Space expansion

[Anonymous No.14856053]

>universe is expanding, in all directions, all the time
>we don't feel stretched and the atoms that make up everything are "just fine"
ishygddt

[Anonymous No.14856079]

trust the science chud

[Anonymous No.14856083]

>>14856053
because the space between your atoms is so small that you wouldnt even notice any change even if you lived to be a million years old.

[Anonymous No.14856085]

>>14856053
>>we don't feel stretched and the atoms that make up everything are "just fine"
>ishygddt
damn retars, Look at your own pic you posted. Do you see space axis, is it expanding? no it is not, universe is expanding, not space.

[Anonymous No.14856088]

>>14856083
>it's so small
>virtually 99% empty
>it crumples together to make "stuff"
>that stuff isn't mostly empty
>you can't observe the void with the naked eye

>>14856085
And what is space anon?

[Anonymous No.14856101]

>the universe is expanding at 73km per second
>we arent all holding on for dear life
space is fake AND gay

[Anonymous No.14856102]

>>14856088
matter isn't expanding, space is, and all that 'stuff' is stuck together by forces way stronger than the absolutely tiny effect of space expanding.

[Anonymous No.14856107]

>>14856102
Now explain how "space" isn't matter being held together by cosmic super glue

[Anonymous No.14856110]

>>14856102
>matter isn't expanding, space is, and all that 'stuff' is stuck together by forces way stronger than the absolutely tiny effect of space expanding.
Flatearther spacing.

[Anonymous No.14856116]

>>14856088
Its an infinite container where you can put stuff like atoms, planets, galaxies and our universe (and other universes too), it is not expanding, only our universe is. Going back to analogies, if balloon is universe, it expands but the room you stand holding the balloon does not, if you had ftl ship and faster even than the expansion at the edges universe you could fly to the edge and even dly faster and essentialy leave our universe

[Anonymous No.14856118]

>>14856116
What are the parameters of this container?
What is it made of? What are it's borders?

[Anonymous No.14856134]

>>14856118
>What are the parameters of this container?
>What is it made of? What are it's borders?
They are so complicated higher math that only an member of the church of science will understand them. That needs years of brainwashing in their monasteries called universities (sic!)

[Anonymous No.14856140]

>>14856118
thread is not about it, if you want to learn about space go study math and quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.14856144]

>>14856102
By that logic space expansion should've never begun due to the extreme forces at play in the earlier universe.
The truth of the matter is that space isn't expanding, stuff is just moving apart from eachother due to leftover inertia from the chaotic beginnings of the universe and has just clumped up over time

[Anonymous No.14856147]

>>14856053
>>we don't feel stretched and the atoms that make up everything are "just fine"
Atomic forces and gravity are much stronger than expansion at short range.

/thread

[Anonymous No.14856156]

>>14856144
>space isn't expanding
galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. so are they violating the laws of nature?

[Anonymous No.14856170]

>>14856156
>galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
No they're not

[Anonymous No.14856172]

>>14856156
>>14856156
>galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. so are they violating the laws of nature?
How can you know when there "light" can't reach us?

[Anonymous No.14856214]

>>14856170
Yes they are. The vast majority of galaxies in fact are receding from us faster than light.

[Anonymous No.14856224]

>>14856214
That does not violate any laws though.

[Anonymous No.14856225]

>>14856214
>Yes they are. The vast majority of galaxies in fact are receding from us faster than light.
Interesting, According to that patent clerk they must have infinite mass, so did our galaxy. -> The universe is a black hole.

[Anonymous No.14856231]

>>14856172
Of course light it emits now can't reach us, but that's irrelevant since the light we're seeing now was emitted billions of years ago.

[Anonymous No.14856236]

>>14856224
No one said it does.

[Anonymous No.14856238]

>>14856225
>According to that patent clerk they must have infinite mass
Source?

[Anonymous No.14856244]

>>14856225
>According to that patent clerk they must have infinite mass
No, only objects viewed moving faster than the speed of light from an inertial reference frame would have infinite mass. We're not in an inertial reference frame because expansion is accelerating us away from those distant galaxies.

[Anonymous No.14856257]

>>14856244
>No, only objects viewed moving faster than the speed of light from an inertial reference frame would have infinite mass. We're not in an inertial reference frame because expansion is accelerating us away from those distant galaxies.
But you can view them because there is no way to see them.>>14856244

>from an inertial reference frame
Dividing space to non observable and not existing pieces. A concept to hide the blatant contradictions.

[Anonymous No.14856268]

>>14856257
>But you can view them because there is no way to see them.
The way to view them is to see the light they emitted billions of years ago. Do you think light travels from one galaxy to another instantaneously?

>Dividing space to non observable and not existing pieces.
No, you observe and view things from non-inertial reference frames all the time. Learn basic relativity before you attempt to describe it.

[Anonymous No.14856722]

>>14856214
No, they are not

[Anonymous No.14856945]

>>14856722
Yes they have, almost all galaxies have redshift above 1.46, which means they are receding from us faster than light.

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

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

[Anonymous No.14856969]

>>14856945
First of all, the theoretical maximum velocity you would need for two bodies to be completely invisible to eachother is c/2 in either direction, second the distant galaxies we can't see are not receding from us at immense speeds, but were already formed at such faraway distances such that even a small difference in relative speeds would render them invisible and third, the expansion of space has never been measured physically and only exists as a hypothesis on paper, since the velocity difference between galaxies is so minuscule that your expansion of space could be explained by a million other things

[Anonymous No.14857006]

>>14856053
The entire premise is based on two events. First a religious fanatic had the idea of the universe expanding from a single point and set about showing how it could have happened (bunk pseudoscience)
And then someone looked through a telescope and noticed the stars were redshifted. Now this COULD be explained by a sea of plasma existing between the stars causing light passing through it to become more redshifted the more plasma it passes through, but eh, fuck it. We already have that religious nutjobs prophesy to fulfill. Now just make sure you fire anyone that disagrees with the high council of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.14857012]

>the universe is expanding
>the universe is so infinite

[Anonymous No.14857023]

>>14857012
universe is expanding, space is infinite

[Anonymous No.14857028]

>>14856969
>First of all, the theoretical maximum velocity you would need for two bodies to be completely invisible to eachother is c/2 in either direction
This is gibberish. What is a "maximum velocity you would need?" You mean "minimum velocity?" c/2 relative to what?

There is no maximal velocity for non- inertial reference frames. Anything outside of our past light cone is invisible to us.

>the distant galaxies we can't see are not receding from us at immense speeds
They are, since they're outside the Hubble volume.

>the expansion of space has never been measured physically
Of course it has, it's called Hubble's constant.

>the velocity difference between galaxies is so minuscule that your expansion of space could be explained by a million other things
Then do it better and collect your Nobel Prize. Nah, you won't, you'll just sit there and lie about physics because it's the only way you can trick yourself into believing you're intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14857030]

>>14857006
>Now this COULD be explained by a sea of plasma existing between the stars causing light passing through it to become more redshifted the more plasma it passes through
No, it can't.

[Anonymous No.14857033]

>>14856945
Redshift is quantized and doesn't represent speed in all cases.

[Anonymous No.14857034]

>>14857012
Expansion means local density decreases, not volume increases.

[Anonymous No.14857067]

>>14857033
>Redshift is quantized
Proof?

>and doesn't represent speed in all cases.
It either represents movement, a change in gravitational potential, or expansion.

[Anonymous No.14857099]

>>14857028
Hubble's constant is a baseless nonexistent number shoehorned in to make the data fit, it has about as much credibility as dark matter you retarded cretin

[Anonymous No.14857114]

>>14856053
the stretch is 2cm/s per ly.
a 2m person will stretch, over the course of 100y about the width of a h2o molecule.
the EM forces have no problem in overcoming that

[Anonymous No.14857128]

>>14856722
97%
it's a simple calculation - a 15 bn ly sphere volume vs a 46 bn ly sphere volume

[Anonymous No.14857162]

>>14857067
>Proof?
Halton Arp proved it in the 80s.

[Anonymous No.14857246]

>>14857162
No he did not. Arp wasn't even the one who made the original claim. Strange that this effect was claimed in spectroscopic samples of just hundreds of quasars, but now there are surveys of hundreds of thousands of quasars and the effect has disappeared. It was always bullshit.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

[Anonymous No.14857264]

>>14857006
>Now this COULD be explained by a sea of plasma existing between the stars causing light passing through it to become more redshifted the more plasma it passes through
Except that it doesn't behave like any known scattering or interaction. Tired light was originally the favourite hypothesis by many and yet, after a century there is still no mechanism which could cause redshift without scattering the light in angle or having a frequency depndence. Might as well call it dark scattering, and people have been looking for it for even longer.
All the cosmological tests of tired light have also failed (e.g. the Tolman surface brightness test, cosmological time dilation).

>>14857099
Apparently fitting the top plot with a linear relation is "shoehorning".

[frenanon No.14857338]

>>14857028
>This is gibberish. What is a "maximum velocity you would need?" You mean "minimum velocity?" c/2 relative to what?
Probably something like picrel.

>Then do it better and collect your Nobel Prize
>because it's the only way you can trick yourself into believing you're intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14857483]

>>14857338
>Star is traveling away from the Earth at 0.51c.
>Earth traveling away from Star at 0.51c.
>These speeds should be combined to get the recession velocity.
Lel. Christ, this isn't even getting special relativity wrong. You don't understand Galilean relatively, i.e. basic fucking logic.

[frenanon No.14857590]

>>14857483
I don't get it, what's wrong?

[Anonymous No.14857650]

>>14857338
>Probably something like picrel.
That doesn't answer my question. What reference frame are you measuring speed from? You need to learn basic physics before you can even begin this discussion.

[Anonymous No.14857770]

>>14856053
The metric used for the universe as a whole has a scale factor. The metric we'd use here in the solar system wouldn't have such a scale factor.

[Anonymous No.14857779]

>>universe is expanding

is the Earth expanding too?
Has this theory been debunked yet?

[Anonymous No.14857786]

>>14857779
Yes it is expanding. Uniform displacement of undersea rifts (all are moving apart, none are closing) proves earth expansion.

[frenanon No.14857999]

>>14857650
>What reference frame are you measuring speed from?
Err... whatever frame of reference you decide to measure with?

[Anonymous No.14858143]

>>14857779
>Earth expanding
no
it tries to, but em forces and gravity are stronger.

[Anonymous No.14858188]

>>14856268
>No, you observe and view things from non-inertial reference frames all the time. Learn basic relativity before you attempt to describe it.
learned ist and see now it's a idiotic hoax pulled out of a.. nothing (to avoid the undeniable consequences of the twin paradox). There are no inertials, otherwise show me one in real, not in math,

[Anonymous No.14858221]

>>14856945
>es they have, almost all galaxies have redshift above 1.46, which means they are receding from us faster than light.
There is only a shift in spectral lines observed, the expansion is an speculation. Has nothing to do with science because you can't use that methods on it.

Further not the galaxy moves, the "light" that had leaved the galaxy billions of years ago is redshifted. The actual galaxy can have direction towards us, we can see in billions of years later.

Than there is a simple fault in that idea. The travelling light (which is redshifted out of unknown reasons) would not only expand in z axis (toward us), but on x and y axis too. That means the receiving light pattern must be expanded in x/y with the hubble constant times travelling years.

Further it must be fainted (or luminosity loss) at the same rate simply because it covers a greater area. Simple geometry, easy to grasp even on this midwit site and the lack of that observations proves the whole theory wrong.

Ignore it, prune or delete that again, it doesn't change simple facts.

[Anonymous No.14858271]

>>14857999
Where are "you" in this scenario? Why can't you answer a simple question?

[Anonymous No.14858285]

>>14858188
>learned ist
No you clearly didn't since you don't even know the distended between inertial and non-inertial reference frames.

>There are no inertials
Sure there are, locally. Accelerometers read 0, and curvature of spacetime, tidal forces, and expansion are negligible. But thanks for admitting non-inertial reference frames exist.

[Anonymous No.14858305]

>>14858221
>There is only a shift in spectral lines observed
No, Hubble's law and other observations can only be explained by expansion. Why do you feel the need to deny expansion? Does it make you feel smart?

>Has nothing to do with science because you can't use that methods on it.
Gibberish.

>Further not the galaxy moves
Right, it just sits on expanding space.

>The actual galaxy can have direction towards us
No, that would result in blueshift. Just stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself.

>The travelling light (which is redshifted out of unknown reasons)
Wrong.

>would not only expand in z axis (toward us), but on x and y axis too. That means the receiving light pattern must be expanded in x/y with the hubble constant times travelling years.
More gibberish. Of course we only receive light moving in the direction towards us.

>Further it must be fainted (or luminosity loss) at the same rate simply because it covers a greater area.
Non sequitur, the energy of each photon does not change over space, only redshift changes them. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14858700]

that's because it's calculating and creating every possible outcome of possibilities which multiplies more and more over time/4D . from our 3D perspective it looks like magical expansion speeding up.

[Anonymous No.14858712]

>>14858305
NTA but I'm just gonna assume you're wrong and he's right because you talk like an automated shill. Lurn2bhuman.

[Anonymous No.14858763]

>>14858712
Not an argument, try again.

[Anonymous No.14859633]

>>14858712
>NTA but I'm just gonna assume you're wrong and he's right because you talk like an automated shill. Lurn2bhuman.
He hasn't the slightest clue what i was talking about

>>14858305
You hasn't the slightest clue what i was talking about. But you now exactly that you are right. Only proof you have is my claim of a midwit forum.

[Anonymous No.14859754]

>>14858305
>Hubble's law and other observations can only be explained by expansion
You're observing galaxies moving, not space expanding, because you'd have to quantize space, which you can't do.

[Anonymous No.14859973]

>>14858305
>No, Hubble's law
It's an embarrassment to call it a "law"... it's a somewhat consistent trend. There are 5 sigma confidence mismatches between various calculated values of the hubble constant. That effectively means we need new physics to explain what is going on.
>and other observations can only be explained by expansion
So you currently possess all knowlege because you are God and have ruled out every other explanation? No? Ok then stop confusing religious statements with scientific statements.
Anon is correct : the "expansion" belief is speculative. It will only become non speculative when we rectify these ridiculous mismatches.

[Anonymous No.14859988]

>>14859633
>You hasn't the slightest clue what i was talking about.
Then explain it.

[Anonymous No.14859993]

>>14859754
>You're observing galaxies moving, not space expanding, because you'd have to quantize space
Why?

[Anonymous No.14860138]

>>14859988
>Then explain it.
I did, if you can't grasp idc.

[Anonymous No.14860164]

>>14859993
Define space
What is expanding?
Where is it expanding to?
Please give me 1kg of no space, then you can talk about space expansion

[Anonymous No.14860256]

>>14859973
>5 sigma confidence mismatches between various calculated values of the hubble constant.
5 sigma sounds very precise, can you give that as an tolerance (+/- %)

>>14859973
>That effectively means we need new physics to explain what is going on.
There are more than enough explanations in current physics. Not half as crazy as the current mantra nearly but not provable too (maybe some detector phenomena and cross coupling excepted).

>>14860164
>Define space
>What is expanding?
>Where is it expanding to?
>Please give me 1kg of no space, then you can talk about space expansion
These are just some simple questions showing how blatant idiotic that hypothesis is. There are many more and only dumb believers, apologists and npc's will swallow that without gasps. But when you take a look at the dumbbots over here repeating the mantra without any context there must be a reason why it will be hammered in the heads.
Price question: why?

[Anonymous No.14860353]

>>14856053
>curled up string dimensions exist
>they can also expand into external space
>as much energy as there is void

[Anonymous No.14860355]

>>14860353
They're not empirically disprovable, it's just a math trick people use to ignore the necessity of what OP said under the alleged cosmological model.

[Anonymous No.14861112]

>>14860256
>5 sigma sounds very precise, can you give that as an tolerance (+/- %)
It means 1 in roughly 2 million chance (I forget the exact number) the experiment results are due to random fluctuations. Basically, repeat the experiment 2 million times and you might get evidence to support the opposite conclusion once. Take a statistics class.
>There are more than enough explanations in current physics
What is this supposed to mean in this context? If Hubble's "law" is valid we should not be seeing these mismatches. If it's not valid it puts the "expansion" of the universe into question.

[Anonymous No.14861527]

>>14859973
>It's an embarrassment to call it a "law"
No one cares about your petty semantics.

>That effectively means we need new physics to explain what is going on.
And?

>So you currently possess all knowlege because you are God
Nope, I'm simply saying there are no other explanations. If you had one you would have an actual reason for denying expansion instead of contrarianism.

>the "expansion" belief is speculative
It's the only explanation for the data.

[Anonymous No.14861529]

>>14860138
Where?

[Anonymous No.14861537]

>>14860164
>Define space
3 dimensions of the 4- dimensional manifold in which events lie.

>What is expanding?
Space.

>Where is it expanding to?
Nonsensical question. Expansion of space is not something moving to a different location, it's the scale of where things are changing.

>Please give me 1kg of no space
Gibberish.

[Anonymous No.14862054]

>>14861537
>no argument
I'm glad you concede

[Anonymous No.14862105]

Space is fake and gay.

Stop being bluepilled.

[Anonymous No.14862147]

>>14861112
> means 1 in roughly 2 million chance
Know what it means, but can't believe. .5ppb is a pretty low error rate, unachievable in real world even with that fainted signals travelling billions of years. Must be misunderstood or made up.>>14861112
>>There are more than enough explanations in current physics
>What is this supposed to mean in this context?
Context is your "new physics" statement. Unnecessary, there are enough models and knowledge in the current one to make the next theory.

[Anonymous No.14862198]

>>14862054
>>no argument
There's no argument to respond to, just a bunch of questions I answered abs a nonsensical demand. If you have an argument, post it.

[Anonymous No.14862214]

>>14862198
But you didn't answer anything, your only three replies were
>mathematical description of space, not physical description
>logical fallacy
>description of galaxies moving, not space expanding
>no argument
Again, you have no argument for the expansion of space, because space is made of nothing, there is nothing to expand, and nowhere to expand to, because space is homogenous and infinite in all directions, space between galaxies is _increasing_ due to the acceleration of galaxies not _expanding_, when you go home from the black bull who is fucking your ugly fat wife the space between you and him is increasing, not expanding to create new space, not only that the expansion of space would have to violate energy conservation laws, as it would require for the energy density per square unit to drop below zero-point energy levels, which is impossible, the alternative being that there is additional energy created out of nothing, which would again violate the laws of energy conservation and invalidate 99% of physics.

[Anonymous No.14862439]

>>14862214
>But you didn't answer anything
I answered your first two questions and explained why the third was nonsensical. You have no response, so I guess you concede they're answered or nonsensical.

Now please answer my question: >>14859993

>Again, you have no argument for the expansion of space
I airway have the argument. Your only response is a claim about quantized space you can't even explain

>space is made of nothing
Categorical error. Only hings inside space are made of something. Space is not inside space.

>there is nothing to expand
There is space, which expands.

>nowhere to expand to
Categorical error. Only things in space expand to take up more space. Space is not in space. Expansion of space means local density is decreasing, not volume increasing.

>because space is homogenous and infinite in all directions, space between galaxies is _increasing_ due to the acceleration of galaxies not _expanding_
Please show your solution to the Einstein field equations for this scenario, then claim your Nobel Prize. It doesn't work at all gravitationally.

>the expansion of space would have to violate energy conservation laws, as it would require for the energy density per square unit to drop below zero-point energy levels
Nope, the average energy density simply approaches vacuum energy, it does not drop below it. Dark energy increases but is perfectly balanced by the negative gravitational energy.

[Anonymous No.14862811]

>>14862439
>I answered your first two questions and explained why the third was nonsensical.
No, your entire argument can be boiled down to simply saying "no", because you're not refuting anything but simply denying everything altogether, because you're a delusional schizo
>There is space, which expands.
Again, define space, you can't even provide a physical, tangible example of it expanding, because there is nothing to expand, as space is made of nothing
>Expansion of space means local density is decreasing
And this is an impossibility unless there is energy created out of nowhere.
>Einstein field equations
Yet another hypothesis which relies entirely on "just trust me bro"
>Dark energy
Oh so you _are_ just a methhead schizo, nevermind then.

[Anonymous No.14862870]

>>14861527
>No one cares about your petty semantics.
It was more of an insult to you but meh
>And?
Do I need to spoon feed you this hard? If current physics can't explain "what's going on" without resulting in contradictions then we can only speculate "what's going on", such as the expanding universe belief, is valid.
>I'm simply saying there are no other explanations
You're pretending to be God again with absolute knowledge that no other explanations exist
>It's the only explanation for the data.
More religious statements. Your statement is invalid given the context since we have knowlege that further, better, explanations likely will arise in the future. It can't be the "only explanation" if it results in contradictions.
Allow me to put 2 and 2 together in your brain since you can't, ahem:
If we identify the need for new Physics to explain something it means the current explanation (which may or may not be the only one currently, it doesn't matter) based on current physics is not valid, it's only speculation. It might be right with modification, it might not be. We need to stop getting contradictions before we can claim it's "right" and until then the "expansion" belief is speculative like we've been telling you. Nothing you say changes this.
>If you had one you would have an actual reason for denying expansion instead of contrarianism
You're adorable. Acknowledging the fact something is speculation not denying it, and it's not contrarianism either, look up what those words mean.
Also, try to stop robotically responding line by line like a redditor or python script and instead try to grasp the ideas being presented. Everyone on this board knows you have nothing valid to say if you fill up a 2k character post with single line responses. It shows you can't grasp concepts and instead must rely on nitpicking single statements until they're "wrong" because you pigeon hole them into an invalid context.

[Anonymous No.14862876]

>>14862147
>Know what it means
You clearly don't
>Must be misunderstood or made up
Cool story. Get a PhD and write a paper showing the 2000+ other astrophysicists with PhDs are misunderstanding things and making things up
>Context is your "new physics" statement. Unnecessary
Nah it's necessary since we have these mismatches.

[Anonymous No.14863076]

>>14856053
Expansion theorists are all so laughable. Their ideology can be toppled with a single question.

>"What's outside of the universe that it is expanding into?"

They can't answer that. Even this shit image had negative black space so that it can represent it's idea. It's obviously fucking idiotic.

[Anonymous No.14863127]

>>14856053
space expansion means that the total energy per area decreases, meaning the universe is being drained of energy. Therefore it breaks conservation of energy and it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14863150]

>>14863127
Nice job demonstrating your ignorance.

Energy is not conserved in an expanding universe. This has been known since General Relativity was formulated.

[Anonymous No.14863551]

>>14863076
There is no outside. The expanding universe is not an explosion propagating outwards in an empty volume, that is your misconception. That is not what metric expansion is. A universe can be infinite and still expand.

[Anonymous No.14863565]

>>14863551
>There is no outside
And thus space can't be expanding, because space itself is nothing, there is no state of "no space", if you were to remove every shred of energy in the entire universe, space would still remain, because space itself is the absence of everything

[Anonymous No.14863582]

>>14863565
>And thus space can't be expanding, because space itself is nothing, there is no state of "no space"
Again you're basing this entirely on your own misconception. Metric expansion does not require an outside. Metric expansion does not require non-space. You incorrectly assing that the model is like an explosion, it is not.

[Anonymous No.14863650]

>>14862876
>You clearly don't
>>14862876
>Cool story. Get a PhD and write a paper showing the 2000+ other astrophysicists with PhDs are misunderstanding things and making things up
The .5 in a billion chance wasn't mine, please try to even understand a minimum of context.
>>14862876
>Nah it's necessary since we have these mismatches.
out of .5 of of a billion?

[Anonymous No.14863767]

>>14863582
90 posts in and you still haven't given an explanation to what is expanding and how it is expanding when I've given clear and concise answers, the galaxies are simply moving apart, likely not at the speeds you are assuming and any redshifting is simply caused by interaction of energy with any EM radiation that happens to be coming our way, at far enough distances the radiation simply gets absorbed, reduced to nothingness, makes more sense than "nothing expands because nothing expands"

[Anonymous No.14863780]

>>14863767
Not the same poster. I've been here since this morning.
>is simply caused by interaction of energy with any EM radiation that happens to be coming our way
Easy to wave your hands and claim it's so but even after a century of searching there is no known mechanism which could cause redshift by tired light. That's far longer than people have been looking for dark matter. Every known process has some frequncy dependence or deflects the light in angle, bluring images.
Even without knowing of a mechanism which could cause tired light it's still possible to test it. Such tests are the Tolman surface brightness test and cosmological time dilation, the data is inconsistent with tired light.
Furthermore the expanding universe model made specific predictions, such as the existence of the cosmic microwave background and the abundaces of the light elements produced in the early universe. Multiple confirmed predictions of expansion.
But you tell me it must just be tired light, ignored the absense of a model and the mountain of evidence against it.

[Anonymous No.14863826]

>>14863780
>such as the existence of the cosmic microwave background
And the CMB shouldn't be as homogenous if space was expanding, the whole idea relies entirely on the assumption that the universe violently exploded into existence at a very specific and physically impossible speeds, which you have absolutely no way of proving.
The expansion of space hasn't been empirically proven and you can't prove it without proving that space is made of something, which it isn't.

[Anonymous No.14863957]

>>14863826
>And the CMB shouldn't be as homogenous if space was expanding, the whole idea relies entirely on the assumption that the universe violently exploded into existence at a very specific and physically impossible speeds
Why would that make it inhomogeneous? Also it's not an explosion, and there is no specific speed. There is no speed of expansion, because it depends on the speration between points.

>The expansion of space hasn't been empirically proven and you can't prove it without proving that space is made of something, which it isn't.
Nothing can ever be empirically proven. Proofs exist in formal sciences like maths, not empirical ones. No theory or law in physics has been proven. What you demand is completely nonsensical.
There is however a mountain of empirical evidence supporting general relativity, which can be interpreted as space having properties. GR is the best model of spacetime and it says expansion is allowed.

[Anonymous No.14864066]

>>14863957
>Why would that make it inhomogeneous
Because in order for space to expand it has to be made of something, if it were made of something it would have to have energy, if it has energy it would be detectable, but sadly space is made of nothing, all measurements and theories rely on the presence of matter/energy, which is the opposite of space.
>What you demand is completely nonsensical.
But it isn't, it's a similar effect to light moving through vast distances of air, eventually it can't make it through, now take that same volume of air, reduce it's energy by a factor of 10000 and spread it over a distance of 100 million lightyears and you get your source of redshift and your reason why we can only see so far, no pesky atmosphere in the way, just a nice vacuum and some average energy density permeating most of the space between things.

[Anonymous No.14864083]

>>14864066
>Because in order for space to expand it has to be made of something...
So you were just talking shit about the CMB.

>moving through vast distances of air
Nope. Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent. Cosmological redshift is not.

[Anonymous No.14864162]

>>14862811
>No, your entire argument can be boiled down to simply saying "no", because you're not refuting anything but simply denying everything altogether, because you're a delusional schizo
Major projection. I have argued substantively and answered your questions. You continuously refuse to respond and repeat the same incoherent dogma over and over while ignoring scientific evidence.

>Again, define space
I already did. Instead of repeating the same demand over and over, refer to my answer.

>you can't even provide a physical, tangible example of it expanding
I already did, Hubble's law.

>because there is nothing to expand, as space is made of nothing
Again, it makes no sense to say "space is made of..." It's not in space. There is space, every successful model confirms this, and it measurably expands.

>And this is an impossibility unless there is energy created out of nowhere.
It's not created, it is transfered from the gravitational field.

>Yet another hypothesis which relies entirely on "just trust me bro"
Wrong again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

>Oh so you _are_ just a methhead schizo, nevermind then.
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.

[Anonymous No.14864353]

>>14862870
>If current physics can't explain "what's going on" without resulting in contradictions then we can only speculate "what's going on", such as the expanding universe belief, is valid.
Both methods of measuring the Hubble constant agree the universe is expanding.

>You're pretending to be God again with absolute knowledge that no other explanations exist
So what are the other explanations?

>we have knowlege that further, better, explanations likely will arise in the future
So until that day comes, you have no other explanations. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>Acknowledging the fact something is speculation not denying it, and it's not contrarianism
Is not speculation, it's confirmed by every observation. You're in denial.

>Also, try to stop robotically responding line by line like a redditor
Cry more.

[Anonymous No.14864368]

what is space tho
what exactly is the universe expanding into
just seems odd that "nothingness" can exist, despite it in itself being a state of nonexistence

[Anonymous No.14864370]

>>14864162
>I already did, Hubble's law.
I refuted above with simple geometric facts,>>14864083
>>moving through vast distances of air

>Nope. Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent. Cosmological redshift is not.
Despite the fact that propagation of em-waves is slower in an atmosphere and you can construct a "hubble's law" out of that without any hazzle would it be nice not only to repeat any mainstream mantra.

[Anonymous No.14864412]

>>14864370
>Despite the fact that propagation of em-waves is slower in an atmosphere and you can construct a "hubble's law"
Hubble's law doesn't depend on wavelength, what you propose would. So no, you cannot.
It's also a complete non-starter because refraction only depends on the final refractive index. Doesn't matter what the light paases through on the way, only the final index of the air inside the spectrograph.

[Anonymous No.14864444]

>>14856053
>space expandsa little
>atoms move closer together through the expanded space
>no net change

[Anonymous No.14864461]

>>14856101
>73 kilometers per second
per megaparsec.
a megaparsec is 3.086e+19 kilometers.
so a meter, over the course of 1 second, increases by 2.37 attometers. which is 2.37 quadrillionths. it's not very big at all

[Anonymous No.14865154]

>>14864353
>Both methods of measuring the Hubble constant agree the universe is expanding.
And they disagree. Both cannot be right, hence we can only speculate either of them are valid. Which one is wrong? If it's possible either are wrong it is possible both are wrong. Please enlighten us with your god-knowledge.
>So what are the other explanations?
It's hilarious how you so obviously think you're winning argument points by robotically repeating this irrelevant question. We likely need to develop new physics to discover the valid explanation, or discover something else that breaks down our current understanding so much that it invalidates the expansion belief.
Your mental script is stuck in this loop where you think you "win" if you keep driving home this red herring of asking for another explanation while ignoring that the current one has 5 sigma contradictions and is thus merely speculative.
>So until that day comes, you have no other explanations. Thanks for admitting I'm right.
Such a silly and ignorant reddit goal-post moving response. And yes, you moved the goal post from "there are no other explanations" to "you don't have another explanation", those are fundamentally and objectively different. Not having another one "right now" in light of the context completely refutes your ignorant statement. You are too dogmatically robotic to admit that the true explanation has not yet been attained, yet in your supreme ignorance you think this means "there is no other explanation" Your statement is 100% false, there exists another explanation, and it may or may not involve expansion, we just don't have it yet
>Is not speculation its confirmed by every observation. You're in denial.
False. One or both of them are wrong. If one is wrong then it it's not a "confirmation" huh? Your projection of denial is palpable.
>Cry more
Myself and others are certainly laughing at your dogmatic script-level understanding but you're not enough of a lolcow to cry tears of laughter

[Anonymous No.14865170]

>>14856116
>if you had ftl ship and faster even than the expansion at the edges universe you could fly to the edge and even dly faster and essentialy leave our universe

[Anonymous No.14865424]

>>14856101
73 km/s / Mpc =

7.30E-05 km/s / pc
2.24E-05 km/s / ly
2.24E-02 m/s / ly
2.24E+00 cm/s / ly
1.34E+02 cm/minute / ly
8.06E+03 cm/h / ly
1.93E+03 m/day / ly
7.06E+05 m/year / ly
7.06E+02 km/year / ly

[Anonymous No.14865443]

>>14864461
That could still be significant enough to measure, although obviously it would require very precise measurements. 10 m and a time of 3 years would put the change on the order of 10^-6 m, which is measurable (although not perceptible to humans).

[Anonymous No.14865984]

>>14864412
>Hubble's law doesn't depend on wavelength, what you propose would. So no, you cannot.
Neither written nor meant from me. Do you have poor reading skills or bad intent?

[Anonymous No.14865994]

>>14856102
>matter isn't expanding, space is, and all that 'stuff' is stuck together by forces way stronger than the absolutely tiny effect of space expanding.
The travelling light expands too (that's the underlying observation of this theory), Tell me why it's not fainted by the ^3 factor of the hubble constant. because the same amount of energy now fills that expanded space.

[Anonymous No.14865995]

>>14865443
>That could still be significant enough to measure,
Tell me how you can measure a constant rate in all directions. An expanding room has diagonals that mus be at different rate.

[Anonymous No.14866003]

>>14865443
You can't even measure it here, space likely isn't expanding locally.

[Anonymous No.14866025]

>>14865984
It's the obvious implication of what you propose. Physics doesn't switch off just because you don't understand your own hypothesis. If you want to claim otherwise then go ahead and derive an expression for this behaviour.

[Anonymous No.14866041]

>>14866025
>It's the obvious implication of what you propose.

I do not propose, i just stated that light speed is medium depended ( a common observation and btw. of temperature too). Please try not to confuse statements.

[Anonymous No.14866045]

>>14866041
You explicitly did propose that this could give you Hubble's law, which is false because of the wavelength dependence.

[Anonymous No.14866063]

>>14866045
>You explicitly did propose that this could give you Hubble's law, which is false because of the wavelength dependence.
Please, try to get a minimum of reading comprehensive. Looks you confuses me with another anon.

[Curtis No.14866103]

>>14857786
>14857786
it can be explain by maybe the expension of matter when its cool down. The less hot the core of the earth is , the more it expend.
i never seen it like that , but this topic can and should be simulated in 0 gravity to prove it. but i don't think the time scale is correct , the expension is fare more extended than 4000 BC , the pangea was 200 millions years ago btw.

[Anonymous No.14866116]

>>14866063
This isn't you?
>Despite the fact that propagation of em-waves is slower in an atmosphere and you can construct a "hubble's law"

[Anonymous No.14866255]

>>14864368
>what is space tho
Already answered.

>what exactly is the universe expanding into
Loaded question. It's not an expansion into, it's a decrease in local density.

>just seems odd that "nothingness" can exist
Strawman.

[Anonymous No.14866259]

>>14864370
>I refuted above with simple geometric facts
Where?

[Anonymous No.14866273]

>>14865154
>And they disagree.
They don't disagree that space is expanding.

>Both cannot be right
They both can be right that space is expanding.

>It's hilarious how you so obviously think you're winning argument points by robotically repeating this irrelevant question.
So there are no other explanations. Thanks for admitting I'm right. Let me know when expecting is invalidated. Until then, you're just spouting baseless dogma.

>And yes, you moved the goal post from "there are no other explanations" to "you don't have another explanation"
No, I said you don't have another explanation because you are none. And you confirmed that by survivability that there will be some other explanation in the future.

>One or both of them are wrong.
Wrong about what? I don't think you can even accurately describe what the Hubble tension is.

[Anonymous No.14866670]

>>14864083
>Nope. Refraction is strongly wavelength dependent. Cosmological redshift is not.
I never said it is, this has nothing to do with refraction but energy interactions at quantum levels.

[Anonymous No.14866694]

>>14866670
You never mentioned energy levels at all. You mentioned speed, which is refraction. It's almost like you're being intentionally vague because you know it will be quickly ruled out.

[Anonymous No.14866698]

>>14866694
>You never mentioned energy levels at all
Read, nigga, read!
>>14864066
>now take that same volume of air, reduce it's energy by a factor of 10000 and spread it over a distance of 100 million lightyears and you get your source of redshift and your reason why we can only see so far, no pesky atmosphere in the way, just a nice vacuum and some average energy density permeating most of the space between things.

[Anonymous No.14866699]

>>14856053
Isn't the universe just expanding because gravity is getting weaker since its all farther apart? Like if you have a bunch of mass turn into a black hole obviously its gonna be as dense as possible so the radius of effect would decrease. I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.14866724]

>>14866698
>>now take that same volume of air, reduce it's energy by a factor of 10000 and spread it over a distance of 100 million lightyears and you get your source of redshift and your reason why we can only see so far, no pesky atmosphere in the way, just a nice vacuum and some average energy density permeating most of the space between things.

Notice how that quote doesn't mention quantum levels or energy levels. Maybe instead of telling me to improve my reading skills over and over you could just actually explain it. This quote tells me nothing.

[Anonymous No.14866751]

>>14866724
EM radiation is nothing but pulses of energy, there is an average energy density field permeating the entire universe, EM field included, at large enough distances any EM radiation passing through the open cosmos will give away some of its energy to the surrounding energy fields, lowering its energy its wavelength and at large enough distances absorbing it completely, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp, your cosmic microwave background is made of the exact same stuff, why even bring it up when you don't even know what it is or how it works?

[Anonymous No.14866781]

>>14866751
>any EM radiation passing through the open cosmos will give away some of its energy to the surrounding energy fields
You've literally just restated the hypothesis of tired light. What a breakthrough. To cause redshift you need to lose energy. How inspired and insightful.
The question is "how?" Which physical interaction is responsible, and how can it happen without frequency dependence or deflection. Maybe you could show us you're derivation.
>why even bring it up when you don't even know what it is or how it works?
Why assert that you know the solution when all you can do is repeat the question like a parrot? Are you delusional enough to believe this is an answer to anything?

[Anonymous No.14866800]

>>14866781
>Which physical interaction is responsible
The reaction of energy with other energy
>how can it happen without frequency dependence or deflection
Because at quantum levels it literally doesn't matter, it becomes an isotropic soup of energy, without this principle there would be no elementary particles, no subatomic particles, no atoms, no molecules.

[Anonymous No.14866813]

>>14866800
Oh look, more word salad. Any retard can claim to have solved the mysteries of the universe, doing actual physics requires deriving a model from known physics, and spelling out any new assumptions. Without this quantitve element there is nothing to compare to the data, nothing to test. It is just some unfalsifiable crap that you spouted. But hey, go post your thesis of viXra.

[Anonymous No.14866825]

>>14866813
What unfalsifiable crap? Energy exists, verified, different energy states and levels interact with each other, verified, meanwhile you're saying space is expanding, but you can't define what space is, you can't define what the expansion itself is and you can't point out any mechanism behind it without inventing new "invisible dark numbers", so to conclude, my hypothesis relies on things that have already been verified to exist and interactions that have already been measured, while your hypothesis relies on nothing expanding into nothing via nothing, somehow magically not creating or absorbing any energy on any measurable scale while also keeping the energy density of the universe stable.
But go ahead, type another paragraph where you posit no arguments, not that I'm interested in hearing what comes out of your schizo-riddled brain next but it is entertaining to see you ramble on about stuff you don't even understand.

[Anonymous No.14866856]

>>14866825
>What unfalsifiable crap? Energy exists, verified, different energy states and levels interact with each other, verified
>my hypothesis relies on things that have already been verified
And where did you verify that that all this conspires to give redshifted light that somehow doesn't depend on energy and somehow doesn't defect the photons? Ah, you didn't. There is no derivation and no empirical test. You just think this is how it should be.
>interactions that have already been measured
Show me an known interaction which wouldn't deflect the photons or depend on energy.

The bigger problem is that none of this is testable. Expansion makes very clear predictions, Hubble's law for example, the CMB, the indepence with wavelength, (1+z)^-4 surface brightness dimming, time dilation with (1+z). These things can be tested empirically.
Can your model be tested like this? No. What exponent does it predict for the Tolman test? You have no idea, words are not a model.
Tired light has already failed many tests, sadly waving your hands does not make that go away.

[Anonymous No.14866873]

>>14856083
>because the space between your atoms is so small that you wouldnt even notice any change even if you lived to be a million years old.
So small that you have no proof of it because you reified it in yourdemented head.

>>14856116
>Its an infinite container
Like God?

>Going back to analogies
You can't compare what has no properties you stupid fuck.

>if you had ftl ship
>ftl
>light travels
proof?

>>14856140
>read my bible to understand my biblically reified term
How about you show me an experiment that proves it exists? How can you test what has no properties? How can you call a pure measurement a "property" when it's purely conceptual?

>>14866856
And where did you verify that that all this conspires to give redshifted light that somehow doesn't depend on energy and somehow doesn't defect the photons?
Where did you verify the conspiracy of the existence of a "photon particle"?

>These things can be tested empirically.
Space and time cannot be tested empirically no, specifically because we made them up. They're concepts for a model.

>Can your model be tested like this?
Can Spacetime?

>You have no idea, words are not a model.
and models aren't an explanation. They're a description. What's being described is completely imaginary though.

>waving your hands does not make that go away.
When you saying "waving", you have to elaborate that it is "hands that are waving". If only you could do the same for light; the alleged wave(of what)-particle duality.

[Anonymous No.14866891]

>>14866856
You're not describing the expansion of space, though, you're describing the motion of matter, every measurement any human has ever done is on, and relative to, matter and until you can prove that space is made of the same thing as regular matter you can't prove its expansion, because there is nothing to expand, not only that, this hypothesis still relies extensively on things that can't be measured or proven, such as the nature of the beginning of the universe, the first seconds of the universe and a bunch of shoehorned in constants that don't exist outside of mathematical formulas, if you can't describe something without mathematics (or inversely describe with only mathematics), then it simply does not exist and can be dismissed.
>The bigger problem is that none of this is testable.
But energy interactions are testable, if things didn't interact with eachother then nothing would exist in the first place.
>Tired light has already failed many tests
And I'm not talking about tired light, which posited EM radiation interaction with bigger particles, such as atoms, I'm talking about quantum level interactions, if you were to take a kilometre long vacuum chamber full of nothing but gluons distributed at an even density and shot a single photon through that chamber it would never make it to the other side, because over that length it would give away all its energy to the surrounding energy field.

[Anonymous No.14866911]

>>14866873
>Where did you verify the conspiracy of the existence of a "photon particle"?
Nice deflection. Photons are verified by the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering and Planck's law.
But going back to my question. What is this measured interaction process?
>Space and time cannot be tested empirically no, specifically because we made them up. They're concepts for a model.
And models can be tested, verified. Real models anyway.

>>Can your model be tested like this?
>Can Spacetime?
I'll take that as a "no". If you're just going to ignore all my questions and deflect there is nothing to discuss. The fact you can't give a single straight answer shows quite that the emperor has no clothes.

[Anonymous No.14866932]

>>14866891
>But energy interactions are testable
But you can't point to a single measurement of this magical interaction showing it has the required properties. Nor can you write down a cosmological model which could be tested observationally. You want People to accept this assertion because you believe it must be this case. Unfalsifiable.
>And I'm not talking about tired light, which posited EM radiation interaction with bigger particles, such as atoms
Wrong. Tired light isn't specific to any particular interaction, because there was never anything known that could do the job. It made the assumption that there was some magical interaction which caused redshift proportional to distance without expansion, no assumptions about atoms.

[Anonymous No.14866939]

>>14866911
>Photons are verified by the photoelectric effect,
>Verified by a description

You had "photon" as the description. How many more will you conjure up before you actually show me an experiment that proves the existence of a photon particle? No, an equation is not an experiment. No the assumption of an "electron at rest", is also not a substantial foundation for reifying another magic bumping particle.

>I'll take that as a "no"
Correct. Spacetime cannot be tested. Also; Neither can a model I never mentioned or made up.

>there is nothing to discuss.
Exactly. Stop talking about "space". There is literally nothing for you to talk about.

>The fact you can't give a single straight answer shows quite that the emperor has no clothes.
You just think I'm the same anon is all. I'm not. Unfortunately for you there is more than one person who doesn't believe in a magical place that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14866965]

>>14866939
>Verified by a description
Yes actually. If you can consistently and quantitivly describe those restults without photons, then you can talk about photons not being verified.

>You just think I'm the same anon is all. I'm not
You are most certainly the same person I've been talking to today. Few anons are autistic enough to post these stupid reaction images. You made all these claims about interactions, and then desperately tried to change the subject when I asked for a refence.

[Anonymous No.14866976]

>>14866116
>>14866116
>>Despite the fact that propagation of em-waves is slower in an atmosphere and you can construct a "hubble's law"
That's me and its a fact, what's the problem?

[Anonymous No.14867003]

>>14866976
Why don't you show your working then? Derive Hubble's law and the constant.

[Anonymous No.14867129]

>>14867003
>Why don't you show your working then? Derive Hubble's law and the constant.
What's your problem asking others what the have to do? I don't care about your mindset, die dumb or start to discuss instead repeating refuted mantras. But you are not even able to grasp simple things, your idiotic word babble can't hide that. That's not reddit , that's toddler tier. Please go to the Kindergarten you belong to.

[Anonymous No.14867175]

>>14867129
>>It's true, you can do X.
>Show us
>>What is your problem?

[Anonymous No.14867189]

>>14867175
Just ignore him, he's a schizo who needs to say every scientist is wrong so that he can pretend he's smart.

[Anonymous No.14867228]

>>14866699
I believe this is an undeniable fact after pondering it some more. Dark energy isn't real.

[Anonymous No.14867480]

>>14866965
>Yes actually
You cannot be reasoned with then since fancy descriptions replace that function in your mind.

>You are most certainly the same person I've been talking to today
You are literally delusional. Best of luck with that.