Possibly stupid questions about expanding space

Those aren't stupid questions at all.

>>7935975
>Is new space created only between galaxies
It's not "new" space.
The same old space is expanding.
I don't know about the rest.

>>7936009
I was under the impression that galaxies and such are actually stationary and space is created between them, which gives the illusion that they are moving (which explains how galaxies can seem to move faster than the speed of light).

>>7936020
All the space is expanding. So imagine you're on a large rubber band that is very wide. You're standing on an infentesimal point.
As it stretches, it looks like everything's headed away from you, right?
That's why that is. They're all stationary from their own point of view.
Nothing can travel FTL according to any other reference frame, but spacetime can. That's one of the concept ideas for Warp Drive, a pocket of spacetime surrounding your vessel allowing you to go FTL while not breaking laws of physics.

I don't know as to why.

Space is infinite and limitless.

>>7935975
>>7936009
>>7936020
>>7936036
>>7936037
Then what is space?

In the analogy of a rubber band or a ballon expanding one thing bothers me.

If "space" is the rubber in that analogy what is the space between the rubber translate to?

>>7935975
>>7935975
I have no authority in the field but my guess is that space is expanding inside your body as it is everywhere else, however the atoms that exist in that space don't every get affected by it as their bonds vastly counteract any such stretch.
Like how gravity keeps systems together even though space expands, on a smaller scale. Which would mean it expands uniformly, but totally unnoticeably until the distances between objects are vast

>>7936359
or maybe space doesnt expand at all and all matter is shrinking.

>>7936037
An infinite body can still expand

>>7936020
They move faster than light for two reasons. Relatively, none (maybe anomalous outliers) of the galaxies are stationary unless you set one as a reference point. As well, since space is expanding, its why things red shift and blue shift. But if something seems to be travelling faster than light, i am under the impression it becomes unobservable except maybe the gravitational effects of its surroundings.

>>7935975
>Is new space created only between galaxies
New space isn't created, It is expanded. Imagine a fabric being stretched, you don't create more fabric, you just stretch it.

>>7936396
Yeah but that only works because there is now more space between each individual piece of fabric. Less dense.
If fabric is space then what is the space between the fabric?

The observable universe exists inside of a blackhole desu senpai. That's why the light outside never reaches us.

>>7936506
Fucking false popscifaggot

Metaphysics.

>>7936050
It's not really known yet, scientists are uneasy with the idea that there is an "aether" that permeates reality, but nothing has really been proven.

OP that's not a dumb question. I'll give you a dumb question:

If spacetime is really expanding faster than light, and we've got spacetime down here on earth...

Why aren't we torn asunder by the expansion of space inside our bodies at FTL speeds?
What makes distant galaxies able to see this effect, but not closer to our own frame of reference?

Space expands because it is expanding faster than it's own escape velocity

No

Because it doesn't have uniform density

>>7939065
>Space expands because it is expanding

>>7939067
There's no other way to put it fuck face. It's expansion rate is 70km/s/mpc

>>7936005
BUMPU-DESU~!!

>>7936506
this

>>7936361
The math works both ways

>>7939099
wrong

Space doesn't expand you tool, particles simply 'pancake.' Unless we're talking wave mechanics in which case there is no such as thing as 'empty' space.

>>7939128
correct, if all matter would be shrinking, temperature would increasing because of energy conservation

>>7939168
Pancake is meant to be interpreted as 'spread out.'

>>7936020
Just a minor point: There's no such thing as "actually stationary"; motion is always relative. If a galaxy is receding at speed v, we can consider an observer in that galaxy who, from the perspective of that galaxy, is moving toward us at speed v. The distance between us and the observer is not currently increasing (but it will eventually start increasing because the expansion is accelerating), and from the observer's perspective, the galaxy is moving away from us. And there's nothing wrong with that observer's perspective. It's as valid as any other frame of reference. There's no "aether" dragging the galaxy along.

As for FTL, that rule only applies when special relativity is a valid approximation, which means over short enough distances that we can neglect effects like the accelerating expansion of the universe. Also, in order for that rule to apply, the distance and time have to be measured in one reference frame. Typically, when astronomers talk about the distance to a far away galaxy, they're measuring distances in the rest frames of the galaxies in between. But that's not a single reference frame; all of those galaxies are moving relative to each other. If you were to measure the distance in one frame, the distance would come out smaller due to length contraction, and you wouldn't have FTL speeds from that perspective.