answer the simple question something that is expanding has to have something to expand into?, that is Physics and true.
added - you can not expand through a solid without great force, you can however expand through space at ease.....
E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
added - you can not expand through a solid without great force, you can however expand through space at ease.....
You don't understand physics, simple or otherwise. space expands metrically. More space appears between every point in the universe. That's what the expansion is It is space being 'generated'. Not something moving into a pre-existing area. I'm sure that you can't understand it, and so will proclaim it can't be so. Given the struggle to explain that mass and weight are different properties, there's no way you could grasp this.
No, that is what not is happening, you have it wrongly perceived , has the matter expands, it gains more distance from us and more distance apart, it is travelling through the space, like being inside a football and the walls of the football was expanding out, except space has no walls, that is a mistake in visual perception to think that space is expanding, when it is the matter expanding into space, we can clearly see this by the Doppler red shift of matter that is expanding.
''According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today'', being or having been enlarged or extended, in particular, to enlarge or extend anything there has to be a volume of space equal or greater than the expansion, this is general Physics and true.
Space is not generated and the logic says even it were , which it is not, that the generated space would need space to be generated in, to say space is generated is to suggest that in some way matter will be displaced to generate space.
Me and every physicist and cosmologist alive. You're the only one who perceives it correctly?
TC, you're just too stupid to be believed.
Since we see the same redshift in every direction everything must be moving away from us, right? Which would mean we are at the center of the universe.
AlexG, some dude once said "Arguing with a crank is pointless",or something to that effect.
Start by answering the first question with the word "warmer" or the word "cooler" (or if you want to branch out "the same"):
Is the water warmer or cooler than the surrounding air/room?
Yeah, that does sound familiar.
If more space is , then more energy must be as well
Correct.
No, it doesn't. A chemical explosion requires all its material to expand from a relatively small volume due to the intense pressures and energies involved. Then, after some time, it stops expanding when the energy pushing the components apart dissipates.
Imagine someone asking "an expansion from a small volume requires all matter to expand, so why aren't those bombs we dropped in World War II still expanding?" Because the energy that drove the expansion has dissipated and become irrelevant - just as it has inside planets.
Nothing "keeps the Milky way relatively central to the expanding mass we observe."
On what do you base that assumption?
On earth any ''explosion'' has external forces acting upon it, in space Newton's second law applies, matter in space has no external forces of space to act upon it. An expansion needs space to expand into, I really can not understand why the world would be this Naive and think that a big bang started from nothing, made space, when space is already there, you perception is so wrong it is laughable ,and by saying this you are all agreeing to the bible. except in the beginning even the Bible recognises in the beginning there was darkness, darkness even needs space to be in, are you all this Naive? or have I dropped onto one of them funny forums where it is only to take the mick?
You said the water was at room temperature, so it is the same , not warmer or cooler.
Become or make larger or more extensive has the Physical needs of a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
Physics 101.
Physics 101.
Let me get this straight. You really can't understand why something occurs, so therefore it must be wrong. Is that what you're saying here?
Does it occur you that, just possibly, cosmologists aren't all a bunch of naive fools? Let's assume for a moment that they aren't. Could it then be that there might be some way in which the big bang could create space, and space itself could then expand?
I assume you're laughing because you understand the mathematics of the general relativistic description of the expansion of the universe and you have noticed a naive flaw in it. Is that correct? If so, please tell us what the issue is, exactly.
On the other hand, if you're laughing because you really don't understand this stuff and you just can for the life of you imagine how what the scientists say could be true, then maybe now is the time to get some humility and recognise that maybe you don't know everything yet.
Oh, and by the way, the bible has nothing to do with the big bang theory. One is religion. The other is science.
I will gladly show the door to sciforums if you believe that this place is below your intellectual level. Just let me know.
I most certainly did not. I said it started at room temperature. The goal here is to see what temperature it reaches equilibrium at and why.
The water will be at a loss to the volume of the room space, the water will evaporate at room temperature, so I presume the temperature of water starting off at room temperature will drop slightly to account for Kinetic loss?
On Earth and in space objects have external forces acting on them. On Earth and in space Newton's second law holds. You really don't understand this?
Generally a bad idea to base your scientific theories on the Bible. (But if you're doing that, that might explain a lot of your confusion.)
It's in a closed thermos, so there is no evaporation. We're trying to determine the impact of your claimed energy loss due to gravity. If energy is lost due to gravity, the water should get cold, unless it gets energy from somewhere else. Does it?
Why does science seemingly make experimental thought but seemingly always change the parameters of the experiment, I started off with water, no thermal flasks involved.
You have added insulation by adding a flask, how is the flask relevant ?
The parameters were not changed. You mades some absurd claim along the lines that gravity is adding or subtracting energy to objects so to test that effect you must isolate other real sources of energy loss or gain.
It is quite simple though well beyond your abilities.
- Status