The universe is expanding, but, where?

[dad]

Could be a typo and he meant dependent. Autocorrect is pure evil sometimes.

Ha. Guess you have empathy for him to apologize and explain

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We do know that the universe is expanding; we can see the movement. But good luck to you on comprehending a place without time, space, or recognizable physics.

All we know is that the observable universe is expanding. If you put a cake in the oven and it expands, that doesn't mean that your whole kitchen is expanding, it just means that the part that you are looking at (the cake) is expanding while the kitchen is static.

I call it nonexistence because it is so foreign that it is the best explanation I can give.

I personally think that there is no "outside" the universe for which the universe can expand into because the universe is a closed loop (in that, if you traveled to the edge of the universe you would end up where you started, like traveling around the outside of a sphere). The surface of a sphere cannot expand unless you include an extra dimension (volume) in which to expand into. So I don't think the "surface" of the universe can expand unless there are extra dimensions for it to expand into (which may be a possibility!)

It is indeed mind-bending but to use "nonexistence" as a catch all phrase seems about as weak as using "God" as a catch all phrase to explain things we don't understand.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ha. Guess you have empathy for him to apologize and explain

Sympathy, autocorrect has gotten me so much that I have it turned off on all devices now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

All we know is that the observable universe is expanding. If you put a cake in the oven and it expands, that doesn't mean that your whole kitchen is expanding, it just means that the part that you are looking at (the cake) is expanding while the kitchen is static.



I personally think that there is no "outside" the universe for which the universe can expand into because the universe is a closed loop (in that, if you traveled to the edge of the universe you would end up where you started, like traveling around the outside of a sphere). The surface of a sphere cannot expand unless you include an extra dimension (volume) in which to expand into. So I don't think the "surface" of the universe can expand unless there are extra dimensions for it to expand into (which may be a possibility!)

It is indeed mind-bending but to use "nonexistence" as a catch all phrase seems about as weak as using "God" as a catch all phrase to explain things we don't understand.

I agree on all points. But ugh, so much unknown in physics, I am glad I am a biology person.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I agree on all points. But ugh, so much unknown in physics, I am glad I am a biology person.

But physics is so awesome!

 

[dad]

All we know is that the observable universe is expanding...

Based on interpreting what redshift is. I wouldn't revolve my life around that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Based on interpreting what redshift is. I wouldn't revolve my life around that.

-_- I think the universe is expanding, but I barely even think about physics. Because physics makes me feel like

 

[dad]

-_- I think the universe is expanding, but I barely even think about physics. Because physics makes me feel like

Long as you have a hunch I guess you are as qualified as them. Long as no one takes it too seriously.

 

[Michael]

You admit that visual light is redshifted in a wavelength independent manner?

If so, you have just falsified plasma redshift.

No. I admit that *some* light *seems* to be redshifted *about* the same in a *subset* of the EM spectrum. Since you cannot and have not demonstrated that *all* light is redshifted *exactly the same*, there's nothing "falsified" by any of that data. If we applied your "one observation falsifies any theory* logic to your *own* claims, your BB theories are totally falsified at least a half dozen different observations, starting with that gigantic *hole* in your claims!

Give it up already. Your impotent on Earth sky entities are more impotent on Earth than an average "supernatural" concept of God, and they have more "supernatural" properties too!

 

[Michael]

All we know is that the observable universe is expanding.

Actually all we "know" is that photons from objects in space are redshifted during their travel through spacetime. The *cause* of that redshift phenomenon is a "belief" that someone holds or doesn't hold. Actual "knowledge* is a whole different issue. Even Hubble himself acknowledged *multiple* ways to "interpret" that phenomenon.

 

[Michael]

Wiki says this

"In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum."

What do you mean by wavelength independent?

He means that a gamma ray from a distant object is redshifted *exactly* the same as say a photon in the visible spectrum. Of course he's never demonstrated such a claim.

 

[Michael]

I don't notice the oxygen radicals damaging my DNA as a consequence of my own cellular respiration, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

But if you did have a the necessary equipment in the right place at the right time you could verify such processes occur in the lab. In contrast, claiming that "dark energy did it" is like claiming that the cell damage was *necessarily* cased by 'evil voodoo'. There's not even a logical way to test or connect the two ideas because one doesn't show up in the lab at all.

Likewise, when I had my wisdom teeth pulled out, I had some mild hallucinations, but just because I can report them doesn't make them real.

Sure, but then you rely upon your sight and mental logic throughout your life, and not all experiences in your life are 'hallucinations'.

 

[dad]

He means that a gamma ray from a distant object is redshifted *exactly* the same as say a photon in the visible spectrum. Of course he's never demonstrated such a claim.

I guess he better get to it then. Either it is the same or not.

 

[dad]

Actually all we "know" is that photons from objects in space are redshifted during their travel through spacetime. The *cause* of that redshift phenomenon is a "belief" that someone holds or doesn't hold. Actual "knowledge* is a whole different issue. Even Hubble himself acknowledged *multiple* ways to "interpret" that phenomenon.

Do you not also have a belief in what causes it..plasma something or other?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But if you did have a the necessary equipment in the right place at the right time you could verify such processes occur in the lab. In contrast, claiming that "dark energy did it" is like claiming that the cell damage was *necessarily* cased by 'evil voodoo'. There's not even a logical way to test or connect the two ideas because one doesn't show up in the lab at all.



Sure, but then you rely upon your sight and mental logic throughout your life, and not all experiences in your life are 'hallucinations'.

-_- oh yes, I am sure we have the equipment to watch oxygen radicals damage DNA during cellular respiration that has definitely been invented. The conclusion is based on the fact that we can do the chemistry independently of a cell, and oxygen radicals form. Oxygen radicals can be very destructive. We don't actually see it happen within the confines of a cell.

There is no logical way to test the existence of a deity either, but you are still a theist. In any case, dark matter does visibly impact light that comes into contact with it, and given that matter is held together by energy, it stands to reason that dark matter is as well.

How would I know? I could just be having a dream that, from my perspective, has gone on for 20 years, but in reality is just an illusion of neurons firing as I sleep over the course of 30 minutes.

 

[Michael]

-_- oh yes, I am sure we have the equipment to watch oxygen radicals damage DNA during cellular respiration that has definitely been invented. The conclusion is based on the fact that we can do the chemistry independently of a cell, and oxygen radicals form. Oxygen radicals can be very destructive. We don't actually see it happen within the confines of a cell.

Hmmm. Apparently something got lost in translation. Let me try that again. The point I was trying to make is that you *can* empirically demonstrate the physical existence of Oxygen, and Oxygen radicals. You *can* perform empirical chemical tests in the lab and note their effect on various molecules and elements. These *empirical observations* in controlled experimentation make such a theory *logical*, *testable*, and perhaps even *verifiable* in a standard empirical manner.

If however I claimed that magical "dark voodoo" is responsible for cell damage, how would anyone even 'test' the concept in a logical or rational manner? The same is true of "dark energy" and any claimed "effect" it might be said to have on a photon.

There is no logical way to test the existence of a deity either,

That depends on how one *defines* the deity. The way I define God, you'd be hard pressed to deny the fact that the universe itself physically exists. About the only thing you could complain about is how I might go about demonstrating that the physical universe is *aware*. You couldn't rationally deny that it physically exists.

but you are still a theist.

And yet I "lack belief" in any "supernatural" claims, and I'm not even ascribing anything to the universe itself that doesn't already show up labs on Earth in a variety of forms, including "awareness".

In any case, dark matter does visibly impact light that comes into contact with it,

That is in fact a "statement of faith". All *known* forms of matter do exactly the same thing, and I can *easily* demonstrate that the mainstream *grossly* underestimated the amount of *ordinary plasma* in various galaxies and galaxy types. You're *assuming* that some form of 'exotic' matter does similar things with light, but you've never demonstrated that claim in controlled experimentation. You're also ignoring the negative results at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. Why? What value does the idea even have in the first place?

and given that matter is held together by energy, it stands to reason that dark matter is as well.

No it doesn't. It's an 'act of faith' that exotic forms of matter even exist! It doesn't "stand to reason", it's simply an 'act of faith'.

How would I know? I could just be having a dream that, from my perspective, has gone on for 20 years, but in reality is just an illusion of neurons firing as I sleep over the course of 30 minutes.

So if everything could be an 'illusion of the mind", what is the basis of 'science', the "scientific method', or the value of the 'observer' in science in the first place?

 

[Michael]

I guess he better get to it then. Either it is the same or not.

The problem for LM is that I already handed him a link and paper by a group using the MAGIC equipment that already demonstrated that various wavelengths of light don't even likely travel at the same speed through the quantum/plasma medium. His entire basis for making making these space expansion claims went up in smoke already, he's just in denial of the outcome.

Lerner also demonstrated via surface brightness tests on objects at larger redshifts that a static universe theory better 'fits' the actual data sets.

Basically they're in denial of *any* tangible effect the quantum and plasma medium might potentially have on photons, and photon redshift. In order for photons to *never* be redshifted by the medium, they'd have to magically weave and dodge their way around every single dust particle, every single plasma particle, and every single temperature and EM field gradient in the universe. That's just an absurd premise to begin with.

 

[Loudmouth]

He means that a gamma ray from a distant object is redshifted *exactly* the same as say a photon in the visible spectrum. Of course he's never demonstrated such a claim.

I mean the evidence that you have to continually run away from. Even when I show him a wavelength independent redshift across all of the visual wavelengths, you just ignore it.

 

[Michael]

I mean the evidence that you have to continually run away from. Even when I show him a wavelength independent redshift across all of the visual wavelengths, you just ignore it.

Those are basically just 'averages' of a *very small* segment of the EM spectrum over *vast* distances. You've *continuously* ignored my request to do a side by side comparison of gamma rays/higher energy wavelengths and the visible spectrum. You simply *assume* whatever you like in that respect, *in spite* of MAGIC findings of even *time delays* between high energy gamma rays and lower energy wavelengths.

In order for there to be *zero* amount of photon redshift related to inelastic QM, EM and other types of particle scattering, those mythical photons have have to magically weave their way around every EM gradient, every temperature gradient, and every particle in the universe over *billions* of light years!

Talk about faith in miracles.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those are basically just 'averages' of a *very small* segment of the EM spectrum over *vast* distances. You've *continuously* ignored my request to do a side by side comparison of gamma rays/higher energy wavelengths and the visible spectrum. You simply *assume* whatever you like in that respect, *in spite* of MAGIC findings of even *time delays* between high energy gamma rays and lower energy wavelengths.

In order for there to be *zero* amount of photon redshift related to inelastic QM, EM and other types of particle scattering, those mythical photons have have to magically weave their way around every EM gradient, every temperature gradient, and every particle in the universe over *billions* of light years!

Talk about faith in miracles.

Still ignoring the evidence.