JohnLesser

 

 

 

But you have to:

 

A. Expand the idea from 2D to 3D (not easy)

 

B. Remember that the balloon does not exist (there is no "substance" that galaxies are stuck to)

 

C. Remember that there is no inside or outside "the balloon"

Yes you understand well, that is exactly why the balloon analogy is a terrible analogy because of the skin of the balloon, that is why I like to use an inflating ghost.

 

 

The universe outside the observable universe is still part of our universe. The "multiverse" idea is quite different (and has no evidence).

 

 

I don't see why. The big bang model doesn't say that.

 

 

There is no theory that says there was nothing before the universe.

Things certainly change over time, either that or I am slipping through parallel dimensions lol.

I was told this on other forums before.

Lets detail GR version of curvature a bit further with two thought experiments.

 

take 2 balls drop them from a height. Plot the rate of fall and direction of fall. Keep track of the distance between the two balls. (assign a variable here called the Kronecker delta function).

 

If there is no gravity or curvature the Kronecker delta will be constant. The distance between the two balls do not change.

 

If you have mass then just as in Newton gravity the balls will fall towards the center of gravity. This will alter our previous parallel freefall paths affecting the Kronecker delta. The two balls will get closer together as they fall.

 

We can now use this to plot spacetime curvature. (using the freefall paths of two or more objects in parallel. The kronecker delta gives us our devitations from the parallel paths (intrinsic curvature due to mass )

I do not understand where we get gravity curvature from, things seemingly fall to the ground in a straight line, a linear force. What are you saying is curved?

These co-ordinates, then, become the MODEL, and we can make analogies between the volume of space/universe and the co-ordinates of the model.

These co-ordinates are the point sources, without these point sources XYZt could not be used. But to be honest, I would not need coordinates to land a rocket on mars.

 

Why a black hole? How did we get back to the black hole again?

 

 

Why a black hole? how would you perceive a spec of dust 100m away from you?

I would perceive that the spec of dust was reflecting and emitting light but I could not see this, I would perceive that there was this invisible sphere surrounding it that I could not see, i.e a black hole.

 

 

It is generally assumed that the universe outside the observable universe is pretty much the same as what we see. There is no reason to think otherwise.

 

Fair point.

This is where multi-verse come in to affect, the realism of a multi-verse is what we are discussing now, if we can imagine several ''balloons'' floating around in a box in darkness, each balloon an isolated system but only isolated by the laws of light. They may view us as a black hole?

The 2D surface of the balloon isn't expanding into anything. It is just getting larger. Same goes for 3D expansion.

Scientific method proves for things to expand there has to be more space to expand into, I do not buy into this before the BB was nothing malarkey , evidence suggest otherwise.

 

I thought from your analogy that the observable universe is the balloon itself.

Technically yes, but you can't see the skin of the balloon you can only see the points on the balloon. Only the points reflect or emit light , we can't see anything else. If we removed all the point sources from the space, although there was light, it would be relative dark to you.

Believe it or not the darkness you see between distant bodies is actually daylight. There is just nothing to see that is reflecting or emitting light. The balloons skin in my mind represents the light we cant see between bodies.

 

 

OK. Space doesn't expand, but the distance between things increases. Is that better?

 

Note that distance is made of nothing but it increases. But I assume that's not a problem?

Thank you Strange, yes that is much more accurate in description and I have no complaints.

So is it right to assume that beyond our observable Universe there is more space that the ''balloon'' is ''expanding'' into?

 

Citation needed.

 

 

The increasing size of the observable universe is not the same thing as the expansion of space. (Although it does depend on the rate at which expansion occurs.)

Space itself does not expand, it is made of nothing, the light between bodies is stretched the more distance, space itself does not redshift, it is the light that redshifts that is being emitted/reflected by the receding bodies.

The light is expanding relative to moving bodies, it is the same thing in my eyes.

My "2 pennies worth", In my view, "Space" is expanding at every point,

So has you blow the balloon up, your allowing a place/volume for space to expand into,

the space already in the box is/was continually expanding out of the box.

It would expand equally at every point if the surface existed, the surface only exists where the points are on the surface that doesn't exist.

added - it may be easier to consider a ghost who has paint splatters on his surface and inflating the ghost. You can observe the splats but you can't observe the ghost.

 

 

I'm not good with analogies. But the first one sounds reasonably accurate (as long as you are only considering the 2D surface of the balloon as an analogy for 3D space.)

 

The second sounds wrong.

 

None of which has anything to do with black holes. The mathematics of a black hole is quite different from an expanding universe.

The mathematics of Einstein fitted our visual Universe inside of a BH.

The second one is much more accurate than the first one, the balloons skin is not actual there, the balloons skin is to show a light sphere, the sphere expands because the point sources are moving away from a central point, if you removed the point sources from the virtual light sphere the observable Universe would contract to the edge of the milky way.

 

 

That is a good attitude. Until you take it to the extreme of never accepting explanations or facts, because they disagree with your opinions.

 

 

That is often a good idea. You may find out that the answer you "know" turns out to be incorrect. (Can you imagine that as a possibility?)

I can imagine that yes, that is why I try to use only axioms, tried and tested axioms on my friends. I understand ambiguity of answers, I try to clean up the answers to remove ambiguity.

The question you should be asking (of yourself) is: "If all these people who are far more intelligent and better educated than me say I am wrong, then why do I still insist I am right?"

When you can answer that in a manner satisfactory to everyone, you may begin to actually learn something.

When somebody can prove my premise wrong I will admit I am wrong. Axioms do not lie.

Assertions are not evidence.

There was no assertions, I used vectors etc, all ''your'' own science from Wiki.

 

 

Well, obviously, we can only base our theories on what we can observe, i.e. the observable universe.

 

However , the observable universe is not a black hole (I assume that is what BH stands for)

How do you know our observable Universe is not a Black hole in an infinite universe?

Let me explain your very own balloon analogy.

The Observable Universe is expanding, Imagine dots on a balloons surface and the balloon inflates.

That would not be entirely correct.

Imagine a virtual box and inside the box it is dark. Now inflate the balloon with the dots on the surface as before, the universe is not expanding, the light point sources are extending allowing us to see further into the darkness of the box,

That would be entirely accurate?

 

 

Well, the evidence shows that the density (and therefore temperature) used to be higher.

 

And gravity has always been there.

I must then presume that you are talking about observable universes inside an infinite space , i.e BH's

 

 

Just to avoid confusion, the contents of that infinite space used to be more dense than now.

How can it be more dense?

If space is infinite, it has always been infinite. That infinite space just used to be more dense than it is now.

I would of thought the opposite personally and the space would of been less dense until some how gravity appeared?

 

 

The big bang model says nothing about that.

I know it doesn't that's why it was a question . An infinite space, always was, always is and always will be , could not have a starting point, all observers from any geometrical position would observe infinite, there could not be a starting point?

Asking a question as a thread starter when in fact you have your own idea to push is disingenuous, is it not?

Not at all, we have just drifted into different discussion, however related discussion, it is still about space. My own ideas? No, you have all said space is nothing.

 

 

The big bang model describes the expansion and cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. Current theories do not allow us to say what happened any earlier than that. It probably needs a theory of quantum gravity to say more.

I am a bit confused, infinite space can not have a starting point?

 

I cannot deny the fact that I am entertained by your comments and I would up-vote you if this would be sci-fi literature section but sadly it is not.

I am sure you have an ocean worth of knowledge above me but please try to separate rational thinking from fictional gumbo.

You just did not understand me. I wasn't talking sci-fi lol.

I started 7 years ago roughly , so I am seven years ahead in my thinking in this.

Sounds like you've already made your mind up..

Well! after several years yes, the evidence points that way. MY mind can be changed like anyone else, but for that to happen people would have to prove my notions about your notions to be incorrect.

 

 

It is not expanding into anything. The simplest model is that the universe is infinite, in which case there is nothing outside of it. And then it may be easier to think of the expansion as a decrease in density.

 

(And note that "[metric] expansion of space" is a metaphor for the mathematics and can be misleading if taken too literally.)

I understand the expansion, I know it is point sources that are moving away therefore the space between's length extends. It is rather explained poorly when people say space is expanding. So before the big bang , what ? there was infinite space?

Space has no border or skin to keep stuff inside. There is only space.

Yes indeed and there is no border that can isolate space from space.

Question - The universe is expanding, expanding into what ?

Space is expanding? not likely.

The observable point sources are moving away, the observable Space is ''expanding'' because the point sources allow us to observe further.

 

 

I guess if space were a "substance" or aether existed, then that might be true. Depending on the nature of the substance. For example, meutrinos can pass through the balloon as if it weren't there - in fact they could pass through several light years of solid lead without noticing.

 

 

While it is true that space has no physicality (it is not a substance with properties) that does not imply that measurements cannot change. If anything, I would have thought it was the other way round: if space were a substance, then it might have a fixed shape/size/density and so could not contract.

 

The fact that "space" just means a set of coordinates for measuring relative positions between events (which is what it means in physics) then there is no reason why that coordinate system cannot change (and hence change the measurement of distances between things (or the measurements of the lengths of things).

Changing coordinates to contract space when the space does not contract is observer effect.

Using numerology in deceit should be a crime.

 

 

So why would "emptiness" be blocked by the wall of a balloon.

If there was any sort of spacial ''fabric'' or any sort of Aether, the balloon would not inflate. The space could not ''penetrate'' the balloons surface and end up inside the balloon. I ''see'' this as evidence that space is a whole and ''coupled'' no matter where the space is or what the divider is.

 

This is off-topic but you sound like a time traveler gathering info like Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys.

 

May I please ask what is it that triggered this post about the balloon/box space contraction?

I can't discuss it too much, I have been told not too. The balloon question is just something that shows space has no physicality, things without physicality can not contract or expand or deform.

I am about 7 years ahead in thinking about this, so it may sound like I am from the future because I am relative seven years ahead in thought.

I was told to ask questions, so I asked a question which has some difficult in the answer.

There is no trigger, it is just a thought, I have the ability to pluck thoughts out of fresh air about almost anything.

 

Does it bother you that I can't punch what you're dreaming about?

It does not bother me in the slightest that you can not punch space because the space will pass right through your fist like a ghost passing through a wall or a wall passing through a ghost.

Space is passive to matter and matter is passive to space.

Thank you for answering the length contraction and it was what I feared but I will not discuss it.

The 'space' does not get inside the inflated balloon.

Space is a mathematical construct, a co-ordinate grid if you will. and we assign each point on the balloon's surface ( and the box' also ) a co-ordinate. Inflating the balloon means the co-ordinates assigned to the balloon's surface ( the event ) change.

 

Relativity, on the other hand, implies that the distance between co-ordinates ( including the time co-ordinate ) is variable, such that the co-ordinate grid can even curve or warp.

Space is not a mathematical construct, Minkowski space-time is a coordinate system and mathematical construct. Space is just space, a volume ''emptiness''.

sorry I missed your edit , you say the length of the rocket contracts, how strange, so how does this affect the molecular structure and stress levels of the rocket ?

I think length contraction is a visual thing involving the angle of light , not a physical contraction .

I can not quote I have switched to my phone , you are correct in a way. What you just said made no sense to me because you are not explaining what contracts. The length of what contracts ?

As a side note, this is one thing that gets you in trouble. Insisting that you have implied nothing and just asked a question is either deceitful or incredibly clueless. How you phrase a question has implications, but you've done more than just ask a question in this thread.

 

Space does not get displaced because it is not a substance. You say you know this, so why do you keep asking the question?

 

A physical barrier would not isolate geometry, which is a mathematical construct. Why would you think it would?

Ok, and you will probably shout at me for this, I have a second question,

How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced?

I am not isolating geometry , I was using geometry to measure . I was considering no matter how thick the walls , we can't isolate space from space.