Expanding Universe

[ATLAS]

Scientists say there is directly observable evidence of galaxies moving farther and farther away from each other

 

Many people take this to mean that the universe is expanding which has not ever rang true to me, my contention has been that:

 

the universe--being all that exists--wouldn't have anything to "expand" into; because nothing exists outside the universe.

 

Making it clearer i mean the question is a bit more complicated than that. "The universe" is an abstraction; it's a sum concept, it's not one single entity, consequently Space is somewhat like time; where time has motion, a perceptually-given fact, as its basic referent, space has distance, which is also perceptually-given. To say that "space is expanding", per se, is like saying "time is slowing down." Neither of them mean anything. It's only particular distances that can become greater or lesser, just as it's only particular motions that can speed up or slow down.

 

like to hear your views...

[Johnny B]

Very intresting topic , will get back to it!!

[Viking]

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

 

...and then it will crunch :cool:

 

Maybe this would be of some help.

[Cara.]

Atlas, what about the moment of the Big Bang?

[ATLAS]

Thank you viking, although my approach was diffrent I came to the same conclusion as the astronomer, streaching of space between spatial points is diffrent from the misconception on expansion.we know, philosophically, that "nothing" cannot actually exist, that the universe is full -- that there are no gaps or places where existence is not -- then this imagined universe, one "without matter and energy forces" either cannot be, or there are other things that exist which are do not fall in the category of that which you banished from the universe.

 

The biggest problem people make with the notion of "space" is its reification, attempting to make what is essentially a relational concept, into a "thing." In a certain way it is similar to the mathematical idea of a coordinate system. As a mathematical abstraction we can locate objects in a coordinate system that we impose, but that does not imply that the coordinate system is itself a physical existent imposed on physical reality.

 

Reason deduces that the universe is full, that there are no gaps, no empty places, no spot where there is literally nothing. If you abstract away all of existence, you are left with nothing, and nothing does not actually exist since nothing is simply the absence of something. So, where does such an "imagining" get you?

 

. Space is not a thing that expands or contracts, it is a spatial relation between objects which exist.

 

What about the big bang bro.

[BonaFied_CriTic]

Scientists say

They seem to say alot most of the time - And they aim high when it comes to money -

[ATLAS]

^^^

:confused: are you okay?

 

Callypso the standard Big Bang theory is philosophically and scientifically corrupt on a multitude of levels. It is an attempt to integrate a broad variety of empirical data, data which, by itself, is a monument to the science and technology which has collected such voluminous physical evidence about the cosmos. The problem lies in the proper interpretation of such, and it is there that Big Bang theory fails, miserably, you might ask what in my opinion is the correct intepretation.

 

In cosmology I do not have an integrated theory as I do with quantum and relativistic phenomena. Cosmology is the study of the large-scale structure and dynamics of the universe, and to some degree that study is described by general relativity. However, it has become clear that general relativity is not sufficient to account alone for the current glut of observational data. When we observe -- as was done not long ago -- a coherent structure some 600 million light years across, and some 6.5 billion light years away, and realize that its existence cannot be accounted for so early in the cosmic history of the supposed Big Bang, then we know we are in trouble.

 

The dynamics of individual galactic structures are better understood, but even there we have the fanciful crutch of so-called dark matter and dark energy which was invented in an attempt to account for what the theory failed to do. Of course, we realize that the notion of the origin of the universe is absurd, but the first and foremost cosmological issue which needs to be unambiguously understood is that of cosmological redshift. There is nothing inherent in the nature of reality that would prohibit galaxies to be receding from each other at high speed, but the explanation of such is certainly something other than spatial expansion.

 

There is a connection between the interpretation of redshift as the recessional speed of galaxies, and the expanding universe. Regardless of the direction we observe, the shift in the spectrum is essentially the same, so if all galaxies have this same increasing recessional speed with distance, that would imply that we -- the Earth -- were at the center of the entire cosmos, with everything spreading out from us. To counter this Earth-centered "explosion" the notion of expanding space was posited, so that the expansion would appear uniform for any observer in the universe.

 

The analogy used is that of an inflating balloon marked with dots on its surface to represent galaxies, and as the balloon surface expands the distance between dots (galaxies) increases uniformly for all dots. Each dot (galaxy) would see expansion outward from itself. So, the recessional velocity inference of spectral shifts led to the notion of an expanding universe. For philosophers and scientists who reject such a universal expansion of space, as I do, it is difficult to accept the recessional velocity inference unless we assume that some sort of explosion caused all of this matter to recede from us, with us at the center of the universe.

 

But it is important to distinguish between observational fact, and theory. The observational fact is that there exists certain shifts in the spectral lines as measured in the light from the galaxies. That these shifts are interpreted as velocities is an inference based upon a specific theory. There are other (lesser known) theories which interpret the observed red-shift to imply something else other than increasing velocity.

 

Anyway, there is a great deal of theoretical work yet to be done in cosmology, and, since it is (literally) the furthest removed from out daily experience, it will probably be the last to be addressed, at least from a thoroughly proper perspective.

[JustCause]

Atlas, I am confused and baffled by what you are trying to say here. You seem to touch everything and yet say nothing! I will just ask you to please clarify for me a couple of points.

 

“In cosmology I do not have an integrated theory as I do with quantum and relativistic phenomena.â€

 

What do you mean by that?

 

â€When we observe -- as was done not long ago -- a coherent structure some 600 million light years across, and some 6.5 billion light years away, and realize that its existence cannot be accounted for so early in the cosmic history of the supposed Big Bangâ€

 

Why not??

 

“There are other (lesser known) theories which interpret the observed red-shift to imply something else other than increasing velocity.â€

 

Finally do tell us about these lesser known theories and why are they not accepted by the larger scientific community?

[Paragon]

^^^ I doubt he can explain, unless he is Stephen speicher. ATLAS, are you one and only Stephen Speicher. I don't wish to make a habbit out of revealing things, but if we are to genuinely discuss matters, participants ought to practive intellectual honesty. Here is what I found out -> THIS

[Socod_badne]

^^^upsy-daisy

[Castro]

Paragon: you're on a lone crusade saaxib. Exactly what triggers your interest in investigating someone's statements on this board?

 

ATLAS: you got some explaining to do. :mad:

[Pi]

Paragon knows Somalis too well, I guess.... Not that thought theivery is peculiar to Somalis

[Castro]

Originally posted by Zero:

Paragon knows Somalis too well, I guess.... Not that thought theivery is peculiar to Somalis

Thought thievery? What Paragon discovered is plagiarism. Very few thoughts out there are original. The rest is recycled, rehashed and repackaged shidh. You should know.

 

Unfortunately, ATLAS couldn't bring himself to give the original author his due credit. Even worse, he didn't even bother to digest the issue and formulate his own words to describe it. That's one count of plagiarism and one count of laziness. Grave offences indeed. And Google has become the cyber-plagiarist-buster? Oh the irony.

 

P.S. The prosecution ammends the charges against the defendent by adding one count of pride.

[Jacpher]

Very few thoughts out there are original. The rest is recycled, rehashed and repackaged shidh. You should know.

Including this one

[Jacpher]

Very few thoughts out there are original. The rest is recycled, rehashed and repackaged shidh. You should know.

Including this one