![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson wrote:just explain gravity
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
From there, all that remains is a clarification of what acceleration is - a diminishing of the continuum's separational capacity.
So what would that look like?Einstein provided the great revelation that gravity is acceleration.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson wrote:separational capacity?
Watson wrote:there is no "outside of the Universe"
Watson wrote:Is the Universe spinning?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Regardless of expansion, space isn't space, unless it offers the potential for separation. It is naïve to presume that such potential must be uniform. I model 100% separational capacity as the potential for two objects to maintain separation. We observe that it is not normally the case. Absent balancing forces, gravitation will cause any two objects to accelerate toward each other.
A lot depends on your definition of "universe". If you take it as all space (a particular simultaneity) at a given time, then time allows plenty of room for expansion. Every moment provides for a new space, which can be expanded compared to the last one. The timelines of remote objects would tend to diverge in such a model.
Similarly, if you go up two dimensions, all space (3D) is contained in such an equator which experiences uniform expansion (in all 3D) as it spins about a now 5th D axis.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:08 pm wrote:Regardless of expansion, space isn't space, unless it offers the potential for separation. It is naïve to presume that such potential must be uniform. I model 100% separational capacity as the potential for two objects to maintain separation. We observe that it is not normally the case. Absent balancing forces, gravitation will cause any two objects to accelerate toward each other.
I misunderstood your thinking there. So my suggestion is, gravity is not the cause of seperational capacity. As two objects expand in the 3D Universe they lose seperational capacity and appear to accelerate towards each other.A lot depends on your definition of "universe". If you take it as all space (a particular simultaneity) at a given time, then time allows plenty of room for expansion. Every moment provides for a new space, which can be expanded compared to the last one. The timelines of remote objects would tend to diverge in such a model.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » February 21st, 2018, 12:15 pm wrote:
But it is not a separational capacity? It might be a dimensional expansion. This idea is not disallowed, since there is no "outside of the Universe" for a frame of reference. What the whole of the Universe is doing is an open question, far beyond our ability achieve answers. Is the Universe spinning? Is it expanding? If so, into what? There is no way to know, so it is beyond science to even wonder.
Watson » February 21st, 2018, 12:15 pm wrote: To my mind, if matter is expanding at the fundamental level, it would cohesively dimensional expand at the macro level of us. But again, there would be no identifiable frame of reference. There would only be identifiers such as gravity.
If all matter expands into the three dimensional unframed Universe, the gravity acceleration would be a natural aspect. The question is, given this type of dimensional expansion, does our known gravity conform to predictions? That is a question science should be able to wonder about.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » February 21st, 2018, 9:01 pm wrote: They should be careful not to deny the BB event itself, which clearly is nowhere now. In 4D, which includes time, past events cannot be denied a location.
This is equivalent to admitting that a circle has a center which is nowhere on the circle itself.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The problem is that, unlike Wonderland, when one cosmological change takes place EVERYTHING changes proportionally so we have no local observation of change. The best place to look for evidence of change is in the distant galaxies. This is essentially looking back in time.
If matter expands while space (distance) remains the same, this would give us the observation of a contracting universe that is growing more crowded as it ages. On the other hand, if space expands while matter remains the same or if space remains the same while matter contracts, either possibility would appear to us as a dimensional expansion which is what we see.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:The central BB event is everywhere now.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » February 22nd, 2018, 7:23 am wrote:I am thinking of the capital U, Universe. But I'm not thinking of Hubble expansion. I'm thinking more of an Alice in Wonderland type expansion. If Alice takes a pill and expands by ? times, she knows it and the people at her feet know it. And if magic dust hits Wonderland, and all of Wonderland now expands by the same factor as Alice, then Alice and others at her feet would again know it.
But what would they know? Did Wonderland expand to match Alice, or did Alice shrink back down? Without a frame of reference there is no way to know. That is my point, there is no way to know, either in Wonderland or in the Universe.
bangstrom » February 22nd, 2018, 3:24 pm wrote:If matter expands while space (distance) remains the same, this would give us the observation of a contracting universe that is growing more crowded as it ages. On the other hand, if space expands while matter remains the same or if space remains the same while matter contracts, either possibility would appear to us as a dimensional expansion which is what we see.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Positor » February 21st, 2018, 6:20 pm wrote:hyksos » February 20th, 2018, 6:44 am wrote:There is an error in the above post.one of the above six
Five?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The kind of idea were "expansion of space" is replaced by something else , like "The mass of everything in the universe is increasing". He found rather quickly that you cannot just replace one for the other, without also heavily modifying a bunch of other parameters and constants.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » February 22nd, 2018, 10:54 pm wrote:
By "now" I refer to any observer's simultaneity, i.e. all that observer's space at the present moment. All observers find the Big Bang (BB) to be a past event, about 13.7 billion years ago to us and not zero years ago to anyone.
A 4D consideration incorporates time and would include the BB event, but it would be highly localized, if not a single point.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » February 26th, 2018, 7:13 am wrote:
Shrinking of objects means the local laws of physics are changing. As far we know, changes in local laws of physics are not observed in distant galaxies.
Matter shrinking and space expanding are very different scenarios, which would yield differences in experimental observations.
hyksos » February 26th, 2018, 7:13 am wrote:
The reason is simple. Forces and other interactions will act against the expansion of space. Imagine two massive objects connected by a spring. If the space is not expanding at all, the spring will hold the masses at some distance, call it D, with regularity. Now consider the same system in a universe in which all space is expanding at a constant rate, r. The tension in the spring will act against the expansion, until a point at which a stability is reached. In that universe, the masses would be separated by a distance that is more like .
(1.000000000000174 * D )
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Local laws of physics should remain the same as long as all changes remain proportional. We have no external god’s eye view of the universe to tell us if the universe is expanding or if the entire material world is growing smaller and it really makes no difference since the two possibilities are physically equivalent.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » February 27th, 2018, 9:47 am wrote:
So if it is possible to consider the uniform expansion of the Universe (of matter and space), then it should be equally possible to consider the gravity we experience and observe is actually the acceleration of the expansion.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » February 28th, 2018, 9:22 am wrote:Yes exactly. I trick is to imagine matter expanding at a rate of say 9.8 m/s/s, and to image space expanding at a slightly faster rate. So for us there is no change observed at the local level, and only an expansion of space at the macro-verse level.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Watson » February 28th, 2018, 6:23 pm wrote:
I assumed a rate of matter expansion of 9.8 m/s/s because that is the rate of gravity.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests