Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #667932 > unrolled thread

Re: The Ever Expanding Universe

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-24 00:42 +0100
    Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-23 20:19 -0800
      Re: The Ever Expanding Universe athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-24 10:49 +0000
        Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-27 08:42 -0800
    Re: The Ever Expanding Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-27 22:50 -0800
      Re: The Ever Expanding Universe squalk <sq@net.inv> - 2025-12-28 17:47 +0000
        Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-28 09:54 -0800
        Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-28 19:51 +0100
          Re: The Ever Expanding Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-28 11:39 -0800
          Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-12-29 07:03 +0100
          Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-29 11:44 -0800
            Re: The Ever Expanding Universe Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-12-29 11:57 -0800

#667932 — Re: The Ever Expanding Universe

Ruben Safir wrote:
> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
> universe is ever exapanding. 

[_expanding_]

We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
been in the past (because we observe the cosmological redshift); but it is
uncertain for how long, if at all, this will continue.  The reason for that
is that recent observations indicate that the Dark Energy density could be
time-dependent (in the current Standard Model of cosmology, it is constant,
leading to an exponential expansion).  If it decreases, then gravitation
might be able to slow down the expansion after all, and even reverse it,
leading to a Big Crunch:

<https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-dark-energy-getting-weaker-new-evidence-strengthens-the-case-20250319/>

> If space is constantly exanding and we are in space, then our measuring
> sticks would also be expanding so we wouldn't be able to see it and
> there would be no doppler effect.

No.  First of all, you need to realize how large our universe is and how
small everything in it is by comparison.  This is best illustrated with numbers:

Terra (Earth) is a planet with a diameter of ca. 12'642 km (if you think
that is big, read on).  Sol (the Sun) is a star with a diameter of ca.
1'400'000 (1.4 million) km.  The average distance of Terra to Sol is
approximately 150'000'000 (150 million) km.  The distance to the next star
from Sol, Proxima Centauri, is ca. 4.25 ly (light-years); that is, ca. 4.25
times the distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year: ca. 40
*trillion* (short scale) kilometers. Both those stars are two of
approximately 200 billion stars in the Milky Way (each which on average at
least one planet) which has a diameter of approximately 200'000 ly.  The
Milky Way is one of ca. 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in our observable
universe which has a diameter of ca. 96 billion light-years.  Our entire
universe has a diameter that is at least 500 times as large as the
observable one's.

In the words of Douglas Adams, written in or before 1978 already:

  "Space [says the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy] is big.  You just won't
   believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.  I mean, you may
   think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just
   peanuts to space."

The expansion of the space of our universe is a metric expansion -- all
length scales are growing --, so the rate at which distances change itself
depends on distance.  Given the size of our universe (or even only the
observable one), the rate at which distances change on everyday scales is
(currently) so small that any short-range forces/interactions compensate for
the expansion immediately.  In fact, within the Local Group (of galaxies) to
of which the Milky Way is one major component, gravitation dominates over
the expansion; the Andromeda Galaxy, the other major component of the Group,
and the Milky Way are *approaching* each other (and might merge in several
billion years from now) due to gravitation.

To get an idea how small the rate is at which space is expanding at everyday
scales, multiply a distance by the Hubble constant, the current value of the
Hubble parameter.  Measurements of that vary, but so far the concordance
value is ca. (70 km/s)/Mpc.  1 pc (parsec) is the distance an object needs
to have from Sol so that its annual parallax, half the angle under which it
is observed from opposite sides of the orbit of Terra, is 1" (arcsecond,
seconds of arc); that is, ca. 3.26 ly.

Second, the cosmological redshift is NOT a Doppler redshift.  The galaxies
are not really moving (by comparison) in their local space, but space is
expanding and is carrying them away from each other.  The cosmological
redshift arises because the light was emitted in a different reference/rest
frame than it is received: the length scales were smaller then than they are
now, including the wavelengths of light.

Since the expansion is predicted and described by general relativity, it is
better to continue discussing this in sci.physics.relativity.  X-Post &
F'up2 set.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#667933

On 12/23/2025 03:42 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ruben Safir wrote:
>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>> universe is ever exapanding.
>
> [_expanding_]
>
> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
> been in the past (because we observe the cosmological redshift); but it is
> uncertain for how long, if at all, this will continue.  The reason for that
> is that recent observations indicate that the Dark Energy density could be
> time-dependent (in the current Standard Model of cosmology, it is constant,
> leading to an exponential expansion).  If it decreases, then gravitation
> might be able to slow down the expansion after all, and even reverse it,
> leading to a Big Crunch:
>
> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-dark-energy-getting-weaker-new-evidence-strengthens-the-case-20250319/>
>
>> If space is constantly exanding and we are in space, then our measuring
>> sticks would also be expanding so we wouldn't be able to see it and
>> there would be no doppler effect.
>
> No.  First of all, you need to realize how large our universe is and how
> small everything in it is by comparison.  This is best illustrated with numbers:
>
> Terra (Earth) is a planet with a diameter of ca. 12'642 km (if you think
> that is big, read on).  Sol (the Sun) is a star with a diameter of ca.
> 1'400'000 (1.4 million) km.  The average distance of Terra to Sol is
> approximately 150'000'000 (150 million) km.  The distance to the next star
> from Sol, Proxima Centauri, is ca. 4.25 ly (light-years); that is, ca. 4.25
> times the distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year: ca. 40
> *trillion* (short scale) kilometers. Both those stars are two of
> approximately 200 billion stars in the Milky Way (each which on average at
> least one planet) which has a diameter of approximately 200'000 ly.  The
> Milky Way is one of ca. 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in our observable
> universe which has a diameter of ca. 96 billion light-years.  Our entire
> universe has a diameter that is at least 500 times as large as the
> observable one's.
>
> In the words of Douglas Adams, written in or before 1978 already:
>
>    "Space [says the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy] is big.  You just won't
>     believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is.  I mean, you may
>     think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just
>     peanuts to space."
>
> The expansion of the space of our universe is a metric expansion -- all
> length scales are growing --, so the rate at which distances change itself
> depends on distance.  Given the size of our universe (or even only the
> observable one), the rate at which distances change on everyday scales is
> (currently) so small that any short-range forces/interactions compensate for
> the expansion immediately.  In fact, within the Local Group (of galaxies) to
> of which the Milky Way is one major component, gravitation dominates over
> the expansion; the Andromeda Galaxy, the other major component of the Group,
> and the Milky Way are *approaching* each other (and might merge in several
> billion years from now) due to gravitation.
>
> To get an idea how small the rate is at which space is expanding at everyday
> scales, multiply a distance by the Hubble constant, the current value of the
> Hubble parameter.  Measurements of that vary, but so far the concordance
> value is ca. (70 km/s)/Mpc.  1 pc (parsec) is the distance an object needs
> to have from Sol so that its annual parallax, half the angle under which it
> is observed from opposite sides of the orbit of Terra, is 1" (arcsecond,
> seconds of arc); that is, ca. 3.26 ly.
>
> Second, the cosmological redshift is NOT a Doppler redshift.  The galaxies
> are not really moving (by comparison) in their local space, but space is
> expanding and is carrying them away from each other.  The cosmological
> redshift arises because the light was emitted in a different reference/rest
> frame than it is received: the length scales were smaller then than they are
> now, including the wavelengths of light.
>
> Since the expansion is predicted and described by general relativity, it is
> better to continue discussing this in sci.physics.relativity.  X-Post &
> F'up2 set.
>

If you haven't heard of "redshift bias" or "redshift distortion"
it sort of has that since WMAP found no background anisotropy
and thusly that space-time is more-or-less flat, this has that
light's speed as a constant has that as it enters rotating frames
either it was "tired" or it goes "around" on the way in, while
the actual velocity of light is a constant according to some aspects
of being according to aether drift.

So, ever since Finlay-Freundlich there were ideas like "tired light",
yet, instead the idea may be that it's "fresh light", gets involved
since otherwise "Dark Energy" has falsified standard cosmology with
its usual accoutrement of general and restricted relativity.

Anyways, if you look to "redshift bias" and "redshift distortion",
you can find there are various interpretations that do away with it.


Is physics all broken and is there a crisis in physics and
is the Hubble tension a bit too much? Yes, it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667935

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> posted:

> On 12/23/2025 03:42 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ruben Safir wrote:
> >> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
> >> universe is ever exapanding.
> >
> > [_expanding_]
> >
> > We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
> > been in the past (because we observe the cosmological redshift); but it is
> > uncertain for how long, if at all, this will continue.  The reason for that
> > is that recent observations indicate that the Dark Energy density could be
> > time-dependent (in the current Standard Model of cosmology, it is constant,
> > leading to an exponential expansion).  If it decreases, then gravitation
> > might be able to slow down the expansion after all, and even reverse it,
> > leading to a Big Crunch:
> >
> > <https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-dark-energy-getting-weaker-new-evidence-strengthens-the-case-20250319/>
> >
> >> If space is constantly exanding and we are in space, then our measuring
> >> sticks would also be expanding so we wouldn't be able to see it and
> >> there would be no doppler effect.
> >
> > No.  First of all, you need to realize how large our universe is and how
> > small everything in it is by comparison. 

No, not if we make a meaningful comparison in terms of mass or numbers of atoms.
OK, the volume of the universe is large, but it makes little sense to ignore the
fact that it is overwhelmingly empty. In terms of mass it is only about 10^27 times
larger than the Earth, whereas the Earth is 10^40 times larger than an E. coli
cell. In other words the Earth is _much_ larger on the scale of a bacterial
cell than the universe is on the scale of the Earth.

> > This is best illustrated with numbers:
> >
> > Terra (Earth) is a planet with a diameter of ca. 12'642 km (if you think
> > that is big, read on).  Sol (the Sun) is a star with a diameter of ca.
> > 1'400'000 (1.4 million) km.  The average distance of Terra to Sol is
> > approximately 150'000'000 (150 million) km.  The distance to the next star
> > from Sol, Proxima Centauri, is ca. 4.25 ly (light-years); that is, ca. 4.25
> > times the distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year: ca. 40
> > *trillion* (short scale) kilometers. Both those stars are two of
> > approximately 200 billion stars in the Milky Way (each which on average at
> > least one planet) which has a diameter of approximately 200'000 ly.  The
> > Milky Way is one of ca. 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in our observable
> > universe which has a diameter of ca. 96 billion light-years.  Our entire
> > universe has a diameter that is at least 500 times as large as the
> > observable one's.
-- 
athel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667938

On 12/24/2025 02:49 AM, athel.cb@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> posted:
>
>> On 12/23/2025 03:42 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>
>>> [_expanding_]
>>>
>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
>>> been in the past (because we observe the cosmological redshift); but it is
>>> uncertain for how long, if at all, this will continue.  The reason for that
>>> is that recent observations indicate that the Dark Energy density could be
>>> time-dependent (in the current Standard Model of cosmology, it is constant,
>>> leading to an exponential expansion).  If it decreases, then gravitation
>>> might be able to slow down the expansion after all, and even reverse it,
>>> leading to a Big Crunch:
>>>
>>> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/is-dark-energy-getting-weaker-new-evidence-strengthens-the-case-20250319/>
>>>
>>>> If space is constantly exanding and we are in space, then our measuring
>>>> sticks would also be expanding so we wouldn't be able to see it and
>>>> there would be no doppler effect.
>>>
>>> No.  First of all, you need to realize how large our universe is and how
>>> small everything in it is by comparison.
>
> No, not if we make a meaningful comparison in terms of mass or numbers of atoms.
> OK, the volume of the universe is large, but it makes little sense to ignore the
> fact that it is overwhelmingly empty. In terms of mass it is only about 10^27 times
> larger than the Earth, whereas the Earth is 10^40 times larger than an E. coli
> cell. In other words the Earth is _much_ larger on the scale of a bacterial
> cell than the universe is on the scale of the Earth.
>
>>> This is best illustrated with numbers:
>>>
>>> Terra (Earth) is a planet with a diameter of ca. 12'642 km (if you think
>>> that is big, read on).  Sol (the Sun) is a star with a diameter of ca.
>>> 1'400'000 (1.4 million) km.  The average distance of Terra to Sol is
>>> approximately 150'000'000 (150 million) km.  The distance to the next star
>>> from Sol, Proxima Centauri, is ca. 4.25 ly (light-years); that is, ca. 4.25
>>> times the distance that light travels in vacuum in one Julian year: ca. 40
>>> *trillion* (short scale) kilometers. Both those stars are two of
>>> approximately 200 billion stars in the Milky Way (each which on average at
>>> least one planet) which has a diameter of approximately 200'000 ly.  The
>>> Milky Way is one of ca. 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in our observable
>>> universe which has a diameter of ca. 96 billion light-years.  Our entire
>>> universe has a diameter that is at least 500 times as large as the
>>> observable one's.

I don't see much point in quoting me saying nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667940

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Ruben Safir wrote:
> > One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
> > universe is ever exapanding.
> 
> [_expanding_]
> 
> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has

"We"???? you mean me, myself and I?


I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
Stupid in these sci newsgroups.

The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
same size it always has been since it existence.


The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
universe.


Space is expanding, not the universe.


Imagine an office building...
with a trillion feet of space for office  space,
but contains only one office with 500 square feet.

You need to expand your office because your
busines is growing..so you tear the wall down and
add another 500 square feet of office..your're expanding!

The office building remains the same size. 

You just got more space for your business...
eventually you take the whole floor and expand to another floor.

In other words, In the beginning, space was created to add heavens and
the earth.


In the beginning, ...

In the...

In

"In" is the operative word.


meaning inside, within, or at a specific place, time, state, or manner,
indicating containment, location, duration, or a change of condition
(e.g., in the box, in summer, in love, in half). 



https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+In 


Your office space is contained IN a building.


The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...more office space.



What's inside the office space? People?


It's a big office building! 


I mean...
BIG!

but plenty of ...space.


for a blue dot.



Next time someone sez the universe is expanding, give them a Stupid
cigar.

and to all the "WE" also.









 




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667942

The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>
>> [_expanding_]
>>
>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
> 
> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
> 
> 
> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
> 
> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
> same size it always has been since it existence.
> 
> 
> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
> universe.
> 
> 
> Space is expanding, not the universe.

--------------------------------------------

Space is space, it dosen't expand.
> 
> 

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667944

On 12/28/2025 09:47 AM, squalk wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>
>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>
>>> [_expanding_]
>>>
>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
>>
>> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
>>
>>
>> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
>> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
>>
>> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
>> same size it always has been since it existence.
>>
>>
>> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
>> universe.
>>
>>
>> Space is expanding, not the universe.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Space is space, it dosen't expand.
>>
>>
>
>>

The "space-frames" and "frame-spaces" represent the concepts
of objects or substances (eg, the point-particles the aggregates
or the waves the bulk) their locales, then that motion itself is
a sort of omni-present contraction and relaxation, of the relative
in the absolute.

If you believe science its data, and thusly, you know,
_all the data_, the universe's age grows millions and
millions of years every few years, about things like
"running constants" where also particles get smaller
every few years, between the sky survey and the CODATA.
Then about explaining why "Dark Energy" has for the
after the inflationary cosmology the expanding universe,
the terms have evolved from things like "tired light"
to "redshift distortion", about what true matters of
the optical must make for super-classical models of
the motion, as it may be, of light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667946

squalk wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>
>>> [_expanding_]
>>>
>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
>>
>> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?

Astrophysicist/cosmologists.  The scientific community.

>> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
>> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
>>
>> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
>> same size it always has been since it existence.

Observationally falsified.

>> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
>> universe.

The Big Bang _is_ the expansion of the space of our universe.  AFAWCS it is
ongoing.

>> Space is expanding, not the universe.

Our universe is to good approximation well described by spacetime,
particularly the FLRW metric

  ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 [1/(1 - k r^2) dr^2 + r^2 (d Omega)^2],
  (d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,

where a(t) is the scale factor at the cosmological time t -- which is
currently increasing --, and r, theta and phi are spatial (spherical)
coordinates.  So our universe and space are inseparable concepts: When we
say "space" in cosmology, we mean the space *of our universe* (at least the
observable one).

  [Notice that this is different from colloquial use where "space" often
   is a shorthand for "outer space", i. e. the space of our universe outside
   Terra's atmosphere.]

> Space is space, it dosen't expand.

Wrong, too.  We can *observe* the expansion and evolution of our universe
because we can observe galaxies as they were in the past: The light that
they emitted takes time to get to us.  The farther an object is away, the
earlier the light was emitted that reaches us now:

<https://youtu.be/Fqfap3v0xxw?t=791&si=ro2EG6Cx9Sqg05hr>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667948

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> squalk wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Ruben Safir wrote:
> >>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
> >>>> universe is ever exapanding.
> >>>
> >>> [_expanding_]
> >>>
> >>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
> >>
> >> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
> 
> Astrophysicist/cosmologists.  The scientific community.
> 
> >> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
> >> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
> >>
> >> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
> >> same size it always has been since it existence.
> 
> Observationally falsified.
> 
> >> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
> >> universe.
> 
> The Big Bang _is_ the expansion of the space of our universe.  AFAWCS it is
> ongoing.


"the expansion of the space of our universe. "??? does that even mean
anything??


Let me put it this way...

you only occupy 5% of the office building.


95% of space contains nothing, you occupy just 5%.


There is no universe..
it's just a few grains of sand.


In the beginning, ...

beginning means Time, ..spacetime

in the spacetime.

IN.

primarily indicating a state of being inside/within something (a place,
time, condition)


beginning


the point in time or space at which something starts.


IN time
IN space
IN spacetime.













-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667949

On 12/28/2025 7:51 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> squalk wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>>
>>>> [_expanding_]
>>>>
>>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
>>>
>>> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
> 
> Astrophysicist/cosmologists.  The scientific community.
> 
>>> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
>>> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
>>>
>>> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
>>> same size it always has been since it existence.
> 
> Observationally falsified.

Only such an idiot can believe such an
primitive lie.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667953

On 12/28/2025 10:51 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> squalk wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea that the
>>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>>
>>>> [_expanding_]
>>>>
>>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now and has
>>>
>>> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
>
> Astrophysicist/cosmologists.  The scientific community.
>
>>> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
>>> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
>>>
>>> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains the
>>> same size it always has been since it existence.
>
> Observationally falsified.
>
>>> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
>>> universe.
>
> The Big Bang _is_ the expansion of the space of our universe.  AFAWCS it is
> ongoing.
>
>>> Space is expanding, not the universe.
>
> Our universe is to good approximation well described by spacetime,
> particularly the FLRW metric
>
>    ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 [1/(1 - k r^2) dr^2 + r^2 (d Omega)^2],
>    (d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
>
> where a(t) is the scale factor at the cosmological time t -- which is
> currently increasing --, and r, theta and phi are spatial (spherical)
> coordinates.  So our universe and space are inseparable concepts: When we
> say "space" in cosmology, we mean the space *of our universe* (at least the
> observable one).
>
>    [Notice that this is different from colloquial use where "space" often
>     is a shorthand for "outer space", i. e. the space of our universe outside
>     Terra's atmosphere.]
>
>> Space is space, it dosen't expand.
>
> Wrong, too.  We can *observe* the expansion and evolution of our universe
> because we can observe galaxies as they were in the past: The light that
> they emitted takes time to get to us.  The farther an object is away, the
> earlier the light was emitted that reaches us now:
>
> <https://youtu.be/Fqfap3v0xxw?t=791&si=ro2EG6Cx9Sqg05hr>
>

Well you know the reason it's said "Dark Energy" is everywhere
is since there are conflicting observations in theory between
the usual idea after the inflationary epoch of expansionary cosmology
and the energy budget.

So, when you say "observationally falsified", well, you know,
yes and no. One fragment of a deciding theory is falsified,
well and good, yet then the wider fragment falsifies that,
then, ideas about the energy budget have been around pretty
much since the age of Hubble and Le Maitre.


Of course neither of "Big Bang" nor "Steady State" are
falsifiable, and both somehow fit the data.

Yet, "Dark Energy" has falsified the usual account of
either, about the energy budget.


One hopes the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope makes
it on station next year or so, the wide-field array will
be making quite a different perspective on things.


Yet, even a few hermits on a hill can notice physics' crises.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667954

On 12/29/2025 11:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 12/28/2025 10:51 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> squalk wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>>>>> One of the concepts that have bothered me the most is the idea
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> universe is ever exapanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> [_expanding_]
>>>>>
>>>>> We do not know that.  We know that our universe is expanding now
>>>>> and has
>>>>
>>>> "We"???? you mean me, myself and I?
>>
>> Astrophysicist/cosmologists.  The scientific community.
>>
>>>> I'm flabgastted that people till this day are testing Positive for
>>>> Stupid in these sci newsgroups.
>>>>
>>>> The UNIVERSE IS *NOT* EXPANDING! It *never* has expanded. It remains
>>>> the
>>>> same size it always has been since it existence.
>>
>> Observationally falsified.
>>
>>>> The Big Bang was the 'expansion' of ...space, not the expansion of the
>>>> universe.
>>
>> The Big Bang _is_ the expansion of the space of our universe.  AFAWCS
>> it is
>> ongoing.
>>
>>>> Space is expanding, not the universe.
>>
>> Our universe is to good approximation well described by spacetime,
>> particularly the FLRW metric
>>
>>    ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 [1/(1 - k r^2) dr^2 + r^2 (d Omega)^2],
>>    (d Omega)^2 = (d theta)^2 + sin^2(theta) (d phi)^2,
>>
>> where a(t) is the scale factor at the cosmological time t -- which is
>> currently increasing --, and r, theta and phi are spatial (spherical)
>> coordinates.  So our universe and space are inseparable concepts: When we
>> say "space" in cosmology, we mean the space *of our universe* (at
>> least the
>> observable one).
>>
>>    [Notice that this is different from colloquial use where "space" often
>>     is a shorthand for "outer space", i. e. the space of our universe
>> outside
>>     Terra's atmosphere.]
>>
>>> Space is space, it dosen't expand.
>>
>> Wrong, too.  We can *observe* the expansion and evolution of our universe
>> because we can observe galaxies as they were in the past: The light that
>> they emitted takes time to get to us.  The farther an object is away, the
>> earlier the light was emitted that reaches us now:
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/Fqfap3v0xxw?t=791&si=ro2EG6Cx9Sqg05hr>
>>
>
> Well you know the reason it's said "Dark Energy" is everywhere
> is since there are conflicting observations in theory between
> the usual idea after the inflationary epoch of expansionary cosmology
> and the energy budget.
>
> So, when you say "observationally falsified", well, you know,
> yes and no. One fragment of a deciding theory is falsified,
> well and good, yet then the wider fragment falsifies that,
> then, ideas about the energy budget have been around pretty
> much since the age of Hubble and Le Maitre.
>
>
> Of course neither of "Big Bang" nor "Steady State" are
> falsifiable, and both somehow fit the data.
>
> Yet, "Dark Energy" has falsified the usual account of
> either, about the energy budget.
>
>
> One hopes the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope makes
> it on station next year or so, the wide-field array will
> be making quite a different perspective on things.
>
>
> Yet, even a few hermits on a hill can notice physics' crises.
>
>

Then, for profferring an explanatory theory,
one may note the usual mathematical formalisms
have that a singularity in a singularity theory
is merely a branch in a multiplicity theory,
then about that optical light is special,
and some may aver that it's not electromagnetic,
there's for some usual inversion and convolution
in coordinate settings, for light's free travel,
and then relating that light in the geodesy (or,
about the orbifold as it is) makes for exploring
the tidal/vorticial since since any model of waves
involves a spiral effect, like the Faraday effect
then as for a greater account of Fresnel, so that
for wave-spirals and spiral-waves in the frame-spaces
and space-frames, there's first the kinetic and kinematic
the space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
then that light its arrival is atop that,
making for so that the quite various F-Lorentzians
(fields, forces, names that begin with F like FitzGerald,
Fresnel, Faraday, Fatio, Finlay-Freundlich, Fizeau, and
so on) for E-energy (energy, entelechy, entropy both
the Aristotlean and Leibnitzian account of entropy,
and Einsteinian and Machian both aspects of the Lagrangian),
how it results thusly that the mathematical formalisms
after invariance and symmetry make for Lorentzians so get
all satisfied, about the continuity law, that'll about do.


Nice little recap.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web