N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) a écrit :
Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
George Dishman a écrit :
Releativity says an object cannot travel through
space faster than the speed of light in vacuo,
but that doesn't stop the sapce between objects
expanding at a rate such that the distance between
them increases faster than that speed.
SPACE itself expands ?????
Yes, as defined by international decree.
Sorry but INTO WHAT would space "expand" ????
NOT "into what", but "between what". Without matter/energy,
there is no space. Space is simply a spreadsheet on which the
laws of physics play out, and any value can be obtained.
Space is not empty. It is full of virtual particles, the "quantum foam".
Those particles would have to multiply out of nothing to "create space"
out of nothing.
I would bet that it would expand into... more
space isn't it? This is just nonsense.
Your question is nonsense, yes.
"Expansion" if there is any meaning to words, means increase of volume.
A balloon expands when its volume increases.
An expansion IMPLIES an empty space where this increased volume growths.
This is not the case, you say, it is not expansion but the creation of
space out of nothing.
But imagine for a moment that space is "expanding"
faster than light, as proposed by this wonderful
"inflation" theory. Since no object can go faster than
light, NOTHING MOVES and all objects in the
universe have negative speed:
point a point b
object x -->
Object "X" starts moving at some speed smaller
than "c" to point b, say, at 50 Km/sec. In one
second object x has traveled 50 Km, but the distance between a
and b has increased by more
than 300 000 Km since space is "expanding".
Right. And you perceive a problem, where? Note that we aren't
talking about motion, when we talk about either "inflation" or
I am talking about motion within an "expanding space".
What is motion?
It is meters per second isn't it?
Note that I speak of NON expanding meters per second.
So, if object x at point A has a 50 Km/sec speed in the direction of
object B, we can say that in 1 second, the distance between x and b has
decreased by 50 Km.
In an "expanding space" framework that doesn't hold. All speeds are
reduced by the speed of the "expanding space". If space would be
expanding at 50 Km/sec, object x would seem to stand still since its
speed matches exactly the expansion of space. Of course when I say that
space is expanding at 50 Km/sec, the "Km" there means NON EXPANDING Km.
In an expanding space framework where space is expanding faster than
light, there could be no movement since all objects are flying AWAY from
each other at greater than light speeds. A photon, traveling at 300 000
Km/sec would be frozen "in flight" not moving at all since for each
milimeter it moves, space has expanded much more. There would be no
light, no movement, and the temperature of the universe would be below
Absolute zero corresponds to the absolute lack of movement. When all
objects are flying from each other, we have negative speeds, since an
object at rest is moving ANYWAY, since space is being created everywhere.
Note that we need a non expanding yardstick to measure the "expansion"
Think instead of what inflation in an economy entails. When
there is inflation, what are the goods and services expanding
into? See? This question makes as much sense as your does.
Inflation in economy is produced by the central bank.
The central bank prints ever more bills, therefore the value of those
bills decreases since there is no production of goods and services that
matches the increased bill mass in circulation.
The produced goods and services remain practically constant, it is only
the monetary mass that increases.
And what has that to do that with the universe?
All this is quite comic. Space is "expanding". Yeah.
And I am getting younger every day.
A truly hackneyed response.
Don't you get tired of living in a reality that you find entirely
comfortable? Don't you feel the least bit of regret at leaving
the host of facts that don't agree with your personal beliefs out
in the cold?
The only thing we have is logic. Without it, we are completely LOST. I
am not surrending LOGIC even if many big bang supporters cry in choir:
"... in the beginning was the bang, and the bang created the heavens and
Sorry, that sounds too similar to another story I heard when I was a child.
Where do *you* personally find wide-eyed wonder, jacob?
I know that alternative explanations exist to that "bang". Anyway, as
our scopes reach further and further truth is starting to come out:
there is no observational trace of a bang at 13.7 billion light years