Dear jacob navia:
"jacob navia" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) a écrit :
>> Dear jacob navia:
>>>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
> 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.
"Quantum foam" *is* nothing. It does not produce space, it has
no detectable effect on space, and is not in any way limited by
>>>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.
Indirectly. Distance between objects expands. The "laws of
physics" provides three orthogonal spatial axes. So
consequently, volume of the "contained Universe" is increasing.
But that does not increase the volume we perceive light from, but
in fact decreases it. Expansion "speed" greater than c means we
can no longer receive light from such objects, and are left with
whatever is still en route to us.
> A balloon expands when its volume increases.
A balloon expands because more gas has been added to its
contained volume. Distance increases are the result of the
balloon's expansion. That is where the analogy will lead you
> 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
I said no such thing. I said space isn't imbedded in anything.
It is strictly a product of the mass/energy in the Universe.
Expansion implies that additional distance is required by the
"laws of physics". Period.
>>>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 "expansion".
> I am talking about motion within an "expanding
> 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.
That depends. How could you know that object x had such speed,
if you didn't measure it to be so? If you measured it to be so,
then its speed is *inclusive* of expansion velocity... at point
> 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.
You struggle for traction...
> 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
No. You find in such a circumstance that such a photon travels
always locally at c. The fact that its path can never bring it
to us, is similar to a black hole.
> There would be no light, no movement, and the temperature of
> universe would be below absolute zero.
> Absolute zero corresponds to the absolute lack
> of movement. When all objects are flying from
> each other, we have negative speeds,
This "negative speeds" is meaningless. Note that if one were to
release a gas into space, it would expand, *and cool*, in just
> 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"
Right. The laws of physics provide one. For example the
duration of Type Ia supernovae is a suitable (if coarse)
>> 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.
No. Inflation is attempted to be *limited* by the central bank.
Value derives from trust, so inflation derives from a change in
> 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?
I had hoped you knew more about economics than you clearly do.
Suffice it to say that space isn't expanding INTO anything. So
making more space, only violates your delicate sensibilities.
Space is only the separation between two bodies. The second law
of thermodynamics tends to drive all bodies as far apart as
possible (dispersion). It is one method of reducing available
>>>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:
All we have is NATURE. As a defense mechanism, we have opted for
a "historical tracking mechanism" that we call "common sense".
Logic comes from applying said common sense, to the best of our
abilities, in an attempt to define Nature. If you refuse to
accept what Nature provides you, then your LOGIC, isn't logical.
The data you whine about is Nature speaking. What you object to
is likely the "Standard Model", in which the message is wrapped.
> "... in the beginning was the bang, and the bang created
> the heavens and the earth."
> Sorry, that sounds too similar to another story I heard
> when I was a child.
And you realize that the name alone is retained, and that Big
Bang Theory actually expects there to BE no Big Bang, right?
>> Where do *you* personally find wide-eyed wonder,
> 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 from here.
The CMBR is a curtain that we cannot (yet) see beyond. As long
as you are looking...
David A. Smith