The Fabric of Space

[chaz wyman]

Actually the whole point about the BB us that it happened right here. Here, there, and everywhere is the centre of the universe, as it is from one position that all space has expended, and from all points that it continues to expand. We are the BB, we are the centre - that is why everywhere you look the universe is Red Shifted. Such is the truth, it is claimed that this is so where ever you happen to be in the universe.

[Bernard]

That makes for a fine contemplation Chaz.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The truth is that nobody knows. Whether you write the book, or merely parrot the book, no one knows. So far all we have are theories that are based upon mathematical models. A model is something that resembles the real thing. There is no way of knowing for sure if the ideas of those that create the models necessarily exemplify reality, or are merely fanciful approximations, that happen to fit the model. Largely the ideas that seem to fit the models, that are usually created by those of the model builders, are not challenged due to many things, respect, fear, not being familiar with the proofs, etc, but this doesn't mean that there are no other alternative explanations that fit the mathematical models. It just means that from our base of knowledge they are the explanations that seem to be the most probable.

As to the fabric of space, I agree that I just don't see it as true. As to time, especially the ability to travel through it, again I just don't see it as true, and I've always seen space as infinite. But with space it's extremely difficult to visualize it either way, either infinite or finite. Of course anything as huge as the universe is more than capable of swamping a mind as small and insignificant as that of humanity; those that are only of age to feebly visit their moon.

Godfree, I also see that the Doppler effect that many believe they see in the so called redshift is not necessarily what they think it is. But again, accurate interpretation could actually require a larger vision than mankind is currently capable.

Theories are like ........, everybody's got one. And that's cool. All it takes is one idea, and who knows, it could be anybody!

[Godfree]

The truth is that nobody knows. Whether you write the book, or merely parrot the book, no one knows. So far all we have are theories that are based upon mathematical models. A model is something that resembles the real thing. There is no way of knowing for sure if the ideas of those that create the models necessarily exemplify reality, or are merely fanciful approximations, that happen to fit the model. Largely the ideas that seem to fit the models, that are usually created by those of the model builders, are not challenged due to many things, respect, fear, not being familiar with the proofs, etc, but this doesn't mean that there are no other alternative explanations that fit the mathematical models. It just means that from our base of knowledge they are the explanations that seem to be the most probable.

As to the fabric of space, I agree that I just don't see it as true. As to time, especially the ability to travel through it, again I just don't see it as true, and I've always seen space as infinite. But with space it's extremely difficult to visualize it either way, either infinite or finite. Of course anything as huge as the universe is more than capable of swamping a mind as small and insignificant as that of humanity; those that are only of age to feebly visit their moon.

Godfree, I also see that the Doppler effect that many believe they see in the so called redshift is not necessarily what they think it is. But again, accurate interpretation could actually require a larger vision than mankind is currently capable.

Theories are like ........, everybody's got one. And that's cool. All it takes is one idea, and who knows, it could be anybody!

There are many possible explanations for the red shift ,
young stars are blue , old stars are red ,
theory ,,light loses energy over time , blue has more energy than red ,
as the energy is lost the blue changes to red , 13 billion years ,
you would think some energy loss must occur ,
light has heat and energy in it ,surely that can't be constant ,
eventually light must decay into invisible light ,,
second theory ,,distance alone is enough to cause the red shift ,
the gravity pulling on each end of the light will stretch it into red ,
The bbt is based on the red shift being proof the universe is expanding ,
I don't believe it has been proven at all ,
it is still theory , so we really owe it to ourselves ,
to explore all the other possible explanations as well

[Godfree]

Notvacka ,,,
good I'm glad we can agree what science can't hasn't answered yet ,
what was before the bb ,,what is outside the known universe ,
life as we know it , is all about cycles ,
the universe re-cycles everything ,
so the universe I presume is no different,
is it so hard to see that before the bang time and space existed ,
and that matter was being organized into position to go bang ,
what science seems to be saying , is we don't know , therefore there was nothing ,,???
if they don't know how can they say there was nothing,,???
godfrees law ,can I have your opinion on this "presumption"
"if there was ever nothing in the universe , then nothing is all there would ever be",,I can't fault the logic in that , it seems to me to be rock solid,
and could you have a go at explaining the nothing,,,!!!
I havn't heard a explanation of the nothing that makes any sense at all ,
what existed in the space that space is about to expand into,,???
how big was the nothing ,
and with the known universe , if there is nothing outside that ,
once again they don't know therefore there is nothing ,???
isn't science really saying "we don't know"
so rather than claim such an outrages idea that time and space began ,
with this little bang , when they don't actually know ,
why not just say they don't know ,????

[Notvacka]

Notvacka ,,,
good I'm glad we can agree what science can't hasn't answered yet ,
what was before the bb ,,what is outside the known universe ,
life as we know it , is all about cycles ,
the universe re-cycles everything ,
so the universe I presume is no different,

As far as presumptions go, it's not a bad one. There has been lots of speculation over the years whether the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back into a "cosmic egg" and go big bang all over again, or if it will continue expanding for ever. Right now, the evidence at hand points to an infinite expansion, but I think the jury is still out. There are too many unknowns.

what science seems to be saying , is we don't know , therefore there was nothing ,,???
if they don't know how can they say there was nothing,,???

That's not exactly what "they" say. Stephen Hawking came up with an explanation how the universe could have come from almost nothing. (In quantum mechanics there is no such thing as absolute vacuum - particles pop in and out of existence all the time even in seemingly empty space, and basically the whole big bang could have "popped into existence" in a similar way.)

godfrees law ,can I have your opinion on this "presumption"
"if there was ever nothing in the universe , then nothing is all there would ever be",,I can't fault the logic in that , it seems to me to be rock solid,
and could you have a go at explaining the nothing,,,!!!

Yes. Nothing comes from nothing. (You can call it "godfrees law", but you are far from the first to come up with it. ) No arguing with that. Even Stephen Hawking has to start with almost something rather than absolute nothing.

But why does anything exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? For a guy calling himself "Godfree" you seem to be getting awfully close to some kind of theism with your line of thinking here.

I havn't heard a explanation of the nothing that makes any sense at all ,
what existed in the space that space is about to expand into,,???

Now you are getting it all wrong again. Space is not expanding into any space - at least not any space as we know it. It's space itself that is expanding. That's why the universe has no center.

and with the known universe , if there is nothing outside that ,
once again they don't know therefore there is nothing ,???
isn't science really saying "we don't know"

You are right. Science doesn't know. And basically, science doesn't care about theories that can't be tested.

If you want to believe that there is something outside, I would seriously recommend some version of God.

so rather than claim such an outrages idea that time and space began ,
with this little bang , when they don't actually know ,
why not just say they don't know ,????

But as far as we can tell, from the evidence we have, our time and our space did begin with this little bang. It's not an "outrageous" idea". What we don't know is whether there was/is something before/outside our time and space. (Other universes? God?) But that's a question science can't answer.

[chaz wyman]

The truth is that nobody knows. Whether you write the book, or merely parrot the book, no one knows. So far all we have are theories that are based upon mathematical models. A model is something that resembles the real thing. There is no way of knowing for sure if the ideas of those that create the models necessarily exemplify reality, or are merely fanciful approximations, that happen to fit the model. Largely the ideas that seem to fit the models, that are usually created by those of the model builders, are not challenged due to many things, respect, fear, not being familiar with the proofs, etc, but this doesn't mean that there are no other alternative explanations that fit the mathematical models. It just means that from our base of knowledge they are the explanations that seem to be the most probable.

As to the fabric of space, I agree that I just don't see it as true. As to time, especially the ability to travel through it, again I just don't see it as true, and I've always seen space as infinite. But with space it's extremely difficult to visualize it either way, either infinite or finite. Of course anything as huge as the universe is more than capable of swamping a mind as small and insignificant as that of humanity; those that are only of age to feebly visit their moon.

Godfree, I also see that the Doppler effect that many believe they see in the so called redshift is not necessarily what they think it is. But again, accurate interpretation could actually require a larger vision than mankind is currently capable.

Theories are like ........, everybody's got one. And that's cool. All it takes is one idea, and who knows, it could be anybody!

There are many possible explanations for the red shift ,
young stars are blue , old stars are red ,
theory ,,light loses energy over time , blue has more energy than red ,
as the energy is lost the blue changes to red , 13 billion years ,
you would think some energy loss must occur ,
light has heat and energy in it ,surely that can't be constant ,
eventually light must decay into invisible light ,,
second theory ,,distance alone is enough to cause the red shift ,
the gravity pulling on each end of the light will stretch it into red ,
The bbt is based on the red shift being proof the universe is expanding ,
I don't believe it has been proven at all ,
it is still theory , so we really owe it to ourselves ,
to explore all the other possible explanations as well

Why Is the sky at night black?

[Godfree]

Why is the night sky black ,,,???
I'm sure we have covered this already , on other threads ,
Olbers paradox , what a piece of ignorance ,
the night sky is black because most of the light reaching us is invisible light,
so red shifted as to be invisible , I think this occurs around 13 billion light years ,so at least half the known universe is invisible to us , the other half ,
Chaz answer this one ,
why aren't the 12 or 13 billion year old images of the early universe ,
"showing a cluster of billions of galaxies all bunched around the center as they are just starting the expansion , the universe as we see it today is supposed to have only taken .7 billion years to form , but it's been expanding ,for 13 billion years , so play it backwards and you have billions of galaxies all bunched up nearly in the middle/point of bang/expansion ."
reality , the current observational data shows the spacing of the galaxies is uniform or evenly spaced throughout the universe ,
there is no tight towards the center and more spread at the outer edges , no
evenly spread ,,
Hubble deep field revealed light in the dark spots ,
and if they focused on the dark spots on those shots for long enough they would contain billions of galaxies to .
but as I explained Chaz , radio waves after about 13 billion light years.

[Godfree]

Cosmic egg ,,
seems pretty logical ,the Hindu birth and rebirth of the universe may not be far wrong , but I say of the galaxies , rebirth of the galaxies ,
Notvacka , you seem to know your shit ,
if we look away from the bb site to 13 billion light years ,
we see large old galaxies with massive black holes at their centers ,
not young galaxies in the early stages of evolution , no ,
old galaxies that must have been around longer than 13.7 billion years ,
yes I believe the observational data suggests we are looking at galaxies older than the bang ,
their image is 13 billion years old so they got to that stage , supposedly in 700 million years , doesn't seem possible ,
from what we know about the cycle of a star or galaxy ,
these things take time , 10 billion years for the life of an average star ,
super massive black holes get that way by devouring planets and stars , these things take time ,, as does proving this ,,!!!

[Godfree]

I havn't heard a explanation of the nothing that makes any sense at all ,
what existed in the space that space is about to expand into,,???

Now you are getting it all wrong again. Space is not expanding into any space - at least not any space as we know it. It's space itself that is expanding. That's why the universe has no center.

yes I do understand that is how it is described ,
I suppose I'm trying to get you to draw a picture,
and in the middle is the nothing , it's like a box , you can take things out of the box , but the box is still there , describe what the universe would look like before the bang,
which I think was a little bang in an infinite universe ,
I think my idea that light decays at around 13 billion light years ,
creating the COSMIC RAINBOW ,
as the light decays it will display all the colours of the rainbow ,
there may be a proof in the shape of the rainbow , if the expansion theory is correct blue will be small and red will be big ,
but in a static universe we would see the red shift the same ,
so this could explain the red shift , no movement required ,
if the pattern of colours is normal , we have a static universe ,,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

It looks like you are having a discussion with yourself now.

[Godfree]

It looks like you are having a discussion with yourself now.

Yes you are easily left behind aren't you ,
I think the implications of the Cosmic Rainbow are huge ,
light cannot be a constant , it like everything else is slowly decaying ,
the universe does not have to be expanding , but light has to be decaying ,
if we can answer the red shift by the age of the light ,
then that takes away the bbt's main proof for the expansion idea ,

[Notvacka]

light cannot be a constant , it like everything else is slowly decaying ,
the universe does not have to be expanding , but light has to be decaying ,
if we can answer the red shift by the age of the light ,
then that takes away the bbt's main proof for the expansion idea ,

Simlilar ideas have been touted for at least 30 years, mainly by Christian creationists. The main point being that if the speed of light would decay with age, the universe itself would not be nearly as old as it seems to current science.

But there is no evidence of such decay. In lack of evidence, it's just metaphysical speculation.

Now, I'm all for metaphysical speculation when it comes to explain what's beyond physics. But why try to replace a physical theory that works and fits with the evidence with a metaphysical theory for which there is no evidence?

[chaz wyman]

It looks like you are having a discussion with yourself now.

Yes you are easily left behind aren't you ,
I think the implications of the Cosmic Rainbow are huge ,
light cannot be a constant , it like everything else is slowly decaying ,
the universe does not have to be expanding , but light has to be decaying ,
if we can answer the red shift by the age of the light ,
then that takes away the bbt's main proof for the expansion idea ,

Silly boy.

I was talking about your moronic failure to understand the quotes function, so that your posts look like you typed them all.
Why do't you just open your damn eyes for a second?

[Godfree]

light cannot be a constant , it like everything else is slowly decaying ,
the universe does not have to be expanding , but light has to be decaying ,
if we can answer the red shift by the age of the light ,
then that takes away the bbt's main proof for the expansion idea ,

Simlilar ideas have been touted for at least 30 years, mainly by Christian creationists. The main point being that if the speed of light would decay with age, the universe itself would not be nearly as old as it seems to current science.

But there is no evidence of such decay. In lack of evidence, it's just metaphysical speculation.

Now, I'm all for metaphysical speculation when it comes to explain what's beyond physics. But why try to replace a physical theory that works and fits with the evidence with a metaphysical theory for which there is no evidence?

No evidence,,???
there are no constants , apart from change ,
so we know the light must decay , it's just a matter of how fast ,
there is no law that states there must be expansion ,
but there is a law that states change is the only constant ,
Hubble himself first thought the red shift was caused by what he called "tired light"
all I'm doing is putting a new twist on an old idea ,
the idea that all the colours of the rainbow are out there as stars seems right ,
we do see blue yellow and red stars, and in the right order ,
closest ones blue farthest ones red , it fits , it's a perfect fit ,
"the universe could be a steady state static one and the red shift would appear just the same"
the red shift is NOT proof the universe is expanding ,,,!!!