No, but there’s a penguin on the telly.
Posted on 02/09/2015 10:55:17 AM PST by Red Badger
I don’t know, but i ‘ad an awful hard time burying the cat.
Not quite...but he’s not at all well.
Maybe it’s not a good analogy, but when you blow up a balloon (imagined as a miniature big-bang type universe) the expanding balloon does not create space, it occupies previously-existing space. So an expanding universe must be moving into SOMETHING when it expands. As the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer used to say on SNL, “My primitive mind cannot grasp these concepts.”
This isn’t a new idea. I’ve never liked the explanation of redshift. Here is another older link. The first time I read about this was in the late 80s early 90s.
http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379
My hat’s off to the Designer.
Or they're not really moving away from each other, and there isn't really any expansion.
Well, yes and no.
I am relieved. All is right with the Universe.
Um, until these calculators can start with the first expression of space and the first expression of time (point/moment) their calculations will spit out ONLY what they are inputting for potentials.
I hair you talkin’.
No, but there’s a penguin on the telly.
http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379
hehehe
so cute! :-)
Fred Hoyle coined the term ‘Big Bang’.....................
I have never heard anyone explain how the “stuff” that made up the singularity got there.
me neither! LOL!
That’s just baseless speculation. If there is something outside the universe, we cannot observe it, so it’s outside the realm of science to even think about.
Depsite the “aether drag” experiments coming up negative, it has always seemed to me that there must be a medium of some kind out there, and I think that science continually predicts it.
For example, how are gravitational waves propagated if not through a medium? In this case, the medium is “space-time” itself, supposedly. Now space itself seems an odd medium, but if it can propagate waves, then what else can you call it? If space is a medium, and by definition, space fills all of space, then is that not a kind of “aether”?
How about vacuum fluctuations? What exactly is fluctuating if nothing is there? It seems if something is fluctuating, there must be a “something” to fluctuate, hence a medium.
Then there is the “cosmic microwave background radiation”, which is distributed throughout space. Relativity tells us that matter and energy are interchangeable, so why does a medium only have to be composed of matter? Wouldn’t a distribution of energy throughout the universe itself qualify as a medium?
Or how about gravity itself? If space is a true vacuum, a true nothing, then there's nothing for gravity to bend, yet gravitational bending of light is observed. There is clearly a medium in which light propagates. The warp and woof of it is observed, and yet has been denied. You can't bending "nothing", ergo: there is something. Call it aether, call it quantum sludge, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, well, the scientists don't have to call it a duck if egos won't permit, but the existence of the water fowl cannot be denied.
“If space is a true vacuum, a true nothing, then there’s nothing for gravity to bend, yet gravitational bending of light is observed. There is clearly a medium in which light propagates. The warp and woof of it is observed, and yet has been denied. You can’t bending “nothing”, ergo: there is something.”
True, except that space isn’t being bent in relativity, “space-time” is, which is a subtle distinction but it has important implications. So, perhaps this “space-time” itself is the replacement aether needed, at least to make relativity function.
On the other hand, I still doubt Einstein’s explanation that space-time warping is the cause of gravity. If you think about the classic demonstration of it (the rubber sheet and bowling ball one), it actually demonstrates nothing. For, if you did the experiment in an environment where there was no pre-existing gravity well to pull down the bowling ball, then no motion would be observed. So it’s just a clever magic trick, and not a demonstration of the principle.
It seems to me that mass warping space-time can explain light difraction very obviously, but how it would cause gravity remains a mystery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.