zazzzoom Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 SPACE ENDS Space ends, space does not go on forever and ever it ends. The difference between space ending or not ending is if space does not end then space does not have a shape but once you understand that space ends then space can take a shape and that shape can move from one shape to another shape. Yes space ends and moves.
ecoli Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 Why does space have to have a specific shape? Please explain that logic.
Macroscopic Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 Space ends, space does not go on forever and ever it ends.The difference between space ending or not ending is if space does not end then space does not have a shape but once you understand that space ends then space can take a shape and that shape can move from one shape to another shape. Yes space ends and moves. Your logic seems to be lacking in logic. If space ends and moves, where is it moving into? More space. If you are going to say something like 'the universe has an edge', you should back it up with more than, 'once you understand'. Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy and Religion forum, because what you posted is not astronomy or cosmology.
Klaynos Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 well, my view on this is, space is expanding, we know this to be proabably true, therefore it has to be expanding from some finite size to a new finite size, so must be finite, anything which is finite in size is finite in shape (although this might be moving)... This is only really a personal view though.
star dust Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 i think it must end somewhere otherwise how could it be expanding?? What would it be expanding into?
mustang292 Posted March 20, 2005 Posted March 20, 2005 How about, the universe before the big bang was just an infinite solid mass. At some point a fracture occured causing Space to occur allowing for more fractures until .......so on and so forth.
ecoli Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 i think it must end somewhere otherwise how could it be expanding?? What would it be expanding into? That doesn't make any sense. How do you reach that conclusion? Space could expand infinitely, forever into more space. Space would not end. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want you to explain your logic.
Macroscopic Posted March 21, 2005 Posted March 21, 2005 Originally posted by Klaynoswell, my view on this is, space is expanding, we know this to be proabably true, therefore it has to be expanding from some finite size to a new finite size, so must be finite, anything which is finite in size is finite in shape (although this might be moving)... This is only really a personal view though. Ok, since it is just a personal view I will not tell you that it doesn't make sense and the logic is flawed. I just want you to explain your logic. There doesn't appear to be any...
zazzzoom Posted March 22, 2005 Author Posted March 22, 2005 Why does space have to have a specific shape? Please explain that logic. any direction you go from where you are up down north south east west whatever you will find that space ends and it has a shape to it
zazzzoom Posted March 22, 2005 Author Posted March 22, 2005 How about, the universe before the big bang was just an infinite solid mass. At some point a fracture occured causing Space to occur allowing for more fractures until .......so on and so forth. your thoughts are matter and energy focused think of the universe without any matter and energy in it just one big empty space NOW YOU CAN SEE THE UNIVERSE you were blinded by the light you could find out in any direction you go space ends and it has a shape
ecoli Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 any direction you go from where you are up down north south east west whatever you will find that space ends and it has a shape to it Hahaha. Are you serious??? Try flying straight up, off the earth into space. When space ends, come back and tell me how far you got.
zazzzoom Posted March 22, 2005 Author Posted March 22, 2005 Your logic seems to be lacking in logic. If space ends and moves' date=' where is it moving into? More space. If you are going to say something like 'the universe has an edge', you should back it up with more than, 'once you understand'. Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy and Religion forum, because what you posted is not astronomy or cosmology.[/quote'] the outer perimmeter of space moves outside of space there is nothing
zazzzoom Posted March 22, 2005 Author Posted March 22, 2005 i think it must end somewhere otherwise how could it be expanding?? What would it be expanding into? space does not expand what space does is changes shape
ecoli Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 prove it. edit: seriously zazoom, if you don't start backing your thoughts up with logic, i'm going to report you to a mod.
Macroscopic Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Originally posted by zazzzoomthe outer perimmeter of space moves outside of space there is nothing A shape is something that exists in space. Space can not have a shape because that would imply that something exists outside of it, and you have said you don't believe that. Your 'logic' contradicts itself, and doesn't make any sense.
revprez Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 well, my view on this is, space is expanding, we know this to be proabably true, therefore it has to be expanding from some finite size to a new finite size, so must be finite, anything which is finite in size is finite in shape (although this might be moving)... This is only really a personal view though. No it doesn't. Once again, refer to your infinite Flatland embedded 3-space analogue. If you distort the plane such that a set of points in one scale reference are closer than in another (stretching an infinite elastic sheet), the plane space is obviously expanding. Rev Prez
Martin Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 No it doesn't. ... (stretching an infinite elastic sheet)' date=' the plane space is obviously expanding.[/quote'] I agree with RP in this case. several of the mathematical models that they call expanding are in fact infinite Klaynos, when cosmologists decided to use the word "expanding" they surely did not dream that anyone would imagine that the word implied space was finite. Several of the most important cases of expanding space are, in fact, infinite. Klaynos, if in your version of the English language the word "expanding" can only be used with finite things, then we must find a different word to use when talking with you about the mathematical models. the solutions to the Friedmann equation with k=0 and k negative are usually treated as infinite expanding-space cases. WHAT ENGLISH WORD would you suggest, to describe an infinite sheet of graph paper whose squares are constantly growing in size?
Johnny5 Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 WHAT ENGLISH WORD would you suggest' date=' to describe an infinite sheet of graph paper whose squares are constantly growing in size?[/quote'] Martin quick question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the universe is expanding. what would be happening to the shape of the squares in the grid. Would they remain squares, or would they be weirdly shaped. It's so much easier to leave space alone, with no properties.
ecoli Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Martin quick question. Suppose' date=' for the sake of argument, the universe is expanding. what would be happening to the shape of the squares in the grid. Would they remain squares, or would they be weirdly shaped.[/quote'] Or would they just move further apart?
Johnny5 Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Or would they just move further apart? The thing is I don't reify space, so I don't get the whole 'expansion' model of the universe. I can imagine galaxies moving away from each other, but I don't see why you have to suggest that the space is expanding. If you think of space as a vacuum, something that offers no impedance to foward motion, then space cannot expand. Certainly, if a true vacuum were filled with microscopic particles, and formed a fluid, that motion through the FLUID would impede foward motion, but in between two microscopic particles, there would just be vacuum. I think the thing which gives me a sense of relief, is that even experts in the field, who know the formulas, and have used computers to simulate black holes, aren't convinced about the true structure of 'space.' I guess I don't know what space that can stretch is being conceived as. If its a fluid, i can imagine the particles changing position, I just cannot imagine a vacuum stretching. No it's not that I can't imagine it, it's that it is some kind of contradiction. PS re·i·fy (rē'ə-fī', rā'-) tr.v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies. To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence
Martin Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 ...I don't get the whole 'expansion' model of the universe. ... keep trying J5 (it would help if you would take your own advice and not think of space as a material or a fluid----I think of it more as the site of geometric relationships: the place where the angles of a triangle can add up to 180 degrees or to something else more or less than 180 degrees) ... I can imagine galaxies moving away from each other' date=' but I don't see why you have to suggest that the space is expanding....[/quote'] if they were moving (thru a static nonexpanding space) then some would have to be moving faster than the speed of light to make all the observational data fit together. this would violate Special Relativity! therefore I do not think you can logically and consistently do what you say: I think you cannot imagine a realistic universe in which the distant galaxies are actually moving away from us faster than light. it is much simpler to use the FRW metric (which essentially all mainstream working cosmologists use) in which distances can simply grow. the growth of distances in the FRW metric is what is popularly called "expansion of space". it is just a mathematical feature of the distance function that works best: it solves the Einstein equation for the universe and it fits the data, at least better than anything else people have come up with. ...If you think of space as a vacuum' date=' something that offers no impedance to foward motion, then space cannot expand. ...[/quote'] I dont understand. I certainly do not think of space as a material that could impede forward motion But to measure angles and distances and areas and volumes I would want to basically use the FRW metric because it works best. and it has distances increase. So yes I think of space as a vacuum, and it certainly does not offer impedance, and it certainly does expand! quite a lot! I dont see the objection. We all have to chose the metric that we find works best for us. and the static Euclidian one has been found to suck over large distances
Bettina Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 Why is space expanding so hard to understand? All scientists agree that it is. And, isn't this expansion caused by the dark matter/energy that cosmologists still don't quite understand? Bettina
5614 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 I can imagine galaxies moving away from each other, but I don't see why you have to suggest that the space is expanding. Well you know that galaxies are moving away from each other... but what are they moving into or towards? The next galaxy and so on.. in the end you reach a 'edge galaxy' which is expanding into 'new space'... this 'new space' is constantly being added to the universe, hence the universe is expanding. And, isn't this expansion caused by the dark matter/energy that cosmologists still don't quite understand? Dark matter is 'missing matter' from the universe... (different conversation!) Dark energy is what you are referring to and is a kind of hidden energy. Dark energy is hypothetical form of energy which has a negative pressure. The result of dark energy is like having a force acting in the opposite direction to gravity, ie. the energy that keeps the universe expanding. And no, cosmologists do not fully understand dark matter/energy.
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 if they were moving (thru a static nonexpanding space) then some would have to be moving faster than the speed of light to make all the observational data fit together. this would violate Special Relativity! That's ok with me.
Johnny5 Posted March 23, 2005 Posted March 23, 2005 keep trying J5(it would help if you would take your own advice and not think of space as a material or a fluid----I think of it more as the site of geometric relationships: the place where the angles of a triangle can add up to 180 degrees or to something else more or less than 180 degrees) if they were moving (thru a static nonexpanding space) then some would have to be moving faster than the speed of light to make all the observational data fit together. this would violate Special Relativity! therefore I do not think you can logically and consistently do what you say: I think you cannot imagine a realistic universe in which the distant galaxies are actually moving away from us faster than light. it is much simpler to use the FRW metric (which essentially all mainstream working cosmologists use) in which distances can simply grow. the growth of distances in the FRW metric is what is popularly called "expansion of space". it is just a mathematical feature of the distance function that works best: it solves the Einstein equation for the universe and it fits the data' date=' at least better than anything else people have come up with. I dont understand. I certainly do not think of space as a material that could impede forward motion But to measure angles and distances and areas and volumes I would want to basically use the FRW metric because it works best. and it has distances increase. So yes I think of space as a vacuum, and it certainly does not offer impedance, and it certainly does expand! quite a lot! I dont see the objection. We all have to chose the metric that we find works best for us. and the static Euclidian one has been found to suck over large distances[/quote'] What do you mean that the static Euclidean one isn't good over large distances. Why not?
Recommended Posts