Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism
- Thread starter HARK!
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,100
- 8,121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
OK, it seems to me that you're saying that there is an expanding space between particles of matter; without considering that there is space outside of the bounds of the sum of the particulate matter. No?
Upvote
0
- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,100
- 8,121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Why would you assume that space is dependent on what is contained in it?
Upvote
0
- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,100
- 8,121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
How can one assert that space is curved; when the observable effects of gravity, are on the matter that is contained in space, rather than the space itself?
What gravitational effect is exerted on that of zero mass?
Upvote
0
- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,100
- 8,121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Of course not; because it's not expanding. Only the volume of what it contains is expanding.
Upvote
0
We can only theorize what is going on inside the observable universe.
Any object beyond the particle horizon means the difference between the recession velocity v of the object and the velocity c of a photon emitted back towards the observer satisfies the equation v – c > c.
In other words the photon never reaches us and object is beyond observation despite the size of observable universe and particle horizon distance increasing.
While there is space-time beyond the observable universe it doesn’t mean the observable universe is expanding into this space-time.
It means the observable universe is part of something much larger that is expanding.
What is going on outside the observable universe is unknown.
Since measurements of the CMB indicate the observable universe might have a zero curvature this suggests the entire universe could be infinitely large.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It contains matter, but matter isn't expanding - and gravity is strong enough to hold together even matter as relatively diffuse as galaxies. The measurable space between all matter that isn't gravitationally bound together is increasing in all directions, like expanding foam or rising dough.
Upvote
0
We have good reason to think that the universe is at least 250 times bigger in volume than what we can directly observe, and probably very much larger than that (possibly infinite). What we can see looks pretty much the same in all directions, and given that we're orbiting an ordinary star about 2/3 rds of the way from the edge of a fairly average galaxy in part of a smallish cluster of galaxies that's probably part of a much larger cluster, we have no reason to think we're in a spatially privileged position.
The assumption is that it's not likely to be significantly different beyond what we can observe, and it would take some pretty strange developments after the big bang for there to be empty space beyond some arbitrary distance - it wouldn't fit the models that describe the development of what we can see.
If the universe is spatially infinite, there could be very distant regions that are significantly different from the region we're in - possibly even with different physics; but that's highly speculative.
Upvote
0
- Oct 29, 2017
- 55,100
- 8,121
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Are you asserting that the space, between the atoms of solid objects, isn't expanding over time? If so, how did all of that matter fit into the theory, that the universe originated from a singularity, which was smaller than a pinpoint?
Upvote
0
The only one talking about conspiracy theories is you. That's another strawman of your own creation. It's usually mainstream authors that blow the biggest holes in the LCDM model so if it's conspiracy is the worst conspiracy in the history of physics.
It's a bit amusing from my perspective that the only two instance where energy isn't supposedly conserved that your video author could cite, were two different metaphysical claims associated with the same otherwise falsified cosmology model. Both instances that he cited *assume* that the LCMD model is correct in spite of significant evidence to the contrary.
The more *likely* scenario is that energy is *always* conserved and "space expansion" isn't the actual cause of redshift.
It's also amusing that the author that you cited said exactly the same thing that I did, specifically that both dark energy claims and space expansion claims violate conservation of energy laws.
If one simply assumes that plasma redshift is the real cause of cosmological redshift, a static infinite universe doesn't violate any know laws of physics. Any energy lost by photons is simply transferred to the plasma. GR theory isn't the problem, the LCMD model is the problem.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The LCDM cosmology model still violates the Copernicus principle by suggesting that we're living in a privileged position with respect to time.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Rocket surgeon
- Mar 11, 2017
- 14,875
- 11,869
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
But we have to exist in at least a *partially* privileged time, don't we?
Certainly we couldn't exist until there were heavy elements to make planets on which life formed, right?
As for being at the "right time" to discover the cosmology, if we existed in a time after the universe had accelerated all outside our own galaxy to be invisible, then we probably would be able to develop a complete cosmology reaching the "beginning".
I'd have to think about what astronomers in the distant future might see and determine in the distant future about cosmology. It's entirely possible (but I don't know for sure) that far enough into the future it might not be possible to demonstrate that there ever was anything beyond the Galaxy.
Upvote
0
None of which saves your idiotic conspiracy theory which is refuted by the historical fact that Einstein and Hilbert were aware that energy was not conserved globally a decade before expanding spacetime was even considered.
Get over it.
Upvote
0
Yes - this is actually known as the cosmological multiverse because each causally isolated volume can never interact with any other, so is effectively a separate universe.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
As I understand it, all of space is expanding, but the gravity of structures like galaxies holds them together despite the expansion.
The theory doesn't say that the universe originated from a singularity, which was smaller than a pinpoint. The currently observable universe (just a small part of the whole universe) would have been very small at the time of the big bang, but the whole universe might have been infinite. The big bang did not occur at a point in space, it involved all space; it was a point in time, not a point in space.
Also, the so-called singularity is a point before which current theories don't give meaningful results, it doesn't necessarily mean everything was infinitely hot and dense, just that our theories fail at that point (we need a complete theory of quantum gravity to progress further). Also, studies of the cosmic microwave background are incompatible with the idea of a singularity at the big bang.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
