Question Edgeless universe?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Dec 19, 2019
27
4
35
Hypothesizing as to whether there is an edge to the universe is like suggesting there is a center to the universe. It speculates that the universe is some sort of contained volume of evolutionary activity rather than as a dimensional perspective in which reality plays out. You either go along with the concept of an isotropic and homogeneous universe, wherein there is no center or edges, or you don’t. If you go along with the concept, then the notion of infinity provides the description that best describes its infinite nature: limitless, boundless, and endless in spacetime; wherein extent or size is impossible to measure or calculate.

The closest scientists have come to in a discussion which may represent a more limited universe is the debate over cosmological multipole patterns, as presented - "In fact, that pattern can be fitted to a quadrupole alignment with a much higher probability than chance; suggesting that the early universe as a whole could have been spinning like a giant galaxy." A previous article noted that scientists had detected a massive rotating galaxy-like disk from the early forming universe. Almost provides for a sense of logic to the hypothesis of 'Selfish Biocosm'. Ever since Newton, scientists have tried to understand existence by discovering its underlying rules. The result of this hypothesis has been a massive edifice of natural law, and biology has been seen as a consequence of the universe’s construction, rather than an instigator. Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion describes the behavior of a massive body at rest or in uniform linear motion, i.e., not accelerating or rotating. The First Law states, "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." Back then, most people believed that the natural state of a body was to be at rest.

But what if the cosmos was always spinning or rotating upon its very conception? This property of massive bodies to resist changes in their state of motion is called inertia, and this leads to the concept of inertial reference frames. An inertial reference frame can be described as a 3-dimensional coordinate system that is neither accelerating nor rotating; however, it may be in uniform linear motion with respect to some other inertial reference frame. Newton showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion. In modern physics, the laws of conservation of momentum, energy, and angular momentum are of more general validity than Newton's laws, since they apply to both light and matter, and to both classical and non-classical physics. This can be stated simply, "Momentum, energy and angular momentum cannot be created or destroyed."

In the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', the author implies of motion that the forced distortion of spacetime interacts with mass in a way that is reflective of his modeling of existence in the pre-proposed model of immersive liquid inversion. While the author was actually working to derive the forces required for the evolution of mass densities, he also tripped upon the notion of the evolutionary creation of the elements. The evolutionary creation of the elements is comparable to the evolutionary development of cell division in that both are dependent on the purpose of direction in the form of electromagnetic and/or gravitational poles.

Considering a directional attitudinizing upon the creation of the universe suggests that evolutionary existence itself, whether elemental or biological, relies on motion. Motion requires changes over time. The concept of motion requires a dimensional framework of convergence for the fabric of spacetime; in which case there must have been an unpopulated spacetime fabric that preceded the notion of creation. It has always been my premise that dark energy, being the largest distribution of total energy, represents the foundation for space-time and provides for a net zero inclusion of matter as a whole, then it starts as 100% of the total energy. Considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant. Then start unfolding this dimensional perspective so space-time fabric into existence; first into a two dimensional space-time fabric, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric and so on. The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing medium of space-time; that pre-existing medium which is responsible for our expanding universe: dark energy. Indeed, the existence of matter would only warp the pre-existing fabric of space-time. Take away the positive density matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. It would only be logical for this vessel to be one of dark matter, as dark matter would be unaffected by the force of dark energy.

The only problem with such a discussion is that it appears this interpretation of the data presents more questions than answers. If the universe was once spinning, then we need to explain how it continues to influence mass spin when the universe is no longer spinning. We would also need to explain the event that forced the universe to stop spinning, because without such an event the first law of motion implies that it should still be spinning, or rotating. And if it is still rotating, then why is there not a center to this rotating universe?

Scientists from University College London and Imperial College London have put this assumption through its most stringent test yet and found only a 1 in 121,000 chance that the universe is not the same in all directions. This study considered the widest possible range of universes with preferred directions or spins and determined what patterns these would create in the CMB. The results, published in the journal Physical Review Letters in 2016, show that no patterns were a match, and that the universe is most likely directionless, stating "We have put this assumption to its most exacting examination yet, testing for a huge variety of spinning and stretching universes that have never been considered before. When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions. If this assumption is wrong, and our universe spins or stretches in one direction more than another, we'd have to rethink our basic picture of the universe."

So there are still problems with how this all would fit into the current view of our evolutionary universe.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Pardon my asking, but in the following:
"In the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation: Volume 2', the author implies of motion that the forced distortion of spacetime interacts with mass in a way that is reflective of his modeling of existence in the pre-proposed model of immersive liquid inversion."
. . . . . . . . . are we to understand that the author referred to has, very coincidentally,the same name as the poster?
If so, would he consider that such a long post might influence people to buy said book?
And, please, just how many volumes are there?
Finally, I must congratulate the author on his adoption of such a flavourful style of exegesis.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,440
3,560
It has always been my premise that dark energy, being the largest distribution of total energy, represents the foundation for space-time and provides for a net zero inclusion of matter as a whole, then it starts as 100% of the total energy.
Perhaps, especially given the expansive power of DE, though we seem to know nothing about it other than that, or do we now know more?

Considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant. Then start unfolding this dimensional perspective so space-time fabric into existence; first into a two dimensional space-time fabric, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time fabric and so on.
Interesting, but how would you test that?

It's interesting to me that BBT came to us out of GR (General Relativity) thanks to Einstein, who gave us time as a 4th dimension.

The expectation is that ordinary matter creation took place within a pre-existing medium of space-time;
Is this from the standard model where, due to expansion, energy condensed to quarks then later atoms formed, or did you have something else in mind?

Indeed, the existence of matter would only warp the pre-existing fabric of space-time.
But homogeneity would warp it evenly, or are you talking about the small anisotropic regions?

Take away the positive density matter and you would still have a vessel in which the matter once existed. It would only be logical for this vessel to be one of dark matter, as dark matter would be unaffected by the force of dark energy.
Why wouldn't a very quick collapse be inevitable without DE?

Scientists from University College London and Imperial College London have put this assumption through its most stringent test yet and found only a 1 in 121,000 chance that the universe is not the same in all directions.

This study considered the widest possible range of universes with preferred directions or spins and determined what patterns these would create in the CMB. The results, published in the journal Physical Review Letters in 2016, show that no patterns were a match, and that the universe is most likely directionless, stating "We have put this assumption to its most exacting examination yet, testing for a huge variety of spinning and stretching universes that have never been considered before. When we compare these predictions to the Planck satellite's latest measurements, we find overwhelming evidence that the universe is the same in all directions. If this assumption is wrong, and our universe spins or stretches in one direction more than another, we'd have to rethink our basic picture of the universe."
Given our sample size is just one universe, the math, even if elegant, is unlikely to produce a scientific theory to how they form beginning with a time frame less than one Planck unit, IMO. Both the isotropy and the tiny anisotropy are requirements for any model. Spin, in my limited mind, is not isotropic since those at the poles have different experiences than those at the equator. But if a spin math model helps get us there, then it's certainly worth noting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
As I have already posted, how do you define the edge of the Universe? how do you know when you have arrived there? If it were to be on a planet orbiting a star, what when the planet were to be on the 'nearside'? IMHO this whole subject is fraught with the sort of (deleted)(deleted)(deleted) might occupy their minds with. Of course, this applies to nobody here. :)

If you want something serious to think about I have already suggested a flatlander analogy where the surface (i.e., their universe) expands whilst a 'superperson' in the next higher dimension can see an expansion perpendicular to the surface in a dimension not recognizable by the flatlander. I will go and see if this summary can be added to any further repetitions of this sort.

Please, someone somewhere, stop that from being necessary!
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Good. Seems we have finally removed opposition to The edgeless Universe! . . . . . . . . . hopefully also anyone trying to promote their own books here (even in what some might say is not a very eloquent manner)?
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
David-J-Franks said:

An infinite universe would be everything, there would be no empty space left, so how could it still be expanding:)

Please see above. The flatlander analogy is a good way to understand a higher dimension.
Consider a flatlander living on a sphere. The surface of the sphere is the Universe of that being. Inside or outside the sphere is meaningless.
If the sphere expands, the surface area of the sphere expands I.e., the Universe of the flatlander expands.

Now consider the view of the "next being up" from the flatlander. That means us, as we perceive 3 dimensions plus a time dimension.
We see that as the flatlander's surface (= Universe) expands, not only does the surface expand, but also the radius expands. Thus the expansion of the Universe is perceived as n dimensional, and without an edge, but if it expands, it will also expand in the (n + 1) dimension, not perceived by the n dimensional being. Thus the flatlander's Universe does expand into something, but that something is not perceivable by the flatlander.
Ergo, by extension, it is meaningless to ask what the Universe expands into.

Anyone want to point out errors in that analogy and conclusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Frost
An interesting riddle is the furthest galaxy we can see is 32 billion ly away. Our universe is 16 b y old so how can something be 32 b ly and we can see it? Riddle answer, another universe edge light traveling 32 b ly. Sure answers a few mysteries about time/space and the reality of our universe being just 1 universe
 
Dec 19, 2019
27
4
35
Hypothesizing as to whether there is an edge to the universe in which to expand is like suggesting there is a center to the universe based on the initial Big Bang. It speculates that the universe is some sort of contained volume of evolutionary activity rather than as a dimensional perspective in which reality plays out. You either go along with the concept of an isotropic and homogeneous universe, wherein there is no center or edges, or you don’t.

Instead of considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant of pre-existence. So if the 'Big Bang' expansion theory rubs you the wrong way, try thinking of the proposed one dimensional singularity as the pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, rather than a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity [liken to a black hole]. Then start unfolding it into existence; first into two dimensional space-time, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time and so on. Therefore the universe is only expanding unto its furthered state of evolution.

Trying to measure the expanding nature of an evolutionary progression in the universe in terms of an increasing rate of expansion for our cosmos, does not do it justice. If you accept the idea that the observable universe is like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea, then you would realize that your calculations and measurements are limited to how you are able to observe the cosmos. Understanding that radiated signals, like light, can travel independent of its source, one can logical hypothesize that there is no way of knowing when the radiated signal entered into our field of observable view. The limit of our observable perspective has been identified as about 14 billion light years, give or take a few billion years, depending on the instrument used. But use of this measurement comes with its own temporal problems. While scientists tend to believe that they have accounted for this disparity, their confusion would suggest there is room for improvement.

When we receive the light of some deep space source, the light is analyzed as to its luminosity and redshift to calculate its comoving distance. There is also the curvature of space, similar to the curvature of our planet, that is taking into account; which is basically flat. Anyway this temporal accountability is likened to looking back in Time, because the light image is representative of a moving objective. Consider that the light image is projected from a temporal lens. When we view the light from an object calculated to be three billion light years away, the image projects a view of the object as it was three billion years ago. So knowing that temporal factor increases over distance, it may be possible that there is more to this temporal lens than just the measurements we are currently employing.

Then there is the logical consideration of this universal expansion rate. If we are living in a homogeneous universe, the expansion rate is expected to be homogeneous; consistent and equal. If the expansion rate is measureable higher or lower, then we are not living in a homogeneous universe. Example: Providing for an object one, at 3 billion years from Earth, and an object two, at 6 billion years from Earth, we can easily note this homogeneous disparity from the perspective of either object one or object two. For it would follow that in a homogeneous universe, the expansion rate between the Earth and object one would be the same as between object two to object one. Yet, if the Earth had measured that object two was comoving faster than object one, then the expansion rate between the Earth and object one would NOT be the same as between object two to object one. Ergo, then universe is no longer homogeneous.

However if the expansion rate was due to some localized condition, then the universe could still be homogeneous relative to this localized condition. This localized condition could be that our observable universe is a dense grouping of mass surrounded by less dense grouping of mass. Example: If the concentration of dark energy is greater in the surrounding areas, then one might expect that the rate of expansion would vary between these differing concentrations of dark energy; either faster or slower, rather than being consistent and equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Hypothesizing as to whether there is an edge to the universe in which to expand is like suggesting there is a center to the universe based on the initial Big Bang. It speculates that the universe is some sort of contained volume of evolutionary activity rather than as a dimensional perspective in which reality plays out. You either go along with the concept of an isotropic and homogeneous universe, wherein there is no center or edges, or you don’t.

Instead of considering the 'Big Bang' theory from a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity, rather try thinking of the 'Big Bang' theory from a pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, as a the proposed one dimensional determinant of pre-existence. So if the 'Big Bang' expansion theory rubs you the wrong way, try thinking of the proposed one dimensional singularity as the pre-existing fabric of space-time without any real matter, rather than a singular point as modeled after a gravitational singularity [liken to a black hole]. Then start unfolding it into existence; first into two dimensional space-time, which is an expansion from our one dimensional space-time, and then into a three dimensional space-time and so on. Therefore the universe is only expanding unto its furthered state of evolution.

Trying to measure the expanding nature of an evolutionary progression in the universe in terms of an increasing rate of expansion for our cosmos, does not do it justice. If you accept the idea that the observable universe is like a message in a bottle thrown into the sea, then you would realize that your calculations and measurements are limited to how you are able to observe the cosmos. Understanding that radiated signals, like light, can travel independent of its source, one can logical hypothesize that there is no way of knowing when the radiated signal entered into our field of observable view. The limit of our observable perspective has been identified as about 14 billion light years, give or take a few billion years, depending on the instrument used. But use of this measurement comes with its own temporal problems. While scientists tend to believe that they have accounted for this disparity, their confusion would suggest there is room for improvement.

When we receive the light of some deep space source, the light is analyzed as to its luminosity and redshift to calculate its comoving distance. There is also the curvature of space, similar to the curvature of our planet, that is taking into account; which is basically flat. Anyway this temporal accountability is likened to looking back in Time, because the light image is representative of a moving objective. Consider that the light image is projected from a temporal lens. When we view the light from an object calculated to be three billion light years away, the image projects a view of the object as it was three billion years ago. So knowing that temporal factor increases over distance, it may be possible that there is more to this temporal lens than just the measurements we are currently employing.

Then there is the logical consideration of this universal expansion rate. If we are living in a homogeneous universe, the expansion rate is expected to be homogeneous; consistent and equal. If the expansion rate is measureable higher or lower, then we are not living in a homogeneous universe. Example: Providing for an object one, at 3 billion years from Earth, and an object two, at 6 billion years from Earth, we can easily note this homogeneous disparity from the perspective of either object one or object two. For it would follow that in a homogeneous universe, the expansion rate between the Earth and object one would be the same as between object two to object one. Yet, if the Earth had measured that object two was comoving faster than object one, then the expansion rate between the Earth and object one would NOT be the same as between object two to object one. Ergo, then universe is no longer homogeneous.

However if the expansion rate was due to some localized condition, then the universe could still be homogeneous relative to this localized condition. This localized condition could be that our observable universe is a dense grouping of mass surrounded by less dense grouping of mass. Example: If the concentration of dark energy is greater in the surrounding areas, then one might expect that the rate of expansion would vary between these differing concentrations of dark energy; either faster or slower, rather than being consistent and equal.
Being able to see a galaxy 32 billion light years away in a universe only 14 billion years old is telling us something about the true nature of everything.Only real solution is our universe is just 1 of infinite numbers and we can see 32 B ly away because it's moving towards us from another universe. Some grand math would tell us when our universe and this one will meet, might have already happened and info isn't here yet at L speed.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
727
834
1,760
Being able to see a galaxy 32 billion light years away in a universe only 14 billion years old is telling us something about the true nature of everything.Only real solution is our universe is just 1 of infinite numbers and we can see 32 B ly away because it's moving towards us from another universe. Some grand math would tell us when our universe and this one will meet, might have already happened and info isn't here yet at L speed.
NO, no, no, no, no, and another infinite no's. Our universe is 14 billion years old but that doesn't mean that its radius is 14 billion lightyears as well. You are forgetting that our universe is not static, it is expanding. In Physics, there is a term which is known as "comoving distance" (Refer to Wikipedia for the definition of the term). According to Wikipedia, "The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs[30] (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 m). " AND, we don't yet know the actual length of the whole Universe. There are theories that it is infinite. There are theories that it is fixed. But, we have calculated the diameter of the "Observable Universe". There's a difference between "Universe" and "Observable Universe". I hope you understand what I mean to say.
 
May 3, 2020
14
5
15
Don't forget. Hubble and his peers had to assume the universe was expanding because SR and the photon model had just been disproved by the original Hubble observation that light lost energy/ frequency over distance. This wasn't compatible with the assumptions of 1930s physics. So Hubble had a choice. Show that the redshifting over distance data was not consistent with then current theory...or make up a whole new branch of physics (BBT) to save current theory. As we know from pre copernican experience where monks added ever new and more elaborate mechanisms to explain why certain celestial bodies motions did not fit existing theological models,.....this was a mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,440
3,560
Don't forget. Hubble and his peers had to assume the universe was expanding because SR and the photon model had just been disproved by the original Hubble observation that light lost energy/ frequency over distance.
Contrary to popular belief, Hubble never adopted the idea that the universe is expanding. He avoided theory and stuck with being the world leader in cosmological observations. I think part of the reason he refrained from accepting expansion comes from his respectful relationship he had with deSitter who used GR to demonstrate that redshift comes without expansion -- his model included no matter in the universe, however.

This is one reason the IAU recently changed the Hubble Constant to the "Hubble-Lemaitre" constant, since it was Lemaitre who first used redshifts to argue for the expansion. He was the father of what became the Big Bang Theory.

Also, SR has never been disproven, then or now. The tired-light hypothesis I think came first from Zwicky, perhaps, was respected but it was eventually discredited.

This wasn't compatible with the assumptions of 1930s physics. So Hubble had a choice. Show that the redshifting over distance data was not consistent with then current theory...or make up a whole new branch of physics (BBT) to save current theory.
Well, as mentioned, he wasn't a theorist, but indeed there was a problem. His first use of Cepheids gave ages for the stars older than the universe, but it was later discovered that not all Cepheids are the same, which eliminated this paradox.

As we know from pre copernican experience where monks added ever new and more elaborate mechanisms to explain why certain celestial bodies motions did not fit existing theological models,.....this was a mistake.
Yeah, once Galileo falsified the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model the Jesuits, as a whole, quickly accepted his results and switched to the goofy Tychonic model. I think the phrase "ad hoc" is used in science for odd tweaks to make things "fit the appearances".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 19, 2019
30
8
535
I wanted to know what the universe is expanding into.
In my opinion, the universe is not expanding. It's obviously finite.
I read a space.com article stating the universe has no edge so it’s not expanding into anything.
Disagree. In order to get a proper image of space please jump to my article on http://www.eioba.com/a/3dm8/how-to-comprehend-space
If I were to travel across the universe eventually I’d end up where I started. I guess that’s the same for light?
Probably any form of matter and not exactly to the very location.
if a galaxy is moving away from us, isn’t it also moving closer to us from the opposite direction?
No.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
I have a question which relates directly to the nature of the Universe – whether it has edges etcetera. I have made my views known using the Flatlander analogy. My view is that it would require a being with ( n + 1 ) senses to observe the expansion into a higher dimension, radially away from the center of the sphere which contains the surface which is the Flatlander’s total Universe. Such a being would be able to observe “a” Universe in such a higher dimesion viz. as an expanding sphere rather than just its surface. For the moment I want to consider only “our” science in relation to “the” expanding Universe.

Most of you will have seen that I have posted here (as I have elsewhere), how unhappy I am with the fact that objects do not follow the expansion theory. Why do not objects expand? Is it because expansion is restricted to space? If our standards of measurement do not take account of mass, then maybe that is why the Hubble “Constant” is not constant? Has anyone ever compared the mass of different galaxies with the HC in their proximity?

What I am suggesting is that the space which is not occupied by very much (mass) is relatively free to expand, whilst the space which contains mass is not so free. Look at the dips made by different objects (galaxies) – maybe the greater the dip (mass) the less the ability of the object to expand with the space containing it.

Consider a normal (to us) situation of making a measurement. Let us say that we measure a table with a ruler (or yardstick) and find that it is 4 feet long. Let us now say that the Universe has doubled in size. Fine, we find that our table is now . . . . . . 4 feet long. This is because our ruler has also doubled in size. But . . . . . . surprise, surprise our table is now 8 feet long. How can this be? Well, the answer is simple. Our ruler has stayed the same length and shows that the table is now 8 feet long. Or is it? Which is correct? If the ruler doubled in size together with the table then we would not know that the Universe had doubled in size. Relative proportions would be conserved. Ergo if we know that the Universe has doubled in size then our ruler cannot have;0 doubled in size with it. So why is our ruler out of the expansion?

Maybe the fact that the table is “solid” mass (OK we know really that it is empty) retains a commonality with the ruler which is also “solid”. But when we are dealing with expansion of the Universe, we are dealing with measurements across large tracts of space (or space time). Maybe our rulers are appropriate to volumes containing mass, but not to empty spaces. Forget your radiation and the like –- I am distinguishing in terms of degree of mass. Maybe our criteria for measuring spacetime should vary with mass.

So my question is: if the Universe is expanding, how is it that our “rulers” (“yardsticks”) are not also expanding and thus preventing our knowledge of the alleged expansion?



Postscript:
By definition there is one Universe, which is all space all time and all mass / energy. If you want spinoff “universes” why not call them fractiverses? I am aware of the theories whereby new “universes” (= fractiverses) can arise via black holes. This would simply make our Universe a child and parent fractiverse, and we would then have to accept that our Universe is, in fact, a fractiverse because new facts would have necessitated we change our definition (of our Universe). We have managed to live with the fact that the Earth is not flat, so maybe our own little Universe is really a child and parent Fractiverse? But I do not want to muddy the waters J
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,440
3,560
My view is that it would require a being with ( n + 1 ) senses to observe the expansion into a higher dimension, radially away from the center of the sphere which contains the surface which is the Flatlander’s total Universe.
Yes. A 2d ant would not be able to consider a up, or down, direction. Time seems to be glued to space so perhaps it serves as a 4th dimension.

Most of you will have seen that I have posted here (as I have elsewhere), how unhappy I am with the fact that objects do not follow the expansion theory. Why do not objects expand? Is it because expansion is restricted to space?
Like the 2D ant, we struggle to get a grasp of space. The HLC (Hubble-Lemaitre Constant) has the denominator as a million parsecs. The expansion is just a tiny fraction of space in a year, about a billionth or less, IIRC. Gravitational forces for things around us, even in our galaxy, will keep things held together as well. So you have to look at the sliding away of galaxies far away to notice the change (i.e. redshift).

What I am suggesting is that the space which is not occupied by very much (mass) is relatively free to expand, whilst the space which contains mass is not so free. Look at the dips made by different objects (galaxies) – maybe the greater the dip (mass) the less the ability of the object to expand with the space containing it.
Yes, I think this is correct; objects aren't being pulled away fast enough to make any difference. The expansion is feeble else they wouldn't require a over 3 million light years of distance to talk about, and they don't apply it to galaxies that close to us.

Consider a normal (to us) situation of making a measurement. Let us say that we measure a table with a ruler (or yardstick) and find that it is 4 feet long. Let us now say that the Universe has doubled in size. Fine, we find that our table is now . . . . . . 4 feet long. This is because our ruler has also doubled in size. But . . . . . . surprise, surprise our table is now 8 feet long. How can this be? Well, the answer is simple. Our ruler has stayed the same length and shows that the table is now 8 feet long. Or is it? Which is correct? If the ruler doubled in size together with the table then we would not know that the Universe had doubled in size. Relative proportions would be conserved. Ergo if we know that the Universe has doubled in size then our ruler cannot have;0 doubled in size with it. So why is our ruler out of the expansion?
Yes, that's all reasonable. I think the way we understand the constancy of the speed of light, c, limits the latter.

I like your analogy, so I will try and tweak it. It may be that if you have an 8 ft. table made of rubber and a 4 ft. wooden rule, and over the course of a year, a gentle but steady force stretches the table by 1 nm, will the ruler stretch as well or would its solid properties keep it together in spite of the little rubbery friction acting on the ruler? That's only the way I see it but I can't claim it's mainstream cosmology.


Postscript:
By definition there is one Universe, which is all space all time and all mass / energy. If you want spinoff “universes” why not call them fractiverses? I am aware of the theories whereby new “universes” (= fractiverses) can arise via black holes. This would simply make our Universe a child and parent fractiverse, and we would then have to accept that our Universe is, in fact, a fractiverse because new facts would have necessitated we change our definition (of our Universe). We have managed to live with the fact that the Earth is not flat, so maybe our own little Universe is really a child and parent Fractiverse? But I do not want to muddy the waters J
That's a clever word to use. The observable universe, however, can only address that which is observable. Things that aren't observable, if even in principle, are topics for fringe science, say, fractiscience. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
" I like your analogy, so I will try and tweak it. It may be that if you have an 8 ft. table made of rubber and a 4 ft. wooden rule, and over the course of a year, a gentle but steady force stretches the table by 1 nm, will the ruler stretch as well or would its solid properties keep it together in spite of the little rubbery friction acting on the ruler?"

Sorry, did you mean that the rubber table started as 4ft? So they both start at 4 ft and the table expands but the ruler hardly so? . . . . . . and what if the ruler is made of platinum and the table something even more elastic? I suppose in my view the elasticity in your analogy would correspond to mass? Space, made of something immaterial (difficult question ?? :) ) would stretch most easily; lead or platinum least easily (in the analogy)?

"That's a clever word to use. The observable universe, however, can only address that which is observable. Things that aren't observable, if even in principle, are topics for fringe science, say, fractiscience. :)

I appreciate your point here, but a word is needed in science to discuss surely, obviously before the hypothesis and the theory and the testing? Would you firbid Newton the word gravity? ;)

OK, but at least please ask fractiscientists who want to discuss alternative universes to use the fractiword :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Jun 1, 2020
1,689
1,440
3,560
Sorry, did you mean that the rubber table started as 4ft? So they both start at 4 ft and the table expands but the ruler hardly so? . . . . . . and what if the ruler is made of platinum and the table something even more elastic? I suppose in my view the elasticity in your analogy would correspond to mass? Space, made of something immaterial (difficult question ?? :) ) would stretch most easily; lead or platinum least easily (in the analogy)?
The longer table is the stretchable spacetime and the ruler would be, say, our galaxy, or even our cluster. The table, being rubber, has a large elasticity coefficient where a little but constant load will stretch it. The shorter ruler, platnimum is better than wood, will not stretch to the point it is worth measuring if the table only moves 1 nm. But there is some friction between the table and the ruler, so if the ruler were soft rubber then it too would be stretched, 1/2 nm in the case above. The key point to me, at least, is that the matter, like the rigid bonds in the ruler, will hold our galaxies together even though internal space between stars is getting stretched -- the frictional point of contact-- but the rigidity from gravity is not really affected by it as much and the galaxy doesn't grow, at least not by the expansion.

In an accelerating universe, it can be envisioned that the tiny friction between table and ruler will become so immense that the ruler will stretch and be ripped apart, then, later, the molecules will be ripped apart.

Yet, we really know nothing of Dark Energy so who can really say that the DE won't poop-out from whence it comes.


I appreciate your point here, but a word is needed in science to discuss surely, obviously before the hypothesis and the theory and the testing? Would you firbid Newton the word gravity? ;)
Newton was quite the thinker. They say he would sit on his bed for long periods thinking about things. Sorting through all the possible explanations for what we observe is a huge part of science. The importance is that these ideas must take objective evidence (e.g. measurements) to be the foundation for the thought process. The observed motions of falling apples, projectiles, and Moon, for example.

When an idea (ie supposition) helps produce an hypothesis and it can be tested and falsified, then normal hard (if you wish) science is being done. But yes, there are subjective elements required since all ideas start as subjective elements.

OK, but at least please ask fractiscientists who want to discuss alternative universes to use the fractiword :)
:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
OK, I get it now. The table represents the ST and the ruler the galaxy or cluster, so obviously the table is longer. Sorry about that. I jumped the gun and thought you were going for starting equal (had not considered ST, just in my analogy a less massive substance - then the ruler stayed put and the rubber stretched)

Are we not getting closer to my question about the role of mass? Inertia, if you will, versus infinite stretchability?
My quote above:
"What I am suggesting is that the space which is not occupied by very much (mass) is relatively free to expand, whilst the space which contains mass is not so free. Look at the dips made by different objects (galaxies) – maybe the greater the dip (mass) the less the ability of the object to expand with the space containing it."
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
NO, no, no, no, no, and another infinite no's. Our universe is 14 billion years old but that doesn't mean that its radius is 14 billion lightyears as well. You are forgetting that our universe is not static, it is expanding. In Physics, there is a term which is known as "comoving distance" (Refer to Wikipedia for the definition of the term). According to Wikipedia, "The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs[30] (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 m). " AND, we don't yet know the actual length of the whole Universe. There are theories that it is infinite. There are theories that it is fixed. But, we have calculated the diameter of the "Observable Universe". There's a difference between "Universe" and "Observable Universe". I hope you understand what I mean to say.
If our universe was endless and our field of view before L speed removes it from site then no way a 32 billion year old galaxy in our universe can be seen. No other good explanation other than a neighbor universe near it's edge is traveling towards us and light has been traveling 32 billion years to get to us. Simply no other way to explaining seeing a 32 billion year old galaxy.
 
May 3, 2020
14
5
15
Contrary to popular belief, Hubble never adopted the idea that the universe is expanding. He avoided theory and stuck with being the world leader in cosmological observations. I think part of the reason he refrained from accepting expansion comes from his respectful relationship he had with deSitter who used GR to demonstrate that redshift comes without expansion -- his model included no matter in the universe, however.
***
Are you sure de sitter opted for a non expanding universe? All the reference I can find doesn't mention this. Just that he thought the universe was expanding but with no matter. Which doesn't quite make sense seeing as he knew the universe did hav observable matter.
**

Also, SR has never been disproven, then or now. The tired-light hypothesis
***
One argument against redshift without expansion is that a wave cannot expand over distance. True, but simulations show that frequency can decay over distance to "lower wavelengths " ..which themselves do not expand over distance. It's amazing how blind theorists are to evidence when it suits them.
****


I think came first from Zwicky, perhaps, was respected but it was eventually discredited.
***
Just because Zwicky couldn't figure out how to explain why light redshifted over distance doesn't mean you could rule out redshifting with distance! A common mistake I've heard many times. ( Kids do it, ..cover their eyes and can't see it, so it doesn't exist) After all look at the BBT. It can't explain redshift either. Notice it needed Dark matter/energy to validate itself. And as we know nobody can observe either of those, nor explain what they are made of. In other words BBT is no better at explaining redshift than a non expanding model. Also I think that although SR has maybe never been disproven...it has never actually been proven either. In the sense that no observation has ever been made that can't be explained classicaly. And of course no experiment to date has yet measured its constancy. Except of course the neutrino CERN "excuse" which assumes a particle that's not observed to explain why an observed decay occurrs that CANNOT be explained by SR . Hence my initial ref to Pre copernicans. Like relativists, they make up new unobserved things that can't or have not been observed to explain why their previous assumptions were proved false.
*****

Well, as mentioned, he wasn't a theorist, but indeed there was a problem. His first use of Cepheids gave ages for the stars older than the universe, but it was later discovered that not all Cepheids are the same, which eliminated this paradox.
***
Posibbly, but you forgot...quasars still can't be explained by the BBT.

***

Yeah, once Galileo falsified the Aristotle/Ptolemy/Thomist model the Jesuits, as a whole, quickly accepted his results and switched to the goofy Tychonic model. I think the phrase "ad hoc" is used in science for odd tweaks to make things "fit the appearances".
***
Quickly? My understanding is it took the Vatican 300 years.
 

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
727
834
1,760
If our universe was endless and our field of view before L speed removes it from site then no way a 32 billion year old galaxy in our universe can be seen. No other good explanation other than a neighbor universe near it's edge is traveling towards us and light has been traveling 32 billion years to get to us. Simply no other way to explaining seeing a 32 billion year old galaxy.
Why are you forgetting that the galaxy is moving away? I will leave this thread and leave others to make voidpotentialenergy understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS