/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9994817]

If red shift is caused by the expanding space between galaxies, is interstellar space also expanding?

[Anonymous No.9994948]

Yes, all of it.
Even the space between your molecules.

[Anonymous No.9994954]

>>9994817
All space is expanding, but a galaxy is a gravitationally bound system. This prevents it from bloating and keeps its components together.

[Anonymous No.9994965]

>>9994948
>>9994954
What force is causing this expansion?

[Anonymous No.9994968]

>>9994817
There is no expansion, it's just a horseshit assumption in a pathetic attempt to support the retarded big bang theory.

[Anonymous No.9994974]

>>9994948
Literally wrong

[Anonymous No.9994993]

>>9994968
Find a viable explanation for why all galaxies are redshifted, and don't come back before you have done so.

>>9994965
No force is needed to sustain the expansion. However we expected the expansion to decelerate since gravity attracts on all matter in the universe. It turns out that the expansion is accelerating. We really have no clue why that is, as far as we know it seems that the energy density in space is constant, which is really weird: if you spread something out, it shouldn't remain constant. This mysterious energy is called "dark energy".

[Anonymous No.9995091]

>>9994993
Fat Tony says that if you need black holes, dark matter and dark energy to make your theories work your theories are wrong.

[Anonymous No.9995097]

>>9995091
Fat Tony just wants all the dark matter for himself so he can eat it all. That's why he's requiring you to not need it, so he can eat it all.

[Anonymous No.9995120]

>>9994993
gravitational red shifting from distant galaxies, or the great attractor

[Anonymous No.9995122]

>>9994993
>Find a viable explanation for why all galaxies are redshifted, and don't come back before you have done so.

There could be many "explanations", but "galactic redshift" is based on retarded assumption after retarded assumption, even regarding what "galaxies" are actually supposed to be, and it turns out they're also based on retarded assumptions. People are observing light using theoretical instruments and creating theoretical explanations for these theoretically measured observations. Not good enough.

I don't believe "light" has a speed/travels as some independent "thing" in the first place, but for the sake of argument, light doesn't need to "travel" further away to get redder and redder, simply the density of the medium it is "travelling through" can change the wavelength size.

Or perhaps the "galaxies" are vibrating at lower and lower frequencies? Or perhaps the instruments being used to measure "redshift" are bullshit? Or are creating this apparent "redshift"? You can't even prove the Hubble telescope is even in "space", just more assumptions.

[Anonymous No.9995124]

>>9994817
Or, you know, the speed of light is not a constant.
It's just that we haven't been measuring it for long enough to notice any change.

[Anonymous No.9995131]

>>9995091
It's my first time on /sci/ and i'm not a scientist, i know we can't see black holes for obvious reasons but wasn't the detection of gravitational waves by two merging supposed black holes the final confirmation that they do actually exist?
Dark matter and dark energy do actually seem a little wonky, at least from my laymans point of view, but black holes seem to be definately proven to exist.

[Anonymous No.9995152]

>>9995131
>detection of gravitational waves
This hasn't actually been confirmed, the data is disputed.

This is forgetting the fact that according to Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity waves would be impossible to detect using lasers. But I won't get into that here.

[Anonymous No.9995181]

>>9994817
No, only spacetime with a(n approximately) flat metric is expanding, the interstellar space within galaxies still has too high of an energy density to expand.

>>9995122
>You can't even prove the Hubble telescope is even in "space", just more assumptions.
Kek

[Anonymous No.9995186]

>>9995181
>Kek
It's funny because it's true.

[Anonymous No.9995189]

>>9995152
>This is forgetting the fact that according to Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity waves would be impossible to detect using lasers. But I won't get into that here.
"I'm not going to get into details here because I'm talking out of my ass".

[Anonymous No.9995202]

>>9995091
We know that our theories are incomplete, but they also make excellent predictions in other sectors (GR keeps making correct predictions 100 years after the fact) so it's the best we've got right now.

>>9995131
Black holes have been proven to exist for a long time. At the center of our galaxy, we can see objects orbiting something. By the way they move, we can calculate that this object is extremely massive (many million stars heavy). We also cannot see it. Hence, black hole. However you are right that the recent discovery of GW will tell us a lot about black holes and other dense objects, as well as GR.

>>9995152
No it isn't. There is only one event which is not quite 5 sigma, so we can't claim discovery for it. The other events are definite proof of existence of gravitational waves. Do you have a source for what you're saying? Also that last sentence you said is complete bollocks

>>9995120
Neither of these would give isotropic redshifting as we see today. We observe redshifting directly correlated with distance from our galaxy.

>>9995122
Do you know how you wouldn't know how a car engine works unless you studied it? Yeah. You need to take a course in physics.

Can't believe there's so much pseudoscience on /sci/ baka... can we make a /flatearth/ containment board?

[Anonymous No.9995210]

>>9995189
Fill in the blank: Gravity waves bend space and ____

[Anonymous No.9995220]

>>9995210
Propagate

[Anonymous No.9995227]

>>9995202
>Do you have a source for what you're saying?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191

>distance from our galaxy
This distance yet again being assumed.

[Anonymous No.9995230]

>>9995220
Try again.

[Anonymous No.9995278]

>>9995227
>>Do you have a source for what you're saying?
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191
The same authors don't dispute it so much in a following paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02350
Also, in https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00347 other authors say that "There is also no evidence of anomalous causal correlation between noise signals at the Hanford and Livingston sites."

[Anonymous No.9995284]

>>9995230
They don't propagate?

[Third Reich No.9995285]

>>9994974
Obviously. The space between molecules doesn't expanding. But the heat death of the universe is coming in hot

[Third Reich No.9995289]

>>9994965
The big bang, or ur mom. Science is not sure yet, since you can't research things that large

[Anonymous No.9995295]

>>9995210
>Fill in the blank: Gravity waves bend space and ____
>>9995230
>Try again.
Oh, you are the idiot that doesn't understand how spacetime works....

[Anonymous No.9995305]

>>9995122
Go take your meds.

[Anonymous No.9995306]

>>9995284
It's four letters.

[Anonymous No.9995313]

>>9995295
>thinks spacetime "works"

[Anonymous No.9995367]

>>9994948
nah. ok, it's trying to expand, but EM forces easily overcome it.

the expansion is only 2.2 cm/s per light year

in your 100y life the stretching of your 2m frame would be about the width of a single atom

[Anonymous No.9995374]

>>9995152
>according to Einstein's theory of relativity, gravity waves would be impossible to detect using lasers
What part of Einstein's general theory of relativity led you to that conclusion? A theory is pretty shitty if the predictions it makes have no way of being tested or verified. The LIGO and Virgo interferometers make sense as a means to detect gravitational waves passing through Earth. A passing GW would stretch spacetime in one direction and shorten it in another, throwing the beams out of phase.
>But I won't get into that here
No, please do. I'm generally curious as to the reasoning behind your claim.

[Anonymous No.9995418]

>>9995305
You likely believe the moon is an old chunk of the earth that chipped off after an impact millions of years ago and formed into a shape that perfectly eclipses the sun periodically through sheer chance. You also believe you're the child of stardust.

And i'm the one that needs meds...

[Anonymous No.9995459]

>>9995374
It's because it's not only space that stretches, it is time as well, therefore they remain a constant and are therefore not detectable using the laser that occupies the same space and time that is being stretched by the gravity waves.

Basically LIGO is trying to measure something separate to itself, when, if GR was real, spacetime is not separate to anything and therefore cannot be measured scientifically.

[Anonymous No.9995499]

>>9994965
The so called "dark energy." Its probably just the universe interacting with multiverse thats causing it. We'll probably find that out few hundred years from now.

[Anonymous No.9995902]

>>9994968
t.pathetic retard

[Anonymous No.9995916]

>>9995418
what you're describing is a hypothesis and not fact-based so I don't think anyone reasonable believes this without evidence. also the event is hypothesized to have happened billions of years ago not millions (inb4 "billions of years, wow you're even more crazy than me") back when the earth was initially forming.

I agree that we're not children of stardust as you put it, we're children of the earth. the stars didn't create the first life directly from what we know today (maybe they did but it's obviously not us).

[Anonymous No.9996006]

>>9995124

The speed of light C is constant you just don't know anything about bosons which are the force carrying particles. Your brain only thinks in fermions. Bosons have no mass. You also need to understand quantum field theory and the wave function. These particles travel through the electromagnetic field. L Bosons "light particles" which are electromagnetic phenomena travel at the same speed as gravitational waves and magnetic waves. It's set in stone C is the speed of Bosons you fucking tard.

[Anonymous No.9996027]

>>9996006
>Bosons have no mass
wew lad
higgs
Z
W+
W-

[Anonymous No.9996356]

>>9995124
This is actually possible if mu_0 and epsilon_0 are not actually constant in time. Wouldn't be the first time a constant isn't actually constant...

[Kessler syndrome No.9996391]

[Anonymous No.9996428]

>>9995122
You can't prove that you're alive, so fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9996430]

>>9995418
So do you believe your meds have no effect at all or that they are a tool that they use to keep you from revealing the truth?

[Anonymous No.9996434]

>First two answers wrong.

/sci/, I am disappointed.

>>9994817

>If red shift is caused by the expanding space between galaxies, is interstellar space also expanding?

No. The expansion is merely coasting ever since inflation ended (ignoring dark energy), so space between gravitationally bound systems is not expanding at all.

Dark energy does indeed affect everything, but on sub-galactic scales it is so weak that it can be neglected for all purposes.

[Anonymous No.9997469]

>>9995902
>t. butthurt Big Banger

[Anonymous No.9997472]

>>9995091
Go away Nassim

[Anonymous No.9997483]

>>9995459
>It's because it's not only space that stretches, it is time as well, therefore they remain a constant
"I have not make the computation, I don't even know how to make the computation, but that's not going to prevent me to talk out of my ass".

[Anonymous No.9997490]

>>9995916
>what you're describing is a hypothesis and not fact-based so I don't think anyone reasonable believes this without evidence.
Yes but if you believe the big bang theory, then the origin of the moon can only come from the after effects of that "explosion". The size and movement of the moon is the product of sheer chance, and the fact we see it eclipse the sun like it does is again, a product of sheer chance, we just so happen to be born at the "right time" to see it.

>I agree that we're not children of stardust as you put it, we're children of the earth. the stars didn't create the first life directly from what we know today (maybe they did but it's obviously not us).

So you disagree with: http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52

[Anonymous No.9997493]

>>9996428
>t. butthurt astrophysicist

[Anonymous No.9997502]

>>9997483
Have you got a legitimate argument or are you just going to ignore the rest of my post?

[Anonymous No.9997507]

>>9997502
I don't see any actual computation in your post to prove your assertion.

[Anonymous No.9997514]

>>9997507
Do "gravity waves" bend space and time?

[Anonymous No.9997533]

>>9997514
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0309058v2.pdf
"Weak gravitational waves belong to the class of weak gravitational fields: [math] ds^2=-c^2 dt^2-(\delta_{ij} + h_{ij}) dx_i dx_j [/math]"
http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave_details.html

[Anonymous No.9997597]

>>9994993
Dark energy and dark matter could be the foundations of our universe, a oarent universe, black holes are new 3 dimensional universes. If that's true at some point the dark matter and energy should decrease as the parent universe approaches heat death. In that case I'd imagine travel between "bubbles" could be possible if a child black hole was big enough that it could contain a system similar to ours. I'd imagine a big portion of our universe would be pretty messed up if that where to happen. So it's basically bubbles everywhere in every direction, each bubble can interact with its parent and its childs. And all of this is like a big shockwave seen from outside it. And this just describes our universe and what's around it, things might change if you go bigger. And It's still just 3 dimensions+time. I wish I didn't feel the urge to post my trips on /sci/, but it's stronger than me it's you guys that trigger them. Is this a decent speculation?

[Anonymous No.9997611]

>>9997533
Nice dodge. Not once do they mention or deal with the fact that both space AND time are being bent.

LIGO's (Lie Go) measuring device will be bent right along with the thing it is trying to detect. It's like someone trying to measure the speed of a car using a radar speed gun while going at the same speed the car, it's impossible, and no one can refute it.

A lot of theoretical science has been taken over by sci-fi scam artists no different in ilk to the scam artists that created Scientology. Sci-fi scam science is so effective because its jargon and formulas parade as complicated, advanced truth (even though much of its inspiration originated from science fiction novels), therefore free from criticism from the pleb public who could never understand it, and free from real criticism from the "scientists" who make their living from it, because a paradigm shift in science means a lot of people will lose their jobs, egos and potentially credibility.

[Anonymous No.9997731]

>>9997611
Your post can be summed up as "I didn't read it, but I'm going to bullshit about anyway".

>Nice dodge. Not once do they mention or deal with the fact that both space AND time are being bent.
Because only the traceless strain is relevant. I know that you will not read it, but a complete explanation of the weak-field limit can be found in http://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr6.pdf, pare 15 is the relevant part for the LIGO measurement.

>>9997611
>It's like someone trying to measure the speed of a car using a radar speed gun while going at the same speed the car, it's impossible, and no one can refute it.
You are an idiot and that is not an analogy of the experiment at all.

[Anonymous No.9997739]

>>9994968
let's hear your more accurate model :)

[Anonymous No.9998106]

>>9997611
>LIGO (Lie Go)
The way you type it honestly reminds me of my mom who is schizophrenic.
You probably think that the name LIGO was deliberately chosen to represent Lie Go as its hidden meaning and only you and your crazy friends know about it unlike us normie sheeple.
At least my mom getting treated unlike you LMAO...

[Anonymous No.9999145]

>>9997597
>>9997611
>>>/x/
>>9998106
kek

[Anonymous No.9999160]

>>9995122
Hahaha haha