My emphasis.So, scaling time along with physical dimensions would make a shrinking or expanding observer unable to determine that he is shrinking or expanding IF that is the way it works
My emphasis.Can we really change our perspective by "looking back in time" with telescopes looking at very distant objects?
My emphasis.I admit that I am confused - and I wonder if those who propose theories like BBT are also confused, too.
namely,Is the Big Bang in Crisis? By Dan Hooper Astronomy October 2020
My emphasis.We do not know how the particles that make up the atoms in our Universe managed to survive the first moments of the Big Bang, and we still know little about cosmic inflation, how it played out, or how it came to an end – This energy might have taken the form of an exotic species of light and feebly interacting particles, or of some kind of dark energy associated with the vacuum of space itself that has long disappeared from the Universe from the Universe. Or perhaps there is something else we don’t understand about this era of cosmic history.
My emphasis.This energy might have taken the form of an exotic species of light and feebly interacting particles, or of some kind of dark energy associated with the vacuum of space itself that has long disappeared from the Universe. Or perhaps there is something else we don’t understand about this era of cosmic history.
OK, I can imagine it, but I think that a scientist could well say that your assumptions belie the observations and thus devalue the conclusion - granted, always, that this is a thought experiment.with a person inside that also shrinks by the same factor, while we stand outside and are not affected by the shrinkage
Can you assume that energy is conserved in this highly convoluted thought experiment? Does the person who is shrunk also retain the same mass?- i.e., increases in density? Sorry, but these are the consequences of your thought experiment. You have a really interesting idea there, and I am sorry to be a bit nit picking, but, for me, it is too convoluted to identify with any real situation. It may be my bad, but I cannot relate to the conclusions. I can, at a pinch, imagine the 'observers' to be wispy unreal beings, which can observe, but which don't change density when shrunk, but I cannot assume that a kg weight 'stays the same' as well.Assuming that energy is conserved even when space shrinks, that kilogram mass would now seem to be moving at 2 meters per second to the person inside the box
I am just as confused myself, and I suspect that those proposers might be soI admit that I am confused - and I wonder if those who propose theories like BBT are also confused, too.
Why didn't you say that in the first place?I am not understanding your problem with "the box". So, how about you not thinking about the box at all. Just ask yourself if an observer in the universe would be able to tell the difference between 2 states of the universe, one that is "inflated" or "deflated" compared to the other. Consider the whole universe to be changed between the two conditions, not just the inside of a box.
I think we agree, for a start, that if everything, including measuring sticks were expanding, then we would not notice the expansion. That is not in question, I believe?Specifically, there is no poof that inflation did not and is not still changing the dimensions of things in our galaxy, our solar system and even here on Earth's surface.
I am bemused at the so called gravitational effect which acts against expansion, so that we don't expand - only the spacetime around us. Doesn't this cause a problem when the two meet - expanding space and non-expanding space? I.E. The bits around objects?I am trying to explore the assumption that there was and still is "inflation" of space. "Inflation" is not defined in detail by the theorists, and there is disagreement whether it increases the size of everything in the universe as it increases the size of the universe itself (at greater than the speed of light, but not at a constant rate).
Certainly many people think lots of different !ideas".I think at least some of the people who think . . .
Agreed. But they are not of equal scientific probability.I just say "Maybe so, maybe not."
Are we back to Michelson Morley?the "fields" that are hypothesized to "fill all of space" actually relate to each other and to "space" itself.
I certainly agree about that. Back to Universal . . . . . .It would be helpful if somebody could explain how fields for the different forces (gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and Higgs) are related and interact.
Me too, or should it be I also?And, then, I want to know how these theorists think those fields respond to "inflation". Some of their hypotheses seem inconsistent to me. But, I am willing to listen to answers to my questions with an open mind.