## Metric expansion of space

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Metric expansion of space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time.[1] It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. It means that the early universe did not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" the universe

What causes "space to expand"? It keeps expanding because "there was an explosion at the beginning of the Universe"? What does that explosion have to do with space expansion?

Was it a "mathematical explosion of space"? So - space is carrying matter, pushing it away? How, and by what forces? Was it a material explosion, then is matter stretching space? If I move do I "stretch space"?

What do they mean by "outside the universe"? How can matter go further away if "there is no space" there? Does matter create space as it goes? Does space push matter? Again, they use a mathematical space like it was the real thing.

If that far away galaxy goes further away, doesn't that mean it has a speed in relation to me? No, the "distance has lengthened" they say, it has no speed (else it breaks the speed limit...). If the distance has lengthened, why did it? If I placed a 1km ruler in between galaxies, would it be stretched? By what forces? And if it does not get stretched (as we can observe on Earth) it simply means "metric expansion of space" is there just to keep safe a certain speed limit and theory.

This is totally insane, and belongs in a Harry Potter sorcery lesson named: "How to expand space!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_s ... ontroversy

Mass does not increase with speed, right now I move at 100 km/h in relation to a car, and at 1 km/h in relation to another person, and 10000km/s in relation to some galaxy. Well, calculate may "dilated mass" then, using the dilation formula m'=m/sqrt(1-v2/c2). I should have 3 masses. Also I should have 3 sizes (length dilation...). Because mass does not increase, and does not "go to infinity" with speed, there is no speed limit in the Universe.

If someone on the other side of the galaxy has a speed in relation to me (or the reverse), that does not make me heavier, taller and it does not make my clock go faster or slower... I'm not even asking by what physical mechanism could that happen.
The fact that the speed of my clock should vary in relation to how fast or slow someone else moves in relation to me, no matter how far away he is, this is instantaneous action at a distance, in fact pure magic, because there are no causes for this, nobody is looking for them, it just happens... So much for the "speed limit".

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /tdil.html
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

What causes space expansion or contraction? Can we replicate it here on Earth, using equipment? Of course not, our equipment cannot act upon a mathematical concept. It's not a law of physics, because the way it acts upon the Universe is not defined. Is it a force? What kind of a force? Coming from where? It just "acts upon the Universe" with the physical power of math. Same thing with the "dilation" in relativity, it just "acts" upon things using forces nobody is looking for.

If we experience the "bent spacetime" as a force, why don't we also experience "space expansion" as a force?
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

Thank you, Roshi.

You are right.
Space doesn't have a property called distance, therefore it not possible for it to expand.
Measuring the distance between objects over time is measuring their velocities and trajectories, their motions, through space.

Mass and size only appears to increase or decrease when measured by an observer from a long distance, and doing a different relative speed, due to the time it takes light to get to the observer.

The propaganda is placed there deliberately to confuse us, even to the original meanings of words.
Paul

comingfrom

Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

### Re: Metric expansion of space

comingfrom wrote:Space doesn't have a property called distance, therefore it not possible for it to expand.

Well said.

Here's my take on this: metric expansion is, of course, a meaningless concept. So what good is it? It preserves the Big Bang Theory, in the face of intractable problems. When first conceived, the BBT seemed like an interesting idea, that redshift could be interpreted simply as relative motion, which meant that everything in the Universe was moving away from everything else. Then if you work backwards from that, you conclude that everything used to be very close to everything else, perhaps even at a near infinite density. The problem is that with modern telescopes, we can see long distances, where the redshift implies that the light was generated as much as 13 billion years ago -- just shortly after the BB. Ah but there's a problem. That light that has been traveling for 13 billion years -- that came from an object that is 13 billion light years away. But wait -- 13 billion years ago, the Universe had only just begun to expand. That means that 13 billion years ago, that object would have been only a couple hundred million light years away. But wait -- that light should have reached us in just a couple hundred million years.

Analogously, if you're standing next to some train tracks, and a train passes by, you'll hear a decrease in the frequency of its sound, due to its relative motion (i.e., the Doppler Effect). Perhaps a minute later, you're still measuring the sound, and analyzing the relative velocity. But if the way you calculate the speed of sound, and the relative velocity of the train from the Doppler Effect, you conclude that the sound that you're hearing a minute after the train passed was generated a minute ago, you'd better check your measurements. The reason is that a minute ago, the train was right next to you, and you heard that sound right away, because the train was very close. So something has to be wrong. If you have good reason to believe that the sound was, in fact, generated a minute ago, you have no choice but to conclude that it was generated by something as far away from you as sound can travel in a minute. At 340 m/s, times 60 seconds, that comes out to roughly 20 kilometers. And that wouldn't be the same train that was right next to you.

Unless, of course, a minute ago, kilometers were much smaller.

But then the train really wouldn't be "moving" at all, if it was 20 kilometers away then, and it's still 20 kilometers away.

So how do you get a Doppler Effect from an object that isn't actually moving?

Answer: you don't. If there is a frequency shift, it has to be coming from something else,

In the end, the Big Bang Theory, plus metric expansion, equals the Steady State Theory. If the light was generated 13 billion years ago, it came from an object that was 13 billion light years away, which was a long way from where we are now, and which just isn't possible in the BBT. So this is just the way that the Big Bangers admit to the Steady State Theory -- that the Universe isn't actually expanding -- without actually coming out and saying that they were wrong.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

### Re: Metric expansion of space

Charles said:
Well said.

Here's my take on this: metric expansion is, of course, a meaningless concept. So what good is it? It preserves the Big Bang Theory, in the face of intractable problems.

In agreement with all the above post I add:
As you look out 13 Billion light years at object A, Turn around 180 degrees and look out at object B which is also 13 Billion light years away IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
At the time the light was generated items A and B were 26 Billion light years apart.

The Big Bang theory is self contradictory.
The BB is a joke.
Jack
jacmac

Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

### Re: Metric expansion of space

How do you differentiate between "metric expansion" and things moving apart, in the old way things move apart from each other? Can we use an instrument to find out? If not, how can we know?
The classic movement has the equation: v=d/t ,using an universal t.
The metric expansion has no movement, no speed, things still get further apart, but there is no speed between them. The danger is that speed could be greater than the speed of light, can't have that. So there is no speed between 2 objects that go away from each other, there is only an "inflatable balloon"...

Because of the high rate of expansion, it is also possible for a distance between two objects to be greater than the value calculated by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe. These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[16] Due to the non-intuitive nature of the subject and what has been described by some as "careless" choices of wording, certain descriptions of the metric expansion of space and the misconceptions to which such descriptions can lead are an ongoing subject of discussion in the realm of pedagogy and communication of scientific concepts
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.

Right -- so they spew a bunch of double-talk, wherein the most essential premises of science (e.g., the concepts of time and distance) have been reduced to gibberish, such that nothing at all can be concluded with confidence. And then, when we complain, they respond with elitism, saying that if we think that it's gibberish, we're just too stupid to understand. I've heard this many times, and not just in scientific debates -- street hustlers use the same tactics.

To my knowledge, there is only one way to get past such quandaries -- go for the bottom line. What real world problems can only be solved with General Relativity? How can they confirm their conclusions in a theory-independent way? What does it matter anyway -- is BB cosmology just a certain manner of speaking that some people find pleasantly perturbing, while fools like us miss the point -- is it just not a requirement that it should make sense? But again, what is the utility? Rigorous laboratory methods, in which time and distance are clearly defined, have yielded lots of tangible value. Are we going to throw all of that away, because we'd prefer confusing cosmology?

I think that the only "utility" to GR, QM, and the BBT is that they are mind-boggling, and such can be useful in separating fools from their money.

Roshi wrote:How do you differentiate between "metric expansion" and things moving apart, in the old way things move apart from each other? Can we use an instrument to find out? If not, how can we know?

Without clear definitions of time and distance, you have no way of knowing anything at all. But as to the question, we have only photons as source data, and after traveling through 13 billion light years of stuff, they aren't exactly clean data anymore. IMO we can only conclude that something other than just relative motion can result in redshift. Until we figure out how that works, we won't know how to factor it out of the measurements.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

### Re: Metric expansion of space

The accelerating Universe: Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt

"the weight of the Universe bends space" he says. I thought "mass bends spacetime" not space, and weight is another thing... Weight is what we experience because of the bending. I thought a Nobel prize winner would be careful when talking about these things.

But nevermind these, at one point he says "Einstein had a revelation, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration". Cool. Why didn't he also had the revelation that a bend in a ray of light because of "bent spacetime" is indistinguishable from light bent by refraction...
Does refraction even exist in the Universe, is it considered at all in astronomy, with all this bending?

Also the photon has no mass, how come they say light can be bent, in fact affected by the force we call gravity.
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

Problem solved:
Photons of light are not technically affected by large gravitational fields; instead space and time become distorted around incredibly massive objects and the light simply follows this distorted curvature of space.

So - not affected by gravity, then - affected by gravity.
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

The bending of spacetime is often visually represented by a two dimensional grid which has a big dip within which is the earth. But what about approaching the gravity body from the opposite direction at the same time ?
Spacetime then "bends in the opposite direction ?
The space time around a planet(gravity body) is not two dimensions, but THREE,
Where then does the spacetime bend, and into what ?
There is already space, and presumably spacetime everywhere.

PERHAPS: a large body in space, like a planet,pushes aside all the spacetime that would normally be where the planet is at that moment and creates an area around itself of more dense spacetime. Thus other objects react to the more dense spacetime by moving toward it. If something A moves through some spacetime B faster due to increased density then that density itself must be negative.
AND we know from physics that most of objects that appear solid are actually full of space and not matter.
Thus adding more weight(but not necessarily mass) to the argument above that the higher density space around a large planet like object is NEGATIVE space time because it is still within the "solid" body and can't be in two places at once, therefore the higher density or "curved" spacetime must be NEGATIVE.
This is almost exactly how Richard Feynman came up with his famous LIKE LIKES LIKE concept.
Only it is a negative version: The inside the body spacetime does not like the denser outside the body spacetime, but that is ok because the outside extra dense spacetime is Negative.
Thus the attraction continues.
I call this the Double Negative Spacetime Displacement Model of gravity.

Always thinking outside the box.
Jack
jacmac

Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

### Re: Metric expansion of space

Speaking of out side of the box.
Is it Who's on second or is Who on first? Well I think that Who is at bat. So actually
where is Who. No, Where is on third!
What science writes and people read is actually as confusing as this little stint from
years back.
perpetual motion

Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

### Re: Metric expansion of space

jacmac wrote:The bending of spacetime is often visually represented by a two dimensional grid which has a big dip within which is the earth. But what about approaching the gravity body from the opposite direction at the same time ?
Spacetime then "bends in the opposite direction ?
The space time around a planet(gravity body) is not two dimensions, but THREE,
Where then does the spacetime bend, and into what ?
There is already space, and presumably spacetime everywhere.

They say the bending happens in the fifth dimension, because we already have 4 (also counting time).

Time is not a dimension. They say times goes by faster the higher we go. What does that mean? It means, that if I try to represent an axis of time, I will have 2 objects, or the same object - with the bottom of the object at t=0.0001 and the top of the object at t=0.0002. The top of the object is in the future of the bottom of the object, and is only getting further away, always... It does not matter how small that difference is, the lower part can never catch up. It can be nanoseconds or years, it does not matter, something in the future cannot be reached. Meaning - we would disintegrate if time would really go faster as we go up.

But - what about time just going faster higher up, with no axis, just things happening faster? What things? Does the Earth rotate faster higher up? (It does, the cause is not time dilation). Does the Earth revolve faster around the Sun if I stay on mount Everest than if I stay at sea level? I mean - for one person living there - the entire Universe should be speed up, but it can't if it still wants to be connected to everything else... This is crazy.

There is only one universal time, and axis of time, there is only one "now" for the entire Universe, no matter how fast information travels, and time is just a count, not a dimension. There is only one chronology, for everything, events in the Universe have only one single order, no matter when we find out about them.
Even mainstream draws one single picture of the entire "expanding Universe" with one axis of time. If time would go faster for some parts of the universe in relation to others, there would be no chronology, no causality for future events, nothing. Add to that "dilation due to relative velocity" and we can have one event both in the past and future of another event.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm
Roshi

Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

### Re: Metric expansion of space

Roshi wrote:Time is just a count, not a dimension.

I totally agree with this.

Here's my take on that issue: "dimensions" refer to measurements of physical reality. It started as the measurement of land, which gave its name to the discipline of geometry (literally, the measurement of the Earth). For their purposes, it was just 2D, which for them was north/south and east/west. Later it was realized that another dimension could be added for the height, and it played by the same rules -- it had to be orthogonal to the other axes, but then all of the math still works out. So you get a total of 3 dimensions.

A good deal later, Rene Descartes invented analytic geometry, wherein more complex algebraic formulas could be used to describe shapes other than just triangles, rectangles, & circles. Then people realized that graphs of formulas provided a way of visualizing mathematics, which is really cool. And the math didn't need to be measuring something spatial -- it just had to be something that could be quantified. For example, you can do a graph of your profit/loss statements per month, to visualize how your business is doing.

But in the end, the math only works for 3 dimensions. So if you have something that can be reduced to 3 or less quantities (spatial or otherwise), those quantities can be plotted on a Cartesian coordinate system. 4 or more dimensions cannot be plotted. Sure, you can figure out ways of measuring an infinite number of things. But that doesn't mean that reality is "hyper-dimensional". Rather, space has only 3 dimensions, and these dimensions can be re-tasked to represent non-spatial quantities. But calling quantities as dimensions, which are just really tough to visualize, especially for stupid people like us, isn't a more sophisticated model of reality -- it's just a broken metaphor. There are any number of quantities that can be measurement, but only 3 of them at a time can be plotted.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

CharlesChandler

Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA