Expanding Space

All you:
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.

OK
Monkey A carries a coconut up a flight of stairs in 30 seconds.
Monkey B carries a coconut up a flight of stairs in 30 microseconds.
Both monkeys have done the same work.
Do they loose the same body weight in the contest?

Sue...

Sue... wrote:
All you:
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.

OK
Monkey A carries a coconut up a flight of stairs in 30 seconds.
Monkey B carries a coconut up a flight of stairs in 30 microseconds.
Both monkeys have done the same work.
Do they loose the same body weight in the contest?

Sue...


Monkey B (assuming a typical monkey as generally known) cannot
physically do the work during the time interval. So let's make
the problem more reasonable. Monkey B carries a coconut up a
flight of stairs in 60 seconds.

Both monkeys have done the same work. And assuming all other
variable equal, one would expect identical changes in body
weight. The amount of work done in time invariant. The amount
of energy expended in doing the work most likely is.

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. 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:

Your problem isn't with the analogy. It is that you seem to think that the
universe has to mimic ALL the properties of your dough. It's fine to show
how space is expanding and things in that space follow along as described.

1. The dough is physical and yet SR denies that space is physical.
Einstein asserted that space is "empty space".

However, the dough isn't really the universe so of course it can't mimic the
properties you want it to in [1].

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?

Only if you take the dough any further than it can go.

AllYou! wrote:

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.

He provided a definition to seto. seto says he refused, ergo seto is a
liar.

What part of that didn't you grasp?

AllYou! wrote:

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.

Take it to a philosophy forum.

AllYou! wrote:

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.

That's not an example of a perfect world. It's a standard everyday debate
format, used all over the country and the world all the time.

Dirk Van de moortel 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:


[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?

Yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Morituri-|-Max" wrote in message ...
AllYou! wrote:

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.

Take it to a philosophy forum.

Preferably a sufficienyly self-respecting one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...f-respect.html

Dirk Vdm

............. ...For the time being, it has had been also an attention,
which it should to be paid, to what it has had definate as an extremelly
ways and a manners which has had define the universe, and what is all
about.

............. ...Therefore, it is a something, which you would
considere a simply as the general space. And it would be, however, and
especially, the deviation of the expansion from anything does turn around
anything otherwise. And then, a ratio of a dark to the luminous matter
densities. And then, the cosmological constant. And then, specifically, the
number of a photons along the proton. And then, the inhomogeneity of the
UNIVERSE.

............. ...And finally, the anisotropy of the EXPANSION, and this
what is all about, definitely as a matter a fact, whether or a not the
relativity matter which it has to follow, would be more clear as it has had
always been existing!!!!!!!!!!!........... ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"kenseto" kirjoitti viestissä
...
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

AllYou! wrote:
"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.

Well, curved space can "stimulate" our equilibrium sense. Does that
count?



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.

Maybe, indeed. Your point?


[snip]



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.

Look up my discussions with Seto on this point (try Google). I simply
got tired of
explaining this again and again to him, and again and again pointing
out to him that he misrepresents what I actually said.



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

Does a measuring stick used for performing the measurement count as
"presence of objects"?


Bye,
Bjoern