6 ms·

A much simpler explanation that adds no new assumptions and shows that space itself need not be expanding to explain what we observe is at http://finbot.wordpre

A much simpler explanation that adds no new assumptions and shows that space itself need not be expanding to explain what we observe is at http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/expanding-space-obviated/ http://finbot.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/expanding-space-obvia.... It also solves the flatness problem, a major problem in cosmology.

phaemon 13y ago
That page doesn't actually explain why the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other.
- fargolime 13y ago
  Physics doesn't answer why on anything. For example, why does gravity hold me to my chair? Nobody knows. Physics explains only how gravity affects things.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    Of course it does. Gravity holds you to that chair because the mass of the earth is attracting the mass of you. This tells us that if you were sat on a chair on the moon, the hold on you would be less. Theory with prediction, see? That's what that page doesn't answer: Why do the galaxies appear to be moving away from us?
    - fargolime 13y ago
      > Gravity holds you to that chair... You've explained how the effects of gravity can be predicted, not why gravity holds me to the chair. What is the mechanism that causes the gravity that holds me to the chair? Is it undiscovered gravitons, or what? Likewise you wish to know the mechanism that causes the galaxies to move away from one another. We already know that objects have freedom of movement in space. So why the galaxies appear to be moving away from us can be simply because they are moving away from us. There doesn't need to be a deeper explanation. If you would like to explain the observation using the expanding space paradigm then tell me why space itself is expanding, without saying "it just is". Tell me the mechanism by which it expands. Otherwise you've answered one why question by making an assumption that is left wanting for its own explanation as to why. You've traded one problem for another.
      - phaemon 13y ago
        So what? You can ask "why" all the way down, but the effect of you sitting on a chair still has an explanation. I want to know why the galaxies are moving away from each other, because it appears that they should actually be attracted to each other by gravity. You've actually got two problems now: "why are the galaxies moving apart?" and "why isn't gravity working the way we thought it worked?" How is that simpler? EDIT: I forgot; third problem: "why is the sky dark at night?"
        fargolime 13y ago
        > You can ask "why" all the way down, but the effect of you sitting on a chair still has an explanation. Trading one problem for another doesn't really solve anything. You take issue with the blog post for not answering your question but neither does current cosmology answer your question, except by raising another question. So the blog post doesn't have the disadvantage over current cosmology that you suggested. > "why isn't gravity working the way we thought it worked? Objects can move away from one another other even as they are attracted to one another by gravity. Are you thinking of how the galaxies are thought to be accelerating away from one another (dark energy)? > "why are the galaxies moving apart?" Physics doesn't need to answer that. Why isn't our Moon larger than it is? It's enough for physics that it's possible in principle for the galaxies to be moving apart from one another. If something we observe is thought to be impossible in principle, then physics should change to address that. So maybe you're thinking of accelerating cosmic expansion here (dark energy). > "why is the sky dark at night?" That's Olber's Paradox. It's already explained by the redshift. The faster a galaxy moves away from us the more redshifted it is. At some degree of redshift our eyes receive only 1 photon per century on average, or less. So that spot in the sky is dark.
        phaemon 13y ago
        > Trading one problem for another doesn't really solve anything. Yes it does. You might as well say, "No-one knows why I'm stuck to this chair and invoking a complicated 'gravity' theory just trades one problem for another". It clearly does have an advantage though: it answers not just that specific point on chairs, but why rocks fall and how planets orbit and allows you to work out how these things would behave in different environments. A "it just is" theory does none of these things. A "we don't know, but we'll try and find out" theory is much better. > Objects can move away from one another other even as they are attracted to one another by gravity. No they can't, unless some external force is applied at some point. You don't just levitate out of your chair at random intervals for no reason. What was the external force applied to the galaxies? Let's leave the other stuff. If we aren't agreed on the simple things, there's no real point discussing anything more complex.
cpleppert 13y ago
That doesn't make sense at all. The whole point of cosmological expansion is to explain relations between redshift and distance. That is what was suggested to Hubble back in the 1920's when he plotted this relationship. If you don't hypothesize any global relationship between these two values then every galaxy just happens to have a larger velocity depending on distance. The link doesn't explain why this would happen. I'm a little concerned about some of the other stated problems that the 'theory' tries to solve. For instance, >>They believe that sufficiently large objects stretch or break apart, and proffer explanations as to why smaller objects, like galaxies, don’t do likewise. Spacetime isn't an object! I think gravity is a great explanation why galaxies don't break apart..
- fargolime 13y ago
  > The link doesn't explain why this would happen. Physics doesn't answer why on anything. Hubble's observations still apply. He didn't try to explain why the observational data is what it is. > Spacetime isn't an object! Where was the opposite claimed? I don't see it. > I think gravity is a great explanation why galaxies don't break apart.. That's fine, but you still have a flatness problem that also needs an explanation. If you don't need your explanation (by obviating the expanding space paradigm) the flatness problem vanishes.
  - cpleppert 13y ago
    You can edit my response and change the 'why' to 'how.' Doesn't matter. The author still posits no mechanism for why the distribution that Hubble observed holds for every galaxy in the sky nor does he ever address this point at all. He doesn't say it isn't relevant or can be explained in a simpler way he just ignores the evidence. So given a proposed explanation that explains observed phenomena the author claims nothing at all except that it would be consistent (if you get rid of the observed phenomena) to not have the theory. That is a nonsensical argument that begs the question. I.e. if gravity didn't exist apples would still be red Q.E.D. gravity is unnecessary > Where was the opposite claimed? I don't see it. He wants to say that because galaxies don't break apart but the universe does somehow there is an arbitrary limit on the size of objects that 'break apart.'(Do you think some other object other than the universe if being referred to here? What is breaking apart that is larger than galaxies and would remotely make sense here?) This is rather strange because gravity(and the atomic forces) are far stronger than cosmological expansion so his 'point' doesn't make sense.

phaemon 13y ago

That page doesn't actually explain why the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other.

fargolime 13y ago
Physics doesn't answer why on anything. For example, why does gravity hold me to my chair? Nobody knows. Physics explains only how gravity affects things.
- phaemon 13y ago
  Of course it does. Gravity holds you to that chair because the mass of the earth is attracting the mass of you. This tells us that if you were sat on a chair on the moon, the hold on you would be less. Theory with prediction, see? That's what that page doesn't answer: Why do the galaxies appear to be moving away from us?
  - fargolime 13y ago
    > Gravity holds you to that chair... You've explained how the effects of gravity can be predicted, not why gravity holds me to the chair. What is the mechanism that causes the gravity that holds me to the chair? Is it undiscovered gravitons, or what? Likewise you wish to know the mechanism that causes the galaxies to move away from one another. We already know that objects have freedom of movement in space. So why the galaxies appear to be moving away from us can be simply because they are moving away from us. There doesn't need to be a deeper explanation. If you would like to explain the observation using the expanding space paradigm then tell me why space itself is expanding, without saying "it just is". Tell me the mechanism by which it expands. Otherwise you've answered one why question by making an assumption that is left wanting for its own explanation as to why. You've traded one problem for another.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      So what? You can ask "why" all the way down, but the effect of you sitting on a chair still has an explanation. I want to know why the galaxies are moving away from each other, because it appears that they should actually be attracted to each other by gravity. You've actually got two problems now: "why are the galaxies moving apart?" and "why isn't gravity working the way we thought it worked?" How is that simpler? EDIT: I forgot; third problem: "why is the sky dark at night?"
      - fargolime 13y ago
        > You can ask "why" all the way down, but the effect of you sitting on a chair still has an explanation. Trading one problem for another doesn't really solve anything. You take issue with the blog post for not answering your question but neither does current cosmology answer your question, except by raising another question. So the blog post doesn't have the disadvantage over current cosmology that you suggested. > "why isn't gravity working the way we thought it worked? Objects can move away from one another other even as they are attracted to one another by gravity. Are you thinking of how the galaxies are thought to be accelerating away from one another (dark energy)? > "why are the galaxies moving apart?" Physics doesn't need to answer that. Why isn't our Moon larger than it is? It's enough for physics that it's possible in principle for the galaxies to be moving apart from one another. If something we observe is thought to be impossible in principle, then physics should change to address that. So maybe you're thinking of accelerating cosmic expansion here (dark energy). > "why is the sky dark at night?" That's Olber's Paradox. It's already explained by the redshift. The faster a galaxy moves away from us the more redshifted it is. At some degree of redshift our eyes receive only 1 photon per century on average, or less. So that spot in the sky is dark.
        phaemon 13y ago
        > Trading one problem for another doesn't really solve anything. Yes it does. You might as well say, "No-one knows why I'm stuck to this chair and invoking a complicated 'gravity' theory just trades one problem for another". It clearly does have an advantage though: it answers not just that specific point on chairs, but why rocks fall and how planets orbit and allows you to work out how these things would behave in different environments. A "it just is" theory does none of these things. A "we don't know, but we'll try and find out" theory is much better. > Objects can move away from one another other even as they are attracted to one another by gravity. No they can't, unless some external force is applied at some point. You don't just levitate out of your chair at random intervals for no reason. What was the external force applied to the galaxies? Let's leave the other stuff. If we aren't agreed on the simple things, there's no real point discussing anything more complex.

cpleppert 13y ago

That doesn't make sense at all. The whole point of cosmological expansion is to explain relations between redshift and distance. That is what was suggested to Hubble back in the 1920's when he plotted this relationship. If you don't hypothesize any global relationship between these two values then every galaxy just happens to have a larger velocity depending on distance. The link doesn't explain why this would happen. I'm a little concerned about some of the other stated problems that the 'theory' tries to solve. For instance, >>They believe that sufficiently large objects stretch or break apart, and proffer explanations as to why smaller objects, like galaxies, don’t do likewise. Spacetime isn't an object! I think gravity is a great explanation why galaxies don't break apart..

fargolime 13y ago
> The link doesn't explain why this would happen. Physics doesn't answer why on anything. Hubble's observations still apply. He didn't try to explain why the observational data is what it is. > Spacetime isn't an object! Where was the opposite claimed? I don't see it. > I think gravity is a great explanation why galaxies don't break apart.. That's fine, but you still have a flatness problem that also needs an explanation. If you don't need your explanation (by obviating the expanding space paradigm) the flatness problem vanishes.
- cpleppert 13y ago
  You can edit my response and change the 'why' to 'how.' Doesn't matter. The author still posits no mechanism for why the distribution that Hubble observed holds for every galaxy in the sky nor does he ever address this point at all. He doesn't say it isn't relevant or can be explained in a simpler way he just ignores the evidence. So given a proposed explanation that explains observed phenomena the author claims nothing at all except that it would be consistent (if you get rid of the observed phenomena) to not have the theory. That is a nonsensical argument that begs the question. I.e. if gravity didn't exist apples would still be red Q.E.D. gravity is unnecessary > Where was the opposite claimed? I don't see it. He wants to say that because galaxies don't break apart but the universe does somehow there is an arbitrary limit on the size of objects that 'break apart.'(Do you think some other object other than the universe if being referred to here? What is breaking apart that is larger than galaxies and would remotely make sense here?) This is rather strange because gravity(and the atomic forces) are far stronger than cosmological expansion so his 'point' doesn't make sense.