So you are saying the Big Bang is wrong, then?
Big bang clarification?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
I am in the wrong section to say that, I am just discussing the possibilities, I am saying I can not personally see that space itself is expanding, this is not to say that matter was not formed by a big bang but in space, and space pre-existed at an infinite value.
That statement contradicts itself: Before the Big Bang, there was no space.
I am trying to avoid saying it out right, there was never no space, infinite space always exists including before the big bang because space is not expanding, observable matter is expanding into infinite space. The big bang is only partly right.
Uh huh... and what do you have in terms of evidence of this claim... since, you know, you are trying to refute mountains of current evidence supporting the Big Bang, I'm sure you have something worthwhile to refute it, right?
Oh, and please don't tell me it starts with the words "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth"...
The evidence I provide is your own science, you observe matter, galaxies etc that are in space, the science of perspective sight, the science of vanishing points, the absolute fact you can not observe space, you can only observe matter that is interacting with light.
The facts that everything you observe are points in a vast space observed by red shift that they are expanding away from us and the facts you can not see anything in empty space .
How does that support your claim that there is no edge to the universe?
Because we can clearly observe matter expanding into the space, we all know by basic Physics that for something to expand there has to be room/space for something to expand into, using expand in a generalized term a balloon being different to a particle but both need space to expand in distance.
The box in the box also shows support, an edge can only suggest of two things, we know this by physics,
a space within a solid,
or a space within a solid within a space.
No other options ever.
Okay... so then how does that preclude the idea that space itself is the item that is expanding?
The analogy of the universal expansion is sometimes described like a ''balloon'' expansion to represent an edge of space as such, to represent space expanding,
If you consider Physics and absolutely anything that expands in distance, it for 100% facts needs space to expand into.
I chuck an object up in the air, the object is expanding away from me, moving through space and not an expanding space.
Matter that is observed in the Universal expansion is no different to the object I through into the air.
Also the box in a box analogy shows infinite, even if the ''edge'' of space was shown, so in comparison an expanding box, outside of that box is space or a solid, there is no other options.
Okay... but you are limiting this by your own perception - in this case, space itself is the thing expanding.
No... it is not "expanding away from you"... it is moving away from you. Two very different things.
Not... quite accurate, but I understand where you are going with this.
If space is continuing to expand, than it is infinite - it will be infinite unless it suddenly stops expanding.
It is already infinite, space itself has no medium to expand, space has matter in it,
You say throwing an object in the air is different when it is not, what about if I threw an handful of particles in the air at near light speed, they would expand through out space would they not like light?
''the universe is not "expanding away from you"... it is moving away from you. ''
Last edited:
How do you know this? Can you prove it?
The particles would expand away from each other sure. They are not expanding from you though, they are travelling away from you. There is a difference.
This is falling into, once again, an issue with knowledge of the words being used in communication.
The box in the box analogy shows it is logical true and proves it to be logically true, so if you define true logic has proof, then yes.
So because a theoretical model has a boundary constraint, the real life equivalent must do so as well?
That would be great... if only the theoretical models were perfect...
Yes from what I have observed of science and been told by science it is perceived in reality the same as the boundary constraints of the model, everyone insisting space is expanding and there is nothing beyond based on a constrained model.
And if the vast majority of science interprets the data to mean the universe is expanding, what makes you so special to say they are wrong? After all, we are talking DECADES of research and decades more of study and analysis to get where they are... I'm fairly certain these people are better qualified to judge this than you or I...
I am not arguing that they are mistaken about the visual matter of the Universe is expanding, that is proven observation, what I am suggesting to debate is that space itself is not expanding and that it simply is the matter that is moving away from us expanding in distance from us and from each other galaxy of the expansion of only the visual matter and not space itself.
So you contend that the universe is already of an infinite size, then?