I know that the concept is well accepted by the accademic community but I can not help reviewing it every so often,

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/expansion.html

"The Expansion of the Universe
Then, in the late 1920's, Hubble, building on results obtained earlier by Slipher, combined Doppler shift measurements of radial velocities with distance measurements to conclude that almost all galaxies were flying away from the Milky Way, and that the velocity of recession was proportional to the distance from us: the further the galaxy from us, the faster it was receding."

I have tried unsuccesfully to find some data that indicates the various Galaxies in the viewable universe are themselves expanding. There has been no indication that our Solar System or our Milky Way Galaxy have expanded that I can find. Possibly you know of something.

Another strange effect, to me, is that the farther away the objects are the faster we think they are going away from us.

It will not be popular but there is a consistency here that, to me, suggests a potential resolution to the problem.

1. We do not see expansion in our Gaxaxy.
2. Our Galaxy, and others, occupy areas in space that must otherwise be expanding as a part of the whole.
3. Locally where we can measure things accurately we can not confirm expansion within our Solar System.
4. The conclusion of expansion is based upon the appearance of light from distant stars.
5. The measure of that light shows the most distant stars moving away faster than those stars closer to us.

Assuming all of the above statements are correct what could account for our observing an apparent expansion of the universe?

I think it is the light we measure looking for the Doppler efect as our yardstick. A simple answer would be that light picks up speed the farther it travels. Greater speed provides a shift we interpret as expansion. Also this explains why most distant objects appear to go away faster because more distance equals greater light speed creating the illusion of greater velocity away from us.

Also the absence of documented expansion in objects we can see best tends to support this conjecture. Lastly we do observe Galaxies in collision and if from the start of things they were getting farther away that would not be taking place. That is my conjecture that happens to be a lot simpler that creating anti matter or dark matter or any other exotic stuff to explain what we see. Go get it.
jjw

the simple explanation is that the big bang cause the galaxies that were made up of the material on the outside of the "bubble" of the explosion (the stuff the universe was made up of before it became atoms and energy) to move away faster than the stuff that was closer to the center. this can be seen in more mundane explosions. anything on the outside gets thrown farther than the stuff on the inside. since there is no friction in space the material kept moving away at the same speed.

in addition. the stuff that is farthest away is the stuff that is on the opposite side of that spot where the big bang occurred. therefore it will be moving away at a straight combination of the speed of our galaxy and its speed. anything that is not on the opposite side of that spot will be neither the farthest galaxies from us or the fastest moving in relation to us.

as far as galaxies solar systems expanding, they should not be (or at least not by much) due to gravity of all the rest of that galaxy or solar system. IF its stable, it will not be expanding. why would it.

dehammer wrote:
"on the outside of the "bubble" of the explosion"

ROFL!

You just never cease to amaze. When I think you've dug a hole all the way to the center of the earth you proceed to dig still deeper.

"outside of the bubble"?

There is no outside.
There is no inside.
There are no sides.
There is no bubble.

Where do you get this stuff?

why not read it for content for once. if there are terms for those they are rather scientific and ive not seen them. most likely they are equations that i have not seen.

it is known that in the first seconds after the big bang, all the matterial in the universe was something that is beyound our current form of understanding. it is also known that it was near if not actually a ball. since it was not matter or energy, a 'bubble' is good enough term for laymen. if you have a better term for it, give a reference that we may all learn of it, or shut up. your just making yourself look stupider than before. i did not think that was possible.

Here we go again. This one's hilarious!!!!

Dehammer, what are you talking about? You need to set up your own science spoof website and just post stuff like this. It really tickled me.

Blacknad.

Hi Dehammer:

I think the pro's refer to the "Bang" not as an explosion but as an expansion. An explosion implies maximum output to me expressed all at once to drop off as the power wanes. An expansion can have a variety of speeds dependent on the cause. No one seems to know the cause yet and that is one point of my post.

If some one is to argue that gravitation holds the Galaxoes together i can see their point but I must wonder why gravity is suficient on a small scale and would fail overall. When you weigh the issue from start to finish you must accept per the theory that at one time after the beginning all the stuff was closer together. If gravity was going to hold anything that was the best opportunity. If all space is expanding then why are not the objects in that space?

Any way this is nothing to get serious about.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"if there are terms for those they are rather scientific and ive not seen them."

The scientific term for inside or the scientific term for outside? Which word don't you understand?
There is neither.

da, there is no outside and there is no inside? how do you go from under a roof and between walls on all sides, with a floor below, to where there is only sky above you and nothing but horizons all around and ground below?

it is generally accepted that when the big bang occured all the matterial were in the same area. it does not matter if that area would measure a foot by our measurements, or 15 light years. since the farthest galazies are billions of light years away, even 15 light years is a relatively small area. in the first few seconds of the big bang, no one has any terms to explain it, since things were occuring that our understanding of physics cant encompass. they do know that the universe did exist, which means that the matterial from the big bang had not yet filled it. therefore, there was inside the big bang place, and outside of it. that billion of light year space already existed. since there was no matterial there it was outside of it.

why dont you look up the word intergraty and stop trying to claim that you know everything when its obvious that IF you know oracle, its about all.

jjw, explosion, fast expansion, whats the difference. if there is one, then fine, call it an expansion. the point is that the matterial on the leading edge would be moving faster than the material not on the leading edge. that much is known. they do know that by the time it became energy and matter some of it was moving a lot faster than others parts.


Blacknad, i have the right to post what i understand of science as much as you. if you cant prove im wrong or at least give me your opinion of why im am, dont bother posting about what i post. i have da to give me unwanted and unneeded insults in place of reason.

dehammer wrote:
"which means that the matterial from the big bang had not yet filled it."

This is not correct. There was NOTHING to be filled then: or ever. NOTHING!

so space does not exist? there is nothing between universes? there is nothing between planets? I'm not talking about vacuum, I'm talking about space. space exist or nothing does.

either space existed or there has never been any expansion, only contraction. either the material of the big bang has been expanding into space, or its still the same size and matter and energy are getting smaller. show me the math that says the size of the big bang is the size it always was and there was not expansion. I've yet to hear of anyone that has every claimed (save you) that there was no space for the big bang to expand into.

if space does not exist for those galaxies to move into, how are they moving away from us. If it exist then there is space beyond the big bang and there has always been.

if the space exist now for those galaxies to move into, it existed then. if it existed then and the material of the big bang had not yet filled it. then it was outside of the big bang material.

dehammer wrote:
"so space does not exist?"
"there is nothing between universes?"
"there is nothing between planets?"

These questions are not related to what I wrote. You said and I quote: "the matterial from the big bang had not yet filled it." That statement assumes there was something unfilled that remains to be filled. Your statement is incorrect.

And no there is no place in the universe that is not already filled with something.

those question are related to the subject. if they dont relate to what you wrote, what you wrote does not relate. keep on subject of start your own thread.

so what was filling the space 1 billion light years away from the big bang when all the material and energy of the universe was inside the big bang and that was less that 15 light years in size.
how could there be something there when everything was inside the big bang, yet it had not expanded beyound a relatively small size.

your statement is uncorrect as it defies what scientist have stated before, that everything came from the big bang. if there were already stars there, it would have been a nova, rather than a big bang. that is the meaning of the big bang. everything was there and now its expanding. that means that something was outside of the area that had expanded already.

the material on the outside edge of the expansion moves faster than the material inside of that edge.

dehammer wrote:
"so what was filling the space 1 billion light years away from the big bang"

Nothing. Because what you are describing never existed and violates every concept of modern day physics.

There was never anything even one angstrom away from the big bang. The big bang was and is all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be.

This material is well covered in my high school physics books and astronomy curricula.

Sorry for the typo. That should be "most high school physics books."

so your saying that space is created when matter expands into that space. where does the space come from that the big bang expanded into?

either empty space exist outside of the matter there, or it does not exist and matter can not expand into it

dehammer wrote:
"so your saying that space is created when matter expands into that space."

No that is not what I am saying. Nor has that been the presumption of physics for more than 100 years.
You are still stuck in the concepts of inside and outside and edges which are not valid ways to understand the Big Bang.

The Big Bang was, and is, the expansion of the space-time metric. There is nothing into which it is expanding. You can not use your common everyday experience to comprehend or describe it.

if there is nothing but the "space-time metric" how do you know space is expanding at all, maybe the space between the atoms is shrinking and the space is the same size as its always been. its not expanding outwards, were contracting inwards. see the problem there. your explanation does not fit the reality.

perhaps if everyone here had the high level math ability to discuss this in terms of mathematical equations it would be OK to use that explanation. unfortunately were stuck with "common everyday experience to comprehend or describe" this. using the terms we all know and understand the explanation i gave is as good as you can expect.

lets go with your explanation of it. there is nothing outside, but there is still the leading edge. and there is still stuff inside that leading edge (towards the center). by that, my explanation still stands up.

in other words your just trying to claim I'm to dumb to understand even the basic prekindergarten stuff while your some god of knowledge that has to explain everything else to everyone, save no one but you can understand it. IF you would ever get off your arrogant backside to bother to read for content you would see that what i said was as good an explanation as any that does not come from a doctor of physics who is somehow able to explain everything about this in terms that people who did not take college physics can understand.

dehammer asks:
"if there is nothing but the "space-time metric" how do you know space is expanding at all"

The questions you are asking, seriously, are covered in high-school science curricula.

The answer ... the red shift. Which indicates that the further away things are the faster they are receding. Just like what you would see if you were in the center of a balloon full of dust watching it being blown up.

it would also be the same if we were falling into the center.

the point is that you are just creating an argument for the sake of the argument and not discussing the point that was raised. that is "why are 'the further the galaxy from us, the faster it was receding.'"

if all you are trying to do is disrupt the conversation so that you can control everyone, go somewhere else. no one has any interest in proclaiming you emperor of the forum, you dont have control of this forum.

Hi DA:

You advise"
"The answer ... the red shift. Which indicates that the further away things are the faster they are receding. Just like what you would see if you were in the center of a balloon full of dust watching it being blown up."

When you have print on a balloon and blow it up the print expands with rest of the balloon. If you want to confirm that result in the universe you should find the distant galaxies expanding along with the universe. Is there evidence for that? I have looked for some unsuccesfully.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"it would also be the same if we were falling into the center."

No it would not. Read a book.

jjw wrote:
"you should find the distant galaxies expanding along with the universe."

You should not any more than you should see expansion happening within a galaxy. The force creating the expansion is less significant over short distances than is the force of gravity.

That may change in the future if the reported acceleration proves to be as real as it seems.

again what does this have to do with the fact that the farthest galaxies are moving away faster then the closer ones. according to what you wrote they cant. yet its shown that they are. explain how they can without changing your tune again.

oh, yea that's right, your the emperor here and you have decided that this thread is not about what was asked in the first thread. for that reason you can discuss and cuss anything you want. well discuss the subject or dont post. ill ignore anything that is not in about this subject any more. since you cant discuss the subject, that means ill not have to bother with your rubish any more.

dehammer wrote:
"again what does this have to do with the fact that the farthest galaxies are moving away faster then the closer ones. according to what you wrote they cant."

I haven't the slightest idea where this your comment came from. What were you reading? Certainly not what I wrote.

you said that there is no inside and no outside. therefore during the expansion everything would have to expand at the same time, all of it in the same place. either there is an inside that is not moving as fast as the outer edge or everything came from the same part, ie, the leading edge. or are you trying to say were still in the big bang?

according to all the theories that i have read, at a certain point, it all began to seperate, some of it not moving as fast as others. this means it could not have been in the same part of the expansion. if it had been in the same part of the expansion, it would have gone out homogeniously, and everything would have been in a leading edge, causing us to have a spherical expansion. its not spherical, were not all on the leading edge. that means the material was not all in the same part of the expansion. some was on the leading edge (outside part) and some was on the inside.

the only other solution is that everything was in a single point, so small that it makes and ameba look like a galaxy, and suddenly, in the blink of an eye exploded to several light years. all the theories that i have read said that it took quite some time to reach that size.

dehammer wrote:
"you said that there is no inside and no outside. therefore during the expansion everything would have to expand at the same time, all of it in the same place."

Why oh why oh why do you refuse to just go to the library, pick up a book, and read it?

You wrote "therefore during the expansion" I didn't: It is not what I wrote. Your "therefore" is drawing, yet again, an invalid conclusion. Perhaps you can find someone else to explain it to you for as far as I am concerned YOYO.

the term "therefore" frequently means that the following is a corollary of what was said before. you did not say it, but it was a corollary of what you did say.

the fact that you refuse to go beyond that point shows that you did not think your statement though. so, lets get back to the first question.

why does the farthest galaxies move away faster than the closer ones?

what is your answer?

or are you only able to tear down any explanation that other people come up with.

what i expected.

dehammer wrote:
"or are you only able you only able to tear down any explanation that other people come up with."

Anyone that reads my posts knows that I am quick to praise real science and those that apply synapses to a discussion. And equally quick to point out total nonsense.

I have zero tolerance for someone incapable of acknowledging when they make a mistake. I have zero tolerance for someone asked to support a statement refusing to post, even once, a reference link. I have zero tolerance for pseudo-scientific babble. I have zero tolerance for pontification of willful ignorance.

Perhaps the reason I have good discussions with soilguy and others, and not with you, relates to what you post and/or your inability to communicate in the English language.

When I provide an explanation for something and you take it, twist it, and then post back something that is totally different it does not lead me to think of replying with anything other than a verbal brick.

so where was your explination here. it did not exist. it seldom exist. only the insults exist here.

To quote Samuel Johnson:

"Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

YOYO!

DA:
Your response.

"jjw wrote:
"you should find the distant galaxies expanding along with the universe."

You should not any more than you should see expansion happening within a galaxy. The force creating the expansion is less significant over short distances than is the force of gravity."

This is a good surface directed response but I am not sure it gives a fair consideration to the issue. "Space expands" but some how objects in that space do not. Gravity is more potent than space is the alleged answer!.

The controling known relationship between the effects of gravity in space is the inverse square rule. Can you envision space expanding by some means wherein a vacuum is enlarged and is made to envelope a larger voluum while the vacuum betwen particles remains the same? Does the density of space within the non-expanding Galaxy increase in some way creating a special island of matter in a more diffuse surrounding area?

I know what you mean and I would argue the same way if it was my duty to defend the concept. As a real life thing it seems a little unreal.
jjw

no, what you gave was a new age mumbo jumbo about none existance as an attack on my explination. you gave no explination about anything, save your own ignorance. that was plenty understandable.

you have no explination, only bs about how no one can understand your nonexplinations.

i gave an explination to which you gave something that translated to "it does not exist, it did not exist and will never exist. there is no universe". that is not an explination. its an avoidance of an issue.

before you start trying to claim you did not say this, let me remind you that you said

"there was no inside

there was no outside"

if there is no inside and no outside there is nothing there. even a dot has an inside and an outside. therefore a dot exist. there was a sphere of something the phsysisit cant describe, but they have a certain size to it. if it was a sphere, it had an inside. if it had an inside, then there was an outer edge to it.


UNLESS you want to claim that it occupied all of space. if it did how did it expand. if it did occupy all of space there is no space for it to expand into now, so we have to be shrinking and falling into the center.

since this is as unlikely a scenerio as can be created, the odds are most likely that there is someplace for the expansion to go into, which means there is an outside and there always has.

therefore every "explination" that you gave in the time since has been totally without merit as all you were doing is making noise.

now, yoyo, give us a real explination of why the universe is expanding faster in the far reaches, or admit that you have nothing. you have given no explination of any kind, save that bit of mumbo jumbo about nonexistance.


jjw, why would a galaxy expand. what creates a galaxy is gravity pulling material together. the farther away from other parts of the galaxy things get, the weaker the gravity. same with solar systems. same with planets, same with starts.

to try to explain it in simple terms after the material from the big bang began to turn into matter and energy, (they cant explain what it was in the first few seconds of time after the bb) it started pulling stuff together to create stars and such. these stars started pulling on each other, but they had to much energy to be pulled together in the first period. they seperated (by processes i dont began to understand) into groups that began to spin around each other. as these groups seperated they began to pull on other groups less. then those groups got beyound the point where they would pull each other very much. instead they were only able to pull on the material they had already captured. now those groups of material are galaxies of stars. they still pull on other galaxies but only weakly. the farther away the galaxies get the weaker that pull.

on the other hand the stars are with in the gravity range of other stars and thus can keep pulling on them. thus they dont expand, and according to some theories will eventually be pulled into the black holes near the center of the galaxies.

the reason the solar system does not expand is the same reason. gravity pulls the material closer while it is within the pull of the other material in that solar system. according to one theory ive read, the sun will one day swallow up all the material of the solar system. albet another theory is that the sun will go nova first.

Hi Dehammer:

Please note That I am well aware of the effects of gravitation and have been such since childhood. Please do not assume the issue behind a question has overlooked the obvious.

I, for this purpose, accept that there may be an expansion of the universe (while otherwise doubting) and by accepting same in the manner offered expect that ALL of the space within that universe is expanding. What you hit on is that the very space occupied by a Galaxy can expand while having no visable effect on the conents of that expanded space. That, to me, is not such an ignorant question to be skimmed over.

If you carry it to the extreme each Star and each planet and each dust clould would now occupy an area in space where the "density" of gravitation has been reduced, a bi product of expansion. The potential individual expansion of the parts creates a new measure of gravitation where the objects are larger, the distances are larger and put together simply provide another form of physics.

To conclude that gravity permits objects in an expanding space to be unaffected what happens to Einstein's Hypo of gravity warping space? Does it warp expanded space the same as our "ordinary" space? I do not need a response if you want to argue gravity some more.

jjw

jjw wrote:
"Can you envision space expanding by some means wherein a vacuum is enlarged and is made to envelope a larger voluum while the vacuum betwen particles remains the same?"

I too find the explanation somewhat weak but it is the current state of physics.

However to answer your question I am going to do a bit of an intentional waffle by suggesting that the answer may well lie in something else for which our explanations are less than adequate: dark energy and dark matter.

It seems very likely that the distribution of dark matter corresponds to that of "normal" matter and that dark matter does not exist in the inter-galactic expanses. Perhaps the answer lies there.

Also keep in mind that we are not talking about space but rather space-time. Perhaps time is warped in ways we don't fully understand. And then, of course, there is the fact that if I alter the speed of light I can simulate any degree of expansion I wish. And the force of gravity, perhaps, can remain constant.

OK DA: It is beyond ready conclusion, we agree!!
jjw

sorry if that sounded like i was talking down to you.

the point is that its not the vacuum that causes expansion, its the initial pressure from the big bang.

vacuum does not exert more pressure on a star or a solar system just because there is more of it. beyond the point where the vacuum exist there is no more pressure to cause stars or solar systems or galaxies to expand.

at the same time, once one galaxy is beyond the pull of another, there is nothing to slow it down. Or more presisely, there is very little to slow it down, since its is believed that gravity waves of the farthest galaxy is still being felt on earth. its just that over the extreme distance, it is hardly felt, and has little effect on the speed the galaxy had when the big bang shot everything out.

stars in galaxy are within the gravity range of all the other stars in that galaxy, but only rarely will a galaxy be within the range of another. Ive seen pictures and artist rendering of what is happening to two that happen to be in each others range. they are exchanging stars frequently (in the time-line of the universe). by claiming that the material of the universe should be spread out, you saying in effect that gravity has no effect or that there is some force that is at least greater, but there is no evidence of.

dehammer wrote:
"the point is that its not the vacuum that causes expansion, its the initial pressure from the big bang."

No! No! No! and No!

There was no pressure. No physicist I know has ever used the word pressure to discuss it other than with refence to a children's-level explanation about blowing up a balloon. For pressure to be involved one would need to have space with high pressure surrounded by space with a lower pressure. There was no other space.

We can not teach you physics one post at a time. Please try reading a book.

i did not know they changed this to the metaphyical forum.

the term pressure worked as well as any thing else at this level of discussion (unless i happen to accidently get into a forum populated strickly by people with doctorates of physics: if so please tell me where did you get your doctorate, and why are you teaching oracle instead of physics). Im sure there is a high lvl physics term for what they had at that point.... oh, yea, they dont have any understanding of what was going on at this point do they. its beyound the understanding of our level of physics to explain what was going on in those first few seconds. therefore there cant be any scientific terms for it. Unless you happen to be god, which begs the question, why dont you tell us what was going on in those first few seconds. please explain what cause the expansion if it was not related to pressure.

since you are god, why not explain how the material from that big bang was able to expand at all if there was nothing except it. If there was no space for it to expand into, there could be no expansion. the entire universe would be that single point where the big bang originated.

if you have evidence that there was no space outside of the big bang show the reference. if you dont, admit that this is just hoky poky, mumbo jumbo intended only to make it look like no one else has any intelegence.

if you have some reference that explains what cause the material of the universe to go outwords, give that reference or admit you just made it up.

dehammer wrote:
"i did not know they changed this to the metaphyical forum."

With apologies Rose but there is a synapse loose somewhere that needs a FedEx to Texas.

This is physics ... not metaphysics dehammer. Read a book. I am no longer going to play this game with you.

-----------
the more this man realizes the level of willful and wanton ignorance among some the more he realizes that our education system has failed.

IF our education system has failed then let this forum be a place where people can come to amend their education, without being put down or insulted for their ignorance. Ignorance is curable, stupidity is terminal. By coming here and admitting ignorance a person has taken the first steps toward enlightenment. Do not belittle them for that.

that's the point, you were playing a game, one of oneupmanship and you had to go into metaphysics since you could not back up your argument with physics.

there is only one thing in the universe that does not have an inside and an outside. that is an imaginary point. a sphere has an inside and an outside. if you claim it did not, the only way to do so was to claim it did not exist.

again i say, if you can back up your claim with physics, give a reference. if you have to develve into the metaphsics this is not the place for it. my explination still stands. anything that can force an expansion from inside can be considered a pressure. If there was nothing outside, then it was by definition a vacuum. If the sphere was a lightyear in size, everything less than a half lightyear from the center would be considered inside of the outer edge.

there is no two ways about it. either it existed, or we dont. I know for myself that i exist. i believe that rose, jjw and the others exist. what about you? unless they made the universe just for me (that possiblity is so slim i dont think you can put enough zeros past the one, certainly not on this page), then something existed seconds after the big bang, and all the scientist i have ever read about say it was a sphere. therefore it had an inside, and there fore it could have a pressure.

therefore none of your "explinations" stand up to the smallest application of logic.

YOYO dehammer.

Post whatever nonsense you wish. I'll no longer respond.

that is because you have nothing to back up your metaphysical pronouncements. i have never heard a real scientist of any branch claim there was no space outside of the universe. if you chose to keep your religious beliefs that your right, but don't expect others to follow them.

If our galaxy is expanding, then we are expanding and so are our yardsticks, we would not notice, perhaps?

I have a question to ask:

What happens to light emitted from sources very close to the "edge" of the universe?

If the universe is expanding, then it must have a furthest point, beyond which, there is no space for light to go. What happens to this light, emitted at a point where there is not enough gravity to alter it's course?

its not the atom of the universe that is expanding, its the space between the galaxies that is expanding. therefore we do notice it.

as for the light from the most distant stars, who knows. it might go on forever or be reflected backwords by the lack of space beyound

whilst space has no mass, it may be expanding because it is a finite amount of space, spreading out
How do we know that atoms are not expanding along with the instruments with which the are measured?

Antway, that is not so important to me as the Question I asked:

Im surprised by the fact that you are nonchalant about what happens to them (photons that is).

If reflected, they should be observable with telescopes which could mean that some distantly observed old stars are merely reflections of even older stars.

Also, there are many stars, which could mean such photon reflection that we would have to wear sunglasses at night.

Another possibility is that they disappear on contact, but that would break the conservation of energy law, I think.

If the instruments were expanding at the same rate there would be no evidence of the universe expanding.

Re the ?expanding universe? issue:

I see the statement as a sort of misnomer.
The theory is that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us with speed increases related to their distance from us. Literally this only says that objects we see in the universe are moving away from us. This observation does not prove that the ?universe? is expanding, only that the content is in motion.

The point may not be important to those that think the ?universe is expanding? but the idea should be tempered to allow for a universe of infinite size into which objects are traveling away from us. To do otherwise automatically conveys the idea that the universe has an edge which is expanding, enlarging, while objects are going along with it. Also it now gives source to the idea that what we see of the universe content is all there is when we must be aware we have seen very little of it.
jjw

The 'expanding universe' issue.
Please refer to http://forums.delphiforums.com.EinsteinGroupie. This is not spam (there's no sales pitch going on here), it's an abbreviated, full length edition of a 48 year old series of sold out hard copy small press editions of an evolved work originally entitled 'An hypothesis on Gravity', presently recondensed to the title 'Total Field Theory'.

Rascal Puff:
I tried the link above and got a "Server not found" error. Do you have another link or can you summarize the article in question? Thanks.

Amaranth
Moderator

PS: yes I follow every link and read every posting.

jjw: regarding the faster recession of farther galaxies: I think it's easy enough to understand if you think of the space between galaxies as divided up into sections, with each section expanding. Light is "stretched" by the expansion of a section, and if it travels through more sections, it is stretched more. The farther galaxies are more redshifted due to spatial expansion, but that does not really relate to their actual speed. We can observe redshift caused by proper motion also, as the stars of another galaxy rotate towards us vs. the other side of that galaxy rotating away from us. Other proper motion relative to ours is observable as galaxies stream towards the 'great attractor.'
I sure enjoyed this thread as I've had a lot of thoughts along the lines of that McCrutchen guy (spelling/right thread?), but this is the only question that I thought had an easy answer (in terms of 4 dimensional reality).
~Sam

Hi samwik:

For me there is a serious difference between the universe and space. People try to define what they see and come up with what appears to be convincing theories. Recall Corpernicus? I can read historical data that sounds impressive and very congratulatory upon others observations of his conclusions.

I am sure that you have an excellent grasp of the subject- likely much better than anything that I would be offering.

To suggest that the universe is expanding is like saying that space itself is expanding. Otherwise I expect a distinction to be made between space and the universe. I want an endless space that may contain a limited universe- or not. Every time we invent a better telescope for orbitting we see more objects. I contend that the leaders do not have the foggiest idea of the size of our enviornment in terms of space. It's almost a little childish.

Assuming, without concedeing or accepting, that the red shift is a valid measure of objects movements then there may be some basis to conclude that objects are moving away from us. If for fun we say "no way", then we need to show what is wrong with the conclusion. They, the aristocrats of astronomy, are not really interested in looking into the question. It is very comforting to be right; something I can not claim to enjoy in all of my interests.
jjw

I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but...
re:
This last statement is one of my favorite points: y'know the Observer Effect? Well maybe by observing farther, we are causing the universe to expand; and by observing more frequently, we are causing the expansion to accelerate.

If I want to think of outside the universe (our 4-D universe) I think of it as a 4-D bubble on an anti-DeSitter membrane in 8-space being sucked into a blck hole. -Hey, maybe that's why we're expanding; being stretched as we decend into the black hole. Hope this gives you a laugh (...but pause for a thought too). I've certainly questioned all these precepts too; and still do!
~Sam

samwik wrote:
"Well maybe by observing farther, we are causing the universe to expand; and by observing more frequently, we are causing the expansion to accelerate."

Amazing. We just throw away the rules by which we understand physics. Force. Momentum. Acceleration. Causation.

Lets build bigger telescopes and see how far we can move the Andromeda galaxy.

Get a grip samwik. Preferably on a physics book. ;-)

c'mon DA, didn't my response to jjw's first three points illustrate that I have picked up some physics books? Maybe I could have been clearer, but the stuff answered below the quoted section (not within the quoted section) was supposed to be summed up with the part you didn't quote: "Hope this gives you a laugh (...but pause for a thought too). I've certainly questioned all these precepts too; and still do!" -and I encourage jjw to continue questioning.

...and about questioning precepts: I like what you wrote: "Amazing. We just throw away the rules by which we understand physics. Force. Momentum. Acceleration. Causation." -DA
You've hit upon a very good point; that the rules are how we *understand* physics (but the rules are not reality). Newton came up with a very good approximation of reality. He gave us rules which worked in most cases, here on Earth. Einstein came up with a much better approximation of reality (by questioning precepts) which work in most cases even off of the Earth.
But neither of these "physics" allow us to understand everything. To get an even better approximation, or to get exact, I think we'll need to "think outside the box." I know that "observer effect" thing is not provable, but I don't think it's disprovable either. I've just always thought it was funny; like the old "Life is just natures way of turning light into heat."
Remember we're on the not-so science page here.

I'm surprised you didn't call me on the "anti-DeSitter membrane in 8-space" gobbledygook. I just threw that in as an "outside the box" type of prompt. It's actually a very bad description of some string theory stuff that I read about last year (but I added the stuff about stretching in a black hole to relate things back to expansion).

I'd sure like some help refuting (or proving) my shower-curtain effect (Scientific American, 2001) question. I need good, questioning, critical minds to help me follow through with "studying" this effect. Have you seen that topic on this forum? Maybe it'd have done better on the hard science forum; it's really not a joke.
Thanks,
~Sam

samwik:

"c'mon DA, didn't my response to jjw's first three points illustrate that I have picked up some physics books? Maybe I could have been clearer"

I am pleased that you appear to be pleased.
From my point of view you made no response of note to what I made comment upon. Cheers.
jjw

It is inevitable that our understanding of physics and the rules that currently apply will change with new information. The recent images from WMAP are already providing fertile new grounds for discovery. Dark energy has yet to be understood or even adequately described - simply put: humanity is far from understanding the complexity of creation and the rules underlying it. The truely brilliant thinkers have always thought "outside the square" which essentially has been the basis for much of human progress to date.

Thanks Te, &
So, jjw, I think I see your main point (that I missed before) re: "For me there is a serious difference between the universe and space." -jjw

I suppose if there is a 'serious difference,' then my 3 seven-word replies don't mean much. (1st two replies are 7 words; 3rd one as 'the definition of universe is [that the universe is] all inclusive,' is 7 words).

Anyway, umm; so if you have that view, then do you see space as also existing outside of the universe? That would clarify alot for me.
Thanks (..and do you have a shower curtain or glass door),
~Sam

My glass enclosed shower works fine.
When growing up in more humble surroundings my shower curtain at one time was unreasonably attracted to me so I cut some upright slits in the lower portion, still within the tub, and found it to be better able to restrain itself.

As to space and the universe. I can not conceive
of a limit to either. A handicap of mine which I have never been able to overcome. Cheers.
jjw

jjw, Thanks for the shower update. What an ingenious, novel solution (at least I've never heard of that one)! Guess I'll have to start a list of solutions. No way to tell whether that was from thermal or vortex effects, that I can see though.

And as for overcoming the concept of limits or boundaries, I say check out the string theories; our infinite space can be "contained" within higher dimensions.

I'd been anxiously waiting to see how you'd answer the space vs. universe thing; but I still don't get how you see them as different.

I know! I should have asked if you see space as existing before the big bang (or outside of the big bang at the beginning; into which the bigbang then expanded)?

Thanks for the shower report, and cheers too,
~Samwik

I claim no special training in astronomy. What I know of it was self taught piece-meal over many years. You have a way of offering a question that includes an assumption of certain ingredients that would make it impossible for me to answer honestly.

You assume a Big Bang and I do not.
Your assumption appears to make it a condition precedent to everything and I do not accept that as an established fact. When you sit back and reconsider our leaders present coclusions you will see that each step requires the next step if you wish to make sense of it all. There must be a bang to start exspansion. We must find a way to show that there is exspansion. We must find ingredients in space that confirm the Bang and so on and on. It is not unlikely that you will find that specific thing you seek, and, behold, the path is complete so why question it?

Uncle Al, in another topic reply, reffered to me as a "simple creature" and after giving that contention some thought I agreed. I endeavor to view the universe and its contents in a simplistic way. The theories you recite are just a means of trying to explain- as yet unproven- what others believe about the universe. I do not contend any ones view point is incorrect. I just rely, for now, on my own views.

My simplistic view is that there is no edge of space, it is infinite. The universe that is contained in that space may expand or contract while having no effct on the space within which it exists. Based on proven, or unproven facts, if you prefer, the universe is not expanding as is argued.

You may reasonably regard my views as retarded in the light of the extensive evidence offered to prove current conclusions and I expect that. The fine details will be the hurdle that the current basic view of an expanding universe will fail on, or maybe not. Big Bang or Bust.

It is all in fun and I see it that way.
jjw

jjw wrote:
"You assume a Big Bang and I do not."

There is not a single data point that contradicts the big bang with inflation theory of which I am aware.

What is the point of clinging to that which is no longer attached?

actually da, there was an article link to in the forum i think last month that showed that some kind of radiation they expected to be lower if there had been a big bang, was not lower. According to some, that put the theory of the big bang to a question.

Okay jjw, that's fine; let's get rid of the big bang. I still want to ask if you see space as existing before the universe. You already said that you see them as distinct, so this would clarify that distinction for me; that's all.

I like the way you wrote this: "The theories you recite are just a means of trying to explain- as yet unproven- what others believe about the universe."

I agree. I think all the theories are way off when it comes truly describing reality, but those same theories do have remarkable predictive powers and allow us to share ideas with a more or less common understanding. Theories usually aren't "right," but they sure are useful. I'm kinda on a rant about this, these days (see God & science, on Origins forum).

Keep on speculating,
~~Samwik

DA, that is a serious question:

"There is not a single data point that contradicts the big bang with inflation theory of which I am aware.
What is the point of clinging to that which is no longer attached?"

Probably no point at all. I think it is the difference in opinions that breeds knowledge and not the concurrence of same. Maybe not.

Samwik:

I doubt I will be able to satisfy your hunger for better explanations of what we see. As to the existence of space and the presence of the universe I suggest you consider - "which came first the fish or the water?" That is not the same as the "chicken and the egg" game.

With my hypo the water is space and the fish is the universe. The fish can not exist on its own. It required a medium into which to grow. If you wish to look at things that way you will have some idea of my simplistic viewpoint.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"actually da, there was an article link to in the forum i think last month that showed that some kind of radiation they expected to be lower if there had been a big bang, was not lower. According to some, that put the theory of the big bang to a question."

Can you find it? I can not. And without reviewing it I can not comment upon it.

Hiya jjw, Thanks for the explanation. Yep, that makes it clear.

dehammer: sounds interesting.
I searched big bang models (make sure it?s plural) and xxxx (various terms such as radiation deficit). So did a google on "big-bang models and radiation deficit" and found lots of neat stuff, but not what you asked about. I?m going back though; look what I found!

"Anisotropic four-dimensional Neveu-Schwarz?Neveu-Schwarz string cosmology"
Abstract:
An anisotropic (Bianchi type I) cosmology is considered in the four-dimensional NS-NS sector of low-energy effective string theory coupled to a dilaton and an axion-like Higgs-field within a de Sitter-Einstein frame background. The time evolution of this Universe is discussed in both the Einstein and string frames.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0005236
[Phys.Rev. D63 (2001) 064002]

~~samwik?

?and this is 5 years old!

Here's a link to some late 'bang radiation` ideas, written for popular consumption:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=...60883414B7F0123

Paints a nice picture, but 6 pages long. neat links at the end. Thanks...
~samwik

Hi Pragmatist:

I read the link you provided and I am duly impressed with the complexity of the issues facing the experts in their study of the universe. No doubt the only people that will make progress in the areas in which they search will be the academics that are being paid to do the work and that have the expensive and exotic equipment required for their work. I note your author tells us there will be a new orbiting telescope for their use in the near future and it will be exciting to see what they find in the distance.

I am not much interested in the universe except possibly in a philosophical way. I may make a comment once in a while on the Big Bang theory because the origins of same bear such a strong comparison to creation and that turns the topic into an unwelcome comparison. I am not paid to have opinions on this subject like your author and I could not qualify if the job was available.

My interest for possibly 40 years or more has focused on the Solar System. Mainly dealing with the mechanics of the operation and searching out the curious things that are usually not discussed by the experts- or for that matter that they are unaware of. This limitation works for me because I only require published data from the experts as my tools and a fertile imagination. A computer and a good calculator help.
jjw

heres the article that rusty wrote

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060804220220data_trunc_sys.shtml

im not saying the big bang didnt happen, just that there is evidence that it might not have as we expect it to have.

"...not saying the big bang didnt happen, just that there is evidence that it might not have as we expect it to have."

That's why there is more than one model.
~S

That's why there is more than one model. [Wink]

Precisely!

A note samwik:

I used the water and the fish as a metaphor.
nothing more.
jjw