Center of Universe?

[RealityCheck]

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.

You make assumptions about my reading/knowledge of current theory in order to distract from your own evasions and try to dismiss the request for substantiation of what you claimed. And you are incorrect in those assumptions. I already well know what the conventional theory says. That is why I asked you to explain/justify what you claim.

It is your claim made to icarus2 that I am asking you to substantiate with evidence. The theories do not actually provide the explanations/mechanisms for what you claimed. They only have observations which are interpreted in a certain way without further scientific support as to the way that space couples to galactic matter to produce the 'interpreted' effect of making galaxies move/accelerate 'with-expanding-space' above and beyond any motion given to them by gravity which is already a given for galaxies proper motion 'through space' along natural geodesics.

Please stop making excuses. Either support your claim to icarus2 as requested or else concede that what you said was speculation inferred/extrapolated from other theories not directly treating/explaining 'expanding space' effecting galaxies 'with-space' motion component per se with any 'coupling mechanism' that would justify that interpretation.

Thanks either way.

 

[OnlyMe]

You make assumptions about my reading/knowledge of current theory in order to distract from your own evasions and try to dismiss the request for substantiation of what you claimed. And you are incorrect in those assumptions. I already well know what the conventional theory says. That is why I asked you to explain/justify what you claim.

It is your claim made to icarus2 that I am asking you to substantiate with evidence. The theories do not actually provide the explanations/mechanisms for what you claimed. They only have observations which are interpreted in a certain way without further scientific support as to the way that space couples to galactic matter to produce the 'interpreted' effect of making galaxies move/accelerate 'with-expanding-space' above and beyond any motion given to them by gravity which is already a given for galaxies proper motion 'through space' along natural geodesics.

Please stop making excuses. Either support your claim to icarus2 as requested or else concede that what you said was speculation inferred/extrapolated from other theories not directly treating/explaining 'expanding space' effecting galaxies 'with-space' motion component per se with any 'coupling mechanism' that would justify that interpretation.

Thanks either way.

The goal posts you refuse to address and continue to insist must be answered, no theory could scale. No matter how successful it has been in describing what we experience and observe or how well it predicts what we will observe.

The fact that you refuse to address that aspect of your insistent demand, refuse to declare your intended objective and your refusal to drop that portion of your challenge, suggests strongly that it IS a strawman position.

In a debate or disscussion, the objective of both sides of the discussion are generally established as a starting point. You not only never declared "your" position, you refuse to clarify it.

No one can answer that portion of your position that incorporates a demand to define the fundamental mechanism through which the dynamics of space/spacetime and matter emerge. As I have said there has been and continues to be work on that, but no cigar, brass ring or ureka moment.., yet!

Unless you can answer the question yourself, stubbornly demanding an answer from anyone else, seems from where I sit, nothing less than dishonest, as a debate tactic.

 

[RealityCheck]

The goal posts you refuse to address and continue to insist must be answered, no theory could scale. No matter how successful it has been in describing what we experience and observe or how well it predicts what we will observe.

The fact that you refuse to address that aspect of your insistent demand, refuse to declare your intended objective and your refusal to drop that portion of your challenge, suggests strongly that it IS a strawman position.

In a debate or disscussion, the objective of both sides of the discussion are generally established as a starting point. You not only never declared "your" position, you refuse to clarify it.

No one can answer that portion of your position that incorporates a demand to define the fundamental mechanism through which the dynamics of space/spacetime and matter emerge. As I have said there has been and continues to be work on that, but no cigar, brass ring or ureka moment.., yet!

Unless you can answer the question yourself, stubbornly demanding an answer from anyone else, seems from where I sit, nothing less than dishonest, as a debate tactic.

Will you please stop making personal assumptions and opinions, and stop using emotive/prejudicial terms like 'demand' and 'intent' and all the rest of your cross-purpose and irrelevant 'metaphysical intrusions' into what is a clear and straightforward request to origin to substantiate what he claimed to another and not to me?

So please get this clear once and for all: I have no need to put a 'side' to any of this since I am merely asking origin (as he has so many times done to others) to substantiate his OWN stated claim/position (in the context of his answer to icarus2). End of story. So please cease with your OWN 'demands' and 'personal' interpretations which are NOT needed in this straightforward request to origin.


IF origin, as you say, cannot provide substantiation as requested, then YOU yourself should only be saying that HIS claim is therefore speculation. Else why keep bringing all this other garbage into it unless you have your own 'personal' agenda to satisfy while busily accusing me and demanding that I give up my reasonable request to origin.

origin is and has been allowed to do likewise to others when they make claims which he challenges, so please stop trying to impose double standards in an attempt to let origin get away with something which neither he nor you would tolerate in another. OK?

Please keep out of this and let origin either provide what I requested or else concede he was repeating speculation. Simple as that. No need for your constant intrusions and cross-purposing and double standards in order to excuse him not doing either one.

You probably mean well, but really you are not helping anyone, let alone proper and dispassionate scientific discourse on this matter.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks. Please desist until origin answers properly. Else just come out and acknowledge that origin WAS just repeating speculation because (as you point out) there is no supporting 'space-to-galaxy' coupling explanation/mechanism provided (in ANY of the current theories/hypotheses) for what he claimed to icarus2. Then we can all move on. OK?

 

[OnlyMe]

This is your post that first introduced the requirement that the mechanism that results the dynamic relationship between matter and space, be part of the discussion and explanation.

So the question is and always has been: How does 'expanding space' actually couple physically to galactic energy-matter in order to cause and add the alleged recession motion (moving with space) component to a galaxy's own proper motion (moving through space)?

Until the actual physical space-to-galaxy coupling mechanism...

How many times now and in how many ways have I said that no one can answer that.

We know that space dynamically affects by the presence of mass/matter and it's motion. One of the more recent proofs can be found in the Gravity Probe B Experiemnt. Just Google GP-B... And there are other observations that either confirm or support both SR and GR as it relates to this interaction. There is some evidence that even at quantum scales something similar occurs...

No one can say exactly what that coupling mechanism is. There are ideas and developing theory, but that would be an entirely different discussion.

 

[RealityCheck]

This is your post that first introduced the requirement that the mechanism that results the dynamic relationship between matter and space, be part of the discussion and explanation.



How many times now and in how many ways have I said that no one can answer that.

And how many times have I got to say that I agree with you that no-one can AS YET. That was not the issue, since all reasonable scientists agree on precisely that, which is why my challenge to origin's 'explanation' to icarus2 was made.

The issue was that origin posted an 'explanation' to icarus2 based on origin's mere repetition of a mere big bang HYPOTHESIS 'interpretation' of the observables. That hypothesis, and any other 'inflation/expansion-of-space' type scenarios, merely interpret those observables according to one assumption or other. At no point is that hypothesis/interpretation an ACTUAL THEORY (as per the definition of same which origin and other 'experts' delight in beating others over the head with whenever others conlate the two as having equal status as scientific 'explanations'). Now it is origin who transgresses his own scientific definitions of theory/hypotheais/interpretation/speculation, by implying in his answer to icarus2 that origin's 'explanation' is 'theory' instead of the hypothetical speculation that it STILL is UNLESS origin or anyone else provides what was requested to support his repetition of 'hypothesis' and speculation on observable 'effects' as if it was 'theory'.

So, both you and I agree that no such explanation/mechanism is yet provided by theory (as distinct from speculative inferences/hypotheses about the effects observed).

We know that space dynamically affects by the presence of mass/matter and it's motion. One of the more recent proofs can be found in the Gravity Probe B Experiemnt. Just Google GP-B... And there are other observations that either confirm or support both SR and GR as it relates to this interaction. There is some evidence that even at quantum scales something similar occurs...

No one can say exactly what that coupling mechanism is. There are ideas and developing theory, but that would be an entirely different discussion.

Again, from the very first, I already acknowledged gravity-related THROUGH-space motion given to matter/energy. OK?

That is the proper motion/velocity that is not at issue, since, however gravity affects matter/energy, the motions are ALWAYS along natural geodesics THROUGH space, NOT WITH space. OK?

It is the HYPOTHESIS of WITH-space motion/velocity of galaxies (which origin et al keep blithely trotting out as fact/theory when it is no such thing YET) that I challenged him over. His 'explanation' to icarus2 SHOULD have contained a rider/disclaimer to the effect that origin's 'answer' was mere speculative hypothesis AS YET. No more; no less than that will satisfy the scientific requirement to distinguish between 'theory' and 'hypothesis/speculation'.

See the point? Gravity-related through-space motion/effects is as agreed becaue we can test it directly, as you have observed when saying matter/energy affects space and vice versa to produce gravitation phenomena. I do NOT argue against the theory that matter affects space and vice versa (because I postulate an energy-space that is the start and end of ALL phenomena....but that's neither here nor there in this exchange).

What I want to highlight with my challenge to origin as put, is that while we can agree on gravity-related THROUGH-space effects on motion of matter/energy, we cannot YET agree on WITH-space effects on galaxy motion unless something OTHER than the current theory is invoked, because the UNIVERSE is not a local space, it is ALL SPACE...and unless we have a proper theory (not just speculation/hypothesis) about the nature of the concept of 'inflating/expanding' space which takes into account the whole universal WITH-space effects, we just DON"T HAVE a 'theory', just observations of effects and speculative big bang etc inferences and hypotheses about those 'distantly observed' universal recession phenomena which we interpret AS 'universal recession WITH-space without knowing what fundamental 'explanation/mechanism from THEORY which could DISTINGUISH the actual difference between WITH-space and the THROUGH-space motion/velocity we already know and love.

I cannot put it any more starkly. Please read what I have said/asked again, without 'reading into it' whatever your own personal/misunderstanding 'take' is on the straightforward challenge I made to origin and WHY I made it in the context which I have already explained to you more than once.

So, you and I agree that no such explanation/mechanism is available from ANY theory. Good. And that unless origin can make one available to support his 'explanation' claim to icarus2 in that context, then we also MUST agree (as reasonable scientists) that what origin 'offered' icarus2 was NOT an explanation from 'theory' but an hypothesis/speculation from a collection of interpretations of a collection of observables which have not YET achieved the scientific status as part of consistent 'theory'.

So origin must either provide what was asked or now concede that his answer merely repeated speculation/hypothesis/interpretations etc, anything BUT consistent theory as defined by origin and other physicists to others more than once when origin et al challenged THEM on precisely this kind of sloppy confusion of theory with mere speculation/hypothesis etc.

Let's see if origin concedes his answer to icarus2 was based on hypothesis and speculation in the absence of that explanation/mechanism from theory which would actually say how the two sorts of motion (with-space and through-space) can be explained by the same 'coupling' which is already assumed for normal gravitational effects/motions 'through-space' along natural geodesics. For example, what are the natural geodesics counterparts for an 'expanding space' itself let alone for the galaxies supposedly being affected and given an with-space component to their 'recession' velocity currently is the 'interpretation' of what phenomena is observed from far distant galaxies/space?

Thanks in advance for your reading/understanding of this as it is, and not as it is being cross-purposed so far. You and I already agree that no such substantiation as requested exists for origin to provide in support of his 'explanation'. Which means origin must concede his 'explanation' WAS speculation being trotted out by him as if it was 'theory' and not just hypothesis/interpretation etc. Where's the beef? Origin either concedes that or puts up what is requested to support his claim. Can the scientific/debate requirements be more clear than that without invoking double standards to allow him to evade while he does not allow others to evade whenever the similar situation arises but the shoe is on the other foot?

Over to you, origin, OM, guys! Back tomorrow to check if reason and actual addressing of the issue by origin is afoot at last.

 

[OnlyMe]

And how many times have I got to say that I agree with you that no-one can AS YET.

This appears to be the first, at least direct, admission.

The problem is that by including the necessity that an explanation of the mechanism be provided, you set a bar beyond the reach of any theory, not just the content of this discussion. (Though, to be actually correct, there are people working on and publishing papers, attempting to describe the mechanisms within the context of QM... So not really every theory.)

So, both you and I agree that no such explanation/mechanism is yet provided by theory (as distinct from speculative inferences/hypotheses about the effects observed).

I am not sure I agree completely with the above statement. While I do maintain that no one has yet developed a complete and rigorously consistent theory, thus there lacks some degree of certainty, I do believe that progress is being made in that direction.

I cannot put it any more starkly. Please read what I have said/asked again, without 'reading into it' whatever your own personal/misunderstanding 'take' is on the straightforward challenge I made to origin and WHY I made it in the context which I have already explained to you more than once.

My objection to including a requirement of presenting the mechanism stands. It is an unreasonable standard, when it is not applied across the board. Both SR and GR stand as successful theories and have been supported by observation, experiment and experience.., and yet neither meets the requirement you seem to be insisting must be met here.

So, you and I agree that no such explanation/mechanism is available from ANY theory.

We could agree that no current theory provides a rigorously consistent explanation.

I would point you toward papers by many, beginning I think as far back as in the late 1960s by, Sakharov, Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others...

String theory and loop quantum gravity go way over my head, but the general concepts of the relationships of mass, inertia, and gravity to a ZPF-matter interaction, seem to provide a plausible basis for further development, at least within the context, of my limited understanding.

Good. And that unless origin can make one available to support his 'explanation' claim to icarus2 in that context, then we also MUST agree (as reasonable scientists) that what origin 'offered' icarus2 was NOT an explanation from 'theory' but an hypothesis/speculation from a collection of interpretations of a collection of observables which have not YET achieved the scientific status as part of consistent 'theory'.

Here I am not in agreement. Again, I believe you are setting a goal post, which essentially amounts to proof. If it were proven we would no longer require the theory.
________________

Without going back into the meat of the earlier discussion, it is my understanding that the expansion of space as an explanation for cosmological observations, is required for those observations to remain consistent with SR and GR, which have proven theirselves consistent with experience and observation over time.

As far as an expansion of space affecting observed recession velocity, if the space between galaxies is increasing independent, of the galaxy's individual velocities through space, it seems a matter of simple logic that the recession velocity would be cumulative from any inertial frame of reference. But you were asking for the mechanism of how space makes galaxies move and while we have no definitive answer, as mentioned earlier, we do have experimental evidence, which you have agreed exists, that space and matter do affect one another. Though we do not know exactly what the mechanism is, the fact that we can experimentally prove they do interact, should be sufficient to fulfill your request for the mechanism....

The GP-B experiment returned data proving the existence of frame dragging, space being "drug along" by the motion of a gravitational mass. Frame dragging occurs for both the rotation and linear motion of mass. The reciprocal is also true in that the effect of the motion of a gravitating mass on space was being measured by the affect of the dynamics of that space on a gyroscope.

How does mass drag space and space drag mass? Not known.., but the fact that they do has been measured and shown to occur. So there is your linkage between space and galaxies. Anything that affects the dynamics of one, affects the dynamics of the other.

 

[RealityCheck]

This appears to be the first, at least direct, admission.

The problem is that by including the necessity that an explanation of the mechanism be provided, you set a bar beyond the reach of any theory, not just the content of this discussion. (Though, to be actually correct, there are people working on and publishing papers, attempting to describe the mechanisms within the context of QM... So not really every theory.)



I am not sure I agree completely with the above statement. While I do maintain that no one has yet developed a complete and rigorously consistent theory, thus there lacks some degree of certainty, I do believe that progress is being made in that direction.



My objection to including a requirement of presenting the mechanism stands. It is an unreasonable standard, when it is not applied across the board. Both SR and GR stand as successful theories and have been supported by observation, experiment and experience.., and yet neither meets the requirement you seem to be insisting must be met here.



We could agree that no current theory provides a rigorously consistent explanation.

I would point you toward papers by many, beginning I think as far back as in the late 1960s by, Sakharov, Puthoff, Rueda, Haisch and others...

String theory and loop quantum gravity go way over my head, but the general concepts of the relationships of mass, inertia, and gravity to a ZPF-matter interaction, seem to provide a plausible basis for further development, at least within the context, of my limited understanding.



Here I am not in agreement. Again, I believe you are setting a goal post, which essentially amounts to proof. If it were proven we would no longer require the theory.
________________

Without going back into the meat of the earlier discussion, it is my understanding that the expansion of space as an explanation for cosmological observations, is required for those observations to remain consistent with SR and GR, which have proven theirselves consistent with experience and observation over time.

As far as an expansion of space affecting observed recession velocity, if the space between galaxies is increasing independent, of the galaxy's individual velocities through space, it seems a matter of simple logic that the recession velocity would be cumulative from any inertial frame of reference. But you were asking for the mechanism of how space makes galaxies move and while we have no definitive answer, as mentioned earlier, we do have experimental evidence, which you have agreed exists, that space and matter do affect one another. Though we do not know exactly what the mechanism is, the fact that we can experimentally prove they do interact, should be sufficient to fulfill your request for the mechanism....

The GP-B experiment returned data proving the existence of frame dragging, space being "drug along" by the motion of a gravitational mass. Frame dragging occurs for both the rotation and linear motion of mass. The reciprocal is also true in that the effect of the motion of a gravitating mass on space was being measured by the affect of the dynamics of that space on a gyroscope.

How does mass drag space and space drag mass? Not known.., but the fact that they do has been measured and shown to occur. So there is your linkage between space and galaxies. Anything that affects the dynamics of one, affects the dynamics of the other.

Good. We're there at last. Did you miss where I point out to you that there are always THROUGH-space natural geodesic motion/velocity involved in gravity/dragging effects we agree on in localized matter-gravity system phenomena?

There is the subtle difference which INVALIDATES all the 'evidence' you mention which purports to support SR/GR theory when one tries to apply that limited SR/GR view to the whole universal space and say it is 'expanding' and moving galaxies....

....because the question that arises is:

Where are the natural geodesics for the galaxies' supposed 'space-expansion-related recession velocity component'?

We know they must be moving through-space on proper geodesics in their respective proper-velocities component, BUT the 'recession/expanding' hypothesis/speculation says that they are ALSO moving WITH space....BUT along what 'geodesics' and 'where to'? If space is supposed to be empty 'relativity' between bodies, then there IS NO 'where' to go WITH-space unless space is something active rather than empty 'relativity' as per SR/GR. Which makes Relativity theory NOT a good one to base such 'expanding space' etc speculations on as origin did to icarus2. That's all I am trying to point out.

Anyhow, it's clear by now that the current theories have NO basis for claiming 'as fact' or 'consistent theory' such hypothetical interpretations/speculations which origin merely repeated to icarus2.

Because that subtle difference I just pointed out takes all hypothetical/speculative expanding-WITH-space 'interpretations' totally outside SR/GR as formulated. The quantum theories have a more realistic basis for their their 'interpretations', but still do not DISTINGUISH between THROUGH-space and WITH-space motion per se insofar as any alleged observed/interpreted 'expanding-space/universal-recession' component is concerned.

Thanks for your responses, OM; in the end (after a few cross-purpose sidetracks along the way) they have helped close in on the actual issue/challenge and why I posted what I did to origin.

Cheers. Back tomorrow (or later today if I can).

 

[AlexG]

BUT the 'recession/expanding' hypothesis/speculation says that they are ALSO moving WITH space

No they're not moving with or through space. There is simply more space coming into existence between them and us (and everything else).

And since BB has made a number definite predictions which have been well confirmed, it has earned the status of theory.

It is however, a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations, and since you deny the validity of relativity, you must preforce deny expanding space.

 

[RealityCheck]

No they're not moving with or through space. There is simply more space coming into existence between them and us (and everything else).

And since BB has made a number definite predictions which have been well confirmed, it has earned the status of theory.

It is however, a direct consequence of Einstein's field equations, and since you deny the validity of relativity, you must preforce deny expanding space.

So are you now saying origin was wrong? Else we can't have it both ways.

If there is just 'more space', and the galaxies are not affected, then that space would 'expand' right though the galaxies and leave them on their pre-existing proper trajectories and no 'universal recession' would be involved other than normal gravity/electromag etc interactions giving proper velocities through space irrespective of that space 'expanding/increasing' or not.

OR....

If the galaxies ARE affected, then they must be being 'moved' in some manner WITH-space as origin implied to icarus2. If so, what and where are the with-space 'geodesics' explanations/evidence for any recession velocity attributed to that?

Again, we can't have it both ways.

 

[OnlyMe]

Good. We're there at last. Did you miss where I point out to you that there are always THROUGH-space natural geodesic motion/velocity involved in gravity/dragging effects we agree on in localized matter-gravity system phenomena?

There is the subtle difference which INVALIDATES all the 'evidence' you mention which purports to support SR/GR theory when one tries to apply that limited SR/GR view to the whole universal space and say it is 'expanding' and moving galaxies....

....because the question that arises is:

Where are the natural geodesics for the galaxies' supposed 'space-expansion-related recession velocity component'?

We know they must be moving through-space on proper geodesics in their respective proper-velocities component, BUT the 'recession/expanding' hypothesis/speculation says that they are ALSO moving WITH space....BUT along what 'geodesics' and 'where to'? If space is supposed to be empty 'relativity' between bodies, then there IS NO 'where' to go WITH-space unless space is something active rather than empty 'relativity' as per SR/GR. Which makes Relativity theory NOT a good one to base such 'expanding space' etc speculations on as origin did to icarus2. That's all I am trying to point out.

Anyhow, it's clear by now that the current theories have NO basis for claiming 'as fact' or 'consistent theory' such hypothetical interpretations/speculations which origin merely repeated to icarus2.

Because that subtle difference I just pointed out takes all hypothetical/speculative expanding-WITH-space 'interpretations' totally outside SR/GR as formulated. The quantum theories have a more realistic basis for their their 'interpretations', but still do not DISTINGUISH between THROUGH-space and WITH-space motion per se insofar as any alleged observed/interpreted 'expanding-space/universal-recession' component is concerned.

Thanks for your responses, OM; in the end (after a few cross-purpose sidetracks along the way) they have helped close in on the actual issue/challenge and why I posted what I did to origin.

Cheers. Back tomorrow (or later today if I can).

I found no problem with Origin's earlier explanation. Was it simplistic? Yes. So is most of what is posted in these discussions.

If those on these boards who work in related fields, were to provide a comprehensive explanation, it would likely involve math that many readers would not understand.

You were asking for the mechanism through which space and mass interact.., I suggested it was not required and that we have observations that support the fact the they do interact, it does not matter for the purposes of this discussion how or why.

Additionally, I don't believe that it is even a central component of the expansion or accelerating expansion of space. I don't believe that expanding space must transfer any motion to the matter within it. Since as far as we can determine space is expanding equally in all directions, the geometry and dynamics of the relative positions of the matter—galaxies within space does not change by that expansion.

A simple two dimensional example:

Start with an equilateral triangle with sides one meter in length. Expand the triangle by a factor of two and the sides of the triangle, though now longer, retain the same relative relationship they had to begin with.

There is nothing that is inconsistent with SR or GR in any of this.

 

[RealityCheck]

I found no problem with Origin's earlier explanation. Was it simplistic? Yes. So is most of what is posted in these discussions.

If those on these boards who work in related fields, were to provide a comprehensive explanation, it would likely involve math that many readers would not understand.

You were asking for the mechanism through which space and mass interact.., I suggested it was not required and that we have observations that support the fact the they do interact, it does not matter for the purposes of this discussion how or why.

Additionally, I don't believe that it is even a central component of the expansion or accelerating expansion of space. I don't believe that expanding space must transfer any motion to the matter within it. Since as far as we can determine space is expanding equally in all directions, the geometry and dynamics of the relative positions of the matter—galaxies within space does not change by that expansion.

A simple two dimensional example:

Start with an equilateral triangle with sides one meter in length. Expand the triangle by a factor of two and the sides of the triangle, though now longer, retain the same relative relationship they had to begin with.

There is nothing that is inconsistent with SR or GR in any of this.

Talk about 'simplistic'. Can't you see that your example merely bounds the triangle with a 'perimeter' which can expand into 'what'? You miss the subtle aspect I am trying to get across. It is that which makes 'simplistic' repetition of 'hypothesis and speculation' the problem.

If it isn't a problem, then why does origin and other 'experts' here often DEMAND other to explain themselves and not confuse hypothesis/speculation with 'theory'? Double standards?


I merely point out where and why SR/GR cannot be used as a support for his claim about 'expanding space etc'. Please read my post to you again. I pointed it all out therein, but you ignored it when coming back with that 'consistent with SR etc' comment above.

Anyhow, whether you realize it or not, we can't have it both ways.....as I have just pointed out to AlexG in response to his post. Please read my post to him and see where the problem lay which makes my challenge all too necessary under even the most 'simplistic' approach to science discourse.

If origin had given a rider/disclaimer to his answer to icarus2, to the effect that it WAS a 'simplistic' answer that was not supported by an actual THEORY (as I have already explained), then we wouldn't be having the problem/this exchange.

Cheers. G'night.

 

[AlexG]

This is just the kind of obfuscating garbage RC has always posted.

 

[OnlyMe]

Talk about 'simplistic'. Can't you see that your example merely bounds the triangle with a 'perimeter' which can expand into 'what'?

The point was that no matter how you expand the equilateral triangle, the sides and angles have the exact same geometric relationship to each other. I really don't care what it expands into, that was not the point!

Just as the sides of the triangle retain the geometric relationship, as the triangle expands, so do galaxies retain the same geometric relationships, as space expands. The only change in the geometry of the galaxies is that which stems from their motion in space, not the expansion of space.

I merely point out where and why SR/GR cannot be used as a support for his claim about 'expanding space etc'.

You may believe you have pointed that out but you have offered no proof to support your position.

The sucess of both SR and GR, are far more compelling than anything you have gone on about. And it is upon that success that our current understanding of the expansion of the universe is based.

You keep talking about scientists, like you are one. It does not sound like it to me. And just to be clear, though I might have had the opportunity to pursue a career in science, long ago, I am no scientist.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Proper motion through space is all that can be observed directly, even in the matter-affected gravity-well conditions of space regions in close proximity to our local energy-matter.

Not true. Both motion through static space (relative motion) and motion due to space-time expansion will look the same in terms of frequency shifting. The reason we think there's the latter going on is the universal trend relating distance and relative velocity.

So the question is and always has been: How does 'expanding space' actually couple physically to galactic energy-matter in order to cause and add the alleged recession motion (moving with space) component to a galaxy's own proper motion (moving through space)?

Things happen in space-time. If space-time is varying then the relationship between the things in the space-time will change.

Until the actual physical space-to-galaxy coupling mechanism which is claimed to effect a universal recession (with space) velocity component in addition to a galaxy's normal directly observable proper (through space) velocity component, then it is all conjecture as to what creates the inferred 'expanding space' illusion which is glibly trotted out without any scientific physical explanation/mechanism as to what couples space to a galaxy in order to add that hypothesized but not explained 'big bang' recession velocity component to that galaxy.

Are you in any way at all familiar with the workings of general relativity and the concept of coordinates? Given the answer is 'no' you cannot really complain something isn't understood just because you don't understand it.

If one merely invokes 'dark energy' etc etc etc, then again it behooves one to scientifically explain the physical coupling mechanism which can effect the alleged additional with space recession velocity component above and beyond a galaxy's normal proper through space motion.

Dark energy is the thing driving the accelerating expansion. The fact positions and velocities vary in a complicated manner due to space-time curvature is a different thing.

Your question there 'presupposes' without scientific justification that a) the space 'does' expand and b) galaxies 'must' move with that space.

Of course when you try to explain something using a particular model you're assuming the model is viable. That's how science works.

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.

Please don't go around telling people how GR works when you clearly don't know it yourself. It's funny you complain others are conflating thing when you've just mixed up an overarching model with a specific application of that model. The expansion of space-time in the universe is modelled using geodesics and curvature in general relativity, it is an example of where GR is used. And you keep saying 'space'. 'Space', as a piece of space-time, is a non-unique concept, how you split space-time into spatial and temporal pieces is somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore GR isn't restricted to geodesics within the spatial part, it's about any kind of geodesic. When exploring black holes and big bang models sometimes the most interesting geodesics are those which are unnatural, the space-like ones, as they allow you to probe structures which time-like curves cannot.

If you don't think GR has something to say about the BB then you show you've never understood either.

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.

You make it sound like it is all guessing. GR's ability to model and accurately predict many big bang related phenomena is well tested by experiments and is extremely good. It isn't just random guessing, it's following the scientific method properly.

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.

On a GR effective level it amounts to varying coordinate frames. If you want to talk about direct couplings then you'd probably need to go down to the quantum level to explain how gravity interacts with individual particles. Either way, your attempt to dismiss GR's take on this stuff and make it seem like it's worth no more attention than any other proposition is deeply flawed. Particularly since you're making it clear you haven't taken the time to try to learn any of what it says.

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.

False. Maxwell developed his model of electromagnetism long before we knew about the individual particles which actually make up light and interact with the other particles in the universe. Maxwell did not need to know the precise mechanism by which electromagnetic fields couple to charged matter to describe the effects. Much like electromagnetism is an effective model for the more fundamental quantum electrodynamics general relativity is an effective model for some underlying quantum gravity model which we currently don't know. Dismissing GR because it doesn't have all the answers is like dismissing Maxwell's electromagnetism because it doesn't explain photons.

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

And yet you don't bother to find out what GR says or what it is about or what it applies to or what it's role in the big bang model is? Sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes doesn't count as 'discourse'.

You make assumptions about my reading/knowledge of current theory in order to distract from your own evasions and try to dismiss the request for substantiation of what you claimed. And you are incorrect in those assumptions. I already well know what the conventional theory says.

No, you obviously don't, given your comments about what GR is supposedly about and what you think the BB is about and how the two don't align. You also definitely lack the mathematical knowledge to understand the details of GR too, so you're left having to rely on other people to do the details for you and then interpret them, you cannot actually calculate or work out what GR has to say about anything for yourself.

Your inability or unwillingness to realise that the point you keep repeating is somewhat irrelevant looks like the usual smoke screen hacks throw up when they are in over their head. They endlessly repeat the same poorly constructed question, assuming that if no one can answer them then they must be right, rather than incoherent and ignorant.

 

[origin]

If it isn't a problem, then why does origin and other 'experts' here often DEMAND other to explain themselves and not confuse hypothesis/speculation with 'theory'? Double standards?

Putting aside that it seems you are just trolling, this is a good question.

When a layman sees a theory such as the big bang it is generally laid out in layman terms. In other words the bottom line of the theory is presented. I have taken physics courses and an astronomy course so I have been able to go a bit deeper into the subject but just a tiny bit. Astrophysicists go to the base of theory and learn the underlying basis of the theory.

So for someone who does not have the educational background and only gives a cursory look at the layman explanation, it may seem like a theory is little more than speculation - but if you actually take the time to delve into the theory you can see the complexity and fullnesss of the theory. At least until you (or I) hit the wall of our educationaly limitations.

A case in point is your insistence that GR does not support an expanding universe.

If the only piece of evidence for the expansion of the universe was the redshift of the galaxies then your point may be worth more than just dissmising. There are many different pieces of evidince for an expanding universe and they fit together very well and support each other.

You demand a 'mechanism' for the coupling of the expansion of space to galaxy motion, a big problem with the galaxies not moving with the expansion of space is that there would have to be some unknown force that would hold them in place. If they did not move and space expanded then there would be a realtive motion of the galaxies to space hence a force would have to exist to do this. The logical assumption is that the galaxies would move with the expanding space. Pluse the technical explanation that is over my head that was presented by Alphanumeric.

To get back to your original question about speculation VS theory here are a couple of comments. The point is you can ALWAYS drill down into a theory to the point where you can not give a mechanism. That in no negates a theory as long as prior to that point the theory explains the observations and is able to make successful predictions. The difference between a theory (or even an hypothesis) and speculation is that speculation just an idea with nothing to back it up. That is why the people here will ask for evidence; if evidence for the idea can be supplied that would be great. However if you can't supply any evidence and dismiss all the evidence that goes against the specualtion what do you expect?

 

[RealityCheck]

This is just the kind of obfuscating garbage RC has always posted.

You post an 'opinion' but do not address the point I put in my last post to you in reply to yours.

Either address the point made therein or concede you have nothing but glib 'explanations' that explain nothing and personal opinions based on hypotheses and speculation.

Why don't you address what I said in my reply to you rather than just make empty/personal evasion posts like that?

 

[RealityCheck]

The point was that no matter how you expand the equilateral triangle, the sides and angles have the exact same geometric relationship to each other. I really don't care what it expands into, that was not the point!

Just as the sides of the triangle retain the geometric relationship, as the triangle expands, so do galaxies retain the same geometric relationships, as space expands. The only change in the geometry of the galaxies is that which stems from their motion in space, not the expansion of space.

I have not questioned the geometry/angles being preserved, I question where the 'interpretation' of that putative SR 'geometry expansion' gives a 'recession velocity' to galaxies in addition to the proper velocity we both have agreed they have through space.

See? origin et al claim hypothesizes that the very far distant galaxies are 'receding from us at greater than lightspeed' with space 'expansion'.

I ask him/anyone how the SR 'geometry expansion' can give that 'recession velocity' to galaxies if the geometry is expanding merely preserving the angles BUT NOT THE SPACE DISTANCES; which space distances must be changing if such greater-than-lightspeed 'recession velocities' are 'real' and not just 'assumed interpretation of the observed light 'redshift' values?

That is the point of the challenge to the glibly trotted out SR 'explanations' which DON'T explain THAT.

Until this is done, then there is every reason to keep challenging those glibly trotted out SR 'explanations' that don't answer anything but merely repeat an incomplete geometric view that does not cover that 'recession velocity component' aspect I keep trying to point out, and which everyone is happy to evade and opinionate without addressing it squarely and consistently with scientific rigor rather than rote 'non-explanations glibly trotted out without factual substantiation.

Is anyone going to address that now, or is everyone going to keep ignoring that elephant in the room and resort again to shooting the messenger/questioner while busily evading?

You may believe you have pointed that out but you have offered no proof to support your position.

The sucess of both SR and GR, are far more compelling than anything you have gone on about. And it is upon that success that our current understanding of the expansion of the universe is based.

You keep talking about scientists, like you are one. It does not sound like it to me. And just to be clear, though I might have had the opportunity to pursue a career in science, long ago, I am no scientist.

You and everyone agrees that SR is a limited/partial theory based on 'geometry' and relativity. That theory CANNOT AND DOES NOT EXPLAIN the DISTANCE and SUPERLUMINAL RECESSION VELOCITY CHANGES which the HYPOTHESIZED 'universal expansion' of that geometry is supposed to confer to far distant galaxies in addition to their own proper through-space motions which we all already agree upon.

Hence it is perfectly reasonable, and a scientific DUTY to question SR when it comes to it being touted as some 'explanation' of that point.

See? The 'expansion' hypothesis is NOT 'theory' backed by fact; it is hypothesis UNsupported by SR theory which is MISTAKENLY put forth as support when it does nothing of the kind, as I keep pointing out to you, as above.

The argument is NOT what you cross-purposely seem to think, judging from your responses. It is about what I point to. Nothing else. OK?

I would appreciate it if you can read it correctly this time, and have origin et al actually address THE point and not the cross-purpose things which keep getting in the way.

Thanks.

 

[RealityCheck]

Not true. Both motion through static space (relative motion) and motion due to space-time expansion will look the same in terms of frequency shifting. The reason we think there's the latter going on is the universal trend relating distance and relative velocity.

Things happen in space-time. If space-time is varying then the relationship between the things in the space-time will change.

Are you in any way at all familiar with the workings of general relativity and the concept of coordinates? Given the answer is 'no' you cannot really complain something isn't understood just because you don't understand it.

Dark energy is the thing driving the accelerating expansion. The fact positions and velocities vary in a complicated manner due to space-time curvature is a different thing.

Of course when you try to explain something using a particular model you're assuming the model is viable. That's how science works.

Please don't go around telling people how GR works when you clearly don't know it yourself. It's funny you complain others are conflating thing when you've just mixed up an overarching model with a specific application of that model. The expansion of space-time in the universe is modelled using geodesics and curvature in general relativity, it is an example of where GR is used. And you keep saying 'space'. 'Space', as a piece of space-time, is a non-unique concept, how you split space-time into spatial and temporal pieces is somewhat arbitrary. Furthermore GR isn't restricted to geodesics within the spatial part, it's about any kind of geodesic. When exploring black holes and big bang models sometimes the most interesting geodesics are those which are unnatural, the space-like ones, as they allow you to probe structures which time-like curves cannot.

If you don't think GR has something to say about the BB then you show you've never understood either.

You make it sound like it is all guessing. GR's ability to model and accurately predict many big bang related phenomena is well tested by experiments and is extremely good. It isn't just random guessing, it's following the scientific method properly.

On a GR effective level it amounts to varying coordinate frames. If you want to talk about direct couplings then you'd probably need to go down to the quantum level to explain how gravity interacts with individual particles. Either way, your attempt to dismiss GR's take on this stuff and make it seem like it's worth no more attention than any other proposition is deeply flawed. Particularly since you're making it clear you haven't taken the time to try to learn any of what it says.

False. Maxwell developed his model of electromagnetism long before we knew about the individual particles which actually make up light and interact with the other particles in the universe. Maxwell did not need to know the precise mechanism by which electromagnetic fields couple to charged matter to describe the effects. Much like electromagnetism is an effective model for the more fundamental quantum electrodynamics general relativity is an effective model for some underlying quantum gravity model which we currently don't know. Dismissing GR because it doesn't have all the answers is like dismissing Maxwell's electromagnetism because it doesn't explain photons.

And yet you don't bother to find out what GR says or what it is about or what it applies to or what it's role in the big bang model is? Sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes doesn't count as 'discourse'.

No, you obviously don't, given your comments about what GR is supposedly about and what you think the BB is about and how the two don't align. You also definitely lack the mathematical knowledge to understand the details of GR too, so you're left having to rely on other people to do the details for you and then interpret them, you cannot actually calculate or work out what GR has to say about anything for yourself.

Your inability or unwillingness to realise that the point you keep repeating is somewhat irrelevant looks like the usual smoke screen hacks throw up when they are in over their head. They endlessly repeat the same poorly constructed question, assuming that if no one can answer them then they must be right, rather than incoherent and ignorant.

You are beating around the bush with trifles. The point about proper motion was that we can observe and understand it LOCALLY, and describe geodesics for it 'through' space, not 'with' space. Please don't get pedantic and obfuscate the meaning of what I said in the context.

And it is the very point I make that (as you admit) "relating distance to relative velocity" does not explain where the geodesics are in such a hypothesized 'universal expanding' space scenarios use by origin et al.

I just explained to OnlyMe above where the 'expanding geometry' hypothesis does NOT treat specifically the assumption that a 'universal recession' velocity is 'real' rather than inferred from light 'redshift' observations which are 'interpreted' as 'universal recession' velocity component DIFFERENT from proper velocity because the 'recession' of the furthest galaxies is 'interpreted' likewise to be greater than lightspeed and does not break the through-space 'lightspeed limit' constraint of Relativity theory.

Please do not misunderstand me. I know full well the SR 'lightspeed' limiting factor for proper relative velocities as locally observed. No problem with that.

The fact that through-space recession WOULD break that constraint means that the hypothesized/interpreted 'universal recession' relative velocity component MUST BE different from the usual proper velocities differentials.

And so, it is the hypothesized 'changing distances' of the 'expanding space geometry' supposedly giving rise to extra-proper relative velocities of far distant galaxies which is not YET explained, but only assumed without the substantiation. As I keep pointing out: NOWHERE in ANY 'theory' is there an explanation, only speculatory hypotheses pure and simple which are being 'shoehorned' and glibly trotted out as IF they WERE 'theory/fact instead of the inferred speculations of hypothesis which are not supported by SR theory as is.

Please read carefully my post above in reply to OnlyMe and you will get the gist of what the point at issue IS rather than what others seem to cross-purposely THINK it is.

Thanks for your interest/comments.

 

[RealityCheck]

Putting aside that it seems you are just trolling, this is a good question.

When a layman sees a theory such as the big bang it is generally laid out in layman terms. In other words the bottom line of the theory is presented. I have taken physics courses and an astronomy course so I have been able to go a bit deeper into the subject but just a tiny bit. Astrophysicists go to the base of theory and learn the underlying basis of the theory.

So for someone who does not have the educational background and only gives a cursory look at the layman explanation, it may seem like a theory is little more than speculation - but if you actually take the time to delve into the theory you can see the complexity and fullnesss of the theory. At least until you (or I) hit the wall of our educationaly limitations.

A case in point is your insistence that GR does not support an expanding universe.

If the only piece of evidence for the expansion of the universe was the redshift of the galaxies then your point may be worth more than just dissmising. There are many different pieces of evidince for an expanding universe and they fit together very well and support each other.

You demand a 'mechanism' for the coupling of the expansion of space to galaxy motion, a big problem with the galaxies not moving with the expansion of space is that there would have to be some unknown force that would hold them in place. If they did not move and space expanded then there would be a realtive motion of the galaxies to space hence a force would have to exist to do this. The logical assumption is that the galaxies would move with the expanding space. Pluse the technical explanation that is over my head that was presented by Alphanumeric.

To get back to your original question about speculation VS theory here are a couple of comments. The point is you can ALWAYS drill down into a theory to the point where you can not give a mechanism. That in no negates a theory as long as prior to that point the theory explains the observations and is able to make successful predictions. The difference between a theory (or even an hypothesis) and speculation is that speculation just an idea with nothing to back it up. That is why the people here will ask for evidence; if evidence for the idea can be supplied that would be great. However if you can't supply any evidence and dismiss all the evidence that goes against the specualtion what do you expect?

Understood about the simplistic explanation etc. That is why I challenged your own simplistic answer to icarus2, which answer merely served to further obfuscate/ignore the crucial points which I have raised since, and which are the elephant in the room regardless of how simplistically/fully the attempt at such 'explanations' are supposed to be presented as 'fact/theory'.

Before making any further assumptions about me and my knowledge/motivation etc background, please do understand that I am already 42 Years into an exhaustive study of all the theories extant with a view to finding commonalities and inconsistencies within partial theories and between them as a collective whole to date.

So I come to all these discussions/questions after already having considered all the complex and inter-connecting concepts/phenomena which is being posted on in these forums.

And the point I have been trying to get across in this particular instance is that: Neither in the FULL complex 'explanation' NOR in the 'simplistic' one (which you used in answer to icarus2) is there any ACTUAL EXPLANATION for "where are the geodesics in the 'expanding/more space geometry' scenario hypothesized?"...and no actual explanation for the universal recession velocity component AND the 'changing space distances' supposedly implied by both the full and simplistic 'explanations' from SR/big bang interpretations of the observed universal redshift component.

Please read carefully my post to OnlyME, AlexG and AlphaNumeric above, and you will hopefully get what I am saying rather than what you think I am saying. It is because I HAVE researched fully and not published YET that I have come to these questions/perspectives/challenges of the simplistic/full 'answers' from SR which do NOT actually 'answer' when it comes to what I have been pointing out over the last few posts.

Thank you in advance for your patience and respect, and your proper careful reading and understanding of what I am challenging in full context of already long acquaintance and comprehension of all the theories extant during 42 yrs study/discrimination to the most subtle and deepest aspects which have all too often been 'glossed over' in 'explanations' which will not answer in certain questions...as I have just pointed to.

Also please note (just to forestall further personal comments from anyone): that I have no personal axe to grind against anyone; I merely question as indicated by the matter before me in any one situation and in the context of all that I have read/studied that causes me to question/seek consistent answers as appropriate without fear or favor or agenda other than science.

I'll be back later today (or tomorrow if not). Peace.

 

[OnlyMe]

RealityCheck, I don't think you are playing with a full deck of cards. It very often seems to me that you are not even talking about the same thing everyone else is.

You continue to be trying to frame the discussion in terms of SR. While SR is a weak field limit of GR, ie. it is accurate in a locally flat spacetime, the expansion of space is described within the context of GR, rather than SR. It does not occur in the abscence of gravity, instead it occurs inspite of gravity.

You seem unable to make any sort of transition away from the conceptual image that any increase in distance must involve velocity. That is not what the expansion of space suggests. It is more like space is being created, uniformly throughout the universe. And is only observable in those areas between large galactic scale interital systems where gravity no longer dominates the dynamics. It is not a conceptual image, that is easily conveyed in terms of common everyday experience.

The fact is that the expansion of space emerges from GR and recent observations of distant objects. Trying to discredit it by restricting explanations, to the rules and restrictions of SR and/or any predetermined bias, is a distraction.

I have seen no real hi t in your posts that you understand what many others have been trying to explain, and frankly I often find myself scratching my head when trying to figure out what your intent is. (To be honest I am sure the same could be said by other relative to many of my own posts.)

I just don't believe your question was an honest question. It is as if you entered the discussion, already biased on the issue, with little inertest in anyone's explaintion.