Is the Universe Really Expanding?

[bapowell]

but it is absolutely impossible to detect outside the universe, it's equally absolutely impossible to detect the inflation.
All the best.

Obtaining observational evidence for inflation is not the same thing as literally "detecting" it, just as observing the Grand Canyon and hypothesizing its formation from water erosion does not amount to "detecting" the prehistoric Colorado River while it was in the act of carving out the rock. Science does not proceed via a requirement of absolute detection in the positivist sense. You seem to persist in this claim and it's simply not how science works.

 

[No-where-man]

It's not so much that our models "say so" as it is a result of the differential geometry of curves and surfaces. Curvature, including time-dependent expansion, can be consistently defined for manifolds without the need to embed them in higher-dimensional space. If we take general relativity to be our theory of large-scale gravity, then this amounts to the interpretation that the universe as a 3+1 dimensional manifold need not exist in a higher dimensional space. Of course, there could be such a higher-dimensional space, but it is not required by consistency of the theory. Nobody is forced into this position because our models just happen to be this way.

The irony is I'm the one who actually does say there are only 3 dimensions (plus time). Not long ago I came into a "fight" where I was actually defending big bang hypothesis and and its 3+1 dimension description (yes, I know none would believe me this here on these forums). It's simply not needed to exist higher dimension than 3d+time, and actually 3d dimensional manifold is capable being absolutely infinite without going into any higher dimensions.

However, when I the BB hypothesis I'm not talking about higher dimensions or anything like it I'm simply saying that there is no way that there was nothing before and beyond the big bang.
If by definition and models and whatever else, the BB started the universe, it may started this 3d space (which is not empty at all), but it did not start space in which it occurred.
You can call this empty space/black void, but according to physics, if I understand correctly space is merely the distance between the objects, I'm fine with this.

But also it would not be possible without space where this objects are moving away from each other, expanding universe ma perhaps create its own space while it expands, however, that outside of the universe space is already omnipresent, and this is why the universe and everything inside the expanding universe and every object or light, including this "space-time" in the universe expands-it cannot expand if there is nothing outside the universe.

Also, the other problem is that we can only observe visible part of the universe with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot observe entire universe (beyond the visible part of the universe), since there is no way we can detect it and observe it, so the question still remains how exactly large is entire universe, not just this observable part of the universe, and if the expansion of the universe itself is real.

It's similar like Earth, if Earth was expanding everything inside the horizon would expand, but it can expand because there is outside space in which Earth can expand into.

Plus energy of the BB that created entire universe and everything in it, is the one thing that is outside of the expanding universe (and it created Big Bang and entire universe afterwards).
All the best.

 

[No-where-man]

Obtaining observational evidence for inflation is not the same thing as literally "detecting" it, just as observing the Grand Canyon and hypothesizing its formation from water erosion does not amount to "detecting" the prehistoric Colorado River while it was in the act of carving out the rock. Science does not proceed via a requirement of absolute detection in the positivist sense. You seem to persist in this claim and it's simply not how science works.

That's all true, but again it's much easier to do the above mentioned than to prove the inflation, you would first have to scan entire universe and all of its parts and only than create some conclusions about it, but it would not be evidence, Colorado river at least leaves some evidences, but inflation left zero evidence.

I do know that:
The main (and original) reason for the proposal of inflationary theory was the horizon problem. That is, the fact the the universe is so incredibly homogeneous and isotropic despite the fact that some parts of the universe are apparently too far away to have exchanged energy. Inflation in the early universe is a powerful explanation for this intriguing observation. Also of note is the flatness problem, which inflation also helps address.

There are of course various other theories to explaining this problems, not in any way related to inflation, such as the varying speed of light (VSL) theory. These are however under active research and still not widely accepted.

The standard arguments are not yet conclusive. The horizon problem, or the homogeneity problem, can be explained by assuming that the initial condition is homogeneous, without assuming that causal contact in the early universe has smoothed out inhomogeneities. You may object that a homogeneous initial condition is "unnatural", but since we know so little about the big bang singularity, there's nothing conclusive that can be said. The monopole problem is only a problem if you think monopoles exist, which has no empirical evidence so far. The curvature problem, again, is a "naturalness" problem, but we lack a precise definition of naturalness given our inability to understand the big bang singularity.

The key phrase is 'detectable'. In order to be scientific about it, It must be detectable, observable.
Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all:
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html

How about the dark matter:
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cosmology-group-evidence-dark-filament.html
All the best.

 

[Drakkith]

However, when I the BB hypothesis I'm not talking about higher dimensions or anything like it I'm simply saying that there is no way that there was nothing before and beyond the big bang.
If by definition and models and whatever else, the BB started the universe, it may started this 3d space (which is not empty at all), but it did not start space in which it occurred.
You can call this empty space/black void, but according to physics, if I understand correctly space is merely the distance between the objects, I'm fine with this.

The Big Bang Theory does not say what started the universe, merely that it expanded from a very dense state.

But also it would not be possible without space where this objects are moving away from each other, expanding universe ma perhaps create its own space while it expands, however, that outside of the universe space is already omnipresent, and this is why the universe and everything inside the expanding universe and every object or light, including this "space-time" in the universe expands-it cannot expand if there is nothing outside the universe.

And you have evidence of this? You've perhaps seen other universes expanding into pre-existing space? Surely you cannot expect us to believe you simply because you say so.

Also, the other problem is that we can only observe visible part of the universe with our most powerful telescopes, we cannot observe entire universe (beyond the visible part of the universe), since there is no way we can detect it and observe it, so the question still remains how exactly large is entire universe, not just this observable part of the universe, and if the expansion of the universe itself is real.

If this is a "problem", what is it a problem for? We can easily look our observable universe and see that it is expanding.

It's similar like Earth, if Earth was expanding everything inside the horizon would expand, but it can expand because there is outside space in which Earth can expand into.

Earth is not the universe. You cannot simply extrapolate what happens here on Earth and try to apply it to the universe. It just doesn't work that way. It's similar to how things at the smallest scale of atoms and fundamental particles do not work the same way that the they appear to work here at our scale. That's why we rely on observation, experiments, and a generous helping of math.

 

[Drakkith]

The key phrase is 'detectable'. In order to be scientific about it, It must be detectable, observable.
Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all:
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html

From the article:

Unfortunately, Wetterich's theory can't be tested because of the relative nature of mass. Everything we are able to see has a mass that is relative in size to everything else. Thus if it's all growing, we wouldn't have anything to measure it against to see that it's happening.

This fails by your own admission.

How about the dark matter:
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-cosmology-group-evidence-dark-filament.html
All the best.

What about it?

 

[No-where-man]

The Big Bang Theory does not say what started the universe, merely that it expanded from a very dense state.

And that very hot and very dense state is called energy.

And you have evidence of this? You've perhaps seen other universes expanding into pre-existing space? Surely you cannot expect us to believe you simply because you say so.

I'm not saying anything, you're the one who is saying that universe came from nothing, not me.
There is no such thing as nothing, this is not my belief, it's a 100% proven fact, it is your belief that there was absolutely nothing outside the big bang-it would never be possible for the big bang to exist in the first place if there is no space outside of the big bang and the energy of the big bang would never be able to expand in the first place-if there is no outside space (I'm not talking about the inside space (and time) which is supposedly created in the big bang explosion).

If this is a "problem", what is it a problem for? We can easily look our observable universe and see that it is expanding.

No, you can't know if it's truly expanding, it does not mean anything, in order to actually see and observe the actual expansion of the universe, you would have to wait million years to see and observe if anything has moved away from us, since the speed of expansion is very small.

Earth is not the universe. You cannot simply extrapolate what happens here on Earth and try to apply it to the universe. It just doesn't work that way. It's similar to how things at the smallest scale of atoms and fundamental particles do not work the same way that the they appear to work here at our scale. That's why we rely on observation, experiments, and a generous helping of math.

Maybe they don't work the same, but it shows and proves that there is no such thing as you say "there is nothing outside the universe".
All the best.

 

[No-where-man]

From the article:

Unfortunately, Wetterich's theory can't be tested because of the relative nature of mass. Everything we are able to see has a mass that is relative in size to everything else. Thus if it's all growing, we wouldn't have anything to measure it against to see that it's happening.

This fails by your own admission.

It doesn't mean it's incorrect it only means it's impossible to measure because of the mentioned reasons.

What about it?

Nothing really, it's a good clue to determine what is exactly dark matter and what it is made of.
All the best.

 

[Drakkith]

And that very dense state is called energy.

No, it is not. It was a hot bath of radiation and matter.

I'm not saying anything, you're the one who is saying that universe came from nothing, not me.
There is no such thing as nothing, this is not my belief, it's a fact, it is your belief that there was absolutely nothing outside the big bang-it would never be possible for the big bang to exist in the first place if there is no space outside of the big bang.

You haven't been paying much attention then. It's been repeatedly said that our models and theories do not require that the universe be embedded within a higher dimension of space or that it exist within pre-existing space. At no point do any of them make a firm statement about whether or not it does.

No, you can't red **** doe not mean anything, in order to actually see and observe the actual expansion, you would have to wait million years to see if anything has moved away from us, since the speed of expansion is quite small.

I assume you mean redshift. And yes, it does mean something. Don't dismiss evidence just because you do not like it.

Maybe they don't work the same, but it shows and proves that there is no such thing as you say "there is nothing outside the universe".
All the best.

We don't say that, nor does it have anything to say about whether or not nothing exists outside the universe.

 

[Drakkith]

It doesn't mean it's incorrect it only means it's impossible to measure because of the mentioned reasons.

Nothing really, it's a good clue to determine what is exactly dark matter and what it is made of.
All the best.

Don't link stuff that is irrelevant to the thread, please.

 

[No-where-man]

No, it is not. It was a hot bath of radiation and matter.

And radiation and matter are forms of energy.

You haven't been paying much attention then. It's been repeatedly said that our models and theories do not require that the universe be embedded within a higher dimension of space or that it exist within pre-existing space. At no point do any of them make a firm statement about whether or not it does.

You obviously did not read mine answers above, I never said anything about the higher dimensions, I actually think they are totally unnecessary-i was not talking about higher-dimension space, I was talking about space outside the universe, but not with higher dimensions-my apology for this misunderstanding.

I assume you mean redshift. And yes, it does mean something. Don't dismiss evidence just because you do not like it.

I don't dismiss it, but read shift does not really prove anything. Also, what do we actually see are the objects moving away from us, not the space itself.

The reason why I'm saying this because the fact remains you see this universe now with red shift, and it will stay the same in static form for like a little less than million years-if the speed of expanding universe is truly correct 13 km/s in one million years, than we would have to wait that long to actually see the movement, and of course the red shift will change, but observing now with red shift and next several thousands of years nothing will change since the speed of expansion is too small.

We don't say that, nor does it have anything to say about whether or not nothing exists outside the universe.

If the universe is truly infinite and everything happens inside of it than there is no outside, if entire universe was truly created in the big bang, than it expands in some outside space (and this could also be empty space/black void).
And without any higher dimensions.
All the best.

 

[No-where-man]

Don't link stuff that is irrelevant to the thread, please.

Sorry, I wanted to show you that I'm not ignorant as you think I am, this is why I gave the link for dark matter article evidences, that's all.
All the best.

 

[Drakkith]

And radiation and matter are forms of energy.

Uh, no. That is NOT what you meant. Don't try to play word games.

You obviously did not read mine answers above, I never said anything about the higher dimensions, I actually think they are totally unnecessary-i was not talking about higher-dimension space, I was talking about space outside the universe, but not with higher dimensions-my apology for this misunderstanding.

I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm restating what has been explained already and making sure it is clear what we mean.

I don't dismiss it, but read shift does not really prove anything. Also, what do we actually see are the objects moving away from us, not the space itself.

Yes, you are dismissing it. This paragraph right here and the one I quoted earlier is proof of that. And as I've explained before, it doesn't matter whether its is space expanding and carrying objects away from other objects, or whether space is not something that can expand and it is simply the geometry of space causing objects to receded from each other. Both lead to the exact same observable effects. They are merely different interpretations of the same process. The math remains the same in both cases.

If the universe is truly infinite and everything happens inside of it than there is no outside, if entire universe was truly created in the big bang, than it expands in some outside space (and this could also be empty space/black void).
And without any higher dimensions.
All the best.

Please stop insisting this is correct. You simply do not know this. You can't even know this in principle.

 

[No-where-man]

Uh, no. That is NOT what you meant. Don't try to play word games.

Oh, yes, that's exactly what I meant about both radiation and matter, they are forms of energy, you're the one who plays with words, not me like saying there is nothing outside of the expanding universe-that is a true playing with words.

I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm restating what has been explained already and making sure it is clear what we mean.

Wrong because it was you who thought that i think about higher dimensions, not me.

Yes, you are dismissing it. This paragraph right here and the one I quoted earlier is proof of that. And as I've explained before, it doesn't matter whether its is space expanding and carrying objects away from other objects, or whether space is not something that can expand and it is simply the geometry of space causing objects to receded from each other. Both lead to the exact same observable effects. They are merely different interpretations of the same process. The math remains the same in both cases.

No, I'm not dismissing it, what makes you absolutely sure that these effects show this, it's double edged sword when we talk about something that we almost nothing know about.
This is why I said this:
"The reason why I'm saying this because the fact remains you see this universe now with red shift, and it will stay the same in static form for like a little less than million years-if the speed of expanding universe is truly correct 13 km/s in one million years, than we would have to wait that long to actually see the movement, and of course the red shift will change, but observing now with red shift and next several thousands of years nothing will change since the speed of expansion is too small."

You say that you observe expansion, but the fact is you can't observe any expansion because we're talking about 13 km/s in one million years, you would have to wait that long to actually see the real movement, the real expansion.

Please stop insisting this is correct. You simply do not know this. You can't even know this in principle.

We all know that there is no such thing as nothing outside the expanding universe (and this is a 100% proven fact), unless the universe itself is truly absolutely infinite/limitless/boundless, there is some (empty or not) space (like the dark/black void) that is outside the boundaries of expanding universe, and you know very well it is, but you simply refuse it because it is outside of detection/measurement reach and mathematical reach.
You cannot create something if you already don't have space that this something (like the big bang) exists in.

You cannot create something like the big bang in something that already does not have size and diameter (even though it's empty), these are basic rules of physics here (as well the basic rules whatever exists), 100% proven facts.
Zero size means it does not exist, so how can something that has size expand in something whose size is zero (which is another description for the sentence "there is nothing outside the universe")?
That is absolutely impossible, everybody knows this.

Zero size means it does not exist, because there is nothing that exists without size or whose size is zero, everything that exists has size inside or outside the universe.
Without size existence is not possible in any form, because everything that has existed, exists or will exist requires size.

If something has any kind of size-like the universe (no matter how big/large and no matter how small/tiny it is) it cannot exist in outside the universe since there is absolutely nothing outside the universe (there is not even space according to this wrong hypothesis).
It cannot expand or move anywhere if there is absolutely nothing spatial that enables it to move and expand in the first place.
All the best.

 

[Drakkith]

It's obvious your goal here is to do nothing but press your own personal opinion upon others. Requesting this thread be locked.

 

[Dale]

It's obvious your goal here is to do nothing but press your own personal opinion upon others. Requesting this thread be locked.

Done. This forum is not for personal speculation.