/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5381987
becasue of all that proof we have that cant be explained otherwise. if you have a better idea of why everything looks like it does and show us something that contradicts that time began and space is expanding then please tell us.

No, you're not supposed to accept anything on faith.

But your ignorance of scientific evidence and faith aren't the same thing.

>>5381999

there is no proof for expanding "space"
or beginning of "time"

there is only evidence that galaxies are moving apart, and so forth...

its like looking at an eye and concluding well we have proof God designed it...

IDIOTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

we can't even detect or analyze space itself lol
or time

space is inferred just like time.
you guys are so bad at science.

>>5381987
>>5382025
Slow down there vlad, don't you have some peasants to kill or something.

>>5382025
depends what you define as proof

>>5382032

no it doesn't depend on how you define proof

we can't detect space or time.

we just infer their existence and use contrived measurement systems to keep track of them

>>5382033
>>5382033
>Slow down there vlad,


Funny cuz my name is actually Vlad

>>5382025
It's a model we use to explain how things work. If you can come up with a better model, then we'll give you a Nobel.

>>5382045

no need to assume space is expanding, or other illogical shit

good enough to simple deal with what the data show: galaxies move apart

why do scientists need to make up bullshit? just stick to science. simple.

oh right, the only "evidence" we have is:
>Hubble-type expansion
>Cosmic microwave background radiation with a residual temperature of 2.726 K as predicted
>concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen
>primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang with the composition of the gas matching theoretical predictions
>observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars in agreement with the current state of the Big Bang theory
>galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang
>radiometric dating of individual Population II stars


actualy, we have no proof do we?

>>5382047

go back to /x/ if you think feelings and sensations are conspiracies

>>5382052

none of those imply the expansion of space itself.

it's just an illogical inference made for no reason.

>>5382052

galaxies moving apart =/= space expansion

so bad at logic.

>>5382057
all these are correctly predicted with a model that is based on space expanding. how else do you explain any of this?
>hurr, we cant see air. how do we know its there??

Niggas please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence

>>5381987
If you would literally just go on wikipedia and type in "Big bang theory" you would find a plethora of evidence. For example, there is a cosmic microwave background to all the universe; throughout all of the universe, in all directions, in essentially the same frequency, is thermal radiation. While it cannot be concluded without a doubt this is from the big bang, it is reasonable to say that it is left over from the event; moreover, we will never know how the universe began because time machines aren't existent but, with any evidence that the universe is at least expanding ( cosmic microwave background, movements of galaxies, stars, etc.) it is reasonable to say that the universe started off as incredibly, incredibly small. Just as a note, when I say big bang theory, I don't really mean the rapid expansion part (although this is really the theory) I just mean the idea that the universe started out as a much smaller mass because I assume this is also what you meant, OP.

>>5382048
>no need to assume space is expanding, or other illogical shit
it's not illogical - it makes sense and it fits our predictions of physical phenomena.
>good enough to simple deal with what the data show: galaxies move apart
and how do you explain that without expansion?

>>5382062
>ll these are correctly predicted with a model that..


lol you have so much faith in something you don't even understand

>retards think cars moving apart implies space is expanding

>>5382070

No physicist will say anything about "beginning of time"

Physics breaks down at the singularity it makes no sense, its a philosophical topic.

Same goes for expansion of space. Physicists don't know what Time or Space are. They can't measure or detect them.

This is pure philosophy.

>>5382070

>he believes pop-sci bullshit

Name 1 piece of evidence that suggests space is expanding.

Objects/Galaxies/Planets moving apart doesn't imply this, show me something logical not totally retarded.

"Space" isn't expanding. The universe is expanding. Learn the difference.

>>5382075
>something you don't even understand
where the fuck did you get that from?

>>5382085
>"Space" isn't expanding. The universe is expanding.

That's an even bigger leap of logic.

Learn to reason, otherwise the data will lead you to absurdities. Next you'll tell me the universe is designed by God because the models imply it.

Think before you have faith.

>>5382086

refer to this:>>5382084

So far no one has justified their faith in expansion of space.

>>5382084
see>>5382052

>>5382101


how are any of those evidence for space expansion?

Pure illogical inferences.

>>5382091
space = 3-dimensional cartesian coordinates, infinite in all directions
universe = everything that has mass, finite

Universe is expanding within space.

>>5381987
You are NEVER expected to accept such things on -faith-.

What you are expected to do is respect the authorities of a subject.
If you ever doubt it, go learn more than they know and then you can say if it is wrong or wrong.

But don't whine that by knowing less than others you have to accept what they say -- it is good, not bad.

>>5382110
what. you want direct-direct evidence? like look at a piece of space and see it expand direct? do you also not think that the atomic theory, special relativity and chemistry is real?

Space doesn't expand. Space is the dimension in which expansion occurs.

It's just an abstract co-ordinate system. You can't analyze, detect, or measure SPACE.

lol science is so fucken stupid in the 21st century....get me outta here

>>5382110
>how are any of those evidence for space expansion?
>Pure illogical inferences.

Your criticism is completely INVALID until you learn why those are relevant findings.
Again, stop whining that you don't know very much, and go learn it.

The experts are far more demanding than are you, and this is what they are telling us.
They aren't just making shit up.

>>5382120

>>5382120
>you want direct-direct evidence?

Connect the dots, how one of those pieces of "evidence" implies expansion of space itself.

If you have "direct evidence" then sure go for it (its impossible)

>>5382114
>What you are expected to do is respect the authorities of a subject.


I don't need to research the subject when their assumptions/inferences are patently illogical and absurd.

Hurrr durr Galaxy X and Y are spreading apart...therefore Jesus is real.

This is what our model predicts.

Well then you're model is illogical. NEXT.

>>5382125

So you don't know why any of those imply expansion of space.

Galaxies are moving away from us, so there is no other explanation but an expansion of space. Unless you believe we are at the center of the universe, lol.

It's funny how sci actually just believes it on authority/expert opinion

Pure faith. It doesn't even make sense.

You can point to the evidence of evolution and argue how it implies gradual change over time...

None of you can explain astronomical evidence and show how it implies space is expanding--

^_^

>>5382130
>Galaxies are moving away from us, so there is no other explanation but an expansion of space.

Are you guys this dumb?

BREAKING NEWS: Objects move apart in space!!!!

>>5382130
>Galaxies are moving away from us, so there is no other explanation but an expansion of space. Unless you believe we are at the center of the universe, lol.

Or you know, they are just moving apart in space....

>>5382127
>>Hubble-type expansion
the direct evidence
>>Cosmic microwave background radiation with a residual temperature of 2.726 K as predicted
the CMR gets redshifted by the expansion, we can detect that
>>concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen
modeling the universe as begining at 1 point and expanding along with the standard model predicts the ratios that we detect
>>primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang with the composition of the gas matching theoretical predictions
see above
>>observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars in agreement with the current state of the Big Bang theory
the position, composition and temperature of matter is such that it only works if you have all the matter begin in close proximity with each other at some finite time ion the past.
>>galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang
ric dating of individual Population II stars

>>5382134

So you believe we are at the center of the universe?

Objects dont just move apart in such a way that all of them move away from us with the speed of recession depending linearly on distance. Thats how metric expansion looks like.

>>5382134
>BREAKING NEWS: Objects move apart in space!!!!
Why? Please make sure to provide a solid explanation based on substantiated laws of physics.

>>5381999
The fact that we observe galaxies moving away is proof that time had a beginning. If time had no beginning, then galaxies would have moved too far for us to detect them eternities ago and we would only be surrounded by blackness.

>>5382138
woops, I accidentally deleted a part of the last point.

>>5382138

None of those imply expansion of space. None of those even speak about the spatial dimension.

None of those reference 3D space, 4D space or any form of space at all. Nothing.

Totally arbitrary conclusion.

>>5382142

I'm moving my hands apart, therefore, space is expanding.

Is this how physics thinks now? Hilarious.

(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>5382144
>The fact that we observe galaxies moving away is proof that time had a beginning.

No it's proof that we observe galaxies moving apart,

Learn to logic. You're making non-sequitur leaps of logic that are comical.

>>5382165
>I'm moving my hands apart
I don't see you doing it, so you probably aren't.

>>5382162
>None of those imply expansion of space. i just fucking TOLD you how the simply space is expanding. are you even reading the posts you are relying to?

fuck this. im out.

>>5382173

None of those refer to space or the expansion of space. Nothing you said leads to that conclusion.

You just listed a bunch of unrelated observations and out of nowhere concluded space itself is expanding.

Equally problematic is the idea of "space" contracting into a single point.

Space doesn't contract. Objects move closer together.

We have no evidence of previous contraction, we only know that objects are moving apart right now.

We can't make observations into the past.

>>5382178
again. he listed how it relates to it. if you have specific problems with some of the evidence then say what and we can tell you how you are wrong and ignorant. but if you are just going to hold your hands over your ears and shout that its doesn't explain it becasue you cant understand basic physics, you can fuck off.

>>5382185
>We have no evidence of previous contraction,
>what is observable evidence for general relativity

>>5382170
Okay, I have a question for you. We've never observed Pluto orbit the Sun, since we haven't observed its orbit for long enough (orbit is 246 years, discovery was 1930), Therefore, based off our knowledge of gravity and centripetal forces and such, can we safely assume that Pluto orbits the Sun?

>>5382185

>We can't make observations into the past.

We can and do, you dumbass. Speed of light is finite.

>>5382209

> Therefore, based off our knowledge of gravity and centripetal forces and such, can we safely assume that Pluto orbits the Sun?

I don't see anything logically absurd about Pluto orbiting the sun, it's just a matter of looking at the data.

>>5382210
>Speed of light is finite.
Yes, its neat.

We can see old galaxies as they appear to us now, not as they appeared in the past.

Learn the difference.

>>5382219
Same shit with the expansion of the universe and beginning of time then -.-

>>5382229

>and beginning of time

Careful there, we dont know whether time began in the big bang or what happened at the singularity.

>>5382229

beginning of time is a contradiction of terms, since "beginnings" presume temporality is in place

expansion of space can't be implied by any empirical evidence we have access to

we only see the change that objects undergo, not the change that spatial dimensions undergo.

big bang theory is plagued will all sorts of non-sequiturs.

>>5382243
>big bang theory is plagued will all sorts of non-sequiturs.
like?

>>5382257
>>5382257
>like


expansion of space can't be implied by any empirical evidence we have access to

we only see the change that objects undergo, not the change that spatial dimensions undergo.. big bang theory is plagued will all sorts of non-sequiturs.

You have no idea how physics works. Your ignorance is overwhelming, as obviously you couldn't even use google to find some laymen explanation of the evidence for these two things. Take teenager philosophical bigotry to reddit.

>>5381987
>patently illogical
You use those words, but you don't know what they mean.

>>5382265
>You have no idea how physics works.

Apparently it is prone to illogical inferences.

>>5382276
>illogical inferences
That's funny. Physics is qualitative. Come up a "logical" and qualitative model that makes sense before t=0. Come up with a "logical" and qualitative model that agrees with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence

Please fuck off, troll.

>>5382286
>>5382286
>Come up a "logical" and qualitative model that makes sense before t=0


t=0 is absurd. no need to make any models for it.

models can be made to fit the data easily, look at economics.

Everything with mass creates (or rather effects) a gravitational field. The larger the mass, the larger the gravity between two objects is.

Gravity as you may or may not know is an attractive force (pulls things together)

So all the planets and stars and cosmic debris should be swirling together due to the pull of gravity.

But they are not, they are expanding, that is they are moving away from each other at an *increasing* rate. There is a plethora of observational evidence for this.

So, gravity says things should come together, yet they are flying apart? How do we explain this? We have a model that says space is expanding due to such and such. Time is not a scientific concept, per se, just a conveniently invented arbitrary concept so we can wake up at the same time, go to work, and figure out the rate of a moving object, to name a few.

People often use the "God of the Gaps" fallacy- which is to say "you haven't fully explained and proven 100% what something is or why it is, therefore Gawd". You are using much the same tactic- pointing out microbes floating in an ocean of knowledge and evidence, then saying that ocean doesn't exist and nobody knows what the hell is going on in the world. Too bad for you, we have a pretty good idea.

>>5382261
the BBT explains what we see just fine. whats he problem? you arnt making any sense.

>>5382294
>t=0 is absurd. no need to make any models for it.
What does this even mean? Are you on crack?

>models can be made to fit the data easily, look at economics.
Okay pal, show me an alternative that agrees with all of this:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

Until then all you have is a bunch of baseless philosophical claims.

>>5382297
>Time is not a scientific concept, per se, just a conveniently invented arbitrary concept
thats retarded. its perfectly well defined. the only thing weird about it is how we perceive it.

>>5382297
>So, gravity says things should come together, yet they are flying apart?
>How do we explain this?

Hopefully not by any illogical leaps of reasoning and absurdities like "hurr therefore space is expanding"

absolutely lazy thinking.

>>5382261
The fact remains that the physicists understand what the model implies, and the testable predictions of the model have been right thus far. Thus, take your head out of your ass.

The problem is that you're adopting a very particular kind of realism. Here in science, we have no such thing. The "truth" of a scientific model is indistinguishable from its utility.

>>5382261
>expansion of space can't be implied by any empirical evidence we have access to
Yes it can.
Look up Einstein's field equations and Hubble's law.
The proportional velocities w.r.t to distance of galaxies far away, combined with CMB measurements, supernovae distribution and the Homological principle implies a metric expansion of space itself - currently we have no other explanation for these phenomenon.

Space is expanding because two cars are moving apart.

This is what physics is reduced to now, such lazy thinking.

I was expecting more,.

>>5382313

space can't be measured or detected, its an abstract dimension.

it's not an empirical object, go back to /x/ with your superstition gibberish

>>5382308
so you cant come up with anything better than other peoples "lazy thinking". does that make you a complete retard? or just supper lazy?

The distance between two objects in our universe is increasing, therefore the only conclusion is that the universe is expanding.

>being this stupid in 2012.

>>5382323
>space can't be measured or detected, its an abstract dimension.
and that is in any way relevant to this, how?

>>5382326

why do I need to come up with illogical absurdities to explain why the distance between two objects is increasing?

they are moving apart, big deal.

>>5382334
>and that is in any way relevant to this, how?

>it's not an empirical object, go back to /x/ with your superstition gibberish

Saying it "expands" is to treat it like a real empirical object instead of a nominal place holder...

Its like explaining the rapid metabolism of an animal by saying "well time is speeding up for it"----

Yes maybe...maybe time is speeding up for that animal--or maybe you're a lazy fucken thinker who totally missed the point of science and how to make explanations

>universe is expanding
lol. why is physics so dumb??

>>5382308

There is a problem. Things move apart contrary to what gravity would predict. Science is interested in moving the conversation of true knowledge about the world forward, in order to gain a better understanding. By using the scientific method (create hypothesis, test hypothesis, draw conclusion) in a very basic sense.

Right now you are actually participating in the scientific method by attempting to "test" the general expanding universe hypothesis. Because your arguments are unoriginal and have all been adequately rebuked, the scientific community does not deem it necessary to modify our hypothesis YET. As the second poster mentioned, as soon as you come up with a better model, let us know and it will be tested

>>5382309
If by perfectly well-defined you mean 'outlined by Einstien's equations of general relativity which give us a space-time fabric, which have yet to be unified with our understanding of quantum mechanics'

..then yea i guess it is 'defined'. lawl

>>5382335
so this whole argument is actualy just that physics is unneeded and we dont need to explain shit? but you are happy to use the results of physics like your computer?

>>5382340
Do you agree that the model makes accurate predictions? We here in science only care about accurate predictions. (Well, and that the model is simple and intuitive and not needlessly complex.) Otherwise, we don't care. Take this to lit or b. This isn't science.

>>5382335
They aren't moving though, space is expanding between them.

>hurr durr space cannot expand

Science is full of much more paradoxical and counter-intuitive examples than expansion of space, which is not even that hard to imagine and perfectly valid under general relativity. Expansion of space fits the evidence very well. I challenge you to come up with any alternative explanation for the observations that wont crumble under scrutiny. There is none.

>>5382340
>the point of science
to predict thinks. and the BBT predicts things just fine. but you are saying we should abandon this for the alternative of having no predictions.

how is that science?

>>5382342
>. Things move apart contrary to what gravity would predict.

Then the model of gravity they are using isn't fully complete. Simple.

NO need to invoke supernatural powers into the equation. Didn't read the rest of your gibberish. Problem solved.

>>5382340
Space is describing by a metric tensor, this tensor has been observed to change, this implies space itself is changing.

The theoretical model predicts and account for this, observational evidence agrees with it.

>>5382323
>space can't be measured
Do you have a height? Do you have a width? Is a ruler 12 inches long? Is the length of the hypotenuse of a triangle equal to both sides squared an added? Doyouevenmath?

>space can't be detected.
space is a dimension. that you can move in space means it exists. And there is no such thing as "empty space" if that's what you are referring to, there is ALWAYS some sort of particle, radiation, or quantum fluctuation even in the cold dark vacuum of deep space

>>5382352
so giving one of the constants in the current theory of gravity a non-zero value is "invoking supernatural powers"? and giving it a value of 0 means its "not complete"? do you know what gravity is? you cant have gravity without having space expand ond contract.

>>5382342

A better model than yours would be one exactly the same as yours but doesn't assume "space is expanding"

and instead marks that implication as an absurdity of the model, an imperfection that needs to be tweaked.

Just like when models give off strange Infinities and absurdities, you don't just assume they are true.

>>5382352
>Then the model of gravity they are using isn't fully complete.
Yes, the thing missing is expanding space, if you plug that into your model everything works out perfectly.

>>5382363
>and instead marks that implication as an absurdity of the model, an imperfection that needs to be tweaked.
Not seeing it. The model makes accurate predictions. Thus I'm cool with it.

>>5382363
so we need to through away the answers (that fit perfectly with observations) becasue you dont like it?

>>5382347
>Do you agree that the model makes accurate predictions?

Yes it makes accurate predictions, but it's also incomplete and leads to absurdities like "expansion of space"

So although its "useful" it isn't "true"
Many financial models work the same way.


>>5382346
>but you are happy to use the results of physics like your computer?

I like antibiotics. This doesn't mean pharma companies don't do stupid shit.

>>5382363
>be one exactly the same as yours but doesn't assume "space is expanding"
Except that doesn't account for all the observations.
How do you account for Hubble's law without expanding space?

>>5382352
>the model of gravity they are using isn't fully complete.
>the model of gravity they are using
>the model of gravity
>the model of
>the model
>model

you really have no clue what all these big words and concepts actually mean do you.

>>5382351
>to predict thinks. and the BBT predicts things just fine. but you are saying we should abandon this for the alternative of having no predictions.

Keep the model. Admit its flaws and absurdities.
Use it to make predictions where you can.

Predictions about expanding space should be thrown out because they are obviously absurd and useless.

>>5382379
>it's also incomplete
Incomplete how? Yes it is incomplete in that it fails to make predictions for some phenomena. The expansion of space is not such an example.

>absurdities like "expansion of space"
I don't see how it's absurd. It's backed up by observation.

>So although its "useful" it isn't "true"
In science, there is no such distinction.

>>5382360
>Do you have a height? Do you have a width?

distance =/= space

are you 12?

>>5382379
>So although its "useful" it isn't "true"
>implying science cares about what is "true"
science is about making predictions, it doesn't care about "truth". what the fuck is true anyway? we can never know is something is really true in the world, leave that for the mathematicians.

>>5382383
>Predictions about expanding space should be thrown out because they are obviously absurd and useless.
Except they aren't.

>>5382384
>I don't see how it's absurd. It's backed up by observation.

Distance between objects increasing does not imply space is expanding.

>>5382383
>obviously
you keep saying that, but the opinion of some guy on the internet does not count as evidence. you have yet to give 1 reason why it is wrong, except that its "obviously" wrong.

>>5382398
It does when it appears these galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.

>>5382398
You're missing an important fact: the rate at which distant galaxies are receding are proportional to their distance to us, this DOES imply space is expanding.

>>5382398
you organisming each time a massive dildo is trust into yout lower intestine isnt proof that you are a faggot, it may just be a coincidence that it happens at the same time each week.

>>5382385

Distance implies space, you megafaggot. Things could not have height or length if there was not 3 dimensions of space. I'm pretty sure this concept is taught in preschool when they give you blocks and shit to play with, you must have been homeschooled by one of those hardcore bible thumper families. feels for ya

>>5382404
this. explain this one.

>>5382402
>Distance implies space,

Yes, and yet they are not the same.

>>5382385

Define distance without using the word "space" then faggot.

>>5382383
>Predictions about expanding space should be thrown out because they are obviously absurd and useless.
>obviously absurd and useless

>>5382379
>Yes it makes accurate predictions

you arnt even being consistent you retarded troll. at least make up your mind about what the fuck you are saying.

>>5382383
>Predictions about expanding space should be thrown out because they are obviously absurd and useless.
>obviously absurd and useless

>>5382379
>Yes it makes accurate predictions,
>So although its "useful"

you arnt even being consistent you retarded troll. at least make up your mind about what the fuck you are saying.

>>5382410

agreed. But you claim that space is a mystery. We can't detect it or measure it in anyway, so who knows what it is?

By this logic you should be dead because we can't see or detect air so obviously there is nothing for you to be breathing at this second.

>>5382404
>It does when it appears these galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.


1. Our theories about C could be wrong.
2. There could be exceptions and phenomena that allow for faster C travel.

3. Relativity allows for faster than light movement as long as the object was always moving faster than C.

I can more easily believe a theory has flaws rather than accept a contradiction, like a married-bachelor exists, or space expanding, or time beginning.

Logic > Empiricism

>>5382419
There's nothing contradictory about an expanding manifold.

>>5382419

Shit son, you are distording all the data just to fit your ad-hoc bullshit. this is creationist "science" logic man.

>>5382418
>But you claim that space is a mystery.
>We can't detect it or measure it in anyway, so who knows what it is?

It allows for the possibility of distance, expansion and movement.

We know it by logic/intuition.

In order to say space is expanding/moving then you have to subsume some sort of hyper-space that it expands into.

Yet this is trivial, space includes all dimensions and all hyper-spaces.

>>5382423
>There's nothing contradictory about an expanding manifold.

In order to say space is expanding/moving then you have to subsume some sort of hyper-space that it expands into.

Yet this is trivial, space includes all dimensions and all hyper-spaces.

>>5382419
>1. Our theories about C could be wrong.
>2. There could be exceptions and phenomena that allow for faster C travel.
>3. Relativity allows for faster than light movement as long as the object was always moving faster than C.
Seems highly unlikely. If general relativity is correct, then any method of transmitting information faster than the straight line light path would result in apparent temporal paradoxes, aka "go back in time machines".

Not much helps you out of this. Wormholes don't. Other nifty scifi stuff doesn't either.

(You can get out of it with contrived rules like a preferred global reference frame, and sillier things.)

so in your universe we now have:
>special relativity: wrong
>general relativity: wrong
>quantum mechanics: wrong
>all cosmological models: wrong

but at least space isnt expanding!

>>5382430
>In order to say space is expanding/moving then you have to subsume some sort of hyper-space that it expands into.
Why?

>>5381987
>"space" is expanding is demonstratable

>all evidence we have on the universe confims "time" had a beginning

Do you not know who to science? Do you understand what science is?

>>5382430
>In order to say space is expanding/moving then you have to subsume some sort of hyper-space that it expands into.
wat. no you don't. have you ever even read anything about this or are you winging it from just the name?

>>5382427
>We know it by logic/intuition.
One of the worst arguments possible in /sci/ence. Are you a troll, or a creationist? Or both?

>>5382430
>In order to say space is expanding/moving then you have to subsume some sort of hyper-space that it expands into.
No.

>>5381987
You misunderstand entropy.

Space expanding is perfectly valid and logical, even predicted by GR. It is also pretty intuitive. I dont get this denialism.

>>5382431

>hurr implies temporal paradoxes

No it doesn't. Time travel is impossible.

>>5382432
>i'ts all wrong

ya it's wrong about this particular point. wipe those tears.

>but muh models are either 100% perfect or 100% shit

no, they can be useful and also wrong.

>>5382433

Objects moving apart doesn't imply space expansion.

Time doesn't have a beginning or end, lol.
Beginnings and Ends assume temporality is already in place.

God this is so easy:]

>>5382430
>hyperspaces
>basically making up complete nonsense

There is no such thing as a hyperspace in physics. It is a made up concept with no actual scientific defintion. It is from science fiction dumbshit.

There is a "hyperspace" in mathematics, but it is just an abstract concept that has nothing to so with reality.

>>5382445
now you arnt even reading the posts you respond to? what the fuck?

>>5382445
>No it doesn't. Time travel is impossible.
You need to learn some basic General Relativity. Any method of FTL /is/ "go back in time" time travel. (Unless great care and unjustified limits are put on the FTL, like a global preferred reference frame.)

>>5382434
>Why?

By definition of expansion.

If theres no reference frame to distinguish between length 1 and length 2, then no expansion happened, and the term "expansion" is meaningless.

>>5382445
>no, they can be useful and also wrong.
No they can't. There is no standard of "right vs wrong" in science except accurate predictions.

>>5382454
lol

>>5382454
now you are just making shit up. those words don't even form a coherent idea.

>>5382445
>Time travel is impossible.
Only if you can't exceed c.

>>5382456

Lots of science was useful and wrong.

Explanation of evolution was "wrong" before we knew about genes, yet still useful generally.

Newtonian mechanics is wrong, yet still useful

>>5382467
So, what you meant to say was "science can be useful, and wrong, but the only method by which you can demonstrate it to be wrong is to show how it's not useful and/or come up with super-set theory that is more useful". Thus, there is no standard of "truth" in science except usefulness.

>>5382447
>constructing some alternatve reality where I made a claim about measuing expanding space through "objects moving"

>proceed to debate that

Yes, it is too easy to argue against yourself. Nice job Anon. Great faggotry!

>>5382463
>>5382460


If theres no reference frame to distinguish between length 1 and length 2, then no expansion happened, and the term "expansion" is meaningless.

What do you think expansion means?
If you say space is expanding by a distance of 0, then yes I agree.

If you are saying it expands greater than 0, then you have to demonstrate what reference frame you are using and how you measured the change in distance

Explain the fact that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be moving away from us without an expanding space model.
This holds for ANY galaxy we look at, in ANY direction.

>>5381987
>>5382447

>>5382473
>Thus, there is no standard of "truth" in science except usefulness.

Then we should simply say that "expansion of space is useful" (I dont know why) yet total bullshit in reality

Just like how evolution without genes was basically wrong, yet still useful, it still "worked"

>>5382478

Galaxies inside a universe can move apart.
Done.

No need for absurd religious superstition like an "expanding universe"

>>5382467
Newtonian mechanics isnt wrong, you get it when you set c = infinity and h = 0.

>>5382454
You _really_ need to have a read up on general relativity.

>>5382480
0/10

>>5382483
But why are they all moving away from us, and faster the farther away they are?
Are we in the center of the universe? Why?

>>5382483
why is it moving apart?

>>5382484
>Newtonian mechanics isnt wrong
>you get it when you make false assumptions about reality, like c= infinity

Neat.
things can't expand into nothing.

>>5382447

>Objects moving apart doesn't imply space expansion.

Yes, when they move in a particular way, then either space expands, or we are at the center of the universe. There is no other logical explanation. Do you think we are at the center? Answer this instead of stupid semantics.

>>5382483
0/10

Why you argue with trolls /sci/?

>>5382483
I asked you to explain how the further away they are the faster they are moving.
Without an expanding space, this must be explained by some kind of force.
I need you to:
1. Give me a theoretical basis for this force.
2. Empirical measurements of it.

>>5382488
>why is it moving apart?

Because the conditions are just right.
Done.

I'll leave the details to the engineers who study this boring shit.

I'm off to learn about space and time!

>>5382491
>Yes, when they move in a particular way, then either space expands,

LOL LOLOL

What particular way? Like side ways?
End yourself.

Objects moving apart don't imply space is expanding.

>>5382474
this isnt even wrong. what are you saying? we can measure distance from within the universe. how else do we know how far things are from each other?

>>5382489
why not?

>>5382496
Try explain why the expansion is speeding up. Not only are galaxies moving away from us proportional to their distance from us, but they're actually speeding up. Wrap your head around that one.

>>5382496
0/10

>>5382496
>Because the conditions are just right.
What conditions?

>>5382500
>What particular way?
Their acceleration is proportional to their distance from us.

>Objects moving apart don't imply space is expanding.
Yes it does.

>>5382501
>this isnt even wrong. what are you saying? we can measure distance from within the universe. how else do we know how far things are from each other?

You're claiming space is expanding. Show me the measurements.

If the distance between universe in state 1 is the same as in state 2, then no expansion happened.

Don't confuse distance between two galaxies as "space itself"

Just like dont confuse distance between two cars as "space itself" expanding

>>5382507
>arguing with very obvious trolls

da fuq?

So how big was the universe 1 year ago, and how big is it now?

I never knew we measured the distance across.

Thanks /sci/

>no answers incoming because space doesn't expand

>>5382515
ok. bai now

>>5382515
>>Objects moving apart don't imply space is expanding.
>Yes it does.


So the distance created between my car and my house when I leave for work is due to space expanding.

This is what /sci/ actually believes, there is no other way to explain this.

>>5382522
>So the distance created between my car and my house when I leave for work is due to space expanding.
No because the acceleration of your car isn't proportional to the distance to your house - if it was, you would indeed be experience space expanding between them.

>>5382511
http://www.if.ufrgs.br/oei/santiago/fis02012/Introduction-Cosmology-Ryden.pdf

There is a book. It answers all our questions. Read it. Stop being such a dumb fucking fool.

Your inability to grasp basic cosmology, doesn't say anything about cosmology, it just means your are stooopid.

SAGED AND REPORTED BECAUSE OF YOUR FAGGOTRY

>>5382523

Wrong. Nothing within the universe can imply that space is expanding.

You can measure changes in distance between objects. You can't measure expansion of universe.

>>5382522
The simplest explanation is the math we have, which correctly predicts the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things. It correctly predicts a great many things, and one of those things is that space can and does expand. Deal with it, or come up with a better model.

>>5382517
The diameter of the observable Universe right now is about 93 billion light years, so 1 year ago it was 93 billion - 1 light years.

>>5382527

>Deal with it, or come up with a better model.

I accept its utility and also admit its absurdities.

I don't rely on science to explain the universe, it doesn't offer explanations, it simply creates good engineering tools and makes predictions about movement, velocity, and boring shit like that.

I dont think science has explained anything at all, yet. It doesn't even explain what it means by Time or Space or Energy or Life or True or Consciousness...yet it uses these words carelessly

>>5382532
>diameter
> - 1 light year

>>5382532

So basically you're saying that each year more of the universe becomes observable to us.

Great. No need to make illogical leaps from here.

>>5382535
>also admit its absurdities
You haven't explained an absurdity. The only acceptable kinds of absurdities in science are if it conflicts with observation. I await you to present such a thing.

>>5382529
Define universe, you fucking idiot.

>>5382535
>yet it uses these words carelessly
No it doesn't.
YOU are the one using them carelessly, science and the scientific models have quite precise definitions for them.

Space and time, i.e spacetime are just coordinate axis in a mathematical model, and space is described by a metric tensor.
The meaning of "space is expanding" is "the metric tensor for space is changing over time".

>>5382545
>in a mathematical model
It's not just a mathematical model. The space and time mix, and the spacetime curves. It's fucking real, and the spacetime IS expanding by all observational means

/THREAD

>>5382536
Yes?

>>5382542
>Define universe

The set or totality of all that exists.

>>5382551
Yes, but I was just defining what the terms mean.

>>5382529
You are wrong. We measure expanding space in multiple ways. It isn't just "moving objects".

There are all sorts of interferometers and machines that measure different properties of space and the objects in that space.

Yes, we can measure the properties of space alone. This isn't something new. This is like 30 year old tech. Read the damm book and educate yourself.

Good day.

You really need to read the book. Good day sir.

>>5382541
>You haven't explained an absurdity.

If theres no reference frame to distinguish between length 1 and length 2, then no expansion happened, and the term "expansion" is meaningless.


>The only acceptable kinds of absurdities in science are if it conflicts with observation.

There is no observation about the distance of the universe or space. It's just a faulty inference drawn from the increased distance between objects.

It isn't empirical. It isn't even logical.

>>5382553
>machines that measure different properties of space

No they measure properties of objects and particles in space, not space itself. :)

Why are so many of you deficient in logic?
I win.

>>5382557
>If theres no reference frame to distinguish between length 1 and length 2, then no expansion happened, and the term "expansion" is meaningless.
Expansion is not meaningless. It gives falsifiable predictions. It explains details of the cosmic microwave background radiation. It explains how galaxies are moving away from us, and moreover the rate of speed of faraway galaxies is actually increasing. They are also accelerating away from us. It's a natural consequence of the math of GR and those observations.

>>5382562
> It explains how galaxies are moving away from us

Drivel and gibberish. Space expanding isn't an explanation, its a cop out, it isn't empirically testable, and it is illogical more importantly.


Space doesn't expand. Expansion is a process objects undergo within space.

All we know is that distance between objects is increasing. No need for absurd conclusions.

You can make predictions without taking these fallacies seriously.

>>5382557
"The theory of relativity predicts and observations show phenomena associated with the expansion of the universe, notably the redshift-distance relationship known as Hubble's Law, functional forms for cosmological distance measurements that differ from what would be expected if space were not expanding, and an observable change in the matter and energy density of the universe seen at different lookback times.

The first measurement of the expansion of space occurred with the creation of the Hubble diagram. Using standard candles with known intrinsic brightness, the expansion of the universe has been measured using redshift to derive Hubble's Constant: H0 = 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 74 kilometers per second."

>>5382548
Then yes, it is expanding. The de Broglie wavelength of particles (like photons) are stretching. The volume of space between particles is literally expanding, because of vacuum energy. Go read a book on GR

>>5382557
Are you fucking retarded?

The action for spacetime is given by <span class="math">\displaystyle\int_{M^{3+1}}\displaystyle\star \displaystyle F[/spoiler]. The action for spacetime with a cosmological constant is given by <span class="math">\displaystyle\int_{M^{3+1}}\displaystyle\star \displaystyle F + \displaystyle \lambda(\phi) \displaystyle \int_{M^{3+1}} \displaystyle\star 1[/spoiler].

THIS SHIT IS INVARIANT IN EVERY REFERENCE FRAME YOU FUCKING RETARDED PIECE OF SHIT

>>5382571
>Then yes, it is expanding

It can't expand, it already is everything there is and occupies all the space there can be.

>>5382567
>it isn't empirically testable
It is. We predicted that we would observe certain details about the cosmic microwave background radiation. When we did a detailed survey and analysis, we saw that the predictions were born out.

>>5382567
>Space expanding isn't an explanation
Yes it is.
>it isn't empirically testable,
It has been tested quite extensively and the empirical data strongly implies an expanding universe.

>and it is illogical more importantly.
How so?

>Space doesn't expand.
It certainly does.

>You can make predictions without taking these fallacies seriously.
You can't actually, that's why expanding universe is the prevalent theory because no other model can account for all the observational data we have.

>>5382576
>It can't expand
Why not?

>it already is everything there is and occupies all the space there can be.
That doesn't make any sense.

>>5382579
>It has been tested quite extensively and the empirical data strongly implies an expanding universe.

What's tested is the distance between objects.
This doesn't imply space expansion, it implies distance between objects is bigger.

>>5382577
>It is. We predicted that we would observe certain details

Predicted that distance between objects would be bigger.

They are bigger.

That's all you can conclude. Science can tell me about distance between objects, not space or time themselves.

Contradict me with evidence.

>>5382576
>occupies all the space there can be.
Well, you're wrong. Read this:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/dbkaplan/555/lecture_03.pdf
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/phys5770_08/frw.pdf

>>5382585

>wrong

It's true by definition. I defined what I meant by Universe.

Science doesn't even define what it means by universe, lol. It's so naive

>>5382572

is that star an operator? what's it do?

>>5382586
You see this term <span class="math">\displaystyle \lambda(\phi) \displaystyle \int_{M^{3+1}} \displaystyle\star 1[/spoiler] in >>5382572?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT <span class="math">\star 1[/spoiler] MEANS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia..
org/wiki/Volume_formvhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_for
mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Volume_formhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume_form

>>5382593

>being this mad and wrong and saging

lol terrible argument

Evidence for expansion of space =

Distance between galaxies is expanding.
Therefore Space is expanding

Ok well then I'm write. Science is confusing distance with space.

>>5382584
>Predicted that distance between objects would be bigger.
Not just their distance, but also their velocities and the distribution of certain matter and energy in the background radiation.
An expanding universe model accurate predicts (and concedes) with the observations we made.
The conclusion to draw is that space is expanding.

>>5382597
>and wrong
Please tell me how I'm wrong.

>>5382595
>Not just their distance, but also their velocities and the distribution of certain matter and energy in the background radiation.

None of those aspects imply space is expanding.

>The conclusion to draw is that space is expanding.

No the conclusion to draw is that a faulty model makes useful predictions.

String theory might make good predictions but until we can verify it empirically it isn't science.

We can't verify expansion of space empirically. Reasoning backwards that a model is useful therefore its assumptions are facts is wrong.

>conclude space is expanding

No you conclude its a useful assumption and also unempirical and also illogical, yet useful

>>5382601
>No you conclude its a useful assumption and also unempirical and also illogical, yet useful

The end.
Thanks guys, I knew I was basically right all along.

>>5382594
There's also:

Uniform cooling of the background radiation.
The distribution of gamma-ray bursts and supernovae.
Redshift surveys on large scale structures of the universe.

As evidence for metric expansion.

>>5382594
>write

I lold

>>5382048

Just because it may seem illogical and unintuitive, doesn't mean it is.

>>5382601
>None of those aspects imply space is expanding.
Yes they do.

>No the conclusion to draw is that a faulty model makes useful predictions.
How is the model faulty when it accurately predicts the observations?

>We can't verify expansion of space empirically
We can, and we have.

>No you conclude its a useful assumption and also unempirical and also illogical, yet useful
No, it's perfectly logical and based on empirical data.

>>5382601
Do you know what a manifold is? Do you know what a metric is? Do you know that LENGTH and POSITION are observable quantities?

Direct measurement of metric expansion of the universe:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?astro-ph/0012222

>>5382617
>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?astro-ph/0012222


>ctrl+f Space = 0 results
>ctrl+f Metric = 0 results
>ctrl+f expansion = 1 irrelevant result

Wait so the standard model makes useful predictions while assuming absurdities? Basically what OP said.

>>5382627

>sage

All dat asspain.

>>5382627
>ctrl+f Space = 0 results
>ctrl+f Metric = 0 results
>ctrl+f expansion = 1 irrelevant result
You're joking, right?

>>5382535

>I dont rely on science to explain the universe
>it doesn't offer explanations
>boring shit like velocity, movement
>I don't think science has explained anything at all
>Doesn't explain what it means by Time Space Energy Life True Consciousness

>>5382588
You're a fucking retard. That's a huge non-sequitur. All that exists is some spacetime (which is a solution to the Einstein field equations), and some matter fields over this spacetime. Nothing else. The spacetime is de Sitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_space)), so it is expanding. Do you know ANY DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY? IT'S NOT EMBEDDED INTO SOME OTHER SPACE , IT'S EXPANDING INTO NOTHING. At any moment in time in relation to some moment in the past, space has expanded, because <span class="math">x^0 x^0 - x^w x^w = -\alpha^2[/spoiler]. The spaces for each time <span class="math">x^0[/spoiler] are 3-spheres, growing larger for any <span class="math">t<0[/spoiler]. You cannot extrapolate to future time coordinates because they do not exist.

You're entire argument is garbage and wrong.

>>5382642
>IT'S EXPANDING INTO NOTHING

I don't have faith in this statement.

I choose logic over faith.

>>5382642
HERE, YOU TINY BRAIN IS EVEN ALLOWED TO VISUALIZE IT THANKS TO MATHEMATICA

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/moschella.pdf

>>5382655
>I don't have faith in this statement.
Too bad because that's how reality works.

>I choose logic over faith.
There's nothing illogical about expanding space.

>>5382655
That's not logical at all, you fucking retard. If it was embedded into a higher space it would break Lorentz invariance.

>>5382666
Nope. What kind of math do you know?

>>5382661
If it expands, it has to expand into something.

>>5382666
>it has to expand into something.
No, why would that be necessary?

>>5382668
>Nope. What kind of math do you know?

We're talking about reality, not your imaginary world where illogical things can happen.

>>5382668
Graduate level math.

>>5382675
Because that's what expansion means.

>>5382664

>doesn't know what "expansion" entails
>being this mad and wrong at the same time

>>5382677
>Because that's what expansion means.

space isn't a manifold or object, its a co-ordinate system of all dimensions

it can't expand, in math it would be like re-drawing your x-y-z axis to solve a problem

teacher would beat the shit out of you.
ARe you this bad at math?
This is what physics is doing, its re-drawing the borders in an ad hoc way, its theories are this naive

>>5382677
Give your precise definition of expansion, so we can talk about it.

>>5382676
These geometries are completely axiomized and are based solely on logic. It's not my fault you're some popsci reddit pseudointellectual who can't understand it.

>>5382677
>Because that's what expansion means.
No, that's incorrect.

>>5382677
>Graduate level math
Do you know differential geometry?

>>5382683
>space isn't a manifold
Yes it is, retard. Do you know what general relativity is?

> its a co-ordinate system of all dimensions
You have no idea what that means.

>>5382687
>Space is a manifold.

That's a metaphor for space used by GR, and it leads to absurdities.

>Do you know what general relativity is?

Yes.

>>5382690
>That's a metaphor for space used by GR
No, it's not. Tell me how space curves, if it isn't a manifold.

>leads to absurdities.
Such as?

>>5382679
How about you give the definition?

>>5382682
What does it mean?

>>5382683
>its a co-ordinate system of all dimensions
>it can't expand
That's what I was saying.

>>5382684
Yes.

>>5382692
>. Tell me how space curves

space doesn't curve.
paper and metals curve.

space is that co-ordinate system in which things expand, contract and curve.

>"space curving"
>taking physics metaphors literally

>>5382696
>Yes.
Let <span class="math">M[/spoiler] be a smooth manifold equipped with a pseudo-Riemannian metric of signature <span class="math">(+,-,-,\cdots,-)[/spoiler]. The isometry group of this space is then the Poincare group, <span class="math">ISO(n,1[/spoiler], do you agree?

>>5382696
>What does it mean?
Expansion in this case means a change in the metric tensor over time.

>>5382705
>space doesn't curve.
Explain to me how stress-energy alters geodesics.

>>5382705
>space doesn't curve.
Yes it does.

>space is that co-ordinate system in which things expand, contract and curve.
No.

>>5382705
>space is that co-ordinate system in which things expand, contract and curve.
No, it's not. Space doesn't need to be defined with a coordinate system. Invariants are coordinate-independent.

>>5382710

dude, seriously? Mass curves space. I learned that shit before I got my first erection

>>5382706
Okay.

>>5382708
Why do we call that expansion?

>>5382716

>Space doesn't need to be defined with a coordinate system

Accurate to define it as such.

>Invariants are coordinate-independent

Irrelevant.

>>5382723

>mass curves space

No empirical data suggests this.
No way for us to measure the geometry of space.

Space is a potential co-ordinate system, it's basically immaterial

>>5382720
>Why do we call that expansion?
I dunno, I didn't invent the term.
But if I had to guess it's probably because it kind of captures the intuitive notion of what's going on, if you take an affine plane grid and uniformly expand it, that is a fairly good analogue to what metric expansion of the universe means.

>>5382720
>Okay
We will call this a Lorentzian manifold <span class="math">(M,\mu)[/spoiler] where <span class="math">\mu[/spoiler] is metric. Do you agree that all forms of <span class="math">\mu[/spoiler] can be obtained from these Euler-Lagrange equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form?

>>5382726
>No empirical data suggests this.
>No way for us to measure the geometry of space.
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Thanks to both of you.

>>5382730
For me it's counterintuitive. I used to think of expansion as scaling a bounded object.

>>5382732
I am not familiar with general relativity. Sorry.

>>5382732

lol
>implying mathematical conventions and language games have anything to do with actual Nature and Space


end this thread already, autists are being confused

>>5382739

>implying we can detect an immaterial container of matter

>>5382745
Space isn't an "immaterial container".

>>5382726
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

>>5382748
>Space isn't an "immaterial container".

Space is an "immaterial container".
Can you touch space? Can you cut it and observe it? Does it impede your movement?

It's immaterial, just like Time and Consciousness.

>>5382749
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

says nothing about space itself, just talks about a metaphor called "spacetime"

which is just physics gibberish. I'm talking about actual Space as it is in Nature.

Not contrived "spacetime" used in some model that wiill be outdated in 40years

>>5382753

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

good day

>>5382753
>wants to talk about space as it is in nature
>refuses to use the language of natural sciences to do so

try harder

>>5382751
The point was that it's not a "container".
You're thinking too pictorially, which is probably what's causing you to not grasp what's been said in this thread.
It's best to think of space is being a framework which is described by mathematics

>>5382758
>It's best to think of space is being a framework which is described by mathematics

Space is an immaterial container, this is confirmed by all my observations.

>>5382753
It's not a metaphor. Physics tells us how nature really is not how you claim it is. If you can explain all of this without curved spacetime then you can say spacetime isn't curved.

>>5382765
>this is confirmed by all my observations
Ok, we've found the source of the problem.

>>5382765
You are a Faggot, which is confirmed by all my observations about your stupidity.
My model predict you love to take it up in the ass, I guess you're even furry.

First time I post, you make me rage.

>>5382768
>Physics tells us

LMFAO.

THE high priests tell us.

Sorry I don't go off authority, I go off empirical data and logic. Physics fails at both in this context (space expansion).

>>5382774
>I go off empirical data and logic
That's no good when you have broken vision and a misunderstanding of logic.

>>5382777

how is my logic wrong?

It's illogical to assume that an expanding distance between Objects implies expansion of space itself.

Non-sequitur.

What's wrong with this perfect reasoning?

>>5382774
>I go off empirical data
>Reject empirical data
>Stick to gut feeling and personal experience

Physics is empirical data. Believe whatever you want but don't claim it's empirical.

>>5382781
>>Reject empirical data

Nope. I reject the illogical interpretation that says "expanding distance between objects implies expansion of space itself"

I dont like irrationality.\

Also Science has yet to define "Space" and explain what it is coherently. Same goes for "TIME" and even "Energy"

>>5382779
Why is it illogical?

>>5382784
>Why is it illogical?

Because it doesn't necessarily follow.

>>5382785
>Nope. I reject the illogical interpretation that says "expanding distance between objects implies expansion of space itself"
>I dont like irrationality.\

This^
Physics needs to learn 2 logic.
Thread over.

>>5382785
Space is the three dimensional extent. Time is the ordering of events. Energy is a conserved quantity, it doesn't mean anything.

>>5382797
>it doesn't mean anything.

clearly it does, since we're arguing about it and you are trying to define it as a 3 dimensional "thing"

threads over though, refer>>5382790

>>5382788
But it fits the data with fewer assumptions. We look out into the universe and we see that the rate objects move away is proportional to their separation, this holds true for all objects. So it can be the case that we are the center of the universe and everything is perfectly ordered to move away from us and everything else (a huge number of free parameters) or it can be that space itself is expanding (one parameter). With fewer assumptions it fits the data.

>>5382788
Elaborate.

>>5382785
>I reject the illogical interpretation that says "expanding distance between objects implies expansion of space itself"
Then you reject reality.

>>5382802
>Physics needs to learn 2 logic.
I've never mentioned energy before. It is merely a a conserved quantity brought about by symmetry in some systems of mechanics.

>It's illogical because we say it is.
Powerful argument.

>>5382803
>We look out into the universe and we see that the rate objects move away is proportional to their separation

Then we conclude that things are accelerating apart at a rate proportional to their distance...nothing magical about that. I can accelerate with my car at a rate proportional to the distance to some point. Implies nothing about space expansion.
Done. Simple.

>>5382804
>Elaborate.

Distance between objects can expand without the need for spatial expansion. Thus Objects moving apart from each other doesn't necessitate the expansion of space.

I can accelerate from one object to another at some proportional rate. This doesn't mean my change in distance is explained by "space expansion" EVEN if it fits the data (it will always fit the data)

Spatial expansion is also non-falsifiable.

Another reason it can't be science, ever.

>>5382788
No one has claimed it necessarily follows, you don't seem to understand how science works.

Science deal with empiricism, observations and predictions.
We have a model - metric expansion of space, this model has made predictions, we've tested them, the empirical data agrees with the model, we've repeated these tests and doe different experiments, all data converges, refines and agrees with the model.
Scientists draw the conclusion: the best explanation for this data is indeed that space is expanding.

If you have a better model, then please present it, scientists all over the world would be dieing to hear it and if shown to be correct would probably win you a Nobel prize.

>>5382810
>Spatial expansion is also non-falsifiable.

fuck :(
Never thought of this. Could have saved 300 posts in this thread.

There is no way to falsify this. Different parts of space could "expanding" at different rates, anything goes.

lol, slaughtered this topic. 10/10

>>5382814

>expansion of space
>non falsifiable

it's true ;[

>>5382810
>Then we conclude that things are accelerating apart at a rate proportional to their distance...nothing magical about that
And the explanation for that result is expanding space.
Who's said anything about magic?

>I can accelerate with my car at a rate proportional to the distance to some point.
What does that have to do with anything?

>>5382810
>Then we conclude that things are accelerating apart at a rate proportional to their distance...nothing magical about that. I can accelerate with my car at a rate proportional to the distance to some point.

So now you have to explain countless billions of accelerations that need to assumed. The expansion of space puts it down to one. Occam's razor says the one that requires the fewest assumptions should be favored, as it is.

>>5382818
>What does that have to do with anything?

We don't make the illogical leap of "space expansion" in the case of cars moving.

Yet space expansion fits the data.
Space expansion fits ANY data.


No exceptions. Its not falsifiable.

Any objects moving apart can be explained by "space is carrying them apart and expanding in some way, somehow,"

>>5382810
>Distance between objects can expand without the need for spatial expansion.
Sure it's possible, but no such model can accurately predict and account for all the data we have.

>I can accelerate from one object to another at some proportional rate.
What does that have to do with galaxies?

>Spatial expansion is also non-falsifiable.
No it isn't.
Direct evidence for the expansion of space:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?astro-ph/0012222
That was a falsifiable test, if it turned out that the temperature didn't increase with redshift, the big band model would have been bust.

>>5382819
>So now you have to explain countless billions of accelerations that need to assumed. The expansion of space puts it down to one.

refer to this: space expansion is unfalsifiable, and fits any data, ever, because two objects can't occupy the same space at same time.

so you can always argue the space around/behind that "object" is expanding
>>5382819

>>5382822
>Direct evidence for the expansion of space:

It isn't direct, it doesn't even speak about space or expansion or "metrics" of any sort. It uses incorrect INFERENCES

like: "objects move apart, lets assume space moves apart"

Spatial expansion can describe ANY increase in distance, in any phenomena, ever. Its not falsifiable.

Meaning it can never be RULED OUT, not even in theory.

Of course the data will support it lol

>>5382819
>We don't make the illogical leap of "space expansion" in the case of cars moving.
Cars aren't galaxies, cars don't appear isotropic and the same in all directions, they aren't red shifted proportional to distance to EVERY object, they don't fall into the expected distribution of temperatures of the cosmic background.
You literally couldn't pick a more irrelevant example.

>>5382822
>the big band model would have been bust.

that wouldn't falsify spatial expansion.
these are two different ideas.

spatial expansion can never be falsified. no experiment can be done to show it doesn't happen.

its not science :)

>>5382824
Space expanding is falsifiable, prove that the rate of recession is not proportional to separation.

By the same logic your other suggestion is unfalsifiable because any motion can be described by a sum of motions without the expansion of spacetime.

>>5382828

doesn't matter, "spatial expansion" fits any data.

you can explain any expansion of distance with it. its not falsifiable

its a cop out, its lazy thinking and not scientific.

>>5382827
>It isn't direct
Yes it is, it directly tested a prediction of the big band model, the relation between red shift and temperature turned out exactly as predicted.
That was a perfect opportunity to falsify the theory.

>like: "objects move apart, lets assume space moves apart"
That isn't the assumption, stop talking nonsense.

>>5382829
>that wouldn't falsify spatial expansion.
Yes it would.

>these are two different ideas.
You're clearly clueless.

>spatial expansion can never be falsified
Yes it can.

>no experiment can be done to show it doesn't happen.
Such experiments have already been done.

>>5382831
>Space expanding is falsifiable, prove that the rate of recession is not proportional to separation.

Proprtionality has nothing to do with it, it can vary.

Also there is no experiment or thought experiment that can falsify "spatial expansion"

take this pseudoshit to /x/

>>5382833
>Yes it is, it directly tested a prediction of the big band mode

You don't know what "faslify" means...

What experiment, in theory, could prove that spatial expansion isn't happening anywhere.

Go for it.

>>5382832
>"spatial expansion" fits any data.
No it doesn't.
If galaxies didn't appear to have their rate of secession proportional to distance that would completely falsify metric expansion, if we saw all galaxies move away at the same speed (or no speed at all) that would obviously completely contradict expansion.

>>5382838
It could vary but it doesn't so we assume the model with fewer assumptions. And you haven't addressed my second point, if expansion is unfalsifiable so is your proposed alternative.

>>5382839
>What experiment, in theory, could prove that spatial expansion isn't happening anywhere.
Measure the temperature of the cosmic background ration at different red-shifts - if this turned out to have uniform temperature at all red shifts, it would falsify expansion.
Measuring the velocities of distance galaxies - if this turned out to have uniform velocities at any distance (or no velocity at all, i.e static galaxies), it would falsify expansion.

>>5382838
>Proprtionality has nothing to do with it
It has everything to do with it.

>>5382840
>If galaxies didn't appear to have their rate of secession proportional to distance that would completely falsify metric expansion

It would contradict the model you are using, it wouldn't rule out spatial expansion.

> if we saw all galaxies move away at the same speed (or no speed at all) that would obviously completely contradict expansion.

Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion, thereby look static.

Can't rule it out in static situation.

YOU Can't rule it out when objects move apart. Ever.

>>5382848
>Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion, thereby look static.
>Can't rule it out in static situation.
>YOU Can't rule it out when objects move apart. Ever.


So true, fuck :(

>>5382848
>Objects could move and space could expand at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the motion, thereby look static.
>Can't rule it out in static situation.

Double standard. Metric expansion has fewer assumptions therefore it's the preferred solution.

>>5382848
>it wouldn't rule out spatial expansion.
Yes it would.
Expansion requires acceleration to be proportional to distance.

>Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion
What the hell are you even talking about?
That made no sense at all.

Why do you assume that space expanding can somehow move and carry objects lmfao

are scientists this stupid? this isn't even an explanation

>>5382848
>Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion
Opposite direction to WHAT?
I don't think you even understand what expansion of space means, you cannot move "opposite" to it because it's the space itself that's expanding, there is no direction because it's uniform and happens everywhere.

(Yes I know this is a troll, but I'm bored and got nothing else to do atm)

>>5382856
>Why do you assume that space expanding can somehow move and carry objects lmfao
Nobody assumes that, the point is that things AREN'T moving - because it's the space itself between them that's expanding..

>>5382853
>Double standard. Metric expansion has fewer assumptions therefore it's the preferred solution.

Simplicity isn't the issue. The issue was that it is not falsifiable, nothing can rule it out, lol it fits any data.

>>5382854
>What the hell are you even talking about?
>That made no sense at all.

Expands at 1m/s -->>
Object moves at 1m/s <----
Object, appears static, during spatial expansion.

Or you could say that a static object is being held static by expansion of space one way, and expansion of space in the opposite direction. LOL, anything goes with expansion of space, it fits any data.

>+ 304 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click here to view.
<div class="math">\mathbf{IT'S}</div>
<div class="math">\mathbf{JUST}</div>
<div class="math">\mathbf{A}</div>
<div class="math">\mathbf{FUCKING}</div>
<div class="math">\mathbf{TROLL}</div>
<div class="math">\mathbf{THREAD}</div>

>>5382861
>Simplicity isn't the issue. The issue was that it is not falsifiable, nothing can rule it out, lol it fits any data.
> Ignoring the point.
The claim that the recession of galaxies is not due to the expansion of spacetime is unfalsifiable, expansion simply involves fewer assumptions.

>>5382861
>Expands at 1m/s -->>
>Object moves at 1m/s <----
Space doesn't expand in a particular direction, you cannot move "against it", that makes no sense.

>>5382868
>expansion simply involves fewer assumptions.

Irrelevant and false.
Irrelevant because expansion is still unfalsifiable and thus psuedo-science.

False because if you start asking what's causing the expansion and how it occurs and so forth, you are left with even more problems.

Of course unfalsfiable gibberish can appear SIMPLE in the context of fixing your model.

>>5382869
>Space doesn't expand in a particular direction, you cannot move "against it", that makes no sense.

Of course it makes no sense. Space expanding makes no sense, it just fits any data.

Any distance gained or lost between objects can be attributed to space expanding or contracting, it's lazy thinking and unfalsifiable.

>>5382872
>Any distance gained or lost between objects can be attributed to space expanding or contracting, it's lazy thinking and unfalsifiable.

Well I'm satisified.

>>5382872
>Of course it makes no sense.
So you concede your point was illogical?
Good.
>Space expanding makes no sense,
It makes perfect sense.

>it just fits any data.
No it doesn't.
Constant or no velocity does not fit expanding space.

>>5382872
>Any distance gained or lost between objects can be attributed to space expanding or contracting
No.

>>5382875
>Constant or no velocity does not fit expanding space.

Why not?

>>5382871
>False because if you start asking what's causing the expansion and how it occurs and so forth, you are left with even more problems.
No, it's about how many parameters you need to assume to fit the data. Expansion requires one constant, motion requires one parameter for each particle. And that's only first moments.
If you ask what sets that parameter, that's one parameter to explain. If you ask what sets all those other parameters that's a lot more to explain.

You're still missing the point, the claim that it is not expansion is equally unfalsifiable.

The expansion of space is easily falsifiable. Just go to a different reference frame and see if you see everything moving away from you still respects Hubble's law and other parameters.

>>5382882
Because if space was expanding it would mean that things further away would appear more and more red shifted.
If you see a constant red shift (or no red shift at all) for all objects, space cannot be expanding.

>>5382883
>the claim that it is not expansion is equally unfalsifiable.

That's what usually happens when an unfalsifiable claim enters the picture, nothing can rule it out and you can't rule its negative out either...

Just like "God did it"...yes maybe, we can't rule it out ever.

Hence why such explanations are pseudoscience.

The GR field equations give you a way to calculate the metric given some distribution of matter and energy (aka the stress-energy tensor). If you assume the universe is full of matter that is homogeneous, isotropic and non-interacting (except for gravity), then feed this into the field equations they tell you that the metric describing this universe is the FRW metric. This is an expanding universe at fits all of our observational data. If you have a problem with it, come up with something better.

>>5382888
>Deflecting
>Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion, thereby look static.
>Objects could move and space could expand at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the motion, thereby look static.

These arguments are the same, you cannot claim that it holds for one and not the other.

>>5382889
Unfortunately we're dealing with someone who doesn't even have a college level math or physics education, your post will go complete over his head.

>>5382886

Red shift is countered if the object is accelerating towards the observer at a rate proportional to expansion of space.

The observer won't be able to tell.

This it...
I'm done.
Fuck you OP, go suck a dick.
The only good thing of this thread was your stupidity on this Pic Related.
Please die.

>>5382894
>Red shift is countered if the object is accelerating towards the observer at a rate proportional to expansion of space.
>The observer won't be able to tell.


And hence "space expansion" is unfalsifiable and non science.

Thanks guys, really learned a lot about how good I am at arguing.

>>5382894
Data can always be fitted with more complex models, the point is to pick the simplest one.

>>5382894
>Red shift is countered if the object is accelerating towards the observer
No, redshift occurs when you receive light from an object which is moving away from you.

>The observer won't be able to tell.
If no redshift can be seen at all (or if it's constant for all distances), there isn't any expansion.

>>5382898
>And hence "space expansion" is unfalsifiable and non science.
No, it's falsifiable all right.

>>5382900
>If no redshift can be seen at all (or if it's constant for all distances), there isn't any expansion.

No it means the object's distance hasn't changed from Earth's, so we can't detect a red shift. So it isn't an indicator of anything in this case.

Red shift is countered if the object is accelerating towards the observer at a rate proportional to expansion of space.

>>5382891
And this is the end of this argument. Expansion may be unfalsifiable by these terms but so is the other model and we need to pick the simplest one.

>>5382905
You still haven't explained this:
>>5382891

>>5382905
>No it means the object's distance hasn't changed from Earth's, so we can't detect a red shift.
Which contradicts expanding space, since if space was expanding you WOULD see the light red shifted.

>Red shift is countered if the object is accelerating towards the observer at a rate proportional to expansion of space.
No, that wouldn't be possible.

hmmm...starting to think he's right, Expansion isn't falsifiable...could easily fit any data

intradesting.

>>5382914
Obvious samefagging.

>>5382848
>Space can expand and the objects moving at a rate equal and in opposite direction to the expansion, thereby look static.
>Can't rule it out in static situation.
>YOU Can't rule it out when objects move apart. Ever.
Nope. This would never work, as the laws of physics remain the same in every frame of reference. Velocity is a frame-dependent quantity.

>>5382914
retard