Expanding Universe

[Anonymous No.15889194]

What the fuck does it mean? How is it expanding? What is it expanding into? How do we "know" that it is expanding? I cannot wrap my head around this concept at all. It seems like a load of horseshit.

[Anonymous No.15889195]

Also, are the Jews responsible for this expansion of the universe? It seems like something they would do.

[Anonymous No.15889203]

>What the fuck does it mean?
They detected distant objects are red shifted, and they assumed it's because space is being stretched/is expanding, but could also easily be explained by photons loosing energy through entropy, but that suggests empty space isn't empty which goes against doctrine.

[Anonymous No.15889211]

>Measurements of the positions and velocities of stars show that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else
>In general relativity, this can be elegantly explained by the amount of space between any co-moving points increasing over time
>another way to phrase that is to say "space is expanding"

Like everything else in physics, it's an informed guess. The universe might be expanding, might not be, but right now it looks like it is.

There's no reason to think it's "expanding into" anything, though. That's how expansion works in our everyday lives but the universe is under no obligation to be intuitive.

[Anonymous No.15889214]

>>15889194
>How do we "know"
It's extrapolated from current know physics on Earth.
Now of course if in reality the actual physics is different out there or has been in the past then all bets are off and nobody actually knows shit.

[Anonymous No.15889528]

>>15889194
the metric of spacetime (the way distances are measured) changes with time
>How do we know?
Certain stars called “standard candles” emit light in a very predictable pattern. Those far away have their wavelengths shifted due to the Doppler effect, meaning they recede from us. The farther the star, the further it recedes. This is consistent with the Friedmann metric mentioned above

[Anonymous No.15889549]

>>15889203
>loosing
*losing

[Anonymous No.15889567]

>>15889203
But it isn't empty, it's literally filled with electromagnetic radiation, the most common misconception is that we can't observe this effect over minute distances when your experiment should span millions of lightyears

[Anonymous No.15889575]

>>15889194
>What the fuck does it mean?
It doesn't mean anything, "space" is not expanding because "space" is not a reified thing. It's simply coordinates in three dimensions. Space nor time can "stretch" or "warp", any more than "up" can have a color.
As for cosmic redshifts, look into Halton Arp's work, redshifts most likely have nothing to do with recessional velocity, or at BEST, it is uncertain.
>>15889567
Herouni scares CMBoomers

[Anonymous No.15889581]

>>15889575
>redshifts most likely have nothing to do with recessional velocity, or at BEST, it is uncertain.
I'd say it's a combination of gravity, recession velocity and electromagnetic influences over vast distances
>Herouni scares CMBoomers
Why, what did he do?

[Anonymous No.15889588]

>>15889581
>I'd say it's a combination of gravity, recession velocity and electromagnetic influences over vast distances
Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies shows high redshifted quasars physically attached to lower redshifted galaxies. Obviously this is impossible if the objects are billions and billions of light years apart and rapidly flying away from each other. However, because the conventional theory of recessional Doppler shift has no way of distinguishing between these peculiar galaxies and more "obviously recessed" galaxies, we can have sufficient reason for skepticism.
>Why, what did he do?
Paris Herouni built an edgeless parabolic antenna, isolated from potential Earth interference, that failed to detect the CMB signal.

[Anonymous No.15889611]

>>15889588
>Paris Herouni built an edgeless parabolic antenna, isolated from potential Earth interference, that failed to detect the CMB signal.
You forgot to mention that his was the only experimental measurement properly isolated from all sources of interference. No other scientist has attempted to refute it by repeating his experiment.

[Anonymous No.15889615]

>>15889611
This is, of course, correct. I also didn't mention how the publication was seemingly "mistakenly" removed from the archives of the Greek journal in which it was published, despite a physical copy of the published journal including his measurements, and was only reinstated after his daughter raised hell about it.
It's pretty nuts that NO team has even tried to refute his results, or attempt to replicate them to refute them. It's a serious loss to humanity that the telescope is currently being allowed to rot and rust up there on that mountain.

[Anonymous No.15889619]

>>15889588
>Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies shows high redshifted quasars physically attached to lower redshifted galaxies
Well the quasars themselves could have a higher gravitational potential than the whole galaxy surrounding it
>rapidly flying away from each other
Not very rapidly as I understand
>Paris Herouni built an edgeless parabolic antenna, isolated from potential Earth interference, that failed to detect the CMB signal.
Shame the only measurements on this, if the internet is to be trusted, are nearly 50 years old, as I understand the telescope is no longer in use, I wonder why noone has tried to replicate these conditions or more effort hasn't been put into repairing the telescope

[Anonymous No.15889624]

>>15889619
His daughter took over the institute and if I recall recently got funds to repair the telescope.

[Anonymous No.15889626]

>space is expanding
>we are told that space is infinite
How does something that is infinite expand when it is infinite in size?

[Anonymous No.15889629]

>>15889626
it is stuff like this that makes it so difficult for me to understand the concept

[Anonymous No.15889630]

Star Particle gas is adiabatically expanding to vacuum.

Thermal and statistical physics are explaining things better than any modern theory.

[Anonymous No.15889634]

>>15889629
The way I see it is if space was infinite it wouldn't be expanding. The fact that it is expanding kind of answers the question of whether space is infinite or not, it can't be infinite if it is expanding.

And I order to expand, it needs something to expand into.

[Anonymous No.15889636]

>>15889634
The space is not expanding. The distances between stars are. Like an air balloon inserted into vacuum.

[Anonymous No.15889638]

If it behaves like a kinetic gas, it probably is just kinetic gas

[Anonymous No.15889681]

>>15889194
"trust me, dude" guy told me it's S^3 but I'm not sure I should trust him

[Anonymous No.15889706]

>>15889588
>>15889611
He claimed to. But note he never published his data. And he only claimed to have not detected the CMB years after the fact, in passing. And he had no null tests to confirm his calibration. He also could not calculate an upper limit, making his data useless.


>>15889615
His observation is refuted by the hundreds of independent observations of the CMB. Also refuted by the hundreds of galaxy clusters detected by with the CMB.

Note that his observations make no sense. No antenna is isolated from the atmospheric noise. Even without the CMB he should have detected the emission of the Earth's atmosphere. The fact he didn't demonstrates his measurements are junk.

Note that it is 100% confirmation bias to reject hundreds of independent observations and accept the one (nonsense) claim that supports your argument.

[Anonymous No.15889713]

>>15889194
Look a thread full of confusion. When are the scientists going to apologize for the mess they caused with decades of inadequate narratives and artistic impressions?

If you ask a doctor what causes chronic disease the doctor will say that we don't understand but there are various hypotheses, correlations and risk factors. If you want to learn about physics then they're going to brainwash you with a narrative presented as fact without any nuance. Once upon a time I had awe and wonder as a child, now I only have contempt.

[Anonymous No.15889716]

>>15889588
>Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies shows high redshifted quasars physically attached to lower redshifted galaxies.
No, Arp claimed they do. But it's entirely subjective.
An objective test would be to correlate thousands of local galaxies and quasars on the sky. If they are really connected physically they should cluster together.
People studies this, and the results are consistent with random. Arp's made his claims with samples of a few hundred galaxies, now there are catalogs of millions it's clear he was wrong.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

[Anonymous No.15889725]

>>15889706
>But note he never published his data.
Yes he did. The paper was published in a Greek scientific journal.

[Anonymous No.15889729]

>>15889706
>Even without the CMB he should have detected the emission of the Earth's atmosphere.
He did. He just didn't detect the additional energy of the claimed CMB.
>The fact he didn't demonstrates his measurements are junk.
Please don't argue from ignorance. It makes your side of the debate look moronic.

[Anonymous No.15889731]

>>15889725
It was an Armenian electrical engineering journal. There's no data in it for anyone check his findings.

[Anonymous No.15889734]

>>15889731
Source?

[Anonymous No.15889743]

>>15889734
Are you telling me you haven't even read the paper you have cited?

[Anonymous No.15889758]

>>15889743
All I'm saying is that after all our dialogue I thought you would be a better liar.

[Anonymous No.15889768]

This kind of thread always draws out all of the god complex narcissists on the board, cosmology really tickles their irrational grandiose delusions of superior intellect and their escapist fantasy life like no other topic except maybe particle physics

>Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.

[Anonymous No.15889769]

>>15889203
>could also easily be explained by photons loosing energy through entropy
Except even after 100 years of searching there is no known process by which tired light can happen. All scattering processes either deflect the light in angle or have a wavelength dependence, inconsistent with redshift.

Also there have been numerous positive tests of the expanding universe.

[Anonymous No.15889771]

>>15889706
>He claimed to. But note he never published his data
He did, but it was omitted from the archival copies of the Athens Journal of Applied Electromagnetism, which was where it was first published, after 10 years.
>And he only claimed to have not detected the CMB years after the fact, in passing.
It's literally what's in his findings, no matter how you personally want to slice it.
Here's a video on the telescope, and the CMB issue more broadly. Robitaille is controversial, but this is a controversial position anyways.
https://youtu.be/p8lKQMEYYLw?si=Zz-iJJlVp9elSIt3

>His observation is refuted by the hundreds of independent observations of the CMB
Have there been hundreds of satellites sent to L2 to look for the CMB? Because I only know of WMAP and Planck.
>>15889716
>An objective test would be to correlate thousands of local galaxies and quasars on the sky. If they are really connected physically they should cluster together.
Not every galaxy had the clear connection. That's the point. But his atlas is full of ones that do, of which even ONE should completely confound prevailing theory about redshifts.

[Anonymous No.15889776]

>>15889769
>Also there have been numerous positive tests of the expanding universe.
Such as?

[Anonymous No.15889779]

>>15889768
Is this the reason so many scientists are sexually immoral? >>15886721

[Anonymous No.15889780]

>>15889194
dont ask too many questions goy

[Anonymous No.15889796]

>>15889758
>>15889734
>>15889588
>>15889567
>>15889588
>>15889771
http://jae.ece.ntua.gr/archive/1999/vol2no2_June1999.zip

Fun fact: Even if you believe Herouni he never measured no CMB. He measured a system noise of 2.8 +- 0.3 K. This includes self noise and the CMB. He did not independently measure either. It is consistent with there being a CMB at 2.7 K.

>Have there been hundreds of satellites sent to L2 to look for the CMB? Because I only know of WMAP and Planck.
And how many data points do you have? One. One which doesn't rule out a CMB.

>Not every galaxy had the clear connection.
Lame excuses. If it cannot be found statistically then what you found by eye is not real.
>But his atlas is full of ones that do
Baseless assumption.

[Anonymous No.15889798]

>>15889776
CMB, cosmic time dilation, Tolman test, galaxy evolution, light element abundances, baryon acoustic oscillations...

[Anonymous No.15889801]

>>15889779
that one group of them is only scratching the surface, what about all the scientists that fuck dogs?
>can't afford whores
>fuck dogs instead

[Anonymous No.15889802]

>>15889194
i like to believe it is all tied heavily to gravity: until we will get gud enough to leave at least our solar system and enter the space of "nothing" where there are no longer any meaningful gravitational forces holding "space" together, we might finally understand gravity and or space better simply by redoing all basic physical experiments there and observing how they differ from the ones done on earth.

For example the lack of strong gravity makes astronauts taller: their spine uncompresses in the orbit.

What will happen to space ship when it leaves the solar system? Will the atoms in its hull remain firly bond in its material, or will they strech too along the space? When we stop the ship and simply wait for a week, will the distance between ship and our home solar system increase "on its own"? Until we do some practical hands on experiments, we can only guess.

But really think about it: if there is no gravitational pull between two galaxies, what force would hold them together? Why would the galaxies stay firmly in 1 place? When you put two balls on a pond, they also dont stay in 1 place. The water streams or wind slowly but surely makes the balls float "randomly" across all the surface.

Also the galaxies can have their own inertial speeds from the time when universe was hot, new and very violent. Like our own earth is spinning like crazy. Why? Because of how the planet was made and since then it is spinning (and slowly slowing down as the spin keeps losing its energy). And as gravity pulls us all together with it, we dont even feel the spinning. The same goes with the massive gravity pull from our sun, keeping all 9 planets together. Our own sun could be dragging our solar system through the space and we wouldnt even notice, until we actually physically left the solar system and noticed the distance between ship and our sun is increasing on its own while other galaxies are moving in different directions.

[Anonymous No.15889803]

>>15889798
schizophasia

[Anonymous No.15889810]

>>15889802

[Anonymous No.15889869]

>>15889769
>Except even after 100 years of searching there is no known process by which tired light can happen.
there have been tons of proposals that could possibly work
we know tired light is what happens, so figuring out the mechanism is more of an afterthought anyway
>>15889798
>CMB
doesn't match what would have been expected at all, big bang has literally been adjusted ad hoc a gazillion times just to try to make it fit
>cosmic time dilation
no such thing
>Tolman test
conclusively proves tired light is correct, see Lerner's excellent papers on the matter
>galaxy evolution
except fully mature galaxies have been found at redshifts that would have been impossible if big bang were true
>light element abundances
literally one of the most glaring unsolved problems of big bang, lmao
>baryon acoustic oscillations
biggest reach ever to try to make it out as if that's explained by big bang

[Anonymous No.15889880]

>>15889802
>if no grav then how?
Videogames exist.

[Anonymous No.15889884]

>>15889869
>there have been tons of proposals that could possibly work
Cite one.

>doesn't match what would have been expected at all,
Bullshit.
>no such thing
Ignorance is not an argument.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.04053
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...682..724B/abstract

>conclusively proves tired light is correct, see Lerner's excellent papers on the matter
You obviously didn't read his paper then. He isn't testing evolving cosmologies like LCDM. He says so explicitly.
>biggest reach ever to try to make it out as if that's explained by big bang
They were predicted decades before they were observed. By the big bang model.

[Anonymous No.15889898]

>>15889884
>Cite one.
new tired light, for example
that's just one of countless different ways it could work
again, it's more of an afterthought to find the exact mechanism, since we already know
>Bullshit.
fact
>Ignorance is not an argument.
I know much more about this than you
when I say there's no such thing, it's because there's no such thing, not because I'm unaware of the pathetic attempts at trying to make it out as if there is
all attempts at trying to show cosmic time dilation in e.g. quasars and supernovae make the inherent assumption of expansion, which is false
garbage in, garbage out
>You obviously didn't read his paper then. He isn't testing evolving cosmologies like LCDM. He says so explicitly.
not only have I read his papers, but I've read tons of others saying the exact same thing
and yes, it totally disproves LCDM, even if what he's doing is just showing conclusively that tired light is correct
you can screech all you want about that, but your original claim was that tired light was somehow disproved by the Tolman test, whereas observation matches exactly what you'd expect from the test under the assumption of tired light
>They were predicted decades before they were observed. By the big bang model.
like the CMB, right?
just needed a gazillion ad hoc adjustments to patch the old quilt together

[Anonymous No.15889953]

>>15889898
>new tired light, for example
Cite it.
>all attempts at trying to show cosmic time dilation in e.g. quasars and supernovae make the inherent assumption of expansion
And how is that so? I've given you the papers. Tell me exactly what stage of the anaysis they do this. Explain your argument instead of making baseless claims.
> it totally disproves LCDM, even if what he's doing is just showing conclusively that tired light is correct
Lerner's paper assmmes no galaxy evolution. He is not testing LCDM.
>like the CMB, right?
Just like the CMB they were predicted in advance. And just like the CMB there is no alternative model which can even explain the accostic oscilations.

[Anonymous No.15890568]

when do we get the HUD update? so sick of not being able to see any info.

[Anonymous No.15890664]

>>15889194
It doesn't mean anything lol shit's fake af.

[Anonymous No.15890692]

>>15889194
So by all means ask the sci board, don’t ask cosmologists or read the basic wiki page

[Anonymous No.15890697]

>>15890692
It's better to ask real scientists than cosmologists.

[Anonymous No.15891436]

>>15889626
Something something hyperspace projections from a higher dimension.
Here is a yt video about quaternions that does a fairly good job of explaining the projections into lower spacial dimensions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EgbgTm0Bg
t 6.33
t 12.36
t 20.34
t 23.20 - this bit looks a lot like a magnetic field around a wire that has moving charges, just a coincidence?

In the 1D example, notice how the projected points get more spaced as they approach infinity.
If the higher dimensional 2D circle was expanding, the projected points would also expand and they would expand faster the further away from the center they are.

Hmmmm.

[Anonymous No.15891491]

>>15889796
Herouni should've found a signal of around 6K if you count all the signals he found. But he only found the self-noise of his antenna. NO CMB was found, no signal coming from the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.15891595]

>>15891491
>Herouni should've found a signal of around 6K if you count all the signals he found.
Baseless assumption. He never measured the self noise independently, unlike Penzias and Wilson. This number is pulled straight out of your ass.
>But he only found the self-noise of his antenna.
Nope.

[Anonymous No.15891623]

>>15891595
okay lol

[Anonymous No.15891638]

>>15889567
>electromagnetic radiation
I've never witnessed these two words being used in conjunction, is the electromagnetic field that exists literally just radiation?