Expansion of Space

[AbnormallyHonest]

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, you show your ignorance of science and scientific theories. Quickly glancing through this thread, all your questions and ramblings have been answered and shown to be invalid at best and speculative nonsense at worst. Again, as you have been informed, nothing is really "proven"  in science. A scientific theory best describes a set of observations and makes successful predictions as per GR. As those theories continue to make successful  predictions and as they continue to describe accurately our observations, they grow in certainty over time. Theories such as the BB, SR, GR, Evolution are very near certain. Theories are never quite 100% proven...But it only takes one observation or experiment that contradicts the theory, to show it is wrong.

The only invalidation was the fact that this model relied on QM, so that was attacked. Then, the same QM was used to demonstrate predictability. GR may make successful predictions, but Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism make the same predictions. So which one is correct? Is it 2+2=4 or 2x2=4?

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The only invalidation was the fact that this model relied on QM, so that was attacked. Then, the same QM was used to demonstrate predictability. GR may make successful predictions, but Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism make the same predictions. So which one is correct? Is it 2+2=4 or 2x2=4?

We do not have a full theory of QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime

"In physics, Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell's equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,^[1] Maxwell's equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.

When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell's equations are called the "microscopic" Maxwell's equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell's equations.

The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell's equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell's equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell's equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell's equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

As I suggested previously, making certified definite claims, opposing mainstream science on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, most likely reflects on your ignorance of the incumbent theory you are trying to suppress or over throw. The status quo stands.

Edited August 12, 2017 by beecee

[AbnormallyHonest]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

We do not have a full theory of QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime

"In physics, Maxwell's equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell's equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,^[1] Maxwell's equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.

When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell's equations are called the "microscopic" Maxwell's equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell's equations.

The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell's equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell's equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell's equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell's equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

As I suggested previously, making certified definite claims, opposing mainstream science on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, most likely reflects on your ignorance of the incumbent theory you are trying to suppress or over throw. The status quo stands.

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved. I would say that spacetime is flat between the boundaries, but at the extremes curvature would apply, and that is why it is not as predictable. Einstein may have shown Newton's Laws of Motion to be incorrect or primitive, yet spacecraft to other worlds rely on one set of principles. Does it not make sense that Newton and Maxwell's version of spacetime both cohesively explain the same thing using the same model, doesn't that represent stronger validation than another as assumed to be "more accurate"?

Even Einstein said, "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

[beecee]

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved. I would say that spacetime is flat between the boundaries, but at the extremes curvature would apply, and that is why it is not as predictable

As I said previously, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then does knowledge" is something you really need to consider. We observe the many different aspects of curvature and the geometry of spacetime in many different ways...gravitational lensing, Lense Thirring effect, and gravitational waves just to name three, and of course the Eddington eclipse confirmation. Spacetime curvature in its many forms are fact. Denying that in the face of overwhelming evidence and denying it many times, on a forum open to anyone, really means nothing.

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

 Einstein may have shown Newton's Laws of Motion to be incorrect or primitive, yet spacecraft to other worlds rely on one set of principles. Does it not make sense that Newton and Maxwell's version of spacetime both cohesively explain the same thing using the same model, doesn't that represent stronger validation than another as assumed to be "more accurate"?

Einstein did not show Newton's laws to be incorrect, rather they showed them as limited, just as GR itself is limited. Newton's laws of gravity are suffice to explain everyday Earth based mechanics and most space endeavours in our solar system. GR gives the same results with far more accuracy, but also far more complicated mathematical structure, which simply is not needed for those efforts. Newton's laws are correct within their zone of applicability. Einstein's GR extends that zone of applicability.  

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Even Einstein said, "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

Einstein's GR certainly follows that quote, and at this stage of proceedings, is still recognised as the overwhelming model of gravity that best describes what we observe and continues to make predictions that are substantiated.

Edited August 12, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

5 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Don't you see, that you are basing this on conjecture that spacetime is curved.

This is not a conjecture; it is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories. As you have no alternative beyond some vague, slightly incoherent ramblings, I don't see any reason to discard this as the basis of physics.

[Lord Antares]

9 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

/rants

You're going on incoherent tangents, none of which have anything to do with your ''theory''. It's ironic that you're talking so much about math without ever providing any. Please focus on the thread and provide concrete evidence and cases, instead of handwaving.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Did it exist before or after humans came up with a concept of how to describe it?

Did the concept exist before the concept existed? No. Did the behavior? Yes.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Science believes mathematics is God, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't say

Quote

So what if one day, we find that our interpretation of mathematics is as limiting in our understanding as our vision is into understanding the electromagnetic spectrum.

Then we'll adopt the better way that has come along. Until there's a demonstrable better way, we'll stick with what works best.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

It does, because it predicts "Red Shift" and the bending of light.

Red shift is a classical phenomenon. Refraction is a classical phenomenon.

Quote

These have to do with the warping of spacetime. Einstein's model of the universe creates a fluid dynamic existence of spacetime that exists differently at different locations. Time does not flow the same for everyone. The Universe may be much younger to differing perspective or much older even. If we have two perspectives in space, that do not exist within the same gravitational system, and both those locations prove to be the center of that perspective, that's pretty clear validation. Space expands from every point, it can't do that without division.

What does this nonsense have to do with QM?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Then we'll adopt the better way that has come along. Until there's a demonstrable better way, we'll stick with what works best.

Bingo! As I have said a few times now to our self appraised "online experts"  Science is a discipline in eternal progress. These self appraised online experts have plenty of "what ifs" "perhaps" and "maybes" and totally lacking in facts and evidence, 

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 6:14 AM, Lord Antares said:

There is no evidence that space is quantized (i.e. that everything moves in increments of planck length rather than ''smoothly''). The Planck length has no proven significance, yet. In theory, it is the length which is impossible to discern. In other words, objects less planck lenght away would be in the same place. It remains to be verified or disproven.
There is such a thing as a planck volume (simply planck length cubed), but it is of no significance either.

I've talked about something similar to this. About vacuums in between particles. Especially in your case, you run into the problem of there not being a set size or shape of quantum particles. They're not just a round ball between which there are regularly shaped holes. You need to account for quantum behaviour of particles.

You wot?

If you think of the fluctuation expanding inward, and the overlap is where space forms. The two metric expansions overlap and create a higher probability, but also cancel out the intrinsic expansion. This is space. The portions that do not overlap just continue to expand and overlap with other metric fluctuations forming more space, and the process just continues.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

If you think of the fluctuation expanding inward, and the overlap is where space forms. The two metric expansions overlap and create a higher probability, but also cancel out the intrinsic expansion. This is space. The portions that do not overlap just continue to expand and overlap with other metric fluctuations forming more space, and the process just continues.

Banana custard wibble fantasy.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 6:44 AM, beecee said:

The Planck scale [length, time, volume[ is a mathematically derived, fundamental,  non physical scale, calculated from some basic physical constants such as the speed of light, and the gravitational constant. It also aligns with the quantum scale and where our current laws of physics and GR, fail and where quantum effects take over.

As of this time we do not have a observationally verifiable QGT that describes spacetime at this level...eg: The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time [spacetime] from 10-43 seconds after t=0......or a BH singularity existing  at Planck/quantum level.

Again, I only refer to the Planck Length because it is familiar, at least the idea that I'm talking about. Really, I'm referring the quanta of energy.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Again, I only refer to the Planck Length because it is familiar, at least the idea that I'm talking about. Really, I'm referring the quanta of energy.

If you are talking about energy, why mention length?

And there is no evidence that energy is quantised.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:43 AM, Strange said:

Or there just isn't a minimum distance or volume and it is just a figment of your imagination. 

So basically, there is no such thing as energy, and all change, is not just the transfer of this imaginary thing we call energy? That, in fact, this imaginary thing is not conserved, because there it is not required, because, as you say, it is a figment of my imagination?

On 8/9/2017 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

But you did refer to a shape:

Even if there were some quantum of volume, that does not mean that there is some undefinable space between. That's a conjecture riding on top of another conjecture.

It's not really "between" but more like built into every part of space.

On 8/9/2017 at 1:25 PM, Lord Antares said:

As Strange said, citation needed. I want you to know that I fully understand what you are saying. I have thought about it too. I'm sure others have as well. It's called quantization of space. It means that everything moves in intervals which have a set value, rather than fluently. Like videos on a monitor. They can only move by 1 pixel, never less.

Although this may make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is true. You cannot base your conclusions on unproven suppositions.

As I said to strange, to say that there is no minimum amount would be the same thing as saying that you could introduce change without the transfer or conservation of energy.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

So basically, there is no such thing as energy, and all change, is not just the transfer of this imaginary thing we call energy?

Why would you say that? Energy obviously exists.

2 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

That, in fact, this imaginary thing is not conserved, because there it is not required, because, as you say, it is a figment of my imagination?

I said the quantisation of space may be a figment of your imagination.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/11/2017 at 4:47 AM, Lord Antares said:

I couldn't really tell you. There is a lot of conjecture in quantum science for sure. Many things are unproven and untested. For example, string theory is said to be the most advanced physical model for the universe humanity is achieved, yet it is largely unproven. There are little pieces of evidence which could point towards it, but it is far from the level of knowledge and certainty we have about Newtonian or Einstenian physics. On first thought, I might say that it's all nonsense until proven otherwise. After all, you can't accept what has not shown to be reality. But reasonable me would guess that there must be something to it, since it is so widely praised by actual physicists around the world. 

So you would have to ask someone of repute in quantum physics, but I doubt they could give you a simple answer. Maybe you could try googling ''evidence for quantum physics/string theory''. There are such things as the double slit experiment which are substantially tested but then there are other things which aren't.

I believe it is validated and able to make predictions, just as Newtonian Mechanics is able, yet Einstein came up with a more comprehensive conceptualization for the same thing. Now, with quantum physics, we do have a concept that seems to fit the data so far, just as relativity does for mechanics, but they do not fit together. So either one of them is incorrect, both or incorrect, or both are correct. Either way, just because I can convert temperature from Celsius to Fahrenheit and back, doesn't mean either of those scales are Universally true. The scale itself is just a conceptualization to quantify our experience of differences in energy.

On 8/11/2017 at 5:47 AM, swansont said:

Quantum physics makes predictions and experiment matches up with the theory, so it's hardly fair to call it conjecture, much less pure conjecture.

What experiment shows that space volume or expansion is quantized?

The experiment that is timed. Time quantifies change, and change is the transfer of energy. How much?... more than none.

On 8/11/2017 at 5:54 AM, Lord Antares said:

Well, no. Math demonstrates that it's true. If we have a mathematical model of how objects will freefall under different circumstances and it's shown to be correct every single time, it proves that it's true, or at least applicable, not just ''logical''.

Again, I refer to the example of quintic function. I suppose 5th degree polynomials do not exist then, because it is not "true"?

On 8/11/2017 at 5:54 AM, Lord Antares said:

What is the point in this? Data is a concept by definition, however a much more useful and straightforward one than what you were saying here. If you're suggesting that data which can be universally agreed upon is as valid as your speculative ideas, then you are dead wrong.

What? What are you on about now? Expansion of space is well established by data and observations. It has been addressed for years. Seeing how you said nothing concrete with no evidence, there is nothing to address.

Space expands, this is universally agreed upon? Is it Metric or Fractal?

On 8/11/2017 at 6:43 PM, swansont said:

GR is a classical theory, so there is no logical connection with quantization.

spacetime isn't a fluid.

how would you test to see if expansion is fractal?

I would see if the rate of inflation was constant. If not, I would place two objects in space who's magnetic repulsion was exactly proportionate to their gravitational attraction. If space expands intrinsically, as in a metric expansion the repulsion would hold the objects at equilibrium, they would not accrete, but gravity would hold them at equilibrium, but if the space expands between them, as in a fractal expansion, they should move apart.

Edited September 11, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

 The experiment that is timed. Time quantifies change, and change is the transfer of energy. How much?... more than none.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I can time an object dropping to the floor. That does not show quantized space.

Change does not necessarily imply a transfer of energy. The sun moves across the sky as we rotate on our axis. No energy transfer is involved in that.

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/11/2017 at 7:43 PM, Strange said:

What does that mean? Division of what?

Can two cars not move apart without "division"? 

The "expansion of space" just means that the distance between things increases over time. You seem to be reading more into it than that. 

The two cars are divided, they aren't the same car. That's not what I meant though. If two points in space can both be the center of expansion, that means that their perspectives are independent of one another. Both points do not perceive the same center, therefore there has to be some way to quantize the division between when a point becomes two independent perspectives.

On 8/12/2017 at 8:55 AM, swansont said:

Red shift is a classical phenomenon. Refraction is a classical phenomenon.

What does this nonsense have to do with QM?

As I just posted on another response, when does one perspective become two independent perspectives? There must be a way to quantize the separation.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The two cars are divided, they aren't the same car. That's not what I meant though. If two points in space can both be the center of expansion, that means that their perspectives are independent of one another. Both points do not perceive the same center, therefore there has to be some way to quantize the division between when a point becomes two independent perspectives.

There is no center.

6 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

 As I just posted on another response, when does one perspective become two independent perspectives? There must be a way to quantize the separation.

How about answering questions instead of asking new ones?

[AbnormallyHonest]

On 8/12/2017 at 8:47 AM, swansont said:

Did the concept exist before the concept existed? No. Did the behavior? Yes.

Did gravity exist before there was a concept to describe it? Sure, things fell to the ground predictably... but how predictably? Would a two spheres of differing masses fall at the same rate? Probably not before Galileo actually did the experiment himself. If the behavior existed exactly as it does now, why are there no records or eyewitness accounts of this occurring before Galileo. Even if you could travel back in time and speak to anyone who lived before that time, there would be very few people that would verify that the behavior was exactly the same as we conceptualize it today.

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

The two cars are divided, they aren't the same car. That's not what I meant though. If two points in space can both be the center of expansion, that means that their perspectives are independent of one another. Both points do not perceive the same center, therefore there has to be some way to quantize the division between when a point becomes two independent perspectives.

That is a non sequitur. Why does the fact they are independent imply quantisation? Can you show that Galilean relativity cannot work without quantisation?

1 minute ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Would a two spheres of differing masses fall at the same rate? Probably not before Galileo actually did the experiment himself.

Really? You think gravity worked differently before Galileo? Really!?

But we can see objects in the universe that follow Newton's law of gravity but are much older than Galileo so it seems you are mistaken.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Did gravity exist before there was a concept to describe it? Sure, things fell to the ground predictably... but how predictably? Would a two spheres of differing masses fall at the same rate? Probably not before Galileo actually did the experiment himself. If the behavior existed exactly as it does now, why are there no records or eyewitness accounts of this occurring before Galileo. Even if you could travel back in time and speak to anyone who lived before that time, there would be very few people that would verify that the behavior was exactly the same as we conceptualize it today.

Seriously? The laws of of physics were variable until we observed them, and only then were they consistent?

But there is evidence. We have historical records of eclipses, for example, and these confirm the orbital details of the earth and moon have not deviated from expectations. This relies on gravity being consistent. 

[AbnormallyHonest]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Banana custard wibble fantasy.

Perhaps.... you're not one of those "Flat Earth" advocates are you?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Did gravity exist before there was a concept to describe it? Sure, things fell to the ground predictably... but how predictably? Would a two spheres of differing masses fall at the same rate? Probably not before Galileo actually did the experiment himself. If the behavior existed exactly as it does now, why are there no records or eyewitness accounts of this occurring before Galileo. Even if you could travel back in time and speak to anyone who lived before that time, there would be very few people that would verify that the behavior was exactly the same as we conceptualize it today.

!

Moderator Note

You've had 3 pages to support your idea, and you've simply doubled down on your assumptions and soapboxing. We're looking for more than just your words, we need evidence when you claim the things you do in the way you do it. Science has a methodology in place to keep people from wild conjecture, and you're ignoring it. If you can't do more than soapbox, this thread will be closed. Please don't take 3 more pages to comply. And any response to this modnote will be trashed, because the rules aren't up for discussion.