4 ms·
This is hard to communicate so I’m sure I’ve been misleading. “Space” is expanding uniformly, yes. But not the matter that exists in space, nor is the distance
by ninkendo 3y ago
This is hard to communicate so I’m sure I’ve been misleading.
“Space” is expanding uniformly, yes. But not the matter that exists in space, nor is the distance between local matter increasing.
It’s not like the entire universe is undergoing a magnification of scale where everything is enlarging including each individual atom.
So it’s misleading to say “the space between your fingers is expanding”, because it might give the impression that the distance between your fingers will actually be larger as time passes. This is not the case.
If “space is expanding”, but the matter inside this space is unaffected by said expansion, then you’re left with a very subtle phenomena which is easy to misunderstand.
- d_tr 3y ago> This is hard to communicate ... True. I think that the best way to explain this to someone who does not know about the phenomenon is to start with the phrase "existing space continuously creates new space" and everything should follow from this fact.
- antifa 3y agoI actually find your "it is and it isn't" to be much more confusing than "it is but the other forces recompact matter faster than the new space emerges".
- saltcured 3y agoSo then all our parts are "falling" together constantly through this expanding space? I say falling, but I understand it is other local forces besides gravity. I struggle to wrap my mind around what that means for concepts I learned long ago in college physics... what is an inertial frame of reference then? What about the speed of light and relativistic effects? I suppose the answer is back to the original statement that the effect is really only noticable at cosmological scales. Locally, it's well below any margin of error?