/sci/ - Science & Math

Equally at every point in space. In certain places like on earth gravity holds things together. In other places like in your matter nuclear forces hold your atoms together.

>>14625194
Into the multi/omni-verse

>>14625194
It isn't expanding, the only "proof" for expansion is that galaxies are moving aka it's not even an observation of space or it's expansion

>>14625258
>galaxies are moving
2x further out, 2x the speed
10x further out, 10x the speed
etc.
it's expanding
https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=10m

>>14625194
Unto itself.
There's no universe outside the universe.

>>14625194
>the universe is growing, where is it expanding
Into the similar BS of flatearth space

>>14625194
Isn't it getting bigger instead of expanding?

>>14625297
What is expanding?
There is nothing to expand and nowhere to expand to, the only observations we have made of the universe is through matter, there have been no observations of space, only matter and it's effects on itself, take that away and there is nothing

>>14625206
>Equally at every point in space
proof?

>>14625297
then why all the fuss about dark energy? based on what you wrote, the rate of expansion is constant.

>>14625636
>What is expanding?
Space.

>There is nothing to expand
Wrong.

>nowhere to expand to
Categorical error. Things in space expand into space. Space itself doesn't expand into anything, each point in space just gets farther away from each other.

>the only observations we have made of the universe is through matter
And energy, i.e. light.

>it's effects on itself
Incorrect, gravity is an effect of spacetime's curvature on matter and energy, not an effect of matter on itself. Expansion is a propert of space, not an effect of matter on itself. If you disagree, please give a better theory than general relativity and claim your Nobel prize.

>>14625639
There is no direct observation but observations on the distribution of matter at large scale and their movement supports models with metric expansion. There are multiple solutions to gr that include this, and is a feature of the standard cosmological model.

It is possible that are assumptions about the cosmological and copernican principle are not correct, offering a chance for competing models but so far, there are no other explanations.

>>14625661
>Space.
Space is made of nothing, though, so how can it expand?
>Things in space expand into space
So space isn't expanding, thanks, that's all I needed to hear.
>And energy, i.e. light.
energy = matter
>Incorrect, gravity is an effect of spacetime's curvature on matter and energy, not an effect of matter on itself
>spacetime
Oh dear, you really are retarded, aren't you

>>14625642
read a book

>>14625741
>Space is made of nothing
This is gibberish. Space is not "made of" anything or nothing, only things in space are made of other things.

>how can it expand?
Nonsensical question. Why would it not be able to expand?

>So space isn't expanding,
Wrong. Expansion just means each point in space gets farther away from each other.

>energy = matter
Wrong. Matter consists of atoms, energy does not.

>Oh dear, you really are retarded, aren't you
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting observed expansion is not an effect of matter on itself.

The universe isn't expanding, it is decaying. It only seems to be growing because every particle is shrinking at the same time.

>>14625804
Incorrect, expansion is only noticeable on large scales where gravity is too weak to hold matter together. If matter was shrinking then the opposite would be true, you would only notice this at small scales, and gravity would be weaker at small scales.

>>14625807
>gravity is too weak to hold matter together
It only seems to be weak because it must constantly fight against shrinking.

>>14625804
Shrinking doesn't work. The most basic cosmological observable is Hubble's law, the linear relation between distance and recession velocity. If everything was just shirking the distance in-between objects would be irrelevant, the shrinkage would be constant with distance.

Where ever the edge of the universe is, the anti-gravity must be stronger than the gravity.

This is causing the expansion, pulling everything away and stretching the universe.

>>14625799
>Doesn't know what matter is
>Doesn't know what spacetime is
>Dodges questions with more questions instead of proofs
Yep, 100% certifiably braindead, let me quess, you read a total of one wikipedia page right?

>>14625194
in your mother's anus

>>14625828
It would only seem weak if what you were saying is true, but it's not.

>>14625883
>>Doesn't know what matter is
You're the one who thinks energy is equivalent to matter. Matter is made of atoms and energy is not, so they aren't equivalent. You're avoiding the argument.

>>Doesn't know what spacetime is
You're the one who thinks space is "made of nothing," which is just gibberish. You're avoiding the argument.

>>Dodges questions with more questions instead of proofs
Which question did I dodge? The nonsensical one premised on gibberish? Pointing out your question is nonsense is not dodging, it's just the truth. If it wasn't nonsense, you would be able to explain to me how space is "made of nothing" and how this implies it can't expand. But you won't, you'll just continue to protect your retardation onto me, even though I've corrected all of your misconceptions. You have no argument, so thanks for admitting space is expanding.
>>Dodges questions with more questions instead of proofs

>>14625206
>Equally at every point in space.
Mumbo jumbo pseudery

>>14625799
typical physicsfag. calling someone's questions nonsensical then spouting schizo ramblings reliant on assumptions he refuses to acknowledge

>>14625923
You are retarded

>>14625194
Into itself...

>>14625194
great question shattering the big bang hoax
(the hoax invented by jesuits to corrupt cosmology)

>>14625206
>Equally at every point in space.

Dilate.

imagine a simplified model of a finite universe universe with the topology of a sphere (finite but simply connected in the 3 spatial dimensions). now let’s imagine embedding the universe in a 5D space (4 spatial plus time) and then we project out one of the 3 spatial dimensions of the normal universe. from this perspective our universe looks like a balloon (not necessarily perfectly spherical) which appears to be growing over time. so one might say that in this 5D embedding space that it’s growing in the normal sense into the embedding space.

you can generalize this to a non-bounded infinite version of our universe by thinking of the balloon’s size growing to infinite, and so in the 5D space it looks locally like an infinite sheet that is just stretching in all directions

>>14625341
>Unto itself.
>There's no universe outside the universe.

>>14625636
>What is expanding?
>There is nothing to expand and nowhere to expand to, the only observations we have made of the universe is through matter, there have been no observations of space, only matter and it's effects on itself, take that away and there is nothing

>>14625873
>Where ever the edge of the universe is, the anti-gravity must be stronger than the gravity

>>14625828
>It only seems to be weak because it must constantly fight against shrinking.

I have answers from god itself. Universe is infinitely big, it does not expand. It always was and it will always exists. The white space around universe or whatever does not exists. The universe rests on eternal gods light.

I thought the universe turned out to be pretty dense?

**hits blunt**

Empty space is actually pretty rare, it's almost as if we are living inside the bubble of a giant explosion, like a bomb going off underwater.

Maybe beyond the "universe" is pure matter, or antimatter, or both. Maybe we are a result of a matter/antimatter collision. Maybe there are infinite universes popping in and out of existence as these collisions happen in the ether. We are not expanding into nothing, but maybe we are expanding into infinite density. Time and space, as we know it, is the result of the explosion that we exist within.

They say it don't be like it is, but it do.

>>14625955
Typical schizo, retreats to vague non-arguments after being BTFO and projects its own incompetence onto others. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>14625958
See >>14626387

**hits blunt again**

Can light be dense?

If light is a particle could enough light form solid matter?

What it's just solid light outside of the universe?

>>14626392
Yes, you're retarded, that's what I said

>>14625297
>>14625194
hate this religious bullshit
just say you don't know and keep models confined to a reasonable scope

>>14625194
Outward

No-one cares that time is expanding

>>14626764
Or my dick

>>14626742
See >>14626392

>>14626748
We know. If you don't then learn physics or shut the fuck up.

>>14625194
It must be expanding into nothing, and not nothing as we understand space but absolutely nothing. Space has energy in it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
and if the universe was expanding into space we would be able to measure the energy from this and we don't. So the universe must be expanding into absolute actual incomprehensible nothing.

>>14625194
What if we are shrinking?

>>14625194
>If the universe is growing, where is it expanding?
Into the No-o-sphere. There are things in the no-o-sphere that are not happy about it either.

>>14626778
You're not very good at reading, are you?

>>14626810
found the micropenis

>>14625194
Space is an arbitrary emergent property that can change or grow within the constraints of whatever caused it to emerge. It doesn't actually exist.

>>14626785
>It must be expanding into nothing
It's not expanding into anything. There's no area of "nothing" outside space. It's infinite and just getting less dense.

>>14626818
What do you think I failed to read?

>>14626825
Not a single part of your post is correct.

>>14626833
You are retarded

>>14625297
so, we are the center of the universe after all
very nice

>>14626846
See >>14626778

>>14626882
No, we are at the center of the observable universe from our perspective.

>>14626916
You only keep proving you're retarded

>>14625206
>Equally at every point in space
Doesn't make sense. Things would be traveling away from each other faster than speed of light if every point in space was traveling apart while things affected by gravity are held together. In fact the speed they're moving away would approach infinity the further away they are. Look at pic related. If that contraption was the width of a galaxy then moving the first two elbows 1 inch apart in 1 year would make the other end move vastly farther than a light year and thus it moved FTL in reference to something. This is analogous to every point in space/the universe moving apart and since the universe is infinite then matter further away is moving away from us at speeds approaching infinity, yet that matter would be keeping its original shape since its being held together like nuclear forces as you say.

Is a planet on the other side of the universe moving away from us 1000000000000000000000000000x faster than the speed of light?

>>14626994
Yes, maybe not "1000000000000000000000000000x", but yes ftl. There is no restriction on the speed of the expansion of space in GR to being <=c

>>14627002
>Yes
So matter is moving faster than the speed of light, ergo the idea of expansion of space is gibberish

>There is no restriction on the speed of the expansion of space
I'm talking about one planet moving away from another planet, not the speed of your "space expansion." You are saying the Voyager space probe will eventually move FTL. Gibberish.

>>14627002
>maybe not "1000000000000000000000000000x", but yes ftl
and it would approach infinity since the universe is infinite like I said.

>>14625561
It is, but "getting bigger" sounds not scientifically enough.

>>14626994
>Things would be traveling away from each other faster than speed of light
They do.
You can't use that contraption as an example since it doesn't take into account relativistic effects.

>>14627060
>They do.
And can you prove it?

>>14627060
>>Things would be traveling away from each other faster than speed of light
>They do.
Something traveling 51% of C in one direction and something else traveling 51% of C in the opposite direction is obviously possible and they'd be moving 102% C away from each other, but that is clearly not what I was getting at. The relativistic speeds in my example exceed 200% C thus the matter itself is traveling FTL.

>You can't use that contraption as an example since it doesn't take into account relativistic effects.
It can't be used because matter cannot travel FTL. That contraption is not functionally possible in the first place, but if a mass stretched far enough and was thin enough to not collapse on its own gravity then according to the "space expansion" gibberish the matter at two ends could be traveling greater than 200% C in opposite directions away from each other, thus the matter itself must be traveling FTL, which is impossible.

>>14627013
>So matter is moving faster than the speed of light, ergo the idea of expansion of space is gibberish
That doesn't follow. It's generally a good idea to at least try to understand something before branding it "gibberish". If you have never studied GR you have no idea what you're talking about.
>I'm talking about one planet moving away from another planet, not the speed of your "space expansion." You are saying the Voyager space probe will eventually move FTL. Gibberish.
It won't because it's inside the galaxy which is gravitationally bound and so doesn't expand.
>>14627016
You can't see back to a time when it was infinite. The early universe was not transparent, and so the earliest observable light corresponds to a redshift of 1000, which has a recession velocity of 1000 c.
>>14627094
>which is impossible.
Based on what exactly? Special relativity is what forbids it but GR only reduces to that in the case of a local frame. You cannot compare the velocities of objects across an expanding universe and assume Minkowski spacetime.

>>14625258
>space is expanding
space is the lack of anything within a 3d space

what the fuck is "expanding" into? a brick wall that is getting smaller?

>>14626779
No you don't, you're still stuck on relativity.

Science and math hasn't progressed past the moon landing which was basically 1940s tech peaking out. You people have floundered for decades. Only tech and computers is moving forward now. Nothing has come of the field of physics in decades.

>>14626834
Spacetime is factually emergent, brainlet.

Picture space as Sonic's tummy tum
It is being inflated by gas, stretching out in all directions :3
His tummy is expanding but as you will see in a second it is not growing
Eventually he will either let out of a toot (haha) and return to normal or explode as pressures overcome the forces holding her together

The important thing is to enjoy the tight giggle and maybe he will let you kiss his balloon knot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t2GGBYyrIM

>>14626954
See >>14626916
Thanks for admitting space is expanding.

>>14626994
>Things would be traveling away from each other faster than speed of light
They aren't traveling through space, the space between them is just getting longer.

>>14625194
It's virtual space, so just add another 0.

>>14625741
Nigga you dumb as fuck, how do you manage to stay alive?

>>14627318
>space is the lack of anything within a 3d space
Circular definition and incorrect.

>Science and math hasn't progressed past the moon landing
Argument from ignorance.

>>14627340
You are retarded

>>14627368
fellating yourselves as you write incoherent strings of letters and symbols isn't technology

stop stealing taxpayer money and get a real job if you aren't going to do shit

>>14627321
Repeating your gibberish doesn't make it factual. Explain your bullshit so that we can be entertained or fuck off schizo.

>>14627372
See >>14627340
Not an argument. Try again.

>>14627383
You two have been doing this for 7+ hours now by the way.

Go for a jog or make a meaningful lifestyle change.

>>14627383
I'm not arguing with you, I'm calling you a retard because you are a retard

>>14627374
>incoherent strings of letters and symbols
Argument from ignorance.

>>14627402
>I'm not arguing with you
That's what I just said. Thanks for admitting I'm right. Like a typical schizo, you resort to namesake after being BTFO. It's so predictable that I can easily decipher your schizo behavior into an admittal that you realize your schizo garbage was wrong.

>>14627414
Yes, anon, the teachers who flunked you are retarded, surely not you
Why would I waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't even know third grade physics, you're just a retard, deal with it.

>>14627437
What this grade physics proves anything you said? You're projecting again, schizo. You can't even attempt to argue against a single point I made.

>>14627445
Read again you esl retard

>>14627484
Read what? Thanks for admitting I'm right again. Dumb schizo.

>>14625923
>Matter is made of atoms and energy is not
Are you a time traveling physicist from the past?

>>14627506
Right about you being a retard? Sure.

>>14626831
Also an acceptable answer.

>>14626831
Isn't it just semantics ?
How would you call anything outside the universe.

>>14625194
I read that regions of spacetime apparently expand faster than light but only if there is no observer

what does that mean ?

>>14628073
Could mean that you read an article from some pop sci blogger.
"Observing" means "interacting" in physics, so I don't see what such a claim is supposed to get at, given that the universe is constantly interacting with itself.

>>14627589
So far you have presented nothing that's contradicts the fact that matter consists of atoms and energy does not. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>>14627810
You're projecting. The only retard here is you, since you don't understand the difference between matter and energy and spout gibberish about space being "made of nothing."

>>14628045
>How would you call anything outside the universe.
I wouldn't, since there is no such thing, not

>>14628381
Semantics, absence of things is called nothing.

>>14628045
the bulk

>>14628363
m = Ec2

All matter is made of literal energy.
It's like you missed the basics from the last century, I don't know what you want me to say that you can't simply google.

>>14628376
Space and time are mathematical constructs, space being the coordinates to any given position occupied by something, time is the measurement of the rate of relative change between things, if things would not change, there would be no perception of time, the only reason space and time are lumped together is that if everything stood still in space, there would be no time, but if there were no time then nothing could ever occupy more than one spot, spacetime is not a magical mystery physical manifestation, but simply an observational measurement, space does not expand because space is not made of anything, every observation has been done through interactions of matter, gravity does not "warp spacetime", it changes the trajectory of anything passing through it and "warps time" in a sense that it takes 0.0000000001 microseconds longer for the photons to reach your retinas due to the effects of gravity, what evidence do you have that gravity "warps spacetime" when you've only observed interactions between matter. Your only argument for the expansion of space is what, redshifting? I can observe redshifting through regular glass right here on Earth, does that mean all the space behind the glass is rapidly expanding? No, it means whatever EM frequency you've observed has given away some of its energy over the trillions of lightyears it has had to travel, which could be caused by almost literally anything, here's your (You)

>>14628402
An absence of things is a vacuum, empty space. Outside of space not empty space, it's not anything at all, including"nothing."

>>14628433
>m = Ec2
You can't even get the most famous equation in physics correct. No, this doesn't mean matter and energy are the same, it's merely a relationship between the amount of energy and the amount of mass, i.e. mass can be converted to energy.

>All matter is made of literal energy.
This is vague and doesn't even help your claim. You claimed that matter is equivalent to energy, not that matter is made up of energy. A car is made of metal and tires, but metal and tires is not equivalent to a car.

>It's like you missed the basics from the last century
Your Facebook popsci cliches are not basic physics. Basic physics is that matter is made of atoms and energy is not. It would be nice if you could refute this, but you can't.

>>14628501
>Space and time are mathematical constructs
No, they are physical constructs.

>space being the coordinates
Space is 3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie, not coordinates.

>time is the measurement of the rate of relative change between things
No, time is one dimension of the manifold in which events lie, not a measurement.

>the only reason space and time are lumped together is that if everything stood still in space, there would be no time, but if there were no time then nothing could ever occupy more than one spot
This is gibberish. Take your meds. The reason space and time are lumped together is because they are part of the same manifold and there is a sort of conservation between movement through source and movement through time dependent on reference frames. This all follows from the simple postulates of relativity.

>>14628501
>space does not expand because space is not made of anything
What does one have to do with the other?

>what evidence do you have that gravity "warps spacetime"
Gravity IS curvature in spacetime, mass/ energy is what warps it. Dumb schizo. The evidence is right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

>I can observe redshifting through regular glass right here on Earth, does that mean all the space behind the glass is rapidly expanding?
It is rapidly excitability but simply observing redshift is not how expansion was discovered. Dumb schizo. It's the relationship between distance and recession speed.

>>14625194
into your sister's anus

>>14625835
>Shrinking doesn't work. The most basic cosmological observable is Hubble's law, the linear relation between distance and recession velocity. If everything was just shirking the distance in-between objects would be irrelevant, the shrinkage would be constant with distance.
What if the shrinking of matter pulls on the space around like rubber?

>>14625194
Nothing. Spatial relationships inside the universe are changing in a way analogous to an expansion "into something". Doesn't mean it's expanding literally into something.

okay, so if the universe is expanding, does that mean space-time is expanding too?
I guess space can expand by there just being more space, but how tf can you expand time?

>>14628973
No.

>>14625194
It expands into the dark universe

>>14627219
>That doesn't follow. It's generally a good idea to at least try to understand something before branding it "gibberish". If you have never studied GR you have no idea what you're talking about.
Not an argument. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong
>It won't because it's inside the galaxy
My mistake I thought it was already traveling faster than Milky Way escape velocity
>>14627219
>The early universe was not transparent, and so the earliest observable light corresponds to a redshift of 1000, which has a recession velocity of 1000 c.
Hilariously made up. At least invent a number that doesn't perfectly fit our base 10 unit system. You might as well have said its 123456789 C rofl.
>Based on what exactly?
It's kinda a law of the universe.
>Special relativity is what forbids it but GR only reduces to that in the case of a local frame
So it can't until it can... ROFL
I took this into account in my example via saying a mass that stretches far enough (ie significantly across the universe), ergo there is a veeeery long series of connected local frames yet the mass at each end must being travelling FTL. Your only excuse is that it doesn't count if they are far away.
>You cannot compare the velocities of objects across an expanding universe and assume Minkowski spacetime
See? You're just randomly saying the speed doesn't count when you say so and your source is: I say so because otherwise I'm wrong

>>14627345
>They aren't traveling through space, the space between them is just getting longer.
Oh ok so I guess you aren't traveling through the atmosphere in a plane either, the distance between the atmosphere 5 min ago is just getting longer away from you HAHA!!
you are just playing semantics. The space between two things is also called the length between two things, so you are saying nothing more than "They aren't traveling through space, the [length] between them is just getting longer" which of course is just another way of saying they are traveling through space.

>>14625194
We don't know, and I am tired pretending the opposite. We really don't know.

>>14625194
Good question.

>>14627414
fucking stupid retard having a full conversation with a troll. gb2 reddit you're clearly underage and hadn't been around the internet enough time.

>>14625804
I like the theory but if it was really happening everything on earth would be ripping apart, fossils wouldn't exist etc

>>14628433
>le famous relativity equation literally stumped on every wall even single moms who dropped high school know it
>still writes it down wrong


again, this is relativistic energy, not the other forms of energy,also energy is a state function, it is always up to some constant since it is a function more than a measurable property. also, get a decent course in physics, get at least to classical mechanics iii , then you'll be allowed to speak, or at least, voice your cringe opinions once per day.

>>14629243
>Oh ok so I guess you aren't traveling through the atmosphere in a plane either, the distance between the atmosphere 5 min ago is just getting longer away from you HAHA!!
Nope, expansion has no effect on such small scales because of gravity. You really are dumb.

>you are just playing semantics
I'm sure it seems that way when you can't even grasp basic physics.

>which of course is just another way of saying they are traveling through space.
No, traveling means going to different points in source. The points are the same, the distance between them is not. If your response is just going to be "I don't get it so it's stupid" then don't bother.

isn't inflation different to expansion? expanding implies 'into' which makes no sense

>>14625194
The universe isn't expanding. Matter is shrinking.

>>14625194
Space isn't a thing. Every particle in the universe is part of a graph, connected to every other particle. The edge weights are what we call fields/forces. Some edges are distances in different dimensions. Other edges are force amounts in different fields (an electric edge, a magnetic edge, etc.). Inflation is a uniform increase in the distance edge weights, subject to the force edge weights.

So the universe isn't expanding because the universe has no volume. We only perceive that it does because we're in the graph.

>>14627318
>space is the lack of anything within a 3d space
wrong

Why does every schizophrenic neet think he figured out the nature of existence?

>>14629447
because you're on /sci/

if you go to /ck/ for example, they think they made a masterpiece by deepfrying a stick of butter

>>14629407
>Nope, expansion has no effect on such small scales because of [excuse I invented because I say so]
neat, my hypothetical mass that spans far enough escapes your silly excuse anyway (I mentioned here >>14627094) yet still would force FTL travel of matter according to your space expansion nonsense
>You really are dumb
Projection is always hilarious from retards
>I'm sure it seems that way when you can't even grasp basic physics
It's grasping basic words/math which you fail to do. Your explanation is gibberish.
>No, traveling means going to different points in source
wtf does this even mean? Different "points in source"???? You can't even correct your gibberish without making up more verbal gibberish. I'm guessing you tried to say "space" but that isn't valid either because....
>The points are the same, the distance between them is not
Mathematical and even grammatical gibberish. Points are infinitely small and are only defined by distance to other points. If the distance "changes" between two points on a number line or in space then they are no longer the same points. There's infinite points between 0.5 and 0.6. If the distance between points 0.5 and 0.6 "changes" then you MUST have defined 1 or 2 new points that are at a further distance between each other than 0.1 and incorrectly labelled it/them the "same" point(s). They are difinintively not the same points if the distance between them increased and that is a mathematical fact.
>If your response is just going to be "I don't get it so it's stupid" then don't bother
I totally get it and that is how I and anybody else can easily explain it's gibberish with hard examples like I just gave.

>>14629447
Why does every academia word salad think he figured out nature of existence?

It's expanding everywhere. If you have some hypothetical immovable and non-interacting objects sitting in the universe, and they're a distance 1m apart, well in some amount of time they will be 1.0000000000000000001m apart.

You could also imagine it as a transformation of R^3 or some other space, where all coordinates are multiplied by some number, expanding everything from the origin. Of course the origin is arbitrary, and in reality this expansion happens gradually/differentially.

As for what it's expanding "into", or what happens at the edges, that's a more complicated question, and I think you need a solid understanding of relativity to hypothesise about it.

>>14625194
>If the universe is growing, where is it expanding?academic
Who cares of obvious academic brainwash propaganda? Flatearthers level with similar idiotic assertions.

You just signalize that you are dumb enough to support the current thing.

>>14630123
>Why does every academia word salad think he figured out nature of existence?
They just want to make a living at your costs.

>>14625194
The universe occupies infinite space. The scale factor is simply getting larger. It's like you asking "where does the number grid expand into". Nowhere. By definition it's already infinite. But you can zoom into arbitrarily much.

anyone have the old gif/webm of the universe zooming out and out until is multiple universe cubes stacked on each other?

>>14630120
>neat, my hypothetical mass that spans far enough escapes your silly excuse anyway
No it doesnt, special relativity only applies locally. You have no idea what you're talking about so you think eviscerated violates GR when it is exactly what GR predicts.

>wtf does this even mean? Different "points in source"????
Typo, different points in space. Calm down, schizo.

>Points are infinitely small and are only defined by distance to other points.
No, that's not how they're defined. You're making shit up again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold

Think of a balloon with a picture on it. When you blow the balloon up, the picture expands, but every point of the picture is still identifiable and mappable to the unstretched picture. A picture of a dog still has all the same points on its nose, tail, legs, etc. Yet the distance between them has increased.

>I totally get it
I know you think you do, but you demonstrably don't.

it's expanding in my asshole every day

>>14626764
That's a good point, would that mean that time is speeding up as space becomes less dense or something.

>>14625206
>Equally at every point in space
prove it

>>14632066
>>14625297

>>14630719
>No it doesnt, special relativity only applies locally
Yes it does, this mass is merely a looong series of local inter-mapped reference frames
>You have no idea what you're talking about so you think eviscerated
not gonna interpret your brainlet typos again

>No, that's not how they're defined.
That is literally how they're defined. You can't magically create greater distance between the two points 0.5 and 0.6

>Think of a balloon with a picture on it. When you blow the balloon up, the picture expands, but every point of the picture is still identifiable and mappable to the unstretched picture
WRONG. Every physical molecule of the picture expands to a new relative location (point) and can be mapped back to the original separate location/point. Molecule A was at point 1A and now is at the new point 2A and molecule B was at point 1B and now at point 2B so on and so forth. Points are infinitely small and none changed location. Are molecules infinitely small??? There is not a single valid "analogy" you can make of your invalid concept of space expansion.

>A picture of a dog still has all the same points on its nose
It has all the same molecules of its nose and they are located at new points. You can't win this argument.

>>14635539
>they are located at new points
nah, EM overcomes the expansion easily

>>14629232
>Hilariously made up. At least invent a number that doesn't perfectly fit our base 10 unit system. You might as well have said its 123456789 C rofl.
It's true. The redshift of recombination is 1060 according to current data.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209
>It's kinda a law of the universe.
Not an answer.
> there is a veeeery long series of connected local frames yet the mass
Nope. You can apply the same shitty logic to claim the Earth is flat. Your floor is approximately flat so if you bridge multiple connected floors it's flat. But this is wrong and so is your claim.
>Your only excuse is that it doesn't count if they are far away.
It's also wrong for the Earth. If you try to assert that all space is flat and described by SR then there is no gravity.

>>14635776
>>14629232
>Your only excuse is that it doesn't count if they are far away.
ANd no, you misunderstood the point. You cannot apply SR because an expanding FLRW space is not flat Minkowski. It's not about distance, it's applying the wrong metric. Any metric is locally flat, that is an approximation.

>>14635539
>this mass is merely a looong series of local inter-mapped reference frames
And none of those local reference frames show anything traveling faster than c. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>That is literally how they're defined.
It literally isn't. Read the article. Distance is even defined for many manifolds.

>You can't magically create greater distance between the two points 0.5 and 0.6
That's not how points are defined in a manifold, and the distance between them can increase.

>Every physical molecule of the picture expands to a new relative location (point) and can be mapped back to the original separate location/point.
Idiot, the balloon is an analogy for a manifold. Molecules are an analogy for points. We're not talking about molecules moving in space, we're talking about space itself expanding. Saying points are defined by distance is as silly as saying molecules are defined by distance. You can't even grasp a simple analogy.

>>14625194
>expanding
The 3d cross section (observable universe) is moving along an increasingly dense 4th dimensional geometry

like, what exactly is reality? and dimensions?
do they have a spacial limit, and if so what lies beyond?
fucking hurts my brain thinking of this shit.

>>14625194
It's not expanding, it's disappearing as the milky way approaches the event horizon

>>14635776
>It's true. The redshift of recombination is 1060 according to current data
please. The calculated hubble constant is significantly off from the observations. I said across the universe, not across the observable universe, so this is an irrelevant number anyway.
>Not an answer.
Matter cannot travel FTL. That is an answer.
>Nope. You can apply the same shitty logic to claim the Earth is flat. Your floor is approximately
BWHAHA! please oh please tell me where I said my mass is "approximately" anything. Your absolute garbage analogy is less than worthless, it proves you desperately invent nonsense to support yoru argument.
>If you try to assert that all space is flat and described by SR then there is no gravity
No it means your understanding of gavity is wrong and needs to be modified. Where's all that dark matter again that literally all of cosmology and the BB theory itself relies on? You know, that magic stuff that fixes all your gravity "mistakes" in the observations? Oh haven't ever conducted an experiment to detect it? Funny that.
>inb4 DUUUR MUH PREDICTIONS AND MUH OBSERVATSIONS
Those are not detection, they are observation
>Any metric is locally flat, that is an approximation
No, it's an ad hoc excuse because precious models would break down completely if it were not an "approximation"... once again your argument boils down to "I say so becuase otherwise I'm wrong"

>>14636184
>And none of those local reference frames show anything traveling faster than c.
the series inter-mapped reference frames show that matter on one end of the mass is moving away from other at much greater than FTL. Of course single frames don't show this that is why I said multiple but you decided to ignore that. Your lack of IQ points and reading comprehension doesn't change this.
>It literally isn't. Read the article
It literally is
>Distance is even defined for many manifolds
Define the distance between the points .5 and .6, and explain how it can get bigger without changing points, I'll wait
>That's not how points are defined in a manifold, and the distance between them can increase
Define the distance between the points .5 and .6, and explain how it can get bigger without changing points, I'll wait
>Idiot, the balloon is an analogy for a manifold
awww it's triggered. how cute. If it's an analogy for a manafold then you are even more wrong because you are literally creating space between the molecules you falsely claim are "points"... you're not increasing distance between "points", you're inventing space out of nothing between points. There's uncountably infinite points between the points .5 and .6. If every point was mapped between .5 and .6, and the distance between them "increased" then its invariable more points must now exist between them and the points no longer have 1 to 1 mapping between the original valid distance and your make believe new distance.
I'm mean fuck this is simple. If you increase distance even a child realizes you now have more points between two things.
>We're not talking about molecules moving in space, we're talking about space itself expanding
"we" ROFL....No, you are illogically creating more space out of nothing ie magic.
>Saying points are defined by distance is as silly
The point (0,1) is defined by distance from origin. Absolutely nothing else
>You cant even grasp a simple analogy
Children are smarter than you

The big bangerino expanded space stupid fast for a wee while. I think it's just the momentum of expansion. Eventually it will stop, and start shrinking, down to a singularity and go boom again.
> This happened just once.
Duh........

>>14626517
no retard, photons are bosons. They are force-carrying particles and multiple bosons can exist in the same quantum space. "solid matter" is made up of fermions which cannot do this. BTW the reason a photon acts like a particle is because it is quantized "exists in discrete packets" when it interacts with other particles. Contrary to most physicists, I do not believe that the light that is quantized but rather space itself. This is why light has properties as both a wave and particle, but that is a convo for another time.

>>14628501
>pic
he was such a stonery looking cunt, did not have the phenotype of neither a genius nor a businessman, how did he make it? he looks like a 25 year old hot wheels collector and bong ripper in this pic

>>14637823
>the series inter-mapped reference frames show that matter on one end of the mass is moving away from other at much greater than FTL
You still don't even understand what you're arguing about. There is no limit on nonlocal "speed" and nothing to stop two ends of a long enough mass from moving away from each other at any "speed." The mass would simply break since forces cannot travel through it fast enough to pull it together.

>Of course single frames don't show this that is why I said multiple
Gibberish. Define speed with respect to multiple frames.

>It literally is
So you didn't read the article. You lose.

>Define the distance between the points .5 and .6
Use a metric tensor.

>and explain how it can get bigger without changing points
The metric tensor changes over time.

>If it's an analogy for a manafold then you are even more wrong because you are literally creating space between the molecules you falsely claim are "points"
Expansion creates more space between points. Thanks for agreeing with the analogy.

>you're inventing space out of nothing between point
This is gibberish. There is always space between every point, expansion just increases the amount of space. Disgrace is just a measure of the amount of space.

>There's uncountably infinite points between the points .5 and .6. If every point was mapped between .5 and .6, and the distance between them "increased" then its invariable more points must now exist between them
No, it's the same amount of points, infinity. Amount of points is not a measure of distance, because there's the same amount of points between any pair of points, regardless of the distance between them. Infinity is tricky like that, but you'll eventually get it if you ever get past elementary school.

>The point (0,1) is defined by distance from origin.
No. Distance is defined by a metric and you need points to exist first before you define a metric. You would know this if you read the article. You lose.

>>14628667
>No, they are physical constructs.
No, they are mathematical measurements given rise to by physical processes
>Space is 3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie, not coordinates.
"dimension" is a definition of mathematics, not physics
>No, time is one dimension of the manifold in which events lie, not a measurement.
"dimension" is a definition of mathematics, not physics, it is a mathematical measurement of change aka "events" in your brainlet terms, if there were no "events" there would be no time dummy
>The reason space and time are lumped together is because they are part of the same manifold
That's what I said? They are in relation to each other, but they are not quantizable physical objects, only mathematical measurements born from physical processes.
>>14628685
>wikipedia articles
Okay so you don't understand the topic, here's another (You)

>>14625642
>expansion rate is constant

Already filtered out by Calculus I. KEK.

>>14637823
>If every point was mapped between .5 and .6, and the distance between them "increased" then its invariable more points must now exist between them and the points no longer have 1 to 1 mapping between the original valid distance and your make believe new distance.
False. Any interval of R maps to any other interval as long as they aren't of length 0. Meaning that every point between 0 and 1 perfectly maps to any point between 0 and 1000 and there's no need to create any new points.
This is high school level.

>>14638347
>No, they are mathematical measurements
Wrong. If you can't even get basic concepts like measurement right there is no hope for you.

>"dimension" is a definition of mathematics, not physics
Why are you lying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#In_physics

>it is a mathematical measurement of change
No.

>That's what I said?
No. You said they are measurements, not dimensions of a manifold. And then you spouted some gibberish that doesn't even explain why they are connected. If everything stood still that doesn't imply space doesn't exist. That's the only thing decipherable from your gibberish and it's wrong.

>>wikipedia articles
>Okay so you don't understand the topic
Doesn't follow. Projection. Not an argument.

>>14637277
>increasingly dense 4th dimensional geometry
aka yo mama

The Universe was the size of a grape at one point but it doesn't have a center nor edges.

>>14638587
Source?

>>14625194
The space between things in the Universe is getting bigger.

>>14638682
*between some things

>>14638713
Correct, thanks for the correction.

>>14638666

>>14638540
You do realize the wikipedia article you linked literally says everything I've said, right?
This is why noone takes you seriously, because you don't understand the topic, all you can do is link wikipedia articles that you haven't even read, dumbass.

>>14637727
>please. The calculated hubble constant is significantly off from the observations.
Irrelevant. Not used in that calculation.
>I said across the universe, not across the observable universe, so this is an irrelevant number anyway.
You talked about seeing across it so obviously you meant the observable universe, or you were talking shit.
>.BWHAHA! please oh please tell me where I said my mass is "approximately" anything.
That's what a local internal frame is. An approximation. You didn't even understand the argument before dismissing it completely. It's not about the mass, it's the frames retard.
>No it means your understanding of gavity is wrong and needs to be modified.
Oh yea, if your stupid argument conflicts with the very theory you are basing this off, it must be relativity at fault. It couldn't possibly be that your shitty logic is flawed.
>No, it's an ad hoc excuse because precious models would break down completely if it were not an "approximation"
We

>>14638888
I don't see any source detailing the size of the universe there. Try again.

>>14639003
>You do realize the wikipedia article you linked literally says everything I've said, right?
It literally doesn't and says the opposite. Why are you lying?

>>14640409
Pathetic, you can't even form a single argument because you haven't read the source material which you so vehemently post in every single thread and lack fundamental understanding of the subject, here's your last (You), you delusional schizo

Think of it as increasing a scale factor in a videogame. The model isn't changing, but "how far" between any two points on it or in it is increasing. So it can be said to be growing.

Only instead of a dark elf warlock, it's everything everywhere all at once.

Also you can't really see it locally because shit pulls together faster than the universe pulls shit apart on cosmically small scales.

On a side note, you could actually describe the expansion as a force. If you had a very long spring, the expansion of the universe will cause it to stretch between the two ends while the spring force will try to compress it back. There is an equilibrium point (in some cases; for a very weak spring and very large length the expanding "force" can grow faster than the spring's force so even a mathematically perfect spring may stretch exponentially forever) where the spring's displacement will be constant.

>>14625194
>where is it expanding
In itself. Yeah I know, mindblowing.

>>14640694
>"dimension" is a definition of mathematics, not physics
>The best-known treatment of time as a dimension is Poincaré and Einstein's special relativity (and extended to general relativity), which treats perceived space and time as components of a four-dimensional manifold, known as spacetime, and in the special, flat case as Minkowski space.
Why did you lie?

>>14640730
Not reading your post because of the image you posted.

>>14641258
Look, I can quote your wikipedia page too!
>A temporal dimension, or time dimension, is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change
>In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.
> In its simplest form: a line describes one dimension, a plane describes two dimensions, and a cube describes three dimensions. (See Space and Cartesian coordinate system.)
Dimensions are mathematical constructs, space is a physical construct, if you were to remove all matter such that only empty space would remain, you would not be able to establish any dimensions, as you would have no reference frames to do so, same applies to time, spacetime is not a physical construct, it is a mathematical measurement of physical entities in relation to each other, now go make another 120000 rpm thread you retarded schizo.

>>14625194
The universe is expanding into infinite space. What we call universe is just describes all the tangible matter created by the big bang. Spacetime might have been always there, and since the big bang there is this dirt cloud made of galaxies and other matter expanding into it. The universe is a finite thing, it has a border. And beyond that nothing but infinite spacetime exists. The big bang just happened in existing spacetime. It did not cause spacetime to exist.

>>14643476
>"dimension" is a definition of mathematics, not physics
>In physics and mathematics
Why did you lie and then provide quotes that prove you lied?

>if you were to remove all matter
Then you would not exist to do anything. Non sequitur.

>such that only empty space would remain
So you admit space exists without matter. Thanks.

>it is a mathematical measurement
Incorrect, your own quote said it is used to measure things, not a measurement. I can't wait for your next post in which you hopelessly flail around and contradict yourself over and over in impotent rage.

>>14643704
>The universe is expanding into infinite space
Incorrect, it is an expansion of space itself, not something expanding in space.

>>14643704
>space is expanding into space
lol