Expansion Methods

[jackson33]

With one or two exceptions, every thing we see is moving AWAY from us. How can this not lead to the idea of an expanding universe?

-Will

 

i am well aware, my opinion is in the minority. most accept findings of expansion easy to understand, since they think some big bang happened and the natural effect should be to move away from that event. this was the first idea advanced and of course its been altered.

 

if you can explain to me as a SS camper, what force could cause matter to venture outside its natural movements i would gladly accept the idea and not change my SS views.

 

as i have repeatedly said, we are held to limits for comprehension of what could or should be beyond a certain distance. you accept that this light we see 14-15 billion years old represent fledgling galaxy and assume the reaction of light waves from this distance are not different. i don't pretend to know and question why that light should act as something so much closer. with so much less debris to go though or having its image be reduced from previous absorption or altered in some manner, this seem just to much to accept. my

mind says those specks of light are or were at least exactly what we see 2-5 BLY out having gone through what i suggest. in short not much left to work with...

[Erasmus00]

i am well aware, my opinion is in the minority. most accept findings of expansion easy to understand, since they think some big bang happened and the natural effect should be to move away from that event. this was the first idea advanced and of course its been altered.

 

Actually, the big bang wasn't originally accepted at all. It was Hubble's discovery of expansion that led to discovery of the big bang. In otherwards: I don't believe expansion because of the big bang. I find the big bang to be the most likely hypothesis to explain expansion

 

Expansion is the experimental observation.

-Will

[jackson33]

Actually, the big bang wasn't originally accepted at all. It was Hubble's discovery of expansion that led to discovery of the big bang. In otherwards: I don't believe expansion because of the big bang. I find the big bang to be the most likely hypothesis to explain expansion

 

Expansion is the experimental observation.

-Will

 

well thats a twist. BB was around before Ed Hubbles famous observations (30's) and explanations. George Lamitre in 1927 was the first to publish papers but not the first to express what has become BBT. at this time the BB was thought to be just that, a big big bang. the idea seems to have taken root in the 1970's to 90's for a variety of reasons. many folks from the 30's on, have questioned those observations and explanations. i just happen to agree with this minority view...

 

if you have questions as to expansion cause, then maybe you should also question the combined reason of creation. most worry about the something from nothing or at least what caused this action, from some unexplained and have no idea where that something came from...

[LJP07]

I think the expansion of the Universe also led to creation of electromagnetic energy. So it would take a certain distance to reach us, so can we calculate where it was in abundance, or did it spread uniformly during expansion?

[ronthepon]

Actually, you don't need your universe to expand if you want electromagnetic energy.

[Tormod]

well thats a twist. BB was around before Ed Hubbles famous observations (30's) and explanations. George Lamitre in 1927 was the first to publish papers but not the first to express what has become BBT.

 

You misunderstood Will's post. The observations made by Hubble were found to be *observational evidence* for cosmic expansion. It is a famous example of an "accidental" experimental observation providing support for a theory.

 

The actual term "big bang" was used as an off-beat remark by Fred Hoyle who was in fact opposed to the entire idea (he was a steady state supporter).

 

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jackson33]

You misunderstood Will's post. The observations made by Hubble were found to be *observational evidence* for cosmic expansion. It is a famous example of an "accidental" experimental observation providing support for a theory.

 

The actual term "big bang" was used as an off-beat remark by Fred Hoyle who was in fact opposed to the entire idea (he was a steady state supporter).

 

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"what has become BBT". my words....

 

"observable evidence" your words, but to what is argued.

 

"twist"; i have seen a thousand essays on BBT explaining expansion. this was the first explaining expansion to a reason for BB.

[jackson33]

I think the expansion of the Universe also led to creation of electromagnetic energy. So it would take a certain distance to reach us, so can we calculate where it was in abundance, or did it spread uniformly during expansion?

 

expanding or not, they have had light equal in all direction with about equal intensity and concept. add radiation and give this from equal distance or about to light. you would have to conclude the BB occurred very close to where we are, a center of the universe and we are back pre-historic concepts.

 

wouldn't it be a little difficult to pick out just where or what creates anything on the EMS, to start with or maybe we are assuming what creates "abundance".

[LJP07]

I read a textbook called " Astronomy Today " ( Very good introductory Astronomy ), and from that I think I understand the expansion:

 

It took place everywhere all the time. Everything that is today was a pinpoint, but that pinpoint was the Universe. From that point every point in the Universe expanded, thus leading to where we are today.

 

Would this be 100% true?

 

Also, if every point is actually expanding, is the space where I'm sitting technically expanding?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Erasmus00:

It was Hubble's discovery of expansion that led to discovery of the big bang. In otherwards: I don't believe expansion because of the big bang. I find the big bang to be the most likely hypothesis to explain expansion

 

Expansion is the experimental observation.

I agree, except for assumptions that are necessary for the conclusions of the experimental observation. Weren't the conclusions drawn from the shift of the color of the light from distant objects? That presumes a particular nature of light. If that nature is not correct.... well, wouldn't it then follow that the conclusions are suspect? (This is why we need another methodology to track what we think we know - and hypography is the place to do it. We just don't have the right format yet).

Huge amounts of conjecture are dependent on the nature of light. If there is even the slightest possibility of doubt in that regard, well, that magnifies the doubt in the possible conclusions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

One more thing about that methodology. Once someone attaches a bit of doubt about a building block for other conclusions, it should not be possible to proceed with any level of certainty until that doubt is sufficiently taken care of. In other words, we can't just ignore it and move on and pretend it doesn't exist. That's what a better methodology would give us: the inability to perform that little mental jump that ignores a contradiction. The little white lie.

[Erasmus00]

I agree, except for assumptions that are necessary for the conclusions of the experimental observation. Weren't the conclusions drawn from the shift of the color of the light from distant objects? That presumes a particular nature of light.

 

It relies on two well tested experimental findings: the spectral emissions of atoms and the doppler shift. These are experimental facts. Yes, they are explained by our current theory of light, but because they are quite well tested experimentally, they must be explained by ANY theory of light.

-Will

[ldsoftwaresteve]

erasmus00:

It relies on two well tested experimental findings: the spectral emissions of atoms and the doppler shift. These are experimental facts. Yes, they are explained by our current theory of light, but because they are quite well tested experimentally, they must be explained by ANY theory of light.

Precisely why we need a way to tag assumptions with doubt tags and with alternate explanations of the same phenomenon. Any assumption tagged in such a way would give us clean targets. And the more downwind conclusions that are affected, the more impetus there would be to clear up the assumptions. That would lead to faster advances in every facet of human thought, regardless of the belief system involved. It must transcend all belief systems.

[infamous]

 

Expansion is the experimental observation.

-Will

Quite true and acceptable but one thing keeps tugging at my curiosity. Understand, I'm not proposing that I necessarily agree with the McCutcheon expanding material theory for gravity. In truth, I find this theory very hard to justify on a purely logical bases. Nevertheless, there remains a question about the universal expansion of space which I can't seem to rationalize. I think it fair to assume that most of us agree that space is expanding. Starting with this assumption as a bases for further thought, how can we explain all of surrounding space to be expanding and not the space within material objects. Personally, I think the basic constituents of matter can be characterized as little more than a geometric organization of space itself. This point of view may not conform to everyones ideal perception. Nevertheless, it is true that charge, spin, and mass are involved but the proton, is in volume, mostly space. If the universal space around us is expanding, why is the space within the proton itself not also expanding. Until someone can explain this to me, I must assume that we still don't have a good understanding for what the idea really means; The Universal Expansion of Space............Infy

[Bombadil]

Does the expansion have to be even everywhere or is it possible that some areas are expanding faster then ethers. If there are places that are expanding faster then ethers how might they be found and what might cars such a thing. And just how fast do people think the universe is expanding?

[InfiniteNow]

Does the expansion have to be even everywhere or is it possible that some areas are expanding faster then ethers.

A non-uniform expansion would violate various/multiple laws of physics. What's ethers?

[ronthepon]

Isin't ether an 'outdated' concept?