Center of Universe?

[OnlyMe]

You're ok, OnlyMe, and I know you mean well. However, you have just conflated universal expansion hypothesis/interpretations with GR theory of gravitation as it affects local matter moving through space and NOT with space as origin's statement re 'expanding space' implied without any explanation as to how that supposedly expanding space can carry galaxies with it.

GR is all about natural geodesics through space, not about space itself expanding in big bang hypothesis manner.

I would appreciate it if you kept your assumptions/conflations out of my exchange with origin, in the context wherein I just want his explanation/mechanism for his claim that 'expanding space' supposedly makes distant galaxies move with space in addition to their normal proper motion through space.

If neither he nor anyone else can do that, then his claim must fall under the category of inferred speculations and not fact. I've no objections to that. OK? Thanks.

So...

...origin, my last post/question to you remains to be answered in the context you claimed about expanding space and galaxy motion above that of proper motion. Thanks.

The expansion of space and especially the acceleration of the expansion of space is, at least temporarily associated with Dark Energy. (Temporarily only because Dark Energy is an unknown place holder.) If you read up on Dark Energy, you will find that it is often associated with or described mathematically as a function of the cosmological constant.

Now, check out the history of the cosmological constant and you will find that Einstein introduced it, initially with the intent of preventing a run away expansion of spacetime or the universe, within the context of GR. Depending on the value of the cosmological constant the universe expands and then collapses back on itself, remains exactly the same (IE in a steady state), expands forever or even expands forever in an accelerating way.

So..., the expansion of space and the accelerating expansion of space are specifically the domain of GR.

But, that was not my point. What you missed is that what I was referring to is that the relationship between space and matter is specifically the domain of general relativity and NO ONE can tell you exactly what the mechanism of that interaction is. The geometry and dynamics is at least partially described, we learn more all the time. But the mechanics remains a mystery.

You phrased a challenge that specifically asked for information that NO ONE can provide.

If you had asked for an explaintion of the logic, reason and theory, behind how the expansion and accelerating expansion could explain superluminal recession WITHOUT superluminal velocities, the situation would have been more reasonable.

On the other hand that would not have served the same ends that seem apparent in your initial question and this last response.

 

[RealityCheck]

The expansion of space and especially the acceleration of the expansion of space is, at least temporarily associated with Dark Energy. (Temporarily only because Dark Energy is an unknown place holder.) If you read up on Dark Energy, you will find that it is often associated with or described mathematically as a function of the cosmological constant.

Now, check out the history of the cosmological constant and you will find that Einstein introduced it, initially with the intent of preventing a run away expansion of spacetime or the universe, within the context of GR. Depending on the value of the cosmological constant the universe expands and then collapses back on itself, remains exactly the same (IE in a steady state), expands forever or even expands forever in an accelerating way.

So..., the expansion of space and the accelerating expansion of space are specifically the domain of GR.

But, that was not my point. What you missed is that what I was referring to is that the relationship between space and matter is specifically the domain of general relativity and NO ONE can tell you exactly what the mechanism of that interaction is. The geometry and dynamics is at least partially described, we learn more all the time. But the mechanics remains a mystery.

You phrased a challenge that specifically asked for information that NO ONE can provide.

If you had asked for an explaintion of the logic, reason and theory, behind how the expansion and accelerating expansion could explain superluminal recession WITHOUT superluminal velocities, the situation would have been more reasonable.

On the other hand that would not have served the same ends that seem apparent in your initial question and this last response.

Again, I know you mean well, but you are assuming my 'intent' rather than just looking at the question in the context of origin's claim in answer to icarus2 as if it was fact rather than just inferred speculation extrapolating from particular theories which themselves (as you just admitted) provide no scientific physical explanation/mechanism for assuming that space can give galaxies a non-proper (or 'universal recession') velocity component to their motion.

Just alluding to some 'cosmological constant' (a term in an equation) or to 'dark energy' (a placeholder for unexplained phenomena) does not in itself constitute an explanation of galaxy recession velocity component, nor does it provide the actual logical or physical 'coupling' connection/mechanism between space (expanding or otherwise) and the galaxy matter motion for anything above and beyond galactic normal proper motion through space rather than (as claimed by origin et al) motion along with space as it supposedly 'expands' or 'whatever'.

See? Nothing above and beyond observable motion through space has been substantiated scientifically as a fact....but merely inferred from theories which themselves do NOT specifically treat such speculative extrapolations/inferences as I have questioned origin on to justify his claims if his claims are fact rather than speculations.

If origin agrees with you that no-one can give such substantiations as I have asked for for those claims because those claims ARE in fact just extrapolation/inference speculations, then that will answer my question by everyone agreeing to that categorization of his original claims in answer to icarus2.

Let's see if origin agrees with that being done.

Later.

 

[OnlyMe]

Just alluding to some 'cosmological constant' (a term in an equation) or to 'dark energy' (a placeholder for unexplained phenomena) does not in itself constitute an explanation of galaxy recession velocity component, nor does it provide the actual logical or physical 'coupling' connection/mechanism between space (expanding or otherwise) and the galaxy matter motion for anything above and beyond galactic normal proper motion through space rather than (as claimed by origin et al) motion along with space as it supposedly 'expands' or 'whatever'.

First, if the space between galaxies is expanding, that does not add any velocity to any galaxy.

Second and the part I have been taking exception to all along is that you keep, almost demanding that some, "...physical 'coupling' connection/mechanism between space (expanding or otherwise) and the galaxy matter..,", be defined and explained.

This is a question that you should know CANNOT be answered. Even if someone could it obviously would not be to your satisfaction.

I have not heard anyone else jump in and say, no OnlyMe you are wrong.., this is how space and matter physically interact....

We can describe what that interaction looks like but not why or how exactly it happens.

As I have mentioned, even speculated from time to time myself, there are some ideas being explored, none entirely successful, at this time.

To continue to demand an answer to a question, you should know cannot be answered, is dishonest and not in any spirit of real discussion and communication.

Remember, this is a science folder. Not Alternative Theories or Pseudoscience.

 

[RealityCheck]

First, if the space between galaxies is expanding, that does not add any velocity to any galaxy.

It may help everyone if you would now tell that to origin.

Did you read his relevant post I quoted when asking my question of him initially? He answered icarus2 to the effect that the universal space 'expands' and effects a with-space 'universal recession' velocity component to a distant galaxy in addition to the normal through-space proper velocity.

If you had actually read and understood that context before jumping in with your personalized/cross-purpose attempts to characterize/dismiss the actual import of what is being asked of origin and why, you and I would not be having this exchange at all.

Please take a breather and don't keep trying to answer for him. He knows what is being asked and why. He can settle this either way without any complicating/personalizing help from anyone else.

Second and the part I have been taking exception to all along is that you keep, almost demanding that some, "...physical 'coupling' connection/mechanism between space (expanding or otherwise) and the galaxy matter..,", be defined and explained.

This is a question that you should know CANNOT be answered. Even if someone could it obviously would not be to your satisfaction.

I have not heard anyone else jump in and say, no OnlyMe you are wrong.., this is how space and matter physically interact....

We can describe what that interaction looks like but not why or how exactly it happens.

As I have mentioned, even speculated from time to time myself, there are some ideas being explored, none entirely successful, at this time.

To continue to demand an answer to a question, you should know cannot be answered, is dishonest and not in any spirit of real discussion and communication.

Remember, this is a science folder. Not Alternative Theories or Pseudoscience.

You probably don't realize you're doing it, but you are the one 'personalizing' the simple question I put to origin based on his statements. You are trying to attribute 'intentions' other than my straightforward challenge to his statement of somethings which (unless and until they are substantiated with what I requested he provide) should be acknowledged to be just inference/extrapolation speculation as I pointed out.

You agreed that there is no possible substantiation as I seek from origin, hence his statements were and should be clearly labeled 'speculation' from inferred/extrapolated takes from theories which do not actually treat the matter in any physically explanatory way.

The situation can be resolved quickly and simply. I make NO 'demands'; I merely ask (as per forum rules and courteous scientific discussion) for substantiation for his 'answers' to icarus2.

If he agrees that he cannot substantiate, and so agrees with you and me that his 'answer' to icarus2 was based on speculation only, then that is the end of the matter and the (legitimate) 'request' I made when challenging him is rendered no longer active/necessary thereby.


Please will you not continue cross-purposing and 'personalizing' this perfectly straightforward discourse between origin and me on this particular aspect? Thanks.

Tomorrow. Bye.

 

[AlexG]

Did you read his relevant post I quoted when asking my question of him initially? He answered icarus2 to the effect that the universal space 'expands' and effects a with-space 'universal recession' velocity component to a distant galaxy in addition to the normal through-space proper velocity.

He is correct.

 

[RealityCheck]

He is correct.

OnlyMe just got through saying that origin's (and now your) claim is NOT correct.

Read OnlyMe's post above where he says clearly that expanding space does NOT give velocity to galaxies (in addition to normal proper velocity).

Neither origin nor you provide any substantiation except speculation based on inference and extrapolations from theories which do not treat this particular aspect. So there is no scientific basis for determining 'correctness' of that 'opinion/speculation' until substantiated to be otherwise than opinion/speculation.

Until the scientific explanation/mechanism is provided to show how space (expanding or otherwise) can couple with the galaxies to give them with-space 'universal recession' velocity component in addition to proper through-space as claimed by origin and you, then you are just wasting everyone's time.


So would you, origin and OM please go into a PM huddle and sort it out amongst yourselves?...... and then get back to the forum with your consensus opinion/speculation (for that is all it is unless and until the coupling explanation/mechanism is identified).

Thanks.

 

[AlexG]

Origin is right, OnlyMe is wrong, and you are 'not right, not even wrong'.

[

 

[OnlyMe]

Origin is right, OnlyMe is wrong, and you are 'not right, not even wrong'.

[

Please explain where I was wrong. As best as I can tell the following are the only things I posted related to Origin's position.

If you had asked for an explaintion of the logic, reason and theory, behind how the expansion and accelerating expansion could explain superluminal recession WITHOUT superluminal velocities, the situation would have been more reasonable.

First, if the space between galaxies is expanding, that does not add any velocity to any galaxy.

Origin's statement from your first post on the issue,

Originally Posted by origin to icarus2
An expansion of space that is faster than c does not violate SRT, however something moving in space faster than c does violate SRT.

Due to the expansion of space distant objects are receding from us faster than c.​

Is accurate.

My first post re: your request for the cause of the interaction of space and matter (paraphrased), did not address that issue.

And there is no conflict with my last comment that the expansion of space does not add to the velocity of any galaxy and Origin saying, "Due to the expansion of space distant objects are receding from us faster than c."

An object can be receding from us for reasons other than its velocity through space.

 

[origin]

Realitycheck I suppose this is a bit to subtle for you to understand, but what the heck I will try.

OnlyMe did not disagree with my statement about recession velocity. He said that space expanding between the galaxies does not add velocity to the galaxy [if I may add the qualifier "velocity through space"].

RealityCheck, you do not even understand the basocs of the BB or the expansion of space to even present a coherent objection!

 

[origin]

You ask yourself

Your question there 'presupposes' without scientific justification that a) the space 'does' expand.

This sort of willful ignorance is typically of you, and it makes it almost impossible to have any sort of reasonable conversation.

So in your strange little world every reputable university in existence is teaching a theory that has no scientific justification? Really? You believe that? Just out of curiosity - are you nuts?

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi, OnlyMe.

See, this is exactly what I was afraid of when you intervened. Well meant as it was, no doubt, you nevertheless created cross-purpose confusions where there were none.

If you only meant 'through-space' in your comment, then it was a superfluous comment and only helped confuse the issue at hand.

For example, there was never a question about proper velocity through-space. It was the with-space, universal recession 'space-expanding' velocity component that was at issue as to what made the galaxies move with-space (hence my question to origin to justify his claim that expanding space effects the universal recession with-space velocity component).

I'll try to get this back on track with origin. Thanks anyway for your wellmeant efforts.

 

[Mazulu]

I thought I was the center of the universe?

 

[RealityCheck]

Realitycheck I suppose this is a bit to subtle for you to understand, but what the heck I will try.

OnlyMe did not disagree with my statement about recession velocity. He said that space expanding between the galaxies does not add velocity to the galaxy [if I may add the qualifier "velocity through space"].

RealityCheck, you do not even understand the basocs of the BB or the expansion of space to even present a coherent objection!

Adding that qualifier does nothing to excuse you for evading. If OnlyMe meant through-space velocity, then as I just pointed out to him in my previous post, that was not at issue. His comment in that case was unnecessary and led to cross-purpose dialogue and misunderstanding.

So, my original question to you remains, in the context of your original claim to icarus2 that expanding space results in galactic WITH-expanding-space recession velocity component.

This sort of willful ignorance is typically of you, and it makes it almost impossible to have any sort of reasonable conversation.

So in your strange little world every reputable university in existence is teaching a theory that has no scientific justification? Really? You believe that? Just out of curiosity - are you nuts?

You know exactly what is required from you under fair debate rules. You claimed that space expands and makes galaxies recede with a WITH-expanding-space velocity in addition to any proper through-space velocity already possessed by the galaxies.

Anything else is irrelevant and cross-purpose to what is required of you on this by fair and courteous site/debate rules.

Unless you or anyone can provide the explanation/mechanism which couples 'expanding space' to the galactic matter, then your claim must fall under the category of inferred/extrapolated speculation.

Is it speculation on your part; or are you now going to substantiate it by answering the request for your evidence of the physical explanation/mechanism which would couple 'expanding space' to galaxies to effect what you claim?

NOTE WELL: I need not say anything about big bang one way or another; and I already said that the usual gravity-related effects and through-space aspects are a given. So please do not try to disingenuously muddy the waters with that in order to try and evade the question/context again.

So, if you can stop with the evasions, personal comments and strawmanning and framing, and just try to focus on answering my original question in the original context of your answer to icarus2, I would be very much obliged.

 

[OnlyMe]

I have a question for you RealityCheck. Are you trying to argue that both GR and SR are wrong? Maybe even QM? Except in some ways there is more direct evidence supporting much of QM.

 

[RealityCheck]

I have a question for you RealityCheck. Are you trying to argue that both GR and SR are wrong? Maybe even QM? Except in some ways there is more direct evidence supporting much of QM.

See? This is the pattern I observe whenever a question/challenge is 'inconvenient' to those who are happy to just repeat by rote 'explanations' which when questioned closely prove to be just speculation upon speculation disguised as 'scientific facts'.

As soon as someone gets close to the crux of the matter, those who want to evade the straightforward question will start bringing 'intentions' and 'personality' and 'tactics' and all sorts of devices which have no place in science.

I know you still man well, but how about just letting the science discourse tell what's what?

Anything else is just fodder for trolls and spoilers who have no interest in following matters to their scientific/logical conclusions, either because it may end up proving 'inconvenient' to their 'rote beliefs', or just want to stop others from actually discussing the science because they are trolls pure and simple who enjoy getting threads closed because it gives them a (sad ego) sense of power.

Please leave origin to answer the original question in the original context of his own claims to icarus2. Why confuse the exchange with all this personal/intent sideplay?

Let's just keep to the scientific matter under discussion. Else you can see where cross-purpose exchanges lead to. Yes?

Is that too much to ask?

After origin has answered in context, we will see what's what. Then I will be glad to discuss with you what implications that answer will have for SR/GR. OK?

Thanks.

 

[OnlyMe]

See? This is the pattern I observe whenever a question/challenge is 'inconvenient' to those who are happy to just repeat by rote 'explanations' which when questioned closely prove to be just speculation upon speculation disguised as 'scientific facts'.

As soon as someone gets close to the crux of the matter, those who want to evade the straightforward question will start bringing 'intentions' and 'personality' and 'tactics' and all sorts of devices which have no place in science.

I know you still man well, but how about just letting the science discourse tell what's what?

Anything else is just fodder for trolls and spoilers who have no interest in following matters to their scientific/logical conclusions, either because it may end up proving 'inconvenient' to their 'rote beliefs', or just want to stop others from actually discussing the science because they are trolls pure and simple who enjoy getting threads closed because it gives them a (sad ego) sense of power.

Please leave origin to answer the original question in the original context of his own claims to icarus2. Why confuse the exchange with all this personal/intent sideplay?

Let's just keep to the scientific matter under discussion. Else you can see where cross-purpose exchanges lead to. Yes?

Is that too much to ask?

After origin has answered in context, we will see what's what. Then I will be glad to discuss with you what implications that answer will have for SR/GR. OK?

Thanks.

Is that a yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck]

Is that a yes or no?

Read my post again. The answer is there in the last few lines; especially in the last line where it says I will be glad to discuss it after origin has answered properly. Thanks.

 

[OnlyMe]

Read my post again. The answer is there in the last few lines; especially in the last line where it says I will be glad to discuss it after origin has answered properly. Thanks.

So that is a yes.

And all of this is really essentially a strawman argument.

Which means that my objection to the question asking for an essentially physical explanation of the mechanism through which space and matter interact, was and is directly relevant to the discussion.

It is becomiming apparent that no answer would be acceptable, unless it leads to your objective.

 

[RealityCheck]

So that is a yes.

And all of this is really essentially a strawman argument.

Which means that my objection to the question asking for an essentially physical explanation of the mechanism through which space and matter interact, was and is directly relevant to the discussion.

It is becomiming apparent that no answer would be acceptable, unless it leads to your objective.

You are presuming too much. I clearly indicated that we should let the science speak for itself rather than trying to divine others' "intent" and so personalizing the discussion. You are only creating cross-purpose obstacles to clear and direct focus on the matters under question.

Let origin answer the original question in the original context of his answer to icarus2. Why introduce your personal/divination of others' "intent"? That is not helpful to anyone, let alone to dispassionate scientific determination of the issues under discussion.

Once we have a scientific result there, we can proceed to any other SR/GR aspect you think may be worthy of further discussion given that result.

Stop prejudicing the discussion now with whatever your own agenda is regarding my or anyone else's other discussion points which may or may not flow from this.

Now, it would be much appreciated if you would please stop trying to cross-purpose and personalize this, and just let origin and me get on with it.

Thanks.

 

[origin]

Realitycheck I am sorry but you are acting like a baffoon. If you really believe, "we should let the science speak for itself" then go to google and type in expanding universe. I of course know that you won't do that - if you did you might actually learn something.

You are not worth my time - or anyone elses with even a bit of sense.