect" from our point of view. The Doppler effect is pretty real and verified by many State Police every day. It also works with everything that repeats itself periodically. Sound, light, ocean waves, radio, microwaves, and cosmic radiation. No real biggie, just mechanics, not exotics.
Another arguement advanced in favor of the BBT is known as "Olbers Paradox". This says basically that if the Universe was infinite and eternal the sky would have a star at every point and the Universe would be extremely hot. The CMBR actually shows that there is a star at every possible sight line. Only thing is the light has been red shifted to the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Second point as far as the temperature of the universe. When the temperature and density gets high enough energy is converted to matter. These conditions persist in "Black Holes" and this phenomen may also account for the behavior of "Quasars". The math has been done, hopefully, by the Big Bang theorists. This means that whenever you pack enough energies densely enough so that there is no motion it is converted into matter. This is simply a change of state and Einstein and Carl Sagan mentioned this characteristic. You can easily see how much energiy can be soaked up by simply reversing the equation E=Mc squared. When you change matter from one form to another, uranimum to lead for instance, you get quite a pop. It's probably enough to just to imagine the energies necessary to change energy into matter.
The nature of light means that our view of distant objects are "self selected" for red shift. The bigger an object the easier to see. The more massive the object the more it will red shift. This also skews our observations toward the "further away, the faster it moves hypothesis.
Now lets build a universe. All we have is an unlimited supply of hydrogen and heat. The only tool we have is gravity. (This was probably never true but it's probably enough to do the job) Lets pack it together until the electrons can't move Bingo, at this point we enter the world of Quantum Mechanics. Once this happens matter begins to act pretty wierdly. Uh-O we've just lost gravity and probably quite a few other properties of matter also. Without gravity we have no field with out the field we have no time. (I don't know this, but the absence of a field is necessary to make the BB theory work. I suspect that it is a fair representation.) Any way in order to get an Expansion faster than light which is theorized by the BBers you can't have a gravity field. Now that gravity is gone which was holding the stuff together the whole ball of wax blows up. Matter begins to condense out. Gravity jump starts Time and here we are.
Other difficulties with BB and a finite universe. We need some heavy metals to kick around. Theoretically (Carl Sagan again) a star the size of our sun cannot make any element heavier than iron. So if we don't have a BB we have to build some stars much bigger than ours, blow them up and collect the metal. This will take some time. If you can collect the hydrogen, pack it in, scatter it throughout the universe, pick it back up and then use it to build a universe and do all this in twice the time that our sun has been around, well then you have a better crew than I have ever been able to hire.
Sum up, A fifteen billion year old universe is simply not old enough to account for observations. A fifteen billion year old universe could not be big enough to account for the CMBR. A galaxy is probably big enough to account for the metal formation problem, but I don't know enough to show this. Since the Hubble Constant and the CMBR have been observed we can surmise or predict that there are also radio wave lengths forming another "background". But due to the nature of EMR we may never be able to see them. The lower the frequencies the less information they can transmit. Thats why we use "fiber optics" nowadays.
A good book for us amatures, "The Big Bang Never Happened" . The Harvard Tower Experiments. The Hubble "Deep Field Observations. They are on the web and quite understandable. Similar to the Bible. The quarrel is not with the observations, just the conclusions.
- Luisgmarquez1985
- Posts: 79
- Joined: October 20th, 2013, 12:14 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Baruch Spinoza
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: Expansion
Nameless1995 wrote:If the universe is finite then beyond the universe there must be nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you imagine absolute nothing? Yes by not imagining at all. Imagine nothing = not imagining. Now if there is absolute nothing outside universe, then how can the universe expand? Where is it getting the free space to expand?
Could it be that instead of suggesting that your knowledge is limited, could it be that reality itself is limited? It is not because quantum physics as reached the limits of human potential, rather that we have reached the limits of reality itself?
to answer your question, this nothing beyond our universe is not a result of our limited ability to know it, but that this 'nothing' is the limit of reality itself. we cannot know what is beyond nothing because of this incompleteness of reality. Life then is not complete, it is still as it were, a work in progress?
"To understand is to be free" - Baruch Spinoza
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Expansion
If total mass is growing, the entire theory falls apart. Then, as one extrapolates back in time, one must reduce the total mass and total number of stars of each galaxy as they move closer together, and continuing this idea to its extreme gives us zero mass, and zero 'matter' (as we know it, define it, and exhibiting the characteristic of mass) once we arrive at the theoretical geometric point. No 'big bang' is needed because average density is roughly the same as now. It was more like a 'Sudden Growth' of matter/space/mass/energy, until we see what we have today, rather than a 'Big Bang' of fixed matter/space/mass/energy, until we see what we have today.
The remnants of a Great Explosion is not the best way to explain the increasing distance between galaxies, particularly now that we know that the velocity of this 'expansion' is occurring at an increasing rate. This observation does not square with the results of any 'Great Explosion'. The better way to explain it is to say that the galaxies appear to be moving apart at an increasing rate because the Universe is growing at an increasing rate. The reason for the 'expansion' is not because of any explosion and residual velocity (which should be decreasing). It's because if matter (as a concept, a 'general principle') is growing at an increasing rate then it is a law that we would observe visible 'empty space' between the galaxies as increasing at an ever increasing rate.
You cannot cognitively separate the ideas of matter/space any more than you can the ideas of motion/time. We have a cognition of 'space' because we have a cognition of 'matter'. Matter must have form and shape in order for us to cognize it, and that implies the idea of a 'container' or 'volume' or 'space'. We could not cognize 'matter' without cognizing 'space', and we cannot directly perceive material objects without also directly perceiving an empty space between them. So if all matter as a general principle is growing, then so will all space as a general principle, 'apparent total volume'. If the space between the galaxies didn't increase at the same rate as their respective growth in size, then eventually all the galaxies would grow into each other, and we could theorize total average density increasing as everything 'grows together' until we have the same conditions theorized to exist before the Big Bang.
But this cannot be so because there are no real vacuums in the Universe. Any cognition of any 'space' anywhere in the Universe is only apparent space, there is some kind of 'matter' present everywhere, even if we cannot observe it as having the properties of such in any way. You can only differentiate between the objects in your room because the density of the air in the room is low enough that the matter of the air does not block your vision of the more dense matter which exists around it, which you perceive as solid objects. As not empty space. If the air of the room becomes so dense that you now perceive it as an object, as 'matter', then you will no longer be able to differentiate between the objects in your room. You will only perceive one big amorphous 'blob'.
So if the galaxies are growing, if one is eventually becoming a cluster of galaxies, then all the matter between them, which is too diffuse for us to perceive as matter, is also growing, and their respective 'containers', their respective 'spaces', must also be growing at a parallel rate. Just like it's matter/energy and not just 'matter', so also is it matter/space and not just 'matter'.
And the reason all of the above is an effective argument is because there is evidence building to support the idea that all the planets and moons of our solar system are growing (mass and volume), which science is having to put forth more and more effort to ignore and casually dismiss. If the assumption that total mass is fixed cannot be relied on, then BBT is obliterated, and more and more evidence is showing that that is exactly the case.
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
If the pair bonding is taking place it would be possibly be another reason to understand why the infinite universe is not overheating.
I am only pointing out that for rather obvious reasons the universe is probably not expanding in any way measured by a ruler and where the flaws in our observations are coming from.
There is presumeably no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but there is a pretty good one for those who can imagine the beginnings or endings of a universe
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Expansion
Here's evidence that growth is not simply a matter of accretion.Mechsmith wrote:Perhaps all the mass in the universe is growing or converting to matter but I suspect that only the massive bodies in the universe are growing simply as the results of accreation. This would not effect the total amount of mass but only its form.
If the pair bonding is taking place it would be possibly be another reason to understand why the infinite universe is not overheating.
I am only pointing out that for rather obvious reasons the universe is probably not expanding in any way measured by a ruler and where the flaws in our observations are coming from.
There is presumeably no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but there is a pretty good one for those who can imagine the beginnings or endings of a universe
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
We are not quite on the same page. The videos are both convincing and logical but IMO are noting a different phenomonen. There are several
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Expansion
Nameless1995 wrote:If the universe is finite then beyond the universe there must be nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you imagine absolute nothing? Yes by not imagining at all. Imagine nothing = not imagining. Now if there is absolute nothing outside universe, then how can the universe expand? Where is it getting the free space to expand?
Absolutely nothing is exactly what free space is.
-
- Posts: 116
- Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 2:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Yogi Berra
- Location: Massachusetts, USA
Re: Expansion
Imagine a tank of carbon dioxide gas, at room temp., and at 1 atm pressure. Accepted thermodynamic theory says that, under these conditions, the molecules of CO2 have an average velocity V, related to the temp., T. These molecules are constantly colliding with each other and with the molecules of the tank wall.
WHAT IS IT that's in between these molecules as they fly around in the tank?
Now, consider a CO2 molecule. It consists of 3 atomic nuclei and the cloud of electrons that surround them. The wave/particle duality axiom allows us to assign a probability density function to describe the position of EACH ELECTRON IN THIS CLOUD. This is congruent with the nature of electrons as particles. So .....
WHAT IS IT that's in between the electrons in the cloud?
Now, consider an Oxygen nucleus in one of the CO2 atoms. It consists of protons and neutrons, whose "locations" can again be described by a probability density function, and who are bound together by the strong nuclear force.
WHAT IS IT that's in between the protons and neutrons?
Now consider a proton. It consists of 3 quarks, again whose "locations" can be described by a probability density function, and who are bound together (I think) by the weak nuclear force.
WHAT IS IT that's in between the quarks?
The progression above can be extended further down along the diminishing-length scale, but we can stop here. IF we consider the molecules, atoms and protons ONLY as probabilistic wave functions, the answer to the three WHAT IS IT questions is "Nothing". Everything "touches" everything else, because the probability density functions never go to zero. Now, here's where, IMHO, the Philosophy of Science comes in. I take the position that the particle nature of the molecules, atoms, protons and quarks IS REAL. So my WHAT IS IT questions stand.
Is the "WHAT IS IT" stuff (or non-stuff) in the above examples the same as the stuff (or non-stuff) between planets, stars and galaxies?
Have at it, my friends.....
'
-
- Posts: 210
- Joined: October 27th, 2013, 5:09 pm
Re: Expansion
Since water molecules tend to attract one another under the conditions that form raindrops I suspect that the WHAT IS tends to attract itself to itself which may result in the effect that we call gravity. This could, and perhaps we will, be developed as part of the Theory Of Everything.
PIE IN THE SKY thoughts. If space is a field then the collapse of the field caused by subatomic motion then the field of WHAT IS moves in to replace the collapsed (and now gone?) portion of the field.
I'd like to develope this further but my thinker isn't werkin good now. Keep it up I'll be back. M.
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Expansion
Although space may appear to expand, it is just an illusion, because that which is not there is infinite and something infinite may not expand. How could something which is not there expand, when it's not there in the first place?
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Expansion
Nameless1995 wrote:If the universe is finite then beyond the universe there must be nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you imagine absolute nothing? Yes by not imagining at all. Imagine nothing = not imagining. Now if there is absolute nothing outside universe, then how can the universe expand? Where is it getting the free space to expand?
Yes, conceptually speaking, that is exactly what it is. But for our direct perception what is it in practice?Absolutely nothing is exactly what free space is.
It is merely matter which is too 'fine' to be seen or perhaps even ascertained by any known method. I say 'fine' rather than 'diffuse' because this idea applies to the 'atomic' level, not to 'molecules'. In practice both the idea of 'absolute Nothing' and 'empty space' only exist conceptually. In reality, we never find either one. The Universe merely expands and our cognitive apparatus creates the 'space' with it. As matter expands, so does space. 'Matter/space'. Just like 'matter/energy'. A necessary dualism, one cannot exist without the other.
No. The 'stuff' between stars and galaxies is some kind of 'matter' too 'fine' to be recognized as any 'matter' we already know and define ('dark matter'). But since we can't directly perceive things at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, there is no 'stuff' there at all. That 'empty space' only exists conceptually. It's not really there. It only exists because we can't conceptualize and differentiate between objects (at any scale) without cognizing some kind of 'space' inbetween them. Otherwise everything is one. Everything would be perceived as a big singularity and we couldn't have the conception of 'this and that' or even 'here and there'.Is the "WHAT IS IT" stuff (or non-stuff) in the above examples the same as the stuff (or non-stuff) between planets, stars and galaxies?
Have at it, my friends.....
This is simply how we cognize the Universe, as I elucidated above, not any real property of the Universe itself. The truth is that there is only one 'thing' that exists in the Universe --- Everything. 'Nothing' is merely a conception and has no meaning in the real world of direct experience. We cognize it in order to make sense of our world, and we perceive it merely because we can't perceive all the matter that actually exists, only matter with 'coarse' enough 'atoms'. If you have two things that are there, then the space between them is that which is there, but beyond our capacity to perceive as 'matter' or 'stuff' (otherwise we couldn't recognize the two objects in the first place); and if one is merely 'imagining' two things existing conceptually, then the space between them is that which we must cognize in order to be able to even visualize two objects existing independently in the first place.There are two fundamental things in the universe, that which is there and that which is not there. That which is not there, is the space in which that which is there, exists in. If you have two things that are there, then the space between them is that which is not there. Since that which is not there is infinite, that which is there may expand in any direction freely and the space between two things expanding, will also appear to expand.
Although space may appear to expand, it is just an illusion, because that which is not there is infinite and something infinite may not expand. How could something which is not there expand, when it's not there in the first place?
The reason why space appears to expand is because that is the only way we could either cognize or directly perceive matter expanding. To perceive/cognize 'matter' we have to create a 'container' for it, and also 'empty space' amongst it in order for anything to make sense to us. So the Universe does not expand into 'Nothing' or 'empty space'. It merely expands as we imagine it 'reaching out' into Nothingness or empty space. In reality, there is nothing present for it to 'go' into, and the dilemma only exists because we have no other method of cognizing 'matter'.
I know that is basically what you said, but you seem to be giving this 'Nothing' or 'empty space' some kind of real ('infinite') existence, when really it has none whatsoever.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Expansion
This is not quite right, Atreyu. We have a pretty good gasp on what SPACE is because we can create a vacuum inside a jar in a laboratory. Now, I'm aware that such a vacuum can only be partial, but it is sufficient for us to KNOW what "nothing" (SPACE) looks like. The old fashioned electronic component called a "vacuum tube" was one of our best examples of an empty space with somewhere between 1 million to 1 billion molecules/cm3, but apparently intergalactic space wins the day with 1 molecule/cm3.Atreyu wrote:... 'empty space' only exists conceptually. It's not really there. It only exists because we can't conceptualize and differentiate between objects (at any scale) without cognizing some kind of 'space' inbetween them.
An appeal to Occam's Razor is sufficient at this point in time to dismiss the idea that celestial bodies are swimming in a sea of infinitesimally small particles rather than just a vacuum, since it serves no practical purpose to assume it. It is also clear that vacuums do exist, and better vacuums are simply a matter of arriving at better means of evacuating a THREE DIMENSIONAL REGION we call a SPACE.
Cheers,
enegue
- Present awareness
- Posts: 1389
- Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm
Re: Expansion
Empty space, could be said to be non existent, simply because it isn't there. If something is not there, at what point does it stop, not being there? This is why I refer to it as being infinitely not there. It my seem pointless to talk about something which does not exist, but that which does not exist, gives context to that which does.I know that is basically what you said, but you seem to be giving this 'Nothing' or 'empty space' some kind of real ('infinite') existence, when really it has none whatsoever.
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