Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences

I used a 2D model to explain a few specific traits of occurences in 3D. I reverted to this simpler model in hopes of helping you understand your fundamental errors. To say it is a 2D model explaining 4D occurences is yet another error on your part, as the "fourth dimension" you list is time, which holds perfectly fine in the analogy I described, making it a 3D model, by your very own logic.

Furthermore, the 2D model holds perfectly, when extrapolated to 3D space, insomuch as illustrating how the expansion of space works. That is why scientists, who by the way agree with me and disagree with you to a man, use this analogy to help laymen understand the expansion of space.

A 2D model is incapable of addressing the issues.

It is perfectly capable of addressing some of the issues. Such as, grasping the expansion of space, and why no "origin" point of the expansion exists in this space.

No dot on the plane described can be said to be "the one center". Furthermore, every dot on the plane is the center of its own, observable universe. Furthermore, the illustration shows us both how and why everything is moving away from everything else due to expansion, and why farther apart objects are moving away from each other more quickly than closer objects are.

 

[westwall]

No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences

I used a 2D model to explain a few specific traits of occurences in 3D. I reverted to this simpler model in hopes of helping you understand your fundamental errors. To say it is a 2D model explaining 4D occurences is yet another error on your part, as the "fourth dimension" you list is time, which holds perfectly fine in the analogy I described, making it a 3D model, by your very own logic.

Furthermore, the 2D model holds perfectly, when extrapolated to 3D space, insomuch as illustrating how the expansion of space works. That is why scientists, who by the way agree with me and disagree with you to a man, use this analogy to help laymen understand the expansion of space.

A 2D model is incapable of addressing the issues.

It is perfectly capable of addressing some of the issues. Such as, grasping the expansion of space, and why no "origin" point of the expansion exists in this space.

No dot on the plane described can be said to be "the one center". Furthermore, every dot on the plane is the center of its own, observable universe. Furthermore, the illustration shows us both how any why everything is moving away from everything else due to expansion, and why farther apart objects are moving away from each other more quickly than closer objects are.

No, it isn't. Time is a fundamental aspect of the big bang and the 2D model doesn't take it into account. That makes it worthless because the dimension of time is the most important part of the theory.

The rest is simple mechanics, it's the time factor that causes the issues

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Time is a fundamental aspect of the big bang and the 2D model doesn't take it into account

False. There is clearly time in the 2D model i presented, as it expands over time. By your own logic, that makes it a 3D model. But that is a silly thing to point out, as there is no distinction between the time in 3 spatial dimensions and what, in my analogy, simply represents a 2D cross section of that 3D space. They both have the same timeline.

You keep stumbling. You keep piling on the errors. Your questions are nonsensical due to your misconceptions, and your statements are at odds with the entire scientific community.

Does all of that not give you pause? A reasonable person would consider all of the above and pause to wonder if he is making fundamental errors.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is the Universe Expanding Into? - Universe Today

"The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn't expanding into anything, it's just expanding. .."

.......
AUTHOR: FRASER CAIN
Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today. He's also the co-host of Astronomy Cast with Dr. Pamela Gay.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All we can do is guess.

False. We can also test those guesses (we call these guesses, "hypotheses"). One instance of this is the discovery of the CMB.

 

[james bond]

Violation of the laws of physics

False. It's a theory fleshed out by the people who discovered and taught us the laws of physics. So your comments are laughably absurd.

False. The laws of physics were discovered by people who believed in God and creation such as Aristotle, Democritus, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, and more. The other thesis using no spacetime and sudden energy expansion was created by your sky fairy Satan, the father of lies. Satan influenced atheists such as Epicurus, James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and more. How else can you explain no evidence for other universes you speak of?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False. The laws of physics were discovered by people who believed in God and creation such as Aristotle, Democritus, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, and more.

That has no bearing whatsoever on your claim that the standard model of cosmology violates the laws of physics (which, indeed, is your claim). You are just flinging your own poo, at this point. You sound no less absurd than someone who insists they will jump off of their roof and fall up.

 

[james bond]

How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then why do galaxies collide?

One we have observation. The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.

Also not really accurate. The fact is, we dont know what this theoretical baseball is (which is the definition of the surface of this baseball, in fact: the boundary of our ability to gain information from the region, or "baseball"). In fact, asking what happened before this point in time does not really have meaning, in our timeline.

 

[james bond]

What is the Universe Expanding Into? - Universe Today

"The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe isn't expanding into anything, it's just expanding. .."

.......
AUTHOR: FRASER CAIN
Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today. He's also the co-host of Astronomy Cast with Dr. Pamela Gay.

Come now. We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime which we know has to be there. So spacetime is expanding, too. It's also curving at the edges like a scroll. Our most powerful telescopes show that and is explained by general relativity.

The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.

Also not really accurate. The fact is, we dont know what this theoretical baseball is (which is the definition of the surface of this baseball, in fact: the boundary of our ability to gain information from the region, or "baseball"). In fact, asking what happened before this point in time does not really have meaning, in our timeline.

Your theoretical baseball goes sideways. We do not see anything in the universe that acts like it unless it's propelled by someone or something..
.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime

100% false. That is the point I have been making since page one, and it is a fact you clearly have not managed to absorb.

Your theoretical baseball goes sideways. We do not see anything in the universe that acts like it

Yes, exactly what i said. In fact, we can't know how it acts. That's literally the definition of its surface.

So there you go...all the human ignorance you will ever need in order to wedge in a magical god, presented to you in a neat, little package.

"You're welcome"

Signed,

The scientists

 

[james bond]

We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime

100% false. That is the point I have been making since page one, and it is a fact you clearly have not managed to absorb.

Your theoretical baseball goes sideways. We do not see anything in the universe that acts like it

Yes, exactly what i said. In fact, we can't know how it acts. That's literally the definition of its surface.

So there you go...all the human ignorance you will ever need to wedge in a magical god, in a neat little empty package.

"You're welcome"

Signed,

The scientists

It's what we are observing. Einstein said that with general relativity any mass or even energy could bend spacetime. We see that and the universe curves in following that direction. The universe can't just be bent that way. It would take a much more massive object to make it's expansion curve. We do not know exactly what spacetime is let alone create it. What scientists think is causing this expansion is dark energy, but we have no idea where it came from.

ETA: I think dark matter is the stuff in the universe since we can measure it even though we can't see it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We see that and the universe curves in following that direction.

And yet the geometry of the universe is, essentially, flat. Do you understand wby? For one, it can be, as the warping of spacetime by gravity is very localized. Its effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

Gravitational lensing beds spacetime to observers in all directions. This curvature is still localized, though, even in the case of groups of galaxies.

 

[james bond]

And yet the geometry of the universe is, essentially, flat. Do you understand wby? For one, it can be, as the warping of spacetime by gravity is very localized. Its effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

I suppose you mean the shape. Yes, I've heard the universe is flat, but I don't think it's as certain as NASA claims. Yes, the curvature of spacetime is localized per Einstein's general relativity, and I agree the effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

Yet, NASA states, "The fate of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe."

WMAP- Shape of the Universe

What is the shape of the universe?

NASA is basing their WMAP measurements on the big bang theory, but we still have the three shapes. Your analogy was arguing for the positive curvature and from it we can observe galaxies colliding. We can see that with negative curvature two galaxies can also collide if they start out at opposite sides. With the flat curvature, we shouldn't have galaxies colliding. It also goes along with what Einstein thought and that eventually the universe will collapse onto itself.

Thus, the measurements seem to fit the flat universe and big bang, but our observations show different.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thus, the measurements seem to fit the flat universe and big bang, but our observations show different.

Uh...what? The measurements and the observations are different? That doesn't make sense.

 

[james bond]

Uh...what? The measurements and the observations are different? That doesn't make sense.

The WMAP measurements show that we are in a flat universe. In a flat universe, we move parallel to each other. If the galaxies are moving farther apart due to expansion, then how can they collide?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The WMAP measurements show that we are in a flat universe.

The overall geometry of our universe is flat. That doesn't necessitate that only parallel velocities are permitted...?

If the galaxies are moving farther apart due to expansion, then how can they collide?

Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space due to expansion. But galaxies are moving through space.

 

[ding]

You can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space as well.

Imagine you and a friend are holding the ends of a rope, pulled tight. The rope is 1 meter long. Every minute, 1 meter of this rope expands to 2 meters in length. After 1 minute, you and your friend are 2 meters apart. After 2 minutes, you are 4 meters apart. After 3 minutes, you are 8 meters apart.

This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.

The rope doesn’t expand. It stretches or lengthens. And as it stretches, it’s diameter is reduced. Until it reaches its tensile limit and breaks.

Never mind that your one dimensional analogy is still in three dimensions.

 

[ding]

This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.

Actually that too is inaccurate. Everything is moving away from everything else. Which is how the apparent velocity between objects can exceed the speed of light without the objects themselves exceeding the speed of light.

 

[ding]

As near as I can tell the expansion of the universe is more like a ripple on a pond. In that it is fairly flat. It’s not spherical. The representation is a cone because of the 4th dimension of time.