The universe expands ...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yeah..... "I can't find my way home"

well I'm sorry Mr Fantasy I don't want you to tell us something to make us all feel happy ,
I WANT REALITY[/quote]
Right on, man, right on!
But then again everyone knows that "heaven is in your mind." You atheists have got to be kidding me.

[Arising_uk]

We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

Well rather than just put it out there , you could offer an explanation of what that means to you ,?
an infinite bounded universe , sounds like fudge to me , ...

Did I say it made sense to me? I said the physicists said they have a mathematical model for this and it was in his book. The best I got was that spacetime is a concept where the idea of there being an 'outside' is meaningless and lives in the world of those who believe 'Space' and 'Time' are separate entities.

Hawkins did at one point believe that ,
when the expanding universe slowed down and eventually stopped expanding ,
it would then begin to contract and at that point time would start to go backwards ,,???

Many physicists came to this idea from the fact that Einstein's equations are time-reversible and there were issues about gravitational pull and the expansion of the universe.

Kangaroos in the top paddock , a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic ,,??
some physicists bore me , but I'm interested in Arising_uk's opinion ,
describe your model of the universe , for me it's easy and I try and shorten the definition ,
A , infinite steady state universe ,,!!!
because if you choose infinite , and expanding universe ,???
they are not compatible , so if you want your universe to be expanding ,
then you must chose finite and bb ,,!!!

I've told you before, your Aristotelian metaphysics has been abandoned in Philosophy as the Newtonian metaphysicians pretty much put an end to such thinking with the success of their methods, you know them as the Scientists, essentially the Physicists. So if you think you have some insights then you should become one these as its not philosophy anymore.

If you want to know what they say know its that the universe is infinite and expanding, no big crunch and in the far future the inhabitants of our galaxy will be justified by the scientific method in saying that this galaxy is the only one in the universe as to all intents and purposes it will be. Watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

[Godfree]

We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

Well rather than just put it out there , you could offer an explanation of what that means to you ,?
an infinite bounded universe , sounds like fudge to me , ...

Did I say it made sense to me? I said the physicists
If you want to know what they say know its that the universe is infinite and expanding, no big crunch and in the far future the inhabitants of our galaxy will be justified by the scientific method in saying that this galaxy is the only one in the universe as to all intents and purposes it will be. Watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

Infinite and expanding , lets expand on that shall we ,
you are already infinite in size , and you are expanding ,,??? , but your already there ,
sounds completely illogical to me , how can something be expanding when it's already there ,,??
do you not see those two as incompatible ,??
to know what some physicists think is interesting , but I never presume they all agree ,
you will find physicists with opposing views , and if you want to play the numbers game,
and say well "most physicists" ,then thats kind-of putting your faith in the majority ,
the majority of people on this planet are religious and would tell god is real ,
so I'm comfortable going with a less popular but more logical view of the universe ,
One that doesn't leave room for creation , a big bang or any other silly nonsense ,
there was no moment of creation/big bang ,
an infinite steady state universe where bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .
an endless cycle of birth and re-birth , the Hindu almost had it right ,
birth and re-birth of the galaxies , not the universe ,,!!!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

So if you think you have some insights then you should become on one these as its not philosophy anymore.

Obviously you think that you, by virtue of 'them,' know something irrefutable, but I say that we only know that we know nothing. Especially with respect to the topic at hand. And apparently Godfree has decided to reopen the conversation as to space and time as it pertains to philosophy. Feel free to move along if you want only to speak of philosophy as 'they' say you should. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to cease. Obviously, we here, in this thread, are not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book right.

Well rather than just put it out there , you could offer an explanation of what that means to you ,?
an infinite bounded universe , sounds like fudge to me , ...

Did I say it made sense to me? I said the physicists
If you want to know what they say know its that the universe is infinite and expanding, no big crunch and in the far future the inhabitants of our galaxy will be justified by the scientific method in saying that this galaxy is the only one in the universe as to all intents and purposes it will be. Watch this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

Infinite and expanding , lets expand on that shall we ,
you are already infinite in size , and you are expanding ,,??? , but your already there ,
sounds completely illogical to me , how can something be expanding when it's already there ,,??
do you not see those two as incompatible ,??
to know what some physicists think is interesting , but I never presume they all agree ,
you will find physicists with opposing views , and if you want to play the numbers game,
and say well "most physicists" ,then thats kind-of putting your faith in the majority ,
the majority of people on this planet are religious and would tell god is real ,
so I'm comfortable going with a less popular but more logical view of the universe ,
One that doesn't leave room for creation , a big bang or any other silly nonsense ,
there was no moment of creation/big bang ,
an infinite steady state universe where bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .
an endless cycle of birth and re-birth , the Hindu almost had it right ,
birth and re-birth of the galaxies , not the universe ,,!!!!!

But I am not infinite in size, nor is my computer, house, car, street, city, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy. Why does it necessarily follow that the universe is infinite in size when noting else in it is, or could be? Is an electron infinite in size? Everything that you know, for sure, is finite in size.

[Godfree]

We could add that some physicists think they have a model of an infinite bounded universe, Hawkins if I read his book
an endless cycle of birth and re-birth , the Hindu almost had it right ,
birth and re-birth of the galaxies , not the universe ,,!!!!!

But I am not infinite in size, nor is my computer, house, car, street, city, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy. Why does it necessarily follow that the universe is infinite in size when noting else in it is, or could be? Is an electron infinite in size? Everything that you know, for sure, is finite in size.

The question is not how big is infinity , or how can we prove it ,
the question is how could it not be infinite , is finite even possible , ??
and please don't assume that it has been proven to be real or fact ,
finite is just a theory like the bb or Olbers Paradox ,
so when you can describe a model of a finite universe that makes sense I will be happy to change my view ,
so it's infinite because finite is infinitely stupid ,,

[tillingborn]

Personally I think it's a bit rich of physicists to say philosophy is irrelevant and at the same time practice what is essentially metaphysics. Philosophers have always tried to put the information they have before them into context, to understand what is behind their experiences.That is exactly what the Big Bang theory is, same with atomic theory, same with dark matter and dark energy, same with string theory.

It gets a bit confused, for philosophers at least, because physicists are not as rigorous with their language as they are with their data. So for instance, Newton's description of gravity is describe as a law, whereas Einstein's is a theory. The difference is that Newton said 'This is what happens'; he wrote an equation that described the interaction between bodies that no one found an exception to in over 200 years. He made it very plain that he didn't know the metaphysics, he wouldn't even speculate about the reason for gravity. He was right; it doesn't matter what you think causes gravity, Newton's inverse square law is a very good description of what actually happens. Einstein's theory of general relativity is different, because although it contains the field equations that describe the action of gravity even better than Newton's law, it is wrapped up in a metaphysical hypothesis, that the universe behaves as if it were a stretchable medium called spacetime. The fact that the field equations based on this model are so good at describing what happens has led some people to conclude that the universe really is a stretchy substance, maybe it is, but it doesn't follow from the mathematical model. That the maths works is a fact. That the universe is spongey spacetime is a theory.

Philosophers on the other hand are less concerned with describing what happens and more interested in what is actually real; screw the maths, what's everything really made of? We rely on scientists to report the data; there is red shift, there is cosmic microwave background radiation and so on, but while scientists are much closer to the information and will be exchanging ideas with other people so placed, it doesn't follow that they are necessarily better at interpreting what they see than anyone else. You are perfectly free to speculate as you will, but as Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." If you insist that something is true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are either hopelessly ill informed or a complete idiot, but there is no harm believing anything that is consistent with what is demonstrably the case. My personal quackery is that I believe there is a substance that does exactly what the physicists say it does.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Personally I think it's a bit rich of physicists to say philosophy is irrelevant and at the same time practice what is essentially metaphysics. Philosophers have always tried to put the information they have before them into context, to understand what is behind their experiences.That is exactly what the Big Bang theory is, same with atomic theory, same with dark matter and dark energy, same with string theory.
Yes, great!

It gets a bit confused, for philosophers at least, because physicists are not as rigorous with their language as they are with their data. So for instance, Newton's description of gravity is describe as a law, whereas Einstein's is a theory. The difference is that Newton said 'This is what happens'; he wrote an equation that described the interaction between bodies that no one found an exception to in over 200 years. He made it very plain that he didn't know the metaphysics, he wouldn't even speculate about the reason for gravity. He was right; it doesn't matter what you think causes gravity, Newton's inverse square law is a very good description of what actually happens. Einstein's theory of general relativity is different, because although it contains the field equations that describe the action of gravity even better than Newton's law, it is wrapped up in a metaphysical hypothesis, that the universe behaves as if it were a stretchable medium called spacetime. The fact that the field equations based on this model are so good at describing what happens has led some people to conclude that the universe really is a stretchy substance, maybe it is, but it doesn't follow from the mathematical model. That the maths works is a fact. That the universe is spongey spacetime is a theory.
Yes, awesome! I have seen this for some time now, and that many don't realize it. That first they conceive a theory, in their minds eye, then create equations until they work, then test, yet this does not necessarily indicate that the picture they conceived is correct, only that the math exemplifies (models) what ever it might actually be.

Philosophers on the other hand are less concerned with describing what happens and more interested in what is actually real; screw the maths, what's everything really made of? We rely on scientists to report the data; there is red shift, there is cosmic microwave background radiation and so on, but while scientists are much closer to the information and will be exchanging ideas with other people so placed, it doesn't follow that they are necessarily better at interpreting what they see than anyone else. You are perfectly free to speculate as you will, but as Richard Feynman said: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." If you insist that something is true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are either hopelessly ill informed or a complete idiot, but there is no harm believing anything that is consistent with what is demonstrably the case. My personal quackery is that I believe there is a substance that does exactly what the physicists say it does.

Of course I agree, but see that experiment can also be flawed. So one must proceed with caution, as to quadruple check and then check again.

[Godfree]

Personally I think it's a bit rich of physicists to say philosophy is irrelevant and at the same time practice what is essentially metaphysics. Philosophers have always tried to put the information they have before them into context, to understand what is behind their experiences.That is exactly what the Big Bang theory is, same with atomic theory, same with dark matter and dark energy, same with string theory.

My personal quackery is that I believe there is a substance that does exactly what the physicists say it does.

I see several problems with curved space time ,
Einstein decided from his mathematical equations that time was the variable and light was the constant ,
to me it is obvious that it is the other way around ,
for starters we know light decays into the invisible spectrum at about 13 billion light years or so ,
that is not a constant ,
when the sun has a solar flare , the Neutrino burst arrives 8 seconds I think before the rest of the light ,
thats not a constant
when light travel past a large planet it can be seen to bend around the planet ,
and we can actually see stars that are directly behind large planets ,
so light can be bent , or space is curved ,
we can demonstrate that light has a mass , it is pulled back into black holes because it has a mass ,
or space is curved ,, do you see the problem ,??
for the maths to always be based on Einsteins e=mc squared ,
to me means they are all repeating a mistake ,
and as Mr Tillingborn has suggested , the maths may add up ,
but the logic doesn't ,,???

[tillingborn]

I see several problems with curved space time ,
Einstein decided from his mathematical equations that time was the variable and light was the constant ,

Einstein said that coming up with the theory of relativity was easy, proving it was next to impossible. I think the point he was making is that having ideas is easy, but inventing the maths to support them is really difficult. It certainly was for Einstein, because he wasn't an especially good mathematician and he definitely didn't decide anything from his mathematical equations. As far as I remember, his wife had to help him with the maths of Special Relativity and the 4 dimensional spacetime that is usually attributed to him was actually invented by his former teacher Hermann Minkowski.
At the time it was believed that light was a wave and James Clerk Maxwell had done the maths to show that light would travel at a certain rate. The thing with waves is that they need a medium to travel through, waves on the ocean need an ocean, sound waves need air (in space no one can hear you scream and all that). It was assumed that light needs a medium and one was invented for that purpose, the lumineferous aether. If you think about waves on the beach, they speed at which they hit you depends on whether you are running into the sea, or out of it. American physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley did an experiment to discover how much the speed of light varies as the Earth travels through the 'ocean' of lumineferous aether. It doesn't. It's as if you were mucking about on the beach and whether you were running into or out of the sea the waves always hit you at the same speed. Another way to look at it is to consider a car crash. If you hit a tree at 30mph, your impact speed is 30mph. If you hit another car head on that is also traveling at 30mph, your impact speed is 60mph. What Michelson-Morley showed was that it doesn't matter how fast you are going, nor in which direction, the impact speed of light is always the same.
Since the perception of the speed of light is that it is always 186 000 miles per second, regardless of movement relative to the source, something has to be happening to the perception of the miles and seconds. When you do the sums, the speed of light, c, stays the same, the problems with curved spacetime only occur if you treat it as real, there are no problems with it as a mathematical model, because it works brilliantly.

to me it is obvious that it is the other way around ,
for starters we know light decays into the invisible spectrum at about 13 billion light years or so ,

No we don't. What we know is that some people refuse to entertain the possibility that space is expanding. They cannot deny the experimentally proven fact that there is red shift in this crazy universe, so in order to account for the red shift, they invent the tired photon hypothesis. This is in spite of the fact that we can measure the red shift of planets we can hit with probes, we know the speed of them and the red shift displayed supports the theory that galaxies are (mostly) moving away from us. The tired photon hypothesis may be true, but I'll be dipped in dogshit if it is proven in my lifetime.

that is not a constant ,
when the sun has a solar flare , the Neutrino burst arrives 8 seconds I think before the rest of the light ,
thats not a constant

I don't know if that it true. I don't know what the exact mechanism is, but since solar flares are believed to be caused by events below the surface, I can imagine that there are neutrino bursts associated with them which would get here before the event surfaced and the image of the flare set off on it's eight minute journey.

when light travel past a large planet it can be seen to bend around the planet ,
and we can actually see stars that are directly behind large planets ,
so light can be bent , or space is curved ,
we can demonstrate that light has a mass , it is pulled back into black holes because it has a mass ,
or space is curved ,, do you see the problem ,??

Not really.

for the maths to always be based on Einsteins e=mc squared ,
to me means they are all repeating a mistake ,
and as Mr Tillingborn has suggested , the maths may add up ,
but the logic doesn't ,,???

The maths is good enough to put people on the moon. Logic is only useful if you know the truth of your premises, we are all groping around in the dark in that respect.

[Godfree]

[quote="tillingborn"][quote="Godfree"]I see several problems with curved space time ,
What we know is that some people refuse to entertain the possibility that space is expanding. They cannot deny the experimentally proven fact that there is red shift in this crazy universe, so in order to account for the red shift, they invent the tired photon hypothesis. This is in spite of the fact that we can measure the red shift of planets we can hit with probes, we know the speed of them and the red shift displayed supports the theory that galaxies are (mostly) moving away from us. The tired photon hypothesis may be true, but I'll be dipped in dogshit if it is proven in my lifetime.

Deep space or a large scale view of the universe , looks a bit like the group of smilies on your left ,
a pattern of round voids with strings and chains of galaxies clumping together in the gaps ,
the galaxies are not all moving apart , that is complete nonsense ,
we know our galaxy is heading for it's nearest galaxy ,
so is every other galaxy , moving together , not apart ,
The red shift needs no explanation ,
the further away things are , the more red shifted they are , it makes perfect sense to me ,
why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,
what breed of dog shit would you prefer ,,???

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see several problems with curved space time ,
What we know is that some people refuse to entertain the possibility that space is expanding. They cannot deny the experimentally proven fact that there is red shift in this crazy universe, so in order to account for the red shift, they invent the tired photon hypothesis. This is in spite of the fact that we can measure the red shift of planets we can hit with probes, we know the speed of them and the red shift displayed supports the theory that galaxies are (mostly) moving away from us. The tired photon hypothesis may be true, but I'll be dipped in dogshit if it is proven in my lifetime.

Deep space or a large scale view of the universe , looks a bit like the group of smilies on your left ,
a pattern of round voids with strings and chains of galaxies clumping together in the gaps ,
the galaxies are not all moving apart , that is complete nonsense ,
we know our galaxy is heading for it's nearest galaxy ,
so is every other galaxy , moving together , not apart ,
The red shift needs no explanation ,
the further away things are , the more red shifted they are , it makes perfect sense to me ,
why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,
what breed of dog shit would you prefer ,,???

It is true that I saw a documentary where physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists stated that one day the milky way and Andromeda would collide. Though I cannot provide a copyright date, or the name of the documentary for that matter, I watch so many!

Wikipedia:

"Certainty

Up to 2012, there was no way to know whether the possible collision was definitely going to happen or not.[9] In 2012, researchers came to the conclusion that the collision is definite after using the Hubble Space Telescope between 2002 and 2010 to track the motion of Andromeda.[1] Such collisions are relatively common. Andromeda, for example, is believed to have collided with at least one other galaxy in the past,[10] and several dwarf galaxies such as SagDEG are currently colliding with the Milky Way and being merged into it.

These studies also suggest that M33, the Triangulum Galaxy – the third largest and brightest galaxy of the Local Group – will participate in this event. Its most likely fate is to end up orbiting the merger remnant of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies to merge with it in an even farther future, but a collision with the Milky Way before our galaxy collides with M31 or being ejected from the Local Group cannot be ruled out.[11]"

[tillingborn]

the galaxies are not all moving apart , that is complete nonsense ,

Hubble's law states not only that (most) galaxies are moving apart, it tells you how fast they are doing so.

we know our galaxy is heading for it's nearest galaxy ,

Yes we do. SpheresOfBalance has provided information to that effect, and I have been careful to qualify any statement about the movement of galaxies.

so is every other galaxy , moving together , not apart ,

What is your evidence for this claim?

The red shift needs no explanation ,
the further away things are , the more red shifted they are , it makes perfect sense to me ,

Ah! It's your opinion. You are perfectly entitled to it, but all the evidence I am aware of contradicts it.

why do we have to attach a religious moment of creation to the story ,

Clearly I have failed to persuade you that the Big Bang is not the work of religious nutters conspiring to brainwash people into accepting Genesis. Oh well.

[Arising_uk]

Infinite and expanding , lets expand on that shall we ,
you are already infinite in size , and you are expanding ,,??? , but your already there ,
sounds completely illogical to me , how can something be expanding when it's already there ,,??
do you not see those two as incompatible ,?? ...

Personally I don't bother even considering such thoughts anymore as, to me, they appear a waste of thought unless you are going to become a physicist and prove your ideas. But since you asked I think your problem lies in that you still think of the expansion as the expansion of 'Space' and its the expansion of this 'thing' called 'SpaceTime' thats going on(if Einstein is correct). I guess this is also solves your problem of how galaxies can collide as within 'Space' they are moving faster or at angles to this expansion of 'SpaceTime'.

to know what some physicists think is interesting , but I never presume they all agree ,
you will find physicists with opposing views , and if you want to play the numbers game,
and say well "most physicists" ,then thats kind-of putting your faith in the majority ,
the majority of people on this planet are religious and would tell god is real ,
so I'm comfortable going with a less popular but more logical view of the universe ,
One that doesn't leave room for creation , a big bang or any other silly nonsense ,
there was no moment of creation/big bang ,
an infinite steady state universe where bangs happen on a galactic scale not a universal one .
an endless cycle of birth and re-birth , the Hindu almost had it right ,
birth and re-birth of the galaxies , not the universe ,,!!!!!

From this I assume you didn't bother listening to Krauss's lecture as it claimed that there will be no rebirth just an endless expansion until the Milky Way will be scientifically provable as the only stars in the universe. Feel free to believe anything you like but unless you can supply a way to test it, it'll just be pointless metaphysical ontology.

[Arising_uk]

... That first they conceive a theory, in their minds eye, then create equations until they work, then test, yet this does not necessarily indicate that the picture they conceived is correct, only that the math exemplifies (models) what ever it might actually be.

I agree but not quite. First they make lots and lots of observations and notice a correlation then they postulate a theory that might explain them and then they propose experiments that may confirm or refute the theory. Maths is the language they use to frame theory and the experiments..