Expanding Space

Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical. Einstein
asserted that space is "empty space".
2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define what is
"stuff" and at the same time they asserted that space is not nothingness as
asserted by SR. When these physicists are cornered they just simply said
that space is space and that space can have properties. It can be be
distorted. It can have curvature. It has permeability and permittivity
properties.

So folks are the physicists just making stuff up to fool us?

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:

[Wait, let me guess, I promise I won't look]

1. It is merely an analogy.
2. Ken Seto does not understand it.

Am I close?

Dirk Vdm

kenseto wrote:
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space.

Theory and empirical data agree---no absolute space!

kenseto wrote:
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space.

Congratulations, you got that right.


They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.

Define "physical".


Einstein asserted that space is "empty space".

So what?

Hint: our knowledge has advanced quite a bit since Einstein.


2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define what is
"stuff"

Liar.


and at the same time they asserted that space is not nothingness as
asserted by SR.

SR does not assert that space is nothingness.


When these physicists are cornered they just simply said
that space is space

Liar. I provided clear definitions.


and that space can have properties.

Indeed.


It can be be distorted. It can have curvature.

Indeed.


It has permeability and permittivity properties.

Artefacts of the usage of SI units.


So folks are the physicists just making stuff up to fool us?

No.



Bye,
Bjoern

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical. Einstein
asserted that space is "empty space".
2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define what is
"stuff" and at the same time they asserted that space is not nothingness as
asserted by SR. When these physicists are cornered they just simply said
that space is space and that space can have properties. It can be be
distorted. It can have curvature. It has permeability and permittivity
properties.

These are excellent points. And they do the same with *time*. Not one of these
physicists will ever define time except to say that it's what a clock says it is. But a
clock doesn't *say* anything. A clock, any clock, is simply a set or particles which act
in unison such that the concept of a process is produced, and the concept of the
progression of that process is regarded as time. Yet, these physicists will insist that
time can't be defined as anything more than what a clock *says*, whatever that means, but
yet will ascribe physical properties to that concept.

And the same is true of space. Space is equivalent to time in that it's simply the
potential for the occurrence of matter. Just try to measure a distance without an object
to perform the measurement, AND without objects to define the boundaries of the *space*
being measured. It can't be done. And yet space and time are somehow melded together
into this fantasy that has curvature, and is said to be the cause of gravity, as well as
the reason why clocks slow and distances shorten.

And the reason the scientists cling to this dichotomy is because they've invested so much
energy into the model they've built that they simply can't afford to let it crumble.

While I do believe that there's sufficient evidence to show that clocks do, indeed, slow
(e.g., that the predictions made in SR and GR are substantially valid), I think the
explanations and causes are wildly off the mark. They've plugged a void in their model
with a fantasy and then declared it solved and moved on.

But dare yokels like me illustrate this illusion, dare I challenge conventional wisdom and
attempt to force them to follow the logic of their own position, then I'm not simply
ignored, I'm vilified for doing so.

I hereby challenge anyone in this NG to a logical debate on the issue. I especially
challenge my adversaries and worse critics here to debate the issue of the definition
and/or description and/or *existence* of space and/or time. Let's see how well they do at
sticking to the point, and how long they last before mounting a personal attack.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:5L1Td.46002$4q6.18212@attbi_s01...
kenseto wrote:
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe
as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space.

Theory and empirical data agree---no absolute space!


Without any objects in it space does not exist

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:

[Wait, let me guess, I promise I won't look]

1. It is merely an analogy.
2. Ken Seto does not understand it.

Am I close?

You never disappoint.

AllYou! wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the
universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as
analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough
(space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The
trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.
Einstein
asserted that space is "empty space".
2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define
what is
"stuff" and at the same time they asserted that space is not
nothingness as
asserted by SR. When these physicists are cornered they just simply
said
that space is space and that space can have properties. It can be
be
distorted. It can have curvature. It has permeability and
permittivity
properties.

These are excellent points. And they do the same with *time*. Not
one of these
physicists will ever define time except to say that it's what a clock
says it is. But a
clock doesn't *say* anything. A clock, any clock, is simply a set or
particles which act
in unison such that the concept of a process is produced, and the
concept of the
progression of that process is regarded as time. Yet, these
physicists will insist that
time can't be defined as anything more than what a clock *says*,
whatever that means, but
yet will ascribe physical properties to that concept.

And the same is true of space. Space is equivalent to time in that
it's simply the
potential for the occurrence of matter. Just try to measure a
distance without an object
to perform the measurement, AND without objects to define the
boundaries of the *space*
being measured. It can't be done. And yet space and time are
somehow melded together
into this fantasy that has curvature, and is said to be the cause of
gravity, as well as
the reason why clocks slow and distances shorten.

And the reason the scientists cling to this dichotomy is because
they've invested so much
energy into the model they've built that they simply can't afford to
let it crumble.

While I do believe that there's sufficient evidence to show that
clocks do, indeed, slow
(e.g., that the predictions made in SR and GR are substantially
valid), I think the
explanations and causes are wildly off the mark. They've plugged a
void in their model
with a fantasy and then declared it solved and moved on.

But dare yokels like me illustrate this illusion, dare I challenge
conventional wisdom and
attempt to force them to follow the logic of their own position, then
I'm not simply
ignored, I'm vilified for doing so.

I hereby challenge anyone in this NG to a logical debate on the
issue. I especially
challenge my adversaries and worse critics here to debate the issue
of the definition
and/or description and/or *existence* of space and/or time. Let's
see how well they do at
sticking to the point, and how long they last before mounting a
personal attack.


A debate requires 1) a much more narrowly focused topic, 2) an
impartial moderator who will remove all the superfluous crap from the
debate and make rulings on who wins what points of logic or facts and
keep replies on target, and 3) a way to decide who won the debate.

Patrick

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space.

Congratulations, you got that right.


They use a lump of raisin bread dough as analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough (space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.

Define "physical".

That which is capable of stimulating our senses, directly or indirectly.

Einstein asserted that space is "empty space".

So what?

Hint: our knowledge has advanced quite a bit since Einstein.

But maybe we've taken some steps backward as well. He's still got gravitas, so it's
worthy of mention.

2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define what is
"stuff"

Liar.

Your inability to justify that accusation speaks volumes about its validity.


[snip]

Can you measure space in any way without the presence of objects to define it?

wrote in message
oups.com...

AllYou! wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
...
Cosmologists explain the Big Bang (BB) and the expansion of the
universe as
that the space is expanding and not the galaxies are expanding into
pre-existing space. They use a lump of raisin bread dough as
analogy. The
raisins are the galaxies and the dough is space. As the dough
(space)
expands it carries the raisins (galaxies) along with it. The
trouble with
this anology is as follows:
1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.
Einstein
asserted that space is "empty space".
2. Some phyicists said that space is "stuff" but refuse to define
what is
"stuff" and at the same time they asserted that space is not
nothingness as
asserted by SR. When these physicists are cornered they just simply
said
that space is space and that space can have properties. It can be
be
distorted. It can have curvature. It has permeability and
permittivity
properties.

These are excellent points. And they do the same with *time*. Not
one of these
physicists will ever define time except to say that it's what a clock
says it is. But a
clock doesn't *say* anything. A clock, any clock, is simply a set or
particles which act
in unison such that the concept of a process is produced, and the
concept of the
progression of that process is regarded as time. Yet, these
physicists will insist that
time can't be defined as anything more than what a clock *says*,
whatever that means, but
yet will ascribe physical properties to that concept.

And the same is true of space. Space is equivalent to time in that
it's simply the
potential for the occurrence of matter. Just try to measure a
distance without an object
to perform the measurement, AND without objects to define the
boundaries of the *space*
being measured. It can't be done. And yet space and time are
somehow melded together
into this fantasy that has curvature, and is said to be the cause of
gravity, as well as
the reason why clocks slow and distances shorten.

And the reason the scientists cling to this dichotomy is because
they've invested so much
energy into the model they've built that they simply can't afford to
let it crumble.

While I do believe that there's sufficient evidence to show that
clocks do, indeed, slow
(e.g., that the predictions made in SR and GR are substantially
valid), I think the
explanations and causes are wildly off the mark. They've plugged a
void in their model
with a fantasy and then declared it solved and moved on.

But dare yokels like me illustrate this illusion, dare I challenge
conventional wisdom and
attempt to force them to follow the logic of their own position, then
I'm not simply
ignored, I'm vilified for doing so.

I hereby challenge anyone in this NG to a logical debate on the
issue. I especially
challenge my adversaries and worse critics here to debate the issue
of the definition
and/or description and/or *existence* of space and/or time. Let's
see how well they do at
sticking to the point, and how long they last before mounting a
personal attack.


A debate requires 1) a much more narrowly focused topic, 2) an
impartial moderator who will remove all the superfluous crap from the
debate and make rulings on who wins what points of logic or facts and
keep replies on target, and 3) a way to decide who won the debate.

But barring the existence of that perfect world you just described, we're simply left to
our own devices and ideas of what constitutes a reasonable and intellectually honest
debate. Some here will fail that test miserably.

However, where you believe that there is no distinction to be made as the *physicality* or
lack thereof between time and space and any other phenomena, you and I have nothing to
debate on this issue.