|
Author
|
Topic: What's the Fabric of space made out of?
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Note that the galaxies (yellow blobs) do not grow, but the distance between galaxies grows, I'm not educated enough to debate the link's physics, but I do see a problem with the balloon analogy/model, in that if you paint dots like these on a balloon and blow it up, the dots do grow congruently with the spaces between the dots. Doesn't that taint your model?
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by contracycle, posted 03-15-2005 10:17 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 138 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 12:39 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 140 of 284 (191701)
03-15-2005 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Sylas
03-15-2005 12:39 PM
|
|
Of course. It is only an analogy after all, and like any analogy it fails at some point. But you can improve the analogy by thinking of buttons glued on a balloon. The buttons hold together at the same size despite the glue trying to pull them apart. Galaxies are held together like this by their own gravity. .....Like a bit of tampering can do wonders to make most any analogy work for one's advantage. Right? Btw, if you glue the buttons on first, before the expanding of the balloon, they'l pop off. Why? Because the area/space which they occupy expands congruently with the whole balloon. That leaves you with essentially the same problem with your space model, imo. Yes, I understand that electro-magnetic forces, et al are suppose to restrict expansion in occupied ares of your alleged expanding space, yet your definition of space remains, imo, ambiguous.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 12:39 PM | | Sylas has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 151 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 10:42 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
I'm new here and not sure what is going on. Help!
I only posted about 'Tired Light' to correct the erroneous statements posted here on this thread - sorry if I have overstepped the mark.
Lyndon The thread is about the "fabric" of space, Lyndon. I'm understanding that so long as we post messages pertaining to that, nobody's overstepped; certainly not your posts, as you state, are responsive refutations. Until we get clarification from admin, I assume we are free to carry on so long as we hold to the topic of space. I don't see how arguments for or against expansion of space which includes redshift, tired light, et al, can be detached from the topic which is the fabric /properties of space.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: How to start a new "Tired Light" topic
Hi Moose. I missed your post before my last post. I need to leave my computer now. Hopefully Admin Sylas will organize a new thread if that's what admin has decided. Thanks. {Note from Adminnemooseus - No way you could see it. Both messages were posted at the same time.} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-15-2005 02:05 PM
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: Why have a new topic?
"Whats the Fabric of space made out of?" is a pretty broad theme. Kind of like "Let's talk about the universe". The "Tired Light" concept is more specialized and it is lyndonashmore's special interest. While it may well not be off-topic here, the bottom line is that we (admins) think it deserves and should be it's own topic. My previous message was my best effort to outline the hows and whys of the "Proposed New Topics" process. Adminnemooseus No problem Moose. Thanks for responding. It appears that the new thread will do the job.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 149 of 284 (191759)
03-15-2005 5:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by Sylas
03-15-2005 4:28 PM
|
|
I wish there was an easier way to move posts. (Is there?) How about if you designate which posts should be moved and each participant copies and pastes their own posts to the new thread, that is, unless you want them in the same order as were originally posted?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by Sylas, posted 03-15-2005 4:28 PM | | Sylas has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 152 of 284 (191931)
03-16-2005 12:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
03-16-2005 10:42 AM
|
|
Arguing that the buttons would fly off because of the glue holding them to the balloon completely misses the point of the analogy. I agree a lot about what you say about analogies. My point in the buttons flying off had more to do with the expansion of the balloon/space area the buttons occupied than it had to do with the nature of glue, however, which imo, addresses the point of the analogy.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Percy, posted 03-16-2005 10:42 AM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 153 by Sylas, posted 03-17-2005 6:06 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 154 of 284 (192183)
03-17-2005 7:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by Sylas
03-17-2005 6:06 PM
|
|
It does not address the point of the analogy at all. It avoids it, and by this stage it looks to be deliberate. Deep down I am pretty sure you are merely switching off and refusing to learn. It's your choice. No, Sylas, it's not a deliberate attempt to fiddle away bandwith and our time. It's that if you use a ballon anlalogy, the whole balloon stretches and I'm just not convinced that you should have areas of space which alegedly expand adjacent to other areas that don't, regardless of the forces relative to stuff occupying space. It's about our differences in the nature of space. Until you've convinced me otherwise, I continue to debate on the basis of my concept as you do with yours. Your comment about my insincerity about learning is a false premise on your part. I say ditch your balloon analogy if it's not more analitic as a model, since the whole balloon expands, including the dot and button areas. I don't get allowed this kind of leeway when debating my stuff. I'd soon have five counterparts calling me on it. In my iceage thread I can't even get my counterparts to admit that ice can be referred to as water in a general sense as we often do today. LOL!
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Sylas, posted 03-17-2005 6:06 PM | | Sylas has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 173 of 284 (193526)
03-22-2005 8:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by Asgara
03-17-2005 7:18 PM
|
|
Maybe you and Sylas could work with this analogy. A loaf of raisin or nut bread. When you set this dough to rise it is much smaller than it will become...the dough rises(expands) yet the nuts/raisins do not get bigger. As a matter of fact, it takes energy for anything to expand. Both analogys make that point. This's my greatest problem with expansion of space. I don't see that anyone has cited any energetic properties of space which would effect expansion of anything. As I've long contended, space must contain things which have energy to expand in any observations or explanations of what is percieved to be expanding space. Space itself, imo, is a vaccum in which things and forces like galaxies, electromagnatism and gravity can be introduced into. What alleged properties of an absolute vacuum have the capability of expansion? This's the logic I use and no amount of mathmatics is going to change that until these questions are logically and sensibly answered.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by Asgara, posted 03-17-2005 7:18 PM | | Asgara has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 174 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2005 10:25 PM | | Buzsaw has replied | | | Message 212 by Trae, posted 03-26-2005 3:05 AM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 184 of 284 (193681)
03-23-2005 11:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by Sylas
03-22-2005 10:25 PM
|
|
buzsaw says:
What alleged properties of an absolute vacuum have the capability of expansion? Sylas says:
Its geometry. You've been given this answer many times, and your only response is to shut your mind to it. Webster says:
The branch of mathematics that deals with points, lines, planes, and solids, and examines their properties, measurement, and mutual relations in space. According to the definition of geometry, Sylas, geometry is not a property of space, so your answer to my question is wrong. In an unbounded total space vacuum, there would be no binding properties, no gravity or other forces, and nothing to measure geometrically. Thus, my ongoing contention that there are no properties to space/vacuum to measure or cause expansion. Only when something is introduced into unbounded space/vacuum can anything be observed. Therefore it is only matter, particles and forces, et al which occupy space that can be observed or perceived as expanding, curving or any other activity. Geometry is an examiner or calculator of space/vacuum relative to that which has been introduced into space so as to occupy space. Edited to add bold emphasis to dictionary quote. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-23-2005 11:46 AM
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2005 10:25 PM | | Sylas has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 191 of 284 (193872)
03-24-2005 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by Percy
03-23-2005 12:58 PM
|
|
Re: Properties Of Space
This, from your link:
Those properties are what we call geometry. Two of these properties are the concept of point and the shortest distance between two points. In order to specify points and distances, it is necessary to use material objects. (italics mine) There are no points in space until something is introduced into space. Therefore the points, imo, should not be regarded as properties, i.e. consistency/makeup of space itself, but a means of geometric measurement of things in space. The above statement is surrealistic and illogical whereas I'm being logical and realistic.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by Percy, posted 03-23-2005 12:58 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
Re: Properties Of Space
Hey buddy I posted some time back to see if we could get your common sense take on this. My apologies, my friend. There's so much to get posted and so limited the time to do it. I hadn't forgot you and some others who need responses. Thanks for being patient as you have.
I know this is not in the complete context of the present direction in this thread but concerning space I was wondering if you might apply some reasoning to the following thought experiment. A train is travelling down the tracks beside a railway crossing moving at a constant speed.A man aboard the train drops a steel ball from the window of this passing train and from his vantage point on the train the ball{ignoring air resistence to understand the forces involved} appears to fall in a straight line through space to the ground moving past his train. At the same moment a man on the side of the tracks looks up to see the misdeed.He watches the ball fall arcing to the ground as a result of the combination of the forward movement of the train and the pull of gravity set it in a parabloic curve. Which is the correct path in space,the straight line or the parabola? Of course, the parabola is the correct path. But your analogical parabola has a logical cause and effect. The parabolic path the ball takes on it's journey happened in space/area in which the event took place. The space/area itself in which this happened was exactly as it was before the ball dropped. The only factors in this was the speed of the train which existed in space and the drop of the ball which existed in space. Space did not curve. By definition, there's nothing difinitive about the property of space that has the energy to curve. Your analogy, imo, had everything to do with matter and energy existing in space and nothing to do with the property of the space/area in which the event took place.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by sidelined, posted 03-24-2005 1:49 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 197 of 284 (194258)
03-24-2005 10:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 193 by Sylas
03-24-2005 2:01 AM
|
|
Re: Properties Of Space
There are not even points in space then. Logically, points are not something that exists apart from matter, energy, et al. They are not properties of space, but math mechanisms existing in the minds of people (people existing in space) so as to calculate geometric problems/measurements pertaining to things which exist in space.
A "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about space. All our natural laws and mathematics and so on are abstractions, used to help give a description of how the world works. Sensibly and logically, no. Rather, a "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about that which exists in space. Points are geometric mechanisms in men's minds. What expands is geometric measurements of that which is observed, existing in space. These geometric measurements exist only in the minds of men. The geometric calculations existing in the minds of men pertain to that which exists in space/area and is not a property of space.
Here is a fact of life. Anyone who measures the speed of a light in a vacuum gets the same result, no matter where the light comes from or in which direction it is going, or how fast they are moving. Do you think this is "logical"? This is very different to what we normally expect. For example, if am standing beside the traintracks, and I throw a baseball at the train (and perpendicular to the tracks) at 120 km/hr, then I measure the ball moving perpendicular to the track at 120 km/hr. But if there is a train moving at 90km/hr along the track, then an observer in the train sees the ball travelling diagonally to the track at 150 km/hr. On the other hand, if I shoot at a spaceship in a vacuum with a laser beam, then it does not matter how fast the spaceship is going, or in what direction. I and the spaceship both see the photons moving at 299,792,458 km/sec. We express this a general law about all velocities; and velocity is an abstraction... a useful one. This very unintuitive discovery is a basis of special relativity. Let me know if you can accept this as a fact of life. If so, we'll go on to consider a fact about general relativity. Can we simplify the analogies pertaining to the above? let's use the same analogy for both vacuum and non-vacuum so as not to skew the results. Let's assume that the train and ball thrower are in a vacuum on earth. Everything in the analogy is the same for both, except one is in a vacuum and one is not. Will the outcome be the same as with your spaceship model?
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 193 by Sylas, posted 03-24-2005 2:01 AM | | Sylas has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 198 of 284 (194268)
03-24-2005 11:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 196 by sidelined
03-24-2005 10:34 PM
|
|
Re: Properties Of Space
Then why does the man on the train view a straight path? Because he and the train existing and moving within in static, unbounded space, have a common velocity and the drop of the ball following the direction of that movement is viewed relative to the movement of the viewer, whereas to the bystander, the drop is viewed relative to the earth on which he stands. .
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 196 by sidelined, posted 03-24-2005 10:34 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 201 of 284 (194287)
03-25-2005 12:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 199 by sidelined
03-24-2005 11:48 PM
|
|
Re: Properties Of Space
Longer time to fall.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by sidelined, posted 03-24-2005 11:48 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2