Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:31:56 -0500
On 15 Nov 2005 08:14:01 -0800, "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Joe, I have never taken the phrase, "the universe is expanding" to mean
>anything more than that it's getting bigger.
Ok, but that does not precisely describe what _MAY_ be happening,
the original term was "recession of the galaxies. But it is all based on
emperical observations, there was no model before the spectroscopic
data became avaiilable in the late 1920s (unless DeSitter defined a model),
although Einstein definitely had ideas that suggested the possibility.
> That has always explained
>the observations of galaxies moving away from each other. The balloon
>analogy was born to explain that process.
Yes, to explain it to lay people mostly, astronomers and cosmologists
knew what "recession of galaxies" meant.
>However, almost everyone argued that we live inside the universe and
>not on its surface. The rising raisin bread analogy was born to better
>explain the expansion process. It was better than the balloon business
>because it has an "inside" to it while the balloon only has a "surface"
>to it.
Actually neither is very good, bread would be like a medium,
and that is not possible.
>But then it was noted that while galaxies are all moving away from each
>other, their coordinates remain the same. I.e., the distance between
>them grows but they remain in the same spacial relationship as before.
That is a guess-timate, the size and distances are so large
compared to the time it has been observed, and the only data
available is probably spectroscopic with translation mapping and
interpolation.
>Now that cannot be explained by balloons or raising breads. It seems
>the only explanation possible is that the galaxies are not moving apart
>from each other due to their own motions, but due to the expansion of
>space!
Not hardly, that would make space a medium capable of
carrying galaxies, I don't think anybody would realy think that.
They could be moving apart to nothing but thier own
motion with a non-Euclidean component in the motion.
>So, to talk about the expansion of matter in regard to the expansion of
>the universe is passe, to say the least.
Not really, there is much more that needs to be explained and
fitted to a pattern besides spectroscopic data.
> It is not matter that is
>expanding, but the distance between it.
That is not a certainty. The inportant thing is to consider
something that could have caused all the matter in the universe
to be thrown apart, and expanding matter is as good as any
cause of that.
Chances are all the different modern concepts of a
cosmological constant will be wrong, the spherical geometry
of expansion of any kind may not follow Newton or Euclid.
>We are not getting bigger at all.
At least one person feels we may be.
>It is only space that is growing inbetween all discrete matter!
>At least, that is the latest guess from the physics community.
I don't think it is the whole community, guesses are
made by individuals, the rest either concur, object (maybe
silently), or follow like sheep.
>For something to do something in our universe requires energy of some
>sort, but if space is empty, and unless we overthrow the Principle of
>the conservation of energy and E=mc^2, it is not possible for space to
>expand.
I thought you said it is expanding?
>Like so many other things in our universe that seem to be
>doing one thing and later we find out they are doing something
>different than what we first guessed, there must be a better
>explanation than the counter-intuitive idea that space itself is
>expanding.
I agree, in fact it probably is a certainty.
>If space was expanding, why only between galaxies and not within them?
>The attraction between visible matter is the only reason we can point
>to as a possible explanation for that observation. That means either
>that the space within galaxies is not expanding or that the bodies
>within maintain the same coodinates that make their group a galaxy
>while the space around them expands, and they do that due to
>gravitational attraction. The latter guess is more likely correct so
>long as we cannot think of a way to explain the former.
There are other guesses to be made.
>But now we observe that some bodies within galaxies have speeds beyond
>those they should have and some guess that could possibly occur due to
>the existence of Dark Matter interactions with visible matter. If that
>is so, it could explain how seemingly empty space can expand: It
>isn't space that's expanding, but the invisible matter in space that is
>causing the galaxies to move apart.
Not hardly, there is no action at a distance without a mechanism.
>It's my guess that it is Dark Matter that is expanding due to the
>impetus of the BB, and that as the impetus wears off some of it becomes
>stationary in space.
Dark Matter is nothing but matter that is too cool to glow,
and that is a lot different than Dark Energy.
All this points out a clear fact, that no good model exists
that can bring all the bizarre observations together.
>As visible matter collides with DM, interactions
>occur that could cause the faster-than-expected motions of galactic
>matter. If such interactions do occur, others may also occur, such as
>the creation of matter in the birthing of stars.
Actually, a static universe with constant size objects in it
should be much more passive than what is observed.
The many different explanations of all the different
observations has become so speculative and silly they
are now saying that a certain extremely bright and massive
object is a "Black Hole" __FEEDING__ on the matter
around it.
Now black holes have become the brightest objects
in the sky. I prefer to wait for a breakthrough.
Joe Fischer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: TomGee
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- References:
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- From: Ben Rudiak-Gould
- Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Prev by Date: Re: The physical motions of photons in free space!
- Next by Date: Re: A little challenge for relativists.
- Previous by thread: Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Next by thread: Re: Expansion and balloon analogy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
