Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

# The universe is not expanding

 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AMPosted: 3 years agoYes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.
 Posts: 2,078 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 11:27:10 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.The universe has no size because it is a vague abstraction of nothing in particular.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 11:27:41 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:27:10 AM, sdavio wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.The universe has no size because it is a vague abstraction of nothing in particular.lol Go away.
 Posts: 2,078 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 11:30:49 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:27:41 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:27:10 AM, sdavio wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.The universe has no size because it is a vague abstraction of nothing in particular.lol Go away.I wonder what is the size of the concept of going away? Is it the same colour as the number 4?
 Posts: 2,649 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 3:04:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Are you saying the universe is infinite?
 Posts: 9,470 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 8:30:34 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space.Why believe that? Why can't spacetime expand without external space?Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.This sort of makes sense.
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe, and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink". Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size. Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".If everything is shrinking, then obviously the distance between objects would appear to be increasing from the perspective of something that is also shrinking (us).Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?Well, nothing "prevents it". It's simply a contradiction in terms. If the universe were to contain its own expansion, then obviously it would not be "expanding" in any absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, can the universe change in absolute to begin with. There is nothing external to the universe which its size could change relative to, and thus it cannot increase.
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 4:47:52 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".If everything is shrinking, then obviously the distance between objects would appear to be increasing from the perspective of something that is also shrinking (us).At the enormous distances of space, this wouldn't matter. For example, the radius of the Milky Way Galaxy is around 50 thousand light years, and our galaxy is rather large. The radius of the universe is 46 billion light years. Therefore, the distance between galaxies is far larger than the size of the galaxies themselves. The observed redshift is far too large to conclude that matter is shrinking.Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.That's nonsensical. Draw a circle (call it A) of radius r. Draw another circle (call it B) of radius r. How is it fallacious to say that circle B contains everything in circle A?Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Yes, but there would be other manifestations of such a decrease. For example, smaller measuring instruments would detect a faster speed of light.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?Well, nothing "prevents it". It's simply a contradiction in terms. If the universe were to contain its own expansion, then obviously it would not be "expanding" in any absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, can the universe change in absolute to begin with. There is nothing external to the universe which its size could change relative to, and thus it cannot increase.But the internal distances would change. We are inside the universe, and we see it expanding because of the redshift of astronomical bodies. There's no need for an external verification of expansion.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 5:02:50 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 4:47:52 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".If everything is shrinking, then obviously the distance between objects would appear to be increasing from the perspective of something that is also shrinking (us).At the enormous distances of space, this wouldn't matter. For example, the radius of the Milky Way Galaxy is around 50 thousand light years, and our galaxy is rather large. The radius of the universe is 46 billion light years. Therefore, the distance between galaxies is far larger than the size of the galaxies themselves. The observed redshift is far too large to conclude that matter is shrinking.The rate of shrinkage determines the speed of light, so... it's not like it's slow or anything.Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.That's nonsensical. Draw a circle (call it A) of radius r. Draw another circle (call it B) of radius r. How is it fallacious to say that circle B contains everything in circle A?lul wut. Circle B only contains everything in circle A because circle A is smaller. That is the point.Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Yes, but there would be other manifestations of such a decrease. For example, smaller measuring instruments would detect a faster speed of light.Not in any measurable sense. Also, wouldn't the same apply if space were expanding?Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?Well, nothing "prevents it". It's simply a contradiction in terms. If the universe were to contain its own expansion, then obviously it would not be "expanding" in any absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, can the universe change in absolute to begin with. There is nothing external to the universe which its size could change relative to, and thus it cannot increase.But the internal distances would change. We are inside the universe, and we see it expanding because of the redshift of astronomical bodies. There's no need for an external verification of expansion.
 Posts: 5,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 6:52:46 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.If everything was shrinking in mass, a number of things:1. It would be detectable because gravity is related to mass and it is easy enough to measure gravity. Just drop a bowling ball, ocean liner, anything you want and it would fall at a slower rate than X years ago.2. Redshift would eventually slow down. IE: A change of mass size that is 1 light year across to 1/2 light year across, becomes a smaller distance when it shrinks down to 1/4 of a light year across. Data suggest red shift is accelerating not slowing down.3. when looking at a spiral galaxy at the right perspective one edge is blue shifted because it is coming at us, the other edge is red shifted because it is moving away from us. If it were shrinking in size the red shift and blue shift would not be as pronounced which would mean it is even spinning faster than we currently calculate, which means it needs even greater amounts of dark matter to hold it together and that dark matter mass would have to be growing while the mass of the visible matter is shrinking.There are just so many holes in that Swiss cheese of a theory, it is best I stop now.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 7:36:31 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 6:52:46 PM, slo1 wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.If everything was shrinking in mass, a number of things:2. Redshift would eventually slow down. IE: A change of mass size that is 1 light year across to 1/2 light year across, becomes a smaller distance when it shrinks down to 1/4 of a light year across. Data suggest red shift is accelerating not slowing down.The objects shrink at a constant rate determined by the unchanging size of the universe. So the theory actually predicts that the universe would appear to be accelerating in its expansion, because smaller and smaller objects would be shrinking at a rate that would have more and more impact.3. when looking at a spiral galaxy at the right perspective one edge is blue shifted because it is coming at us, the other edge is red shifted because it is moving away from us. If it were shrinking in size the red shift and blue shift would not be as pronounced which would mean it is even spinning faster than we currently calculate, which means it needs even greater amounts of dark matter to hold it together and that dark matter mass would have to be growing while the mass of the visible matter is shrinking.There are just so many holes in that Swiss cheese of a theory, it is best I stop now.You don't know what you're talking about.
 Posts: 272 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 1:10:47 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well, space expands into itself............ If your brain cannot comprehend it, then upgrade it.....This is red.
 Posts: 1,110 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well, this leads down a long road of argumentation that begins with a better understanding of your position.Foremost -- do you disagree with the Big Bang theory?If so, do you instead believe that the Universe "always was" and "always will be?"Or, is this instead a philosophical thinking problem, where you suggest that the expansion of the universe is indistinguishable from the simultaneous shrinkage of everything in it? Because, if that's the case, the problem lies in the fact that we not only have an absolute highest point of measurement (the universe at large), we also have the smallest (an atom), and shrinkage would suggest that everything contains less atoms, and thus, less mass.But, let's say that atoms are also shrinking and mass is relative. What then?Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.Well, what if gravity is transmitted by gravitons, and those shrink, too?The best thing I can think of (besides that there would be so much more space around everything in a static universe, resulting in it being rather obvious that we're shrinking rather than expanding), is that eventually, there would be pockets of nothingness in the Universe, especially at its margins, if everything were shrinking. The resulting vacuum would likely tear things apart.Anyway, you may need to go a little deeper with your theory there for it to make sense to me.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?
 Posts: 5,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 12:28:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 7:36:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 6:52:46 PM, slo1 wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.If everything was shrinking in mass, a number of things:2. Redshift would eventually slow down. IE: A change of mass size that is 1 light year across to 1/2 light year across, becomes a smaller distance when it shrinks down to 1/4 of a light year across. Data suggest red shift is accelerating not slowing down.The objects shrink at a constant rate determined by the unchanging size of the universe. So the theory actually predicts that the universe would appear to be accelerating in its expansion, because smaller and smaller objects would be shrinking at a rate that would have more and more impact.Take a football field and shrink it at a consistent rate. The distance across it does not shrink at a consistent rate. Your are confusing a rate with distance and they are not equal. It has a point of diminishing return. In other words you can only shrink X distance further away as the limit would approach zero not infinity.3. when looking at a spiral galaxy at the right perspective one edge is blue shifted because it is coming at us, the other edge is red shifted because it is moving away from us. If it were shrinking in size the red shift and blue shift would not be as pronounced which would mean it is even spinning faster than we currently calculate, which means it needs even greater amounts of dark matter to hold it together and that dark matter mass would have to be growing while the mass of the visible matter is shrinking.There are just so many holes in that Swiss cheese of a theory, it is best I stop now.You don't know what you're talking about.I know enough that the theory is not taken seriously int the scientific community because of the points I brought forth.
 Posts: 1,110 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 12:31:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?Because absolute quantities would reduce. Many measurements in physics, such as gravitation, velocity, and temperature, aren't relative.
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 3:06:25 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 5:02:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:47:52 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".If everything is shrinking, then obviously the distance between objects would appear to be increasing from the perspective of something that is also shrinking (us).At the enormous distances of space, this wouldn't matter. For example, the radius of the Milky Way Galaxy is around 50 thousand light years, and our galaxy is rather large. The radius of the universe is 46 billion light years. Therefore, the distance between galaxies is far larger than the size of the galaxies themselves. The observed redshift is far too large to conclude that matter is shrinking.The rate of shrinkage determines the speed of light, so... it's not like it's slow or anything.If matter was only shrinking, the increased distance light would have to travel would be much smaller than if space was expanding at the rate it is, and thus the value of redshift would be much lower if matter was shrinking.Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.That's nonsensical. Draw a circle (call it A) of radius r. Draw another circle (call it B) of radius r. How is it fallacious to say that circle B contains everything in circle A?lul wut. Circle B only contains everything in circle A because circle A is smaller. That is the point.Exactly. Circle A = Circle B, meaning they're the same size, and each contains everything in the other.Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Yes, but there would be other manifestations of such a decrease. For example, smaller measuring instruments would detect a faster speed of light.Not in any measurable sense. Also, wouldn't the same apply if space were expanding?Yes it would. For example, the meter would shrink, but the second would remain the same amount of time. Thus, light, would travel more meters in the same second, in essence speeding up. If space were expanding, the actual "meter" definition isn't increasing; only space is, and this manifests itself in redshift.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?Well, nothing "prevents it". It's simply a contradiction in terms. If the universe were to contain its own expansion, then obviously it would not be "expanding" in any absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, can the universe change in absolute to begin with. There is nothing external to the universe which its size could change relative to, and thus it cannot increase.But the internal distances would change. We are inside the universe, and we see it expanding because of the redshift of astronomical bodies. There's no need for an external verification of expansion.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 9:18:53 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 3:06:25 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 5:02:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:47:52 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.You don't understand redshift. For the light that reaches us to be redshifted, the distances between the object that emitted the light to the object that received the light has to increase. The light would not be redshifted if the objects simply shrunk.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".If everything is shrinking, then obviously the distance between objects would appear to be increasing from the perspective of something that is also shrinking (us).At the enormous distances of space, this wouldn't matter. For example, the radius of the Milky Way Galaxy is around 50 thousand light years, and our galaxy is rather large. The radius of the universe is 46 billion light years. Therefore, the distance between galaxies is far larger than the size of the galaxies themselves. The observed redshift is far too large to conclude that matter is shrinking.The rate of shrinkage determines the speed of light, so... it's not like it's slow or anything.If matter was only shrinking, the increased distance light would have to travel would be much smaller than if space was expanding at the rate it is, and thus the value of redshift would be much lower if matter was shrinking.Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.That's nonsensical. Draw a circle (call it A) of radius r. Draw another circle (call it B) of radius r. How is it fallacious to say that circle B contains everything in circle A?lul wut. Circle B only contains everything in circle A because circle A is smaller. That is the point.Exactly. Circle A = Circle B, meaning they're the same size, and each contains everything in the other.That's not containment, that's just an identity relation.Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Yes, but there would be other manifestations of such a decrease. For example, smaller measuring instruments would detect a faster speed of light.Not in any measurable sense. Also, wouldn't the same apply if space were expanding?Yes it would. For example, the meter would shrink, but the second would remain the same amount of time. Thus, light, would travel more meters in the same second, in essence speeding up. If space were expanding, the actual "meter" definition isn't increasing; only space is, and this manifests itself in redshift.Time is defined on change of state. Thus, where state shrinks, "a second" follows suit. So the speed of light wouldn't change.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.What would prevent the universe from expanding intrinsically?Well, nothing "prevents it". It's simply a contradiction in terms. If the universe were to contain its own expansion, then obviously it would not be "expanding" in any absolute sense. Nor, for that matter, can the universe change in absolute to begin with. There is nothing external to the universe which its size could change relative to, and thus it cannot increase.But the internal distances would change. We are inside the universe, and we see it expanding because of the redshift of astronomical bodies. There's no need for an external verification of expansion.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 11:31:14 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Differentiate between the two positions sufficiently to justify your preference, please. As it stands, it seems your entire argument rests on making an assumption that goes against the prima facie evidence we have.We know things are separating. Either they are expanding apart from each other or they are, as you want to claim, shrinking.If you want to prefer to say that everything in the universe is shrinking, you have to give us some reason to even think that's possible, before we even get to the problems of physics and mathematics that would be involved, given our knowledge of the physical constants such as the speed of light.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 4,236 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 6:21:42 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/27/2014 9:18:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 3:06:25 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 5:02:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:47:52 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 4:30:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 3:45:36 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.All that points to is matter saying the same size.No, it actually doesn't. In order for something to contain itself, its next state must be defined within the previous one. That's what containment means.That's nonsensical. Draw a circle (call it A) of radius r. Draw another circle (call it B) of radius r. How is it fallacious to say that circle B contains everything in circle A?lul wut. Circle B only contains everything in circle A because circle A is smaller. That is the point.Exactly. Circle A = Circle B, meaning they're the same size, and each contains everything in the other.That's not containment, that's just an identity relation.If there're the same size, then each circle would contain everything in the other circle.Matter can't just increase or decrease in mass or volume without there being a reason.Since everything shrinks at the same rate, the decrease in mass and volume cannot be physically defected, since our instruments (along with everything else) would also be shrinking.Yes, but there would be other manifestations of such a decrease. For example, smaller measuring instruments would detect a faster speed of light.Not in any measurable sense. Also, wouldn't the same apply if space were expanding?Yes it would. For example, the meter would shrink, but the second would remain the same amount of time. Thus, light, would travel more meters in the same second, in essence speeding up. If space were expanding, the actual "meter" definition isn't increasing; only space is, and this manifests itself in redshift.Time is defined on change of state. Thus, where state shrinks, "a second" follows suit. So the speed of light wouldn't change.By what mechanism would time change? Even if we assume that matter is shrinking, that doesn't imply that units of time are shrinking in length as well.We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 6:55:41 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 12:31:32 PM, Such wrote:At 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?Because absolute quantities would reduce. Many measurements in physics, such as gravitation, velocity, and temperature, aren't relative.I thought velocity was relative - it's not?"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 7:23:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding.Oh pulease, this post is inane.The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space.Nonsense, the metric expansion of space is an intrinsic expansion, it"s the scale of space itself that is changing, and it doesn"t need to expand into an external space.Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself.Externally undefined in size is a meaningless statement, there is no "external" to the Universe. It"s the relative distance between objects on very large scales that defines the metric expansion of space, and among other things, the observational evidence for it is the redshift of distant objects.That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe.Yep Einstein, A=A, thanks for enlightening us on that one"but wait, there"s more, A is also expanding in time.There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to.Another meaningless statement, the metric expansion of space is measured by the relative change of the distance between objects within the Universe; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is anything absolute about it.We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.What's this "we" sh!t white man? I'm pretty sure you're on your own with this nonsense endeavor, and if you want to completely refute Big Bang Cosmology and change the Standard Model to somehow invert the FLRW Metric, you"re going to need a lot more than this cartoonish post.Big Bang Cosmology provides a detailed explanatory framework for the metric expansion of space that incorporates the observed Redshift. If you want to completely undermine the very basis of modern cosmology, you"re going to need and explanatory framework, some explanation for Redshift, a completely revised model for gravity, and a few thousand other things, certainly more than just the unsubstantiated bloviating of inane nonsense."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 7:42:34 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/27/2014 6:55:41 PM, 000ike wrote:At 7/26/2014 12:31:32 PM, Such wrote:At 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?Because absolute quantities would reduce. Many measurements in physics, such as gravitation, velocity, and temperature, aren't relative.I thought velocity was relative - it's not?"That velocity is relative" is like the first thing you learn in physics.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 7:45:51 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/27/2014 7:42:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/27/2014 6:55:41 PM, 000ike wrote:At 7/26/2014 12:31:32 PM, Such wrote:At 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?Because absolute quantities would reduce. Many measurements in physics, such as gravitation, velocity, and temperature, aren't relative.I thought velocity was relative - it's not?"That velocity is relative" is like the first thing you learn in physics.yeah I know - but I also know that theories from the quantum revolution made many aspects of classical mechanics inaccurate. I assume he knows more about this subject than I do, so presented my inquiry with uncertainty.By the way, besides that velocity example, he raises a solid point. I think it deserves a response from you, no?"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 3,749 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 8:01:09 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 8:06:05 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/24/2014 8:40:24 PM, Subutai wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Yes, you heard me right. Regardless of any absurdities you may have heard from those who should know better, the universe is NOT expanding. The universe includes all of space-time, and in order for something to expand, it must expand into external space. Moreover, the universe is externally undefined in size, meaning its size is completely relative to itself. That is, the size of the universe always remains...the size of the universe. There is nothing "absolute" about it, since there is nothing which it could change relative to. We must therefore convert the model so that objects shrink relative to the unchanging size of the universe.Well then how do you explain the observed redshift of the vast majority of objects in the universe,No empirical distinction can be made between the expansion of space-time with respect to its contents and the shrinkage of its contents relative to space-time.Nonsense, there's a boatload of empirical distinctions between the two, and there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support your idiotic shrinkage theory. The metric expansion of space is a feature of the most reasonably defined solutions to Einstein's field equations of general relativity, your inane "shrinkage" theory isn't a solution to or from anything.and by what mechanism would matter just "shrink".Basically, matter contains itself such that its next state is defined within the previous one. There's more to it than that of course.Further, why must there be space beyond the universe itself for the universe toe expand into?Because "intrinsic expansion" is a contradiction in terms. If something is expanding, then something must contain the expansion. It's tautological if you think about it.More nonsense,What we know for certain is that the "total universe" is much larger than the observable universe, and so for all intents and purposes, we can, and do assume that the universe is infinite in spatial extent, which would mean there is no edge or boundary and hence, no need for something for it to expand into. The way space is defined by modern science in no way requires something exterior to it into which it can expand, an expansion of an infinite space can occur without it"s infinite extent changing, and no outside is required for an expansion to occur. In the end, it just doesn"t matter, all we can be certain of is that the space of the observed universe has the property that the distance between objects is increasing with time, and we are in fact certain of that. There is no reason whatsoever to believe there is, or needs to be, anything "outside" of the expanding universe for it to expand into."It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 8:01:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/27/2014 7:45:51 PM, 000ike wrote:At 7/27/2014 7:42:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/27/2014 6:55:41 PM, 000ike wrote:At 7/26/2014 12:31:32 PM, Such wrote:At 7/26/2014 10:54:48 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 5:51:37 AM, Such wrote:At 7/24/2014 11:06:30 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Well, then gravity would change, because gravity is mass-dependent.If everything is shrinking at the same rate, how would this be detected?Because absolute quantities would reduce. Many measurements in physics, such as gravitation, velocity, and temperature, aren't relative.I thought velocity was relative - it's not?"That velocity is relative" is like the first thing you learn in physics.yeah I know - but I also know that theories from the quantum revolution made many aspects of classical mechanics inaccurate. I assume he knows more about this subject than I do, so presented my inquiry with uncertainty.By the way, besides that velocity example, he raises a solid point. I think it deserves a response from you, no?What relativity means is that things are defined on each other. Gravitation, for instance, is defined relative to mass, and mass is not an absolute quantity. Temperature would not increase either, since the size of the atoms would shrink along with the objects, so it's not like they would all be squished together.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/27/2014 8:04:14 PMPosted: 3 years agoSidewalker, I hope you realize that I don't actually read your posts. Well, sometimes I do. But then I regret it.
© 2018 Debate.org. All rights reserved.