So sorry but the universe is not expanding!

[rrw4rusty]

Hi!

 

A space ship lands on Earth and during the initial exchange (aided by a translator the aliens developed on their way here) this technologically superior alien makes the following statement:

 

"So sorry Earthling but, the universe... it is not expanding!"

 

What basic assumption have we had wrong that would allow for such a mistake?

 

Rusty

 

Edit: There is a correct answer.

Edited October 10, 2009 by rrw4rusty
addition of informaton

[Mr Skeptic]

Why would we take the alien's word for it?

[rrw4rusty]

Why would we take the alien's word for it?

 

As they fly across 300 light years and land on Earth with their cool looking ship... ... why wouldn't you?

 

Anyway, that's the easy way out and its not 'an assumption' that would lead to us being in error on this issue.

 

This one requires deeper thinking.

Rusty

[bascule]

This one requires deeper thinking.

 

The universe isn't expanding, but something else is, and it's in my pants.

[mooeypoo]

"why wouldn't we" because they might be wrong. The idea they came to Earth doesn't mean they know everything, it just means they know how to travel.

 

But seriously, we're going to need something much better than an Alien's "word for it". For that matter, if they know so much better, they'd have no problem proving it.

 

And when they do, we can talk about it.

 

~moo

[rrw4rusty]

The universe isn't expanding, but something else is, and it's in my pants.

 

Two words: seek help.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"why wouldn't we" because they might be wrong. The idea they came to Earth doesn't mean they know everything, it just means they know how to travel.

 

But seriously, we're going to need something much better than an Alien's "word for it". For that matter, if they know so much better, they'd have no problem proving it.

 

And when they do, we can talk about it.

 

~moo

 

Oh oh. A 'moderator'... am I in trouble? This is just in fun okay... though there is an interesting point to it. I didn't want to ruffle any feathers.

 

<< I just deleted the hint I was going to give. No way! There's a bunch of smart people here! >>

 

Really, more than someone realizing the answer, I was hoping something interesting would fall out of the tree. I'll cross my fingers on both and give it a little more time. Then I'll post the answer.

 

Rusty

[mooeypoo]

my feathers weren't ruffled, and my post really wasn't done in my capacity as a moderator.. it was my "two cents". I might be a moderator, but I'm a member of the forum, too

[ydoaPs]

Her moderator speak is in purple...........her pwny speak is normal

[Mr Skeptic]

There are several ways that the contradiction between what the alien says and what we see could be resolved.

 

1.) The alien is wrong or lying, and the universe really is expanding.

2.) There is some mechanism that saps energy from light, so that the longer it travels the less energy it has, accounting for the observed redshifts.

3.) Parts of the universe could be expanding and other parts contracting (ie, the assumption of even distribution of matter at large scales is wrong), so that the universe as a whole can't be said to either be expanding or contracting.

4.) The stars don't really exist, the aliens put a whole bunch of very expensive lights in the sky to confuse us, and put them in such a pattern as to suggest an expanding universe.

 

....and more. There's countless different ways to resolve that contradiction.

 

If you want, you can put the answer inside [ hide ] [ /hide ] tags (without the space) so that it looks like this: [hide] this text is hidden [/hide]. Then people can't see it unless they highlight it.

[Moontanman]

Everything is actually shrinking the universe is staying the same size and that makes it look like the universe is expanding?

[Sayonara]

Oh oh. A 'moderator'... am I in trouble?

Yes, because your earth-shattering question has rocked the boat that much

[mooeypoo]

omg omg it's an administrator!

you must be in real trouble NOW.... runnnnnnn!

 

 

 

Anyhoo.

I think it's time to tell us the answer or at least a hidden version of it, or a hint towards what you mean, at least, seeing as it doesn't seem many people understand where you're going with this... is this a logic riddle? a scientific anomaly? a brainteaser? a prediction? ;-)

[JillSwift]

omg omg it's an administrator!

you must be in real trouble NOW.... runnnnnnn!

No! Never run! That just makes you look like prey.

 

Stay calm, don't look the admin in the eyes - avert your eyes. Keep your head low, and slowly back away from the administrator.

 

 

 

I'm a take a guess at the answer (Full disclosure: I'm quite ignorant of physics and cosmology.). The universe appears to be expanding only because light naturally redshifts (a frequency shift due to a reduction in energy) over vast distances. This is caused by light bumping into "dark matter" that absorbs a small portion of the photon's energy and converts it to gravity.

 

Yeah.

 

That's the ticket.

[padren]

I guess technically the universe could have stopped expanding very recently, and the blue shifted light hasn't gotten to us yet.

 

As for the technicality of the question: The aliens could say that, but "appeal to authority" is still a fallacy and they'd have to provide evidence to substantiate their assertion, and if their statement was true they should have no trouble doing that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a side note: 'red shift through weakening light' would not explain how we can see objects as far away as the deep field objects, since they are more light years away than the universe is old.

[Moontanman]

I bet I got it right!

[rrw4rusty]

Okay!!! This was awesome!! Thank all of you (even Mr. Pants)!

 

Mooeypoo: is this a logic riddle? a scientific anomaly? a brainteaser? a prediction?

 

First, my objective here was to have some fun and also get creative reasons from knowledgeable people on why we might be wrong about <this or that>. It worked better than I hoped! Therefore, I could kick myself because why we might be wrong about the universe expanding wasn’t what I really needed. This was kind of a test but I now realize that I cannot use this method again so the jokes on me. (BTW, I’m a sci-fi writer and I need certain plausible ways to do things.)

 

Just asking hadn’t worked so far so I tried this and got what I wanted:

 

Mr Skeptic: There is some mechanism that saps energy from light, so that the longer it travels the less energy it has, accounting for the observed redshifts.

 

Mr Skeptic: Parts of the universe could be expanding and other parts contracting (ie, the assumption of even distribution of matter at large scales is wrong), so that the universe as a whole can't be said to either be expanding or contracting.

 

Moontanman: Everything is actually shrinking the universe is staying the same size and that makes it look like the universe is expanding?

 

JillSwift: The universe appears to be expanding only because light naturally redshifts (a frequency shift due to a reduction in energy) over vast distances. This is caused by light bumping into "dark matter" that absorbs a small portion of the photon's energy and converts it to gravity

 

Padren: I guess technically the universe could have stopped expanding very recently, and the blue shifted light hasn't gotten to us yet.

 

Padren: Just a side note: 'red shift through weakening light' would not explain how we can see objects as far away as the deep field objects, since they are more light years away than the universe is old.

 

Great stuff!!!

 

But you want ‘the answer’.

 

As far as I can tell no one provided this. If you disagree let me know. Also, in retrospect I could have worded my question a little better as well.

 

A restatement of my question: “What basic assumption have we had wrong that would allow for such a mistake?”

 

Any answer which started with “The assumption that…” would have been far closer.

 

After the first reply (correct but not what I asked for) I even reinforced this in the next post with saying:

“<snip>… its not 'an assumption’… <snip>”

 

The answer: “The assumption that the alien knew more then we knew.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you feel I tricked you unfairly the I appologise. My view is that no one really read my question.

 

There were a lot of correct statements which did not provide the assumption I had asked for:

 

Mr Skeptic (Scientist): Why would we take the alien's word for it?

Should have read: The assumption that the alien knew more then we knew.

 

eMooeypoo: they might be wrong. The idea they came to Earth doesn't mean they know everything

Should have read: The assumption that the alien knew more then we knew.

 

Bascule: The universe isn't expanding, but something else is, and it's in my pants.

Should have read: The assumption that there was something there to begin with.

 

Now to figure out how to repeat this using something else asking about the issue I really need for my book. Again, I hope no one feels used, slighted or tricked.

 

Thanks!

Rusty

Edited October 11, 2009 by rrw4rusty

[Mr Skeptic]

The answer: “The assumption that the alien knew more then we knew.”

 

Even if he did, we still wouldn't just take his word for it. An argument from authority has long been considered a logical fallacy...

 

Now to figure out how to repeat this using something else and asking about what I really need for my book. Again, I hope no one feels used, slighted or tricked.

 

I think you would have been better off doing this in the first place. And I hope you don't want us to give you word for word exactly what you are looking for.

[iNow]

I've gotta say, Mr.Skeptic seems to have nailed it with the very first response.

[swansont]

 

The answer: “The assumption that the alien knew more then we knew.”

 

But you stated that they were technologically superior. By definition they know more than we know. That's part of your (not the alien's) premise.

 

But then, an alien landing on earth gives away that it's a trick question.

[Klaynos]

But you stated that they were technologically superior. By definition they know more than we know. That's part of your (not the alien's) premise.

 

But then, an alien landing on earth gives away that it's a trick question.

 

Their ship might have been hit by a comet, whilst they were all in status with their memories stored in the main computer that happened to have been taken clean out.

[insane_alien]

But you stated that they were technologically superior. By definition they know more than we know. That's part of your (not the alien's) premise.

 

But then, an alien landing on earth gives away that it's a trick question.

 

just because the species is more advanced doesn't mean we're talking to one of the bright ones. could be talking to their equivalent of a high-school drop out. points to district9 as a more indepth version of his arguement.

[mooeypoo]

Scifi novels can have anything in them if you don't mind not using actual physics. The problem with your initial question is that our initial assumption seemed to NATURALLY be that the aliens might not necessarily know more than we do, or rather, know everything.

 

As science-minded people, that's a natural assumption to make - as Mr Skeptic pointed out, assuming otherwise is falling into a logical fallacy (specifically "Argument from Authority").

 

So, I think that's why you might not have gotten what you were looking for. It seems to me that the assumption you THINK people would automatically make (that the aliens know more about that specific issue) is not necessarily what scientists actually would make.

 

Let me put it this way: If an alien race came to Earth and stated that the moon is made of cheese, what assumption would you say would be wrong?

Obviously, no one will assume the aliens know more than us if they stated this. It would be ridiculous. We would just assume the Aliens lost their minds while travelling to earth (maybe a side-effect of FTL drive, ha! plot twist!) or that they're yanking our chains.

 

For us to take them seriously,they'd need to show some SERIOUS evidence that we had it wrong all these years. Like, that the core of the moon is made of cheese while the rest is covered in dust.. or.. something.

 

Anyhoo, my point is that the scenario I gave doesn't give you the flawed assumption you were looking for because it's quite clearly against everything we know. I think the same can be said about the expansion of the universe - maybe not to the same degree, but definitely close enough to have the definite majority of scientists just not take the Aliens' word for it.

 

If the Aliens would've said their OWN planet had cheese growing from trees, we might have taken their word for it. First, because it might be implausible, but not entirely impossible, and second, because it really doesn't matter that much. The statement doesn't negate any known physical laws or overturn any theories as to require us to completely change what and how we know things about the universe.

 

The statement you put up in the OP does change what we know about the universe and affects some of our theories, so it will require actual proof. Scientists will be demand more rigor before they agree to switch their entire worldview.

 

 

 

~moo

[rrw4rusty]

But you stated that they were technologically superior. By definition they know more than we know. That's part of your (not the alien's) premise.

 

But then, an alien landing on earth gives away that it's a trick question.

 

I qualified 'superior' and you know it. Just because someone is technologically superior doesn't mean the know more in all other areas.

 

In addition, the sky looks blue and the grass is green (when watered, lol).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Scifi novels can have anything in them if you don't mind not using actual physics. The problem with your initial question is that our initial assumption seemed to NATURALLY be that the aliens might not necessarily know more than we do, or rather, know everything.

 

As science-minded people, that's a natural assumption to make - as Mr Skeptic pointed out, assuming otherwise is falling into a logical fallacy (specifically "Argument from Authority").

 

So, I think that's why you might not have gotten what you were looking for. It seems to me that the assumption you THINK people would automatically make (that the aliens know more about that specific issue) is not necessarily what scientists actually would make.

 

Let me put it this way: If an alien race came to Earth and stated that the moon is made of cheese, what assumption would you say would be wrong?

Obviously, no one will assume the aliens know more than us if they stated this. It would be ridiculous. We would just assume the Aliens lost their minds while travelling to earth (maybe a side-effect of FTL drive, ha! plot twist!) or that they're yanking our chains.

 

For us to take them seriously,they'd need to show some SERIOUS evidence that we had it wrong all these years. Like, that the core of the moon is made of cheese while the rest is covered in dust.. or.. something.

 

Anyhoo, my point is that the scenario I gave doesn't give you the flawed assumption you were looking for because it's quite clearly against everything we know. I think the same can be said about the expansion of the universe - maybe not to the same degree, but definitely close enough to have the definite majority of scientists just not take the Aliens' word for it.

 

If the Aliens would've said their OWN planet had cheese growing from trees, we might have taken their word for it. First, because it might be implausible, but not entirely impossible, and second, because it really doesn't matter that much. The statement doesn't negate any known physical laws or overturn any theories as to require us to completely change what and how we know things about the universe.

 

The statement you put up in the OP does change what we know about the universe and affects some of our theories, so it will require actual proof. Scientists will be demand more rigor before they agree to switch their entire worldview.

 

 

 

~moo

 

 

So... ... ... I was a bad boy?

[mooeypoo]

So... ... ... I was a bad boy?

I like bad boys.

 

 

 

Seriously, though, no I'm trying to say that if you want help with finding a plausible way to represent some non-scientific (or future-scientific or possible-scientific) phenomenon in a scientifically-plausible way for a plot, then you should say so.

 

And I was trying to say that I think you are the one who made assumptions (that we would assume the aliens know a lot), and not necessarily the people who saw the aliens...which is an attempt to explain why you didn't quite get what you expected to get.

 

Specifically, what you said here:

I qualified 'superior' and you know it. Just because someone is technologically superior doesn't mean the know more in all other areas.

Is an assumption we automatically have... To assume otherwise is to fall into fallacious thinking, which is why we - scientists and science-minded people -- REALLY try to avoid it.

 

Is my point clearer? I'm trying.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, were you planning on sharing the actual question you said you have?