'Einstein ring' snapped by James Webb Space Telescope is most distant gravitationally lensed object ever seen

[Helio]

The way I read it, even though the space between us and the Sun increases, the distance between us is controlled by forces that quickly overwhelm the "force of expansion". The length of the meter does not change, we just get more meters. It's all very confusing.

Yes, for orbits it's, of course, the angular momentum that remains essentially constant, so planets would not notice any actual expansion. Once again, we must consider the forces (ie angular momentum), which gives us a balloon-button model.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, angular momentum must be conserved. If the distance were to increase
then the planet would have to slow down. Perhaps we could look at ancient sediments to see if the length of the year has changed.

 

[Questioner]

The curvature around the Sun wouldn't change, even if space is expanding. (no gravity dilution)
So does a planet's inertia solely follow the curvature with space flowing around it or is there any redirection of inertia from 'space flow' 'drag'?

Does inertia belong to the planet or does inertia belong to space?

 

[billslugg]

Inertia is a property of mass, not space.

 

[Questioner]

Inertia is a property of mass, not space.

When an object spins there is some drag of space-time with it.
So it's not a completely oblivious (independent) relationship with space-time.

Mass is the gravitational 'dent' (warp?) of matter in space-time.

Call me (possibly foolishly) not completely decided.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, excellent point. Now I must ask, does linear motion drag the frame? Hmmm..

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, You have previously posted that energy may not be conserved in the inflating/expanding universe, and the BBT seems to indicate that "dark energy" increases with expanding space. So, doesn't that undermine your thinking that angular momentum must be conserved even when space expands?

I personally have problems with not conserving both of them with any theory, but it seems most of the BBT believers don't have any problem with that thought.

 

[billslugg]

I don't recall saying that energy is not conserved. It, along with any associated mass is always conserved. Has been conserved since the BB. There has never been found an exception.

It is true that the vacuum energy shows up out of nothing. But this is balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy of the expansion of galaxies. Overall, there is conservation of energy.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't recall saying that energy is not conserved. It, along with any associated mass is always conserved. Has been conserved since the BB. There has never been found an exception.

It is true that the vacuum energy shows up out of nothing. But this is balanced by the negative gravitational potential energy of the expansion of galaxies. Overall, there is conservation of energy.

But, if you don't conserve energy, for instance, adding "dark energy" as space expands, then you really are not conserving mass, either, since they can be interchanged to some degree at least.

I think your main point, if I remember it correctly, was that energy is not conserved when you change frames of reference, which I agree with. But, if space is expanding and that means that we are "accelerating" with respect to other things, then our frame of reference is always changing, anyway. Other posters, especially in some other forums that are big proponents of the BBT, claim that the energy in the universe is increasing. Some even screw-up the physics and double count some of the effects on energy from the expansion, and those are often repeated in media articles.

My take on it is that, if the "universe" is really all there is, then it is a closed system, and the total of E + mc^2 should remain constant. On the other hand, if what we call the universe is really a black hole in a bigger universe, then material can enter from the "outside", but none can get out. In that case, total E + mc^2 should increase over time as more stuff falls into "the universe" that we think is everything.

 

[Questioner]

A gravity wave is (radially expanding) inertia divorced from its instigating matter.
(traveling matter-free 'mass')
So in that particular case space alone carries it.

Matter keeps the gravity dent organized, focused, constant.
Would that organized shape be the frame?
Maybe vector dragging is harder to discern because it's symmetric?

Movement increases the mass/dent of matter.
Storing energy in additional stretch?

 

[billslugg]

Unclear Engineer

The expansion of space is outward for all observers. Each observer sees himself at the center of the universe. The universe expands outward radially in all directions. No observer feels any acceleration. Each observer has their own inertial reference frame.

The added dark energy is positive. The gravitational potential energy of the expanding galaxies is negative. They cancel out.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't believe space can expand or be curved. Emptiness needs no creation. I would say that emptiness has always been here, but that implies it is a something. I far as I know, emptiness is the only thing that can fill infinity.

I think that all stars are losing mass and losing gravity at a relatively slow rate. Causing all stellar systems to slowly expand. All the spacial objects are slowly separating. Like all our planets and moons are. Sol's g attraction is decreasing. Mass is not being added.

I think all stars are slowing losing mass. Once one is lit, it probably shines off it's feedstock. The fine food of H.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Unclear Engineer

The expansion of space is outward for all observers. Each observer sees himself at the center of the universe. The universe expands outward radially in all directions. No observer feels any acceleration. Each observer has their own inertial reference frame.

The added dark energy is positive. The gravitational potential energy of the expanding galaxies is negative. They cancel out.

I understand what you say, but I am not sure you understand the implications of what you are saying with respect to differing frames of reference.

Yes, each observer believes that they are at rest and all other things are moving away from that observation point. So, that means that all observers have different frames of reference if they are not in the same place in the universe. We try to imagine a frame of reference that is like what a scientist would see if the universe could be put on a lab bench and viewed from outside. But do we really know how to do that correctly?

Anyway, my point was that I think your previous posts in other threads were more about energy not being conserved between frames of reference than about it not being conserved in the universe when considered as a closed system (the lab bench perspective).

Regarding other people's opinions about whether energy is conserved in the universe or being added continuously in the form of "dark energy", I see all sorts of strange thinking (some of it demonstrably wrong) getting published in media articles. I am not even sure that there is actually agreement on what the BBT "says" about that. But, if it includes "dark energy" in whatever it says, that obviously translates to "we don't actually know". That is because "dark energy" is just a place holder for something that seems to be necessary to make the theory work, but is not otherwise detected or understood, or even proven to exist in reality.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

A gravity wave is (radially expanding) inertia divorced from its instigating matter.
(traveling matter-free 'mass')
So in that particular case space alone carries it.

Matter keeps the gravity dent organized, focused, constant.
Would that organized shape be the frame?
Maybe vector dragging is harder to discern because it's symmetric?

Movement increases the mass/dent of matter.
Storing energy in additional stretch?

You are asking about what is the fundamental cause of "mass" and how does that relate to "space", which has been the subject of a lot of speculative theorizing for the last few decades. The theories are developing around a "Higgs Field" that permeates space and has force carrying "particles" called HIggs Bosons. The quantum mechanical thinking is similar to the electromagnetic field permeating all of space, with "photons" carrying force of that field through space. So, "gravity waves" are supposedly comprised of "Higgs Bosons".

And that paragraph pretty much exhausts my "knowledge" about the subject. I do remember that the Higgs Field is theorized to be different from other energy fields by something that is referred to as being "sticky" in the popular media. So, I am not thinking that I can make inferences from what I know about electromagnetic field theory that are likely to be applicable to Higgs Field theory.

Anyway, I hope that gives you some Google targets if you want to learn more. I have not had the time to persue that.