If there is no end to the space

[lemur]

If what is thought of as space-expansion actually just turns out to be incredibly old, red-shifted EM waves slowly pushing everything away from everything else, would people still continue to treat space as some kind of material substance that contains other things or could it just be accepted that EM waves interact with matter and neither requires a transcendent container concept?

[Spyman]

I don't reject relativity of any sort. Thanks for posting the observational evidence above. And yet after reading it I don't see how it rules out what I will call the "Revised Balloon Analogy (RBA)". How does the observational evidence show that our region of space is not comparable to a tiny area inside the giant expanding skin of the balloon, and the skin of the balloon is over 50 Billion light years thick?

You can't have multiple theories of relativity contradicting each other, either you accept mainstream relativity or you reject it. Make your pick.

 

If you accept the consecvences of the mainstream version of Albert Einstein's General Relativity theory and all of its important astrophysical implications then it already provides explanations of a consistently expanding universe which fit with observations.

 

IMHO another totally different explanation for how space is expanding needs to seriously defeat mainstream relativity. Good Luck with that...

 

 

1) The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 93 billion lightyears according to mainstream science so you might want to revise your thickness to at least 100 billion lightyears.

 

 

2) How did we manage to get out to current radius from the center without breaking lightspeed?

 

You need to consider that the radius of this balloon need to be much larger than the thickness of the skin itself, which would then present the problem with how the stuff that eventually became Earth and us managed to traverse that huge distance within only ~14 billion years.

 

AFAIK observational evidence confirms that nothing is able to travel faster that light.

 

 

3) How does your "skin" model explain that objects are receding from us equally in all directions?

 

More precisely, how is the inside of the balloon able to move away from us equally fast as the outside of the balloon and equally fast as the objects comoving inside of the skin are separating from us, without breaking the formation of the balloon?

 

AFAIK observational evidence confirms equal expansion in all directions around us.

 

 

----------

 

 

I don't "reject Relativity" ... blah blah blah ...

You are clearly NOT accepting and NOT understanding the mainstream theory of Relativity.

 

 

PS: Spyman ignored (and the standard model he belabors does not consider) the scale...

The modern mainstream scientific consensus of cosmology has considered very large scales of the Universe and ruled out your medieval model since it is not able to explain observational phenomenas.

 

 

Spyman:

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points."

 

This is repetition of the "litany" of the presently accepted doctrine, stated as a fact.

I doubt if you have ever considered the ontology of what "space" IS, that "it" expands and all as per the accepted doctrine.I doubt if you have ever thought twice about the possibility that space is simply empty volume, without "end." What IS "it" that expands? This is an ontological question, so it may be over your head as a hard core empirical, well conditioned to accepted doctrine, "scientist."

I doubt that you will even consider the extremely vast scale of the "balloon" model I have presented. It will not "compute" with your indoctrination. It will never be "proven" in the lifespan of our sun, but that does not make it wrong or impossible.

You are expressing doubts of my knowledge and capabilities but that is completely irrelevant since I am not responsible for mainstream cosmological scientific consensus.

 

What I have presented is current mainstream cosmological scientific consensus that will change when we aqcuire new knowledge and understanding.

 

Professional, educated and knowledged scientists all over the world has already considered every possible reasonable models and concluded that only one of them is able to explain all of our observations.

 

 

At first I thought you where an old man trying to understand Einstein relativity from an Newtonian perspective and later on that you might be to proud to admitt you where wrong and don't understand, but now when it is evident that you don't want to learn and straightforward challenges scientific consensus, your true objective is revealed.

 

There is a term for persons who stubbornly cling to a personal distorted belif at odds with mainstream science and evidence, making rational debate an futile task because they dismiss all arguments which contradicts their faith, refusing to admitt they don't understand or to learn new knowledge.

 

I would really like to know what you think you can possibly gain from this discussion?

Edited March 18, 2011 by Spyman

[Iggy]

I don't reject relativity of any sort. Thanks for posting the observational evidence above. And yet after reading it I don't see how it rules out what I will call the "Revised Balloon Analogy (RBA)". How does the observational evidence show that our region of space is not comparable to a tiny area inside the giant expanding skin of the balloon, and the skin of the balloon is over 50 Billion light years thick?

 

From a position inside the skin of a balloon you will see things stretch in tangential directions and things compress in the radial direction. We see galaxies moving away in all directions.

 

I don't "reject Relativity" per se.

 

If you don't know what relativity is or what it does then you can't know if you are rejecting it.

 

Also, you don't know what it is or what it does.

 

I would really like to know what you think you can possibly gain from this discussion?

 

I'm not sure if it is germane, but I also would like an answer to this question.

 

Owl, you imagine the world a certain way. We have shown with logic that your vision of the world is internally inconsistent and physically impossible, so what do you hope to accomplish? Do you think you are debating us?

[Airbrush]

Spyman:

"The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points."

 

...What IS "it" that expands?

 

What expands is the space between matter. There has to be matter in space. To say only space expands is meaningless. If there is no matter there is no space-time and no expansion.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Airbrush

[owl]

What expands is the space between matter. There has to be matter in space To say only space expands is meaningless. If there is no matter there is no space-time and no expansion.

I think I see the communication problem... at least about the concept of "expanding space."

Conventional wisdom is that 'space itself is expanding'... that without a second ontological thought about what this "thing, itself' is (besides the obvious... empty volume... no-thing-ness.)

 

Obviously, as actual things move away from each other in space (which is not debated here) we can say that there is 'more space between them.' No problem. But this is way different than claiming that "space itself expanded between them." See the difference? If space is the infinite emptiness (see above argument for no possible "end of space") in which all "things" exist and move then it is perfectly reasonable to say that things move further apart (more space between them) without claiming that space is some sort of malleable medium.

On the "thickness of the balloon skin": With a large enough scale for the whole balloon and a thick enough balloon skin, our sphere of visibility could easily be so deeply buried in the middle of that skin that the difference between lateral expansion of the skin and the thinning of the skin as the balloon expands ( looking in the "in-out" direction) would not be on a scale detectable from our very small sphere of observation.

Imagine our solar system as an atom (and galaxies as molecules of "rubber") deep within a relatively very think skin. We would not notice a difference in any direction we look... which is exactly how we see it.

Of course we will never know, but that still doesn't make all the self righteous know-it-all declarations criticizing this model correct.

There is not just one "correct cosmology" that fits with our observation, but the above is not even being heard for self righteous and cock-sure reason above. And the "space itself is expanding" assertion as absolute truth is in the same category.

 

Edit (PS): BTW, in case y'all missed it, my primary objection to relativity is not how well the equations work. I have no doubt that they have improved scientific predictability "immeasurably" ('scuse the pun.)

I'll repeat, as there was no rely the first time other than the usual dogma.

 

"It is in fact absurd to believe that cosmic bodies move closer and further from each other just because it looks that way from a near-light-speed frame of reference."

 

Whoever believes that observation/measurement makes bodies move around in space... is confused. If sun-earth distance appears to change from one tenth AU to ten AU as different frames of reference at near-light-speed might "see" it, that appearance is not an accurate measure of distance between the two bodies in the real solar system. I rest my case... for now.

Edited March 19, 2011 by owl

[Spyman]

I'll repeat, as there was no rely the first time other than the usual dogma.

Well Owl, since you continue to refuse to answer my questions and ignore my arguments, I won't reply to you any more.

[owl]

Well Owl, since you continue to refuse to answer my questions and ignore my arguments, I won't reply to you any more.

Likewise. I couldn't have said it better myself. All your replies are out of the textbook, and you clearly can not even "hear" any challenges to the conventional wisdom. Same meaning for "dogma" as in religion.

 

Airbrush, I am still interested in your reply. You wrote:

"What expands is the space between matter."

 

I replied:

"Conventional wisdom is that 'space itself is expanding'... that without a second ontological thought about what this "thing, itself' is (besides the obvious... empty volume... no-thing-ness.)

 

Obviously, as actual things move away from each other in space (which is not debated here) we can say that there is 'more space between them.' No problem. But this is way different than claiming that "space itself expanded between them." See the difference?"

 

This distinction is up for grabs by anyone here of course. I challenge anyone who believes that "space itself expands" to tell me exactly what is expanding in that case. An invisible foam? A metaphysical matrix/medium? What? A "metric of coordinates?" (That is the map, not the territory.)

 

Iggy:

"From a position inside the skin of a balloon you will see things stretch in tangential directions and things compress in the radial direction. We see galaxies moving away in all directions."

 

Of course that would be true as long as you ignore the model as I presented it: relatively thick skin with our relatively very small sphere of visibility deep within. But, of course nobody here will consider any new possibilities, because we already "know" that the conventional wisdom is the only possible model which is true to what we see. OK, fine.

[Iggy]

Iggy:

"From a position inside the skin of a balloon you will see things stretch in tangential directions and things compress in the radial direction. We see galaxies moving away in all directions."

 

Of course that would be true as long as you ignore the model as I presented it: relatively thick skin with our relatively very small sphere of visibility deep within. But, of course nobody here will consider any new possibilities, because we already "know" that the conventional wisdom is the only possible model which is true to what we see. OK, fine.

 

The rubber does not expand uniformly at any scale. The universe does expand uniformly. It's a falsified model. If you knew what a model was, you might know that. If you knew what you were doing, or were willing to learn then I would invest further in a discussion. It's clear you are not.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Iggy

[Airbrush]

On the "thickness of the balloon skin": With a large enough scale for the whole balloon and a thick enough balloon skin, our sphere of visibility could easily be so deeply buried in the middle of that skin that the difference between lateral expansion of the skin and the thinning of the skin as the balloon expands ( looking in the "in-out" direction) would not be on a scale detectable from our very small sphere of observation.

 

The problem now is your "large enough scale" is too large for a Big Bang that originated only 13.7 Billion or so years ago. That kind of large scale is too large for the amount of time the universe existed. I hadn't noticed this until now, sorry.

 

And cosmic inflation was supposed to have lasted only at the beginning before the universe was much larger than a basket ball.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Airbrush

[owl]

The rubber does not expand uniformly at any scale. The universe does expand uniformly. It's a falsified model. If you knew what a model was, you might know that. If you knew what you were doing, or were willing to learn then I would invest further in a discussion. It's clear you are not.

You just confirmed that you are not getting the model I am presenting. The "universe" (as you call it) that we can see is limited to the very small sphere deep within the thickness of the "rubber" of a vastly larger expanding sphere in my model, the "whole balloon."

Everything we can see to the limit of our small sphere is expanding uniformly. None of us can possibly know anything about what is beyond our cosmic event horizon... the very small sphere of visibility above. But cosmology has a speculative realm which includes what might be beyond what we can see. The whole balloon is that realm, as I see it, being merely an amateur cosmologist, and it is not "falsifiable" even though it is admittedly not very useful either. So what. That does not, as you suppose, make it wrong.

 

The above shows that your first statement above is bogus. And "a model" of the cosmos beyond our vision is still a model, even if it is way beyond your definition of "the universe." My definition of the universe is: all there is, both known and unknown... one "verse" so to speak... not just what we can see and know about.

 

It brings to mind the guy who dropped and lost his car keys but confines his search to the circle of light under the street-light. He doesn't find them but there is no use in looking around in the dark.

There is also no use to continue with the above cosmology. It is just speculative and will stay that way until, if ever, the "membrane of rubber" thins enough to see beyond... way beyond the lifetime of our sun, most likely. But other worlds, closer to either "surface" with way better instruments... way in the future... may just verify the Big Balloon model. I will not be holding my breath meanwhile... nor will the current cosmological myopia of the presently accepted model bother me.

 

BTW, the "age" of the cosmos we can see is fairly well estimated, based on... well... what we can see...

This should address your objection, airbrush.

PS (edit): ,If this turns out to be my last post here I will leave you with a repetition of my primary objection to relativity... which is not its excellent predictive ability but the ontology of how it treats things like distance between objects (sun-earth for instance) and the supposed changing size and temperature of the sun:

.............

I don't "reject Relativity" per se. (Cap for being an absolute?) I have not yet reconciled the well proven constant speed of light with the claim of relativity that, for instance, sun-earth distance actually changes with every possible near-light-speed frame of observational reference... or that, as per Lorentz transformation, the size and temperature of the sun actually changes, as extreme frames of reference claim.

 

It is in fact absurd to believe that cosmic bodies move closer and further from each other just because it looks that way from a near-light-speed frame of reference.

 

Whoever believes that observation/measurement makes bodies move around in space... is confused. If sun-earth distance appears to change from one tenth AU to ten AU as different frames of reference at near-light-speed might "see" it, that appearance is not an accurate measure of distance between the two bodies in the real solar system. I rest my case... for now.

...............

Edited March 23, 2011 by owl

[Airbrush]

owl: "...the "age" of the cosmos we can see is fairly well estimated, based on... well... what we can see...

This should address your objection, airbrush...."

 

I'm sorry but this does not answer my objection. Remember, I was in agreement with you about the "thick-skinned-balloon-analogy" until I realized this created a model that was far too big to have expanded that size in only 13.7 Billion years. If the thick skin is thicker than our visual horizon then the diameter of the balloon is Trillions or Quadrillions of light years across (if not millions of time larger than that). How could the balloon grow so big in only 13.7 Billion years?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Airbrush

[owl]

owl: "...the "age" of the cosmos we can see is fairly well estimated, based on... well... what we can see...

This should address your objection, airbrush...."

 

I'm sorry but this does not answer my objection. Remember, I was in agreement with you about the "thick-skinned-balloon-analogy" until I realized this created a model that was far too big to have expanded that size in only 13.7 Billion years. If the thick skin is thicker than our visual horizon then the diameter of the balloon is Trillions or Quadrillions of light years across (if not millions of time larger than that). How could the balloon grow so big in only 13.7 Billion years?

The 13.7 billion years is the estimated age of the part (sphere of visibility) of the cosmos we can see, not the possible whole shebang "balloon."

You are jumping scales here, and the vastly larger scale is way beyond the presently accepted models, based, of course only on what we can see.

If you go back to my analogy comparing our solar system to an atom and galaxies to molecules embedded deeply within the balloon's rubber membrane... the isotropic and homogeneous view from any such smaller sphere of visibility would look identical to what we see, anywhere within the balloon membrane except from the viewpoint of those cosmi (?, plural of cosmos) closest to the inner or outer boundary of the 'membrane.'

Maybe such locations can already see a thinning of the density of cosmic material.

 

I'm thinking that the balloon analogy is not adequate to convey the probably gradual thinning of cosmic material closer to either the inside or outside of the balloon. Supernova remnants flying out into space without a defined "shell thickness' would probably be a better model on "small scale."

 

But, of course we are just playing with mental silly putty on this scale of cosmology, while I'm sure of all by-the-book cosmologists here are rolling their eyes, sneering and condescending. Oh well. They will get over it and stay snug and comfortable in the 'conventional wisdom' they all learned in school.

[Airbrush]

...I'm thinking that the balloon analogy is not adequate to convey the probably gradual thinning of cosmic material closer to either the inside or outside of the balloon. Supernova remnants flying out into space without a defined "shell thickness' would probably be a better model on "small scale."...

 

Maybe the proportions of a balloon are not realistic. You envision, as I did, an empty central region, or perhaps a super-supermassive black hole created the way a supernova creates black holes, with an expanding shell with a thickness greater than our visual horizon (which is how far? about 50 Billion light years?). The central void would be Trillions of light years across. And our Big Bang is just one of many, a speck on an enormous shell which is much older than 13.7 Billion years?

 

I'm afraid we are on the verg of getting sent to the speculations department.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Airbrush

[owl]

Maybe the proportions of a balloon are not realistic. You envision, as I did, an empty central region, or perhaps a super-supermassive black hole created the way a supernova creates black holes, with an expanding shell with a thickness greater than our visual horizon (which is how far? about 50 Billion light years?). The central void would be Trillions of light years across. And our Big Bang is just one of many, a speck on an enormous shell which is much older than 13.7 Billion years?

 

I'm afraid we are on the verg of getting sent to the speculations department.

Agreed. No point in continuing. I do think the supernova remnant model would be an improvement over the balloon model, though... not like a perfectly spherical shell of a perfectly uniform thickness. And it is an actual explosion of material out into empty space, which is still in the face of the doctrine to the contrary... that that does not happen. (Rather that "space itself expands."... the last word here on what is true and real they say.) Ontologically, what is "space" as such a malleable medium? Who cares?

I refer the forum to my post on that on the last page, post 255. Also a summary yesterday in post 260.

 

One last outrageous possibility, I'd like to share before we are cast to the outer darkness:

I also "like" a multiple bangs/multiple crunches model... that there is "incoming material" that we can't see yet on the way in to "crunch" even as what we see is "outgoing" ... at an accelerating rate of expansion even!

So then we could dump "dark energy" as the anti-gravity factor pushing us ever faster outward... since no one has a clue what "it" might be anyway. The 'stuff further out' from a previous bang would then just be pulling our 'shell' ever faster outward via gravity as we know it. The Cosmic Juggling Act model!

Very speculative, of course... and still without an apology!