I'm sorry physicists, but the entire expansion of space

>>8854817
Listen, we used to live in castles and towers and pore over scrolls in candle light, and now we are experiencing such strange and unusual and unimaginable things, such as vehicles that exit the atmosphere, and tropical rain forests, and Mexican people. So tell me again that the universe isn't expanding

Ok anon, write a paper on it and get your nobel prize.

Okay, now give the equations of your model.

>>8854817
>most stupidest

How can you criticize when you can't even speak well?

>>8854817
Dark matter and dark energy are fine, just means we have to look at our models again. And likely have to rewrite.

Completely agree on inflation though, the biggest fudge factor ever devised. Something is off with the supposition of quantum fluctuations being as they are now in the very early universe, it's less BS than superluminal expansion that switches on without cause and then switches off, again without cause. Or perhaps it points towards a big bounce over a big bang.

>>8854817

Reality doesn't care what you think.

>>8854817
ok sure but do you have something to back up your claim?

>>8854817
So, if space is expanding...

Does that mean that the orbital distance between an electron and it's nucleus is also expanding?

>>8856288

Don't the weak and/or strong nuclear force keep them together?

>>8855038
It's logically agreeable to say something is wrong without providing alternative.

>>8855257
To *where* is the space expanding? Into nothingness?

>>8854831
> unimaginable
Don't dare to compare whatever we insignifant humans build in this tiny space with the whole universe.

>>8854817
We will see. I agree that there is a slight chance that something is wrong with our models. However, dark matter and dark energy seems the most plausible solution at the moment.

>>8856319
You don't need dark matter and dark energy (as in undetected), can exist even without the expansion of the universe.

But assuming that the doppler efect is the cause for red shift is the most baseless assumption with most terrifying implications I've ever seen. It's on the same scale as "we live in the matrix", but no one thakes this one seriusly. The fact that physists seriusly consider the expansion of the universe as the "most plausible explanation" is enough to lose faith in humanity.

>>8856323
Misstyped the first line, I meant that they CAN exist even without the expansion of the universe.

>>8856323
Can you please explain the correlation of doppler effect and red shift and how that implicates simulation of reality?

>>8856328
What? "On the same scale" doesn't mean "it implicates". Means that it is proportionally the same bullshit.

> Both are baseless asumptions.
> The implications of those asumptions efect all phyical objects.

As for how red shift and doppler efect are related to the big bang, use the wikipedia.

>>8854817
>expansion speed being faster than the speed of light
each light-year stretches by about 2 cm / s,
so it is a simple add-up to see that 15 bn ly away stuff is receding from us at 1c.
At the edge of the observable universe, 46 bn ly away, the speed is 3c

File: smart.gif (966KB, 330x216px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 330x216px

>>8856297
>my wife isn't cheating on me if I don't know the guys name

>>8856337
>As for how red shift and doppler efect are related to the big bang, use the wikipedia.
I think he was wondering WHY are you saying it's a baseless assumption. The wikipedia won't answer that. And if you do answer that question, I'd like to know what your explanation for the redshift is and how it's a less baseless assumption than the doppler effect.

>>8855113
> speak well
Write well

>>8856459
It's a baseless asumption becouse it's basis have a logical flaw, hence making it have no basis.
(Hipotesis): Red shift --> (Doppler) Expansion --> Big bang
However, that's false becouse (Doppler) Expanson --> Red Shift; and not (Doppler) Expansion <--> Red shift.

In other words, the consecuence is being used to prove the cause, wich is wrong.

Anology: I can say that if a meteor falls on my head tomorrow, I would day; but if tomorrow I die, it doesn't mean a meteor has fallen on my head, I could've just been shooted.

As for my alternative explanation for redshift, is equally baseless, but it's consecuences are much less severe, making it a better alternative if you have to choose against two equally incompetent therories. In my opinion, the red shift is just a property of electromagnetic waves that can be observed over huge distances.

>>8857045
>In my opinion, the red shift is just a property of electromagnetic waves that can be observed over huge distances.
If that were the case, we would be able to observe such an effect by just using two mirrors and reflecting light back and forth until it's travelled a distance large enough to observe the effect. Yet we have not observed this. So the consequences of your explanation are actually more severe than those of a doppler shift explanation.

>>8857054
We would be able to observe such an effect by just using two mirrors and reflecting light back and forth until it's travelled a distance large enough to observe the effect.

When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?

> So the consequences of your explanation are actually more severe than those of a doppler shift explanation.

The consecuences of my explanation are just that light has an extra behavior. The consecuences of the doppler shift explanation is that everything there is, has a diferent behavior. Mine efects only light, doppler efects every physical object in existence, it's clear whose has worse consecuences.

>>8857094
> When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?
By the way, the cause of this proerty I belive has more to do with dispersion rather than energy. But again, is just as baseless as the doppler, my point was not to prove my theory true but to prove expansion false.

>>8857094
>When reflecting you're modifying some properties of light (direction), so why it can't modify this property too to reset it?
If that were the case, then reflecting telescopes would not be able to detect any shift in wavelength in the light from distant galaxies because the mirror would "reset" the incoming light.

>>8857054
>yet we have not observed this

Not the other anon but if the distances involved are large enough testing it in a lab will be impossible simply because of the time frame required to bounce light around, even if you had the equipment and everything capable of doing it in the first place.

>>8857157
See >>8857110
I could be wrong, as I stated from the beginning, that doesn't make doppler right.

>>8855237
Inflation isn't bullshit. It predicted the scalar spectral index was less than unity which was confirmed at high significance by Planck.

Inflation also doesn't switch on and off for no reason.

>>8856323
>>8857045
>But assuming that the doppler efect is the cause for red shift is the most baseless assumption with most terrifying implications I've ever seen.

No it's not, you're just ignorant. Steady state models don't generate a cosmological microwave background with a blackbody spectrum and yet it is observed to be a blackbody as well as can be measured. Cosmological time dilation has been confirmed in supernovae, tired light doesn't have this.

>As for my alternative explanation for redshift, is equally baseless
No it's not. You can derive cosmological redshift from the FLRW metric. Saying energy is lost "somehow" is not comparable, you have no mechanism.

>>8857110
>my point was not to prove my theory true but to prove expansion false.
You haven't done that though have you? Some vague suggestion is not the same as a model which has a mechanism and can make quantitative predictions.

Secondly cosmological redshift isn't the same as the Doppler effect, it's not that simple.

>>8854831
Are you implying that tropical rain forests didn't exist at the time of castles?

>>8856304
Haven't you heard anon? It may just be that we are the center of the Universe.

>>8857294
If by mechanism you mean formulas, those are made on the blink of an eye. Formulas are to clarify concepts, they don't prove anything by themselfs, you need experimentation for that. As for measured data, that measured data can mean a lot of things, not only the inflation, you're making the same logical mistake again.

As for relativity, I won't say it's wrong, but they've made so many modifications to usual definitions that it's not intuitive anymore, so I would not use that to guess if some theory makes more sense than another or not.

>>8854831
>unimaginable things such as rain forests and Mexican people
Kek

>>8857355
No I mean a physical mechanism, a description of the physics that causes the photon to lose energy. You don't even have that.

>they don't prove anything by themselfs
Nobody is claiming they do. You've said "my model is just as baseless as their model" but you haven't even explained how your model would work. Before anything can be tested it needs to be defined. The standard explanation is both testable, tested and some of it's predictions have been verified.

> I would not use that to guess if some theory makes more sense than another or not
This is not about making sense. This is about defining a model, you don't have shit. It is not on par with standard cosmology. Science is not done on the basis of what you find intuitive or not.

>>8857451
You're right, my model sucks, it's meant to, I never had the intention to use it as a replacement, that was not my point. My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.

The standard explanation is not testable nowadays, you'ld have to periodically calculate the distance with red-shifted stars over the years and see that they are indeed expanding. Calculating the distance acurately enough is tricky, and we don't have the time to wait for the results to be clear enough that inacurate measurements don't matter. Any other tests you do are indirect evidences, wich don't really prove anything seeing how much effort is put into finding them. (If you put enough effort, you can find indirect evidences and correlations for any two things).

it's just theoretical (gaussian) physics

>>8856454
please keep your cuckold fantasies where they belong - on pol

>>8857511
>that was not my point.
It was exactly your point. You claimed that your model was as shit as the standard one so therefore it was bad.

>My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.
You're talking about inflation now, inflation is not the same thing as the expanding universe. You don't even know what you're talking about and you think you can say what should and should not be taken seriously.

>The standard explanation is not testable nowadays
I already gave you two ways it had been tested. Don't talk out your ass.

>wich don't really prove anything
You don't prove anything in empirical science. It's not mathematics, things are never proven, they just become better tested. You don't even understand science much less cosmology.

>>8857787
> I already gave you two ways it had been tested.
What you did give where two things that happend to be predectible with the standard model, and that could also be predicted by a bunch of other models.

And you're right I don't know shit, I'm no physicist, just as I don't know shit about religion, yet I don't belive in anything that implies that the whole universe does crazy stuff (like being created in seven days, or being in constant expansion at speeds near light).

Both look equally ridiculus, if you want any of those to be credible you better provide some hard prove of them (like the number phone of God, or an experiment that measures the expansion of the universe based on something else than redshift), an drawing of God, or an almost imperceptible background noise are not good enough.

Now, if you know of such experiment, then please link it and I'll shut my mouth.

>>8857054

Mirrors don't "reflect" light, they absorb it and the re-emit it along the opposite direction.

>>8857511
>My point was that the consecuences of assuming that the inflation is true are too severe to take that assumtion seriously in the first place.

The consequence of falling off of a building are pretty severe too, does that mean it's not possible to fall?

>>8858003
>argument from personal incredulity

The fact that you lack the intelligence or imagination to understand how intuitive expansion really is proves exactly nothing. If you want to argue about physics you must first actually know what the physics says, otherwise you;re literally just wasting everyone's time. Here, consider this: I've never met you, or any of your family, but I propose that you are a half-pig, half-mollusc creature. Would you bother arguing against this? Or would you reply "well, you haven't even seen me, how the fuck could you know such a thing?"

>>8856295
That's wrong.

>>8858046
Your analogy is wrong, a good analogy would be: The consequence of every single human on earth falling off of a building are pretty severe too, does that mean it's not possible for every human on earth to fall?

And the answer becomes obiusly no. You're doing the same with expansion, you're not saying one, two or a small set of stars are expanding, you're saying that every fucking star and pice of matter out there is.

>>8856297
>To *where* is the space expanding?
It's not. The meaning of expansion in this context does not imply expansion into another space or even an increase in total volume. It simply means that the density of space in any local area is decreasing.

>>8858061

Matter isn't expanding you dunce, it's spacetime itself that grows. And yes it is certainly possible for every human on Earth to fall to their death, it's not likely but there's nothing impossible about it.

>>8856462
>Write well
Type well

>>8858068
It isn't impossible either for God to exist, but that doesn't mean I belive it does.
And it really doesn't matter if it's matter of space time or the six dimension, in any case it implies every physical object and that is already too big of an implication.

>>8858070
Using incorrect grammar does not imply you type badly.

>>8858074
>It isn't impossible either for God to exist

Yes it is, because his definition is incoherent. Omnipotence is a self-refuting property, meaning we can know with logical certainty that no such being can exist.

And this isn't a matter of belief, the expansion of spacetime has been observed, it is a FACT. That you lack the intelligence to understand it proves nothing, but tat you continue to insist that your credulity is relevant to the facts of nature proves that you are not only stupid, but dishonest.

>>8858003
>What you did give where two things that happend to be predectible with the standard model, and that could also be predicted by a bunch of other models.

Yes, that is always true in science. No theory will ever be shown to be a unique solution. That isn't a criticism of any of it.

>yet I don't belive in anything that implies that the whole universe does crazy stuff
Why should the universe bend to your belief?

> or an experiment that measures the expansion of the universe based on something else than redshift
Redshift drift is something that could be measured within 50 years (with the E-ELT and SKA eventually), it is being seriously considered but people like you will never be satisfied.

>>8858084
> Yes it is, because his definition is incoherent.
A man that created the universe. (forget everyhing else).
Now it's definition is choerent.
I still don't belive in it.

> And this isn't a matter of belief, the expansion of spacetime has been observed, it is a FACT
Bullshit, I already asked for the expirement yet you provided nothing. And by the way, are you seriously using only light and one point of view to make those observations? Becouse we all know light gets things distorted most of the time.

>>8858037
No they don't. If it were true there would be no reason for the angle of incidence to equal the angle of reflection.

>>8858102
>A man that created the universe. (forget everyhing else).

Impossible since men are products of the universe and have never demonstrated the slightest ability to create anything ex nihilo.

>>8858110

Read a book you moron.

>>8858110
>0.3 seconds in google
>How does the mirror reflect light? The silver atoms behind the glass absorb the photons of incoming light energy and become excited. But that makes them unstable, so they try to become stable again by getting rid of the extra energy—and they do that by giving off some more photons.

>>8858117
Go find a citation for what you just claimed. It's absolute bullshit.

>>8858132
>I'm too stupid to use google!

That's nice, moron.

>>8858101
> Redshift drift is something that could be measured within 50 years
Well if they can prove that redshift does in fact change over time (wich I don't think they can prove with a convincing precission bet let's assume they can), then I would be happy.

But notice that even assuming there is no expansion, galaxies still move, so that could still influence a change in redshift, that's why it has to be some really convincing measurment.

>>8858130
Which is of course nonsense. If light was absorbed and re-emitted it wouldn't remain coherent and so lasers and interferometers wouldn't work.
>Everything on the internet is true.

>>8858143

Wow you truly are a moron. Here's a challenge for you, moron: Find a citation that DISPUTES what I claimed. If what I said is nonsense this should be easy :^)

>>8858116
Not impossible, in the XI century no man had ever reached the moon, yet some managed to do it later. Hard? Yes, and creating the universe is much more harder, reason enough to believe it's bullshit, but that doesn't make it impossible.

>>8858156

Reaching the moon is just difficult, not even close to impossible. Creation ex nihilo IS impossible,the Universe just doesn't work that way.

>>8858160
So ex nihilio is impossible becouse "the universe just doesn't work that way", but expansion is perfectly possible becouse "the universe just works this way". That's a really convincing argument.

>>8858149
I asked you to find a citation and what you came back with as :explainthatstuff.com

Are you really too dumb to think for yourself? How does coherence work if the particles in the mirror absorb and re-emit? A challenge in critical thinking.

>>8858165

Nigger, howshitworks is about on your level of comprehension. It's also more than YOU have produced, so I consider the case closed and you proven to be a halfwit.

We all know you haven't even investigated the argument, so why would we care how you feel about it?

It's like saying a politician is garbage without hearing what they're saying.

>>8858059

Question: What is the solution of equation X+5=Z?
Answer A: "In the equation X+5=Z, the Z must be 9."
I can say that the answer A is wrong without providing answer to the question itself.

>>8858163

Expansion is both an observed fact and something that is predicated by cosmological theories, creation ex nihilo is both unobserved and impossible according to all known theories. The two are not comparable, the only reason you continue to do so is because you're an ignoramus.

>>8858174
That's wrong.

>this idea is wrong because i don't like it

>>8858174
But your whole argument was "my model is just as bad as their model", then you backed away from that when people pointed out that was crap.

>>8858185
"The space *itself* is expanding faster than the speed of light" -model is wrong.

I don't have a model of my own.

>>8858189

It's wrong because you say so? Who the fuck are you? Just some idiot who is too dumb to understand just how dumb he is.

>>8858194
Haha lol

Wait, are you expecting me to walk you through a formal proof of few hundred pages or something?

>>8858175
>Expansion is both an observed fact and something that is predicated by cosmological theories
This is bullshit. Only experiment I've seen so far that could prove expansion is the one mentioned a little avobe in wich I've already commented:
>>8858138

It could also be that light just has a property that produces redshift, and it changes with time, but starts to be hardly convincing too. In any case no strong arguments are in favor of expansion nowadays, so it falls on a similar category that religion (well religion even contradicts itself so that may be too much).

>>8858189
>"The space *itself* is expanding faster than the speed of light"
Space *itself* doesn't have a speed because it's a fractional change. The expansion of the universe cannot be measured as a speed in the same dimensions as the speed of light for this reason. It only has a timescale.

>>8858194
Let me reformulate that in this way: what does your heart of a scientist say? Do you believe yourself that the space is expanding? When you think about all the pieces in the puzzle, does it feel right to you?

>>8858209

What possible difference does this make? I'm just some ape, if reality behaves a certain way that I find "hard to believe", what does that mean? It just means that /I/ find it hard to believe, it says exactly nothing about teh reality of the case.

>>8858202
>X cannot be true.
>Wait you expect me to prove that?

>>8858185
I'm not him, he is just explaining how mirrors and basic logic works, I'm the one making crazy models.

>>8858206

So it's bullshit because the PROOF that it happens doesn't meet your personal criteria of being "obviously true"? Yeah, no, go fuck yourself you halfwitted coon.

>>8858208
Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

>>8858215
Using your logic: Prove to me that space is expanding. Note that the attention span is about 2000 characters.

>>8858214
Any proof relies on the feelings of observer. When the proof is "correct" it just means the observer is feeling good about it.

>>8858226
>Any proof relies on the feelings of observer. When the proof is "correct" it just means the observer is feeling good about it.

Absolute bullshit. Clearly science isn't the only thing you are COMPLETELY ignorant about.

This low tier bait.

>>8858226
>Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

Because...? YOU say so? Once again, who the fuck do you think you are? You're just a moron opining about topics you have zero knowledge of. You are such an entitled little dipshit that I'm going to hazard a guess that you're a philosopher of some kind.

>>8858229
Are you saying my statement feels wrong when compared to the structure of the statements in your brain?

>>8858218
If it's not "obviusly true" it's not a proof, it's hint.

>>8858238
>>8858237

What a true simpleton you are.

>>8858235
Are you saying space can expand without anyone noticing?

>>8858226
>Using your logic: Prove to me that space is expanding.
No, nobody here is claiming the expansion of universe is proven. You are claiming the model cannot be correct. Prove it.

>>8858239
I'll just repeat since it seems you really don't have a good attention span. We are not the same person. He propabably is OP.

>>8858226
>Of course 'expansion of space' has a measure in spatial dimensions :D

You're literally too dumb to understand the point being made here. He wasn't talking about spatial dimensions.

>>8858242

Yes, it took us a long time to notice it because it happens on a very large scale.

>>8858248

I don't give a shit you assclown. You're a fucking moron, if you're not OP then there are at least two complete morons ITT.

>>8858245
I, not him (with who you're talking with), was saing that the current model is hard to believe, almost as religion, basically it's baseless. I was not saying it can't be true.

>>8858258
Just as you assumed we were only one and you were wrong, you also assumed the expansion of the universe was real, and gueas what? You're wrong.

The avobe is not an argument, I just wanted to say so.

>>8858259
If this isn't you:
>"The space *itself* is expanding faster than the speed of light" -model is wrong.
Then stop spamming the thread with bullshit requests to prove claims never made. One of you claimed to know it was wrong, i'm just asking someone to justify it.

>>8858267
>HURR

That's nice, idiot.

>>8858245
Wrong. Expansion of space is scientific consensus. Even I use it as consensus in my work, even though I don't believe it correct.

>>8858250
So did you answer the question?

>>8858252
Actually expansion of space according to current models is very fast.
Radius of universe is about 45 ly. If the radius is increasing faster than speed of light, it means that if it is 45 ly now, it has to be at least 45,5 (or 46) ly next year.
Wrong or right?

>>8858282
Oops forgot a billion from there

>>8858284
I calculated this so Sun should get about 3 meters away from us per year if entire universe is expanding at the speed of light. Why dont we see that??

>>8858282
>No, nobody here is claiming ...
> Wrong. Expansion of space is scientific consensus.
Oh look, another irrelevant point. Also saying something is consensus is not the same thing as saying it is proven. Try agin.

>So did you answer the question?
There wasn't a question there.

>>8858305
The real answer is 10 meters per year. The reason this doesn't happen is that the solar system and the galaxy are gravitationally bound and so don't expand.

>>8858305
The amount of expansion depends on the distance between the objects. This is because it is caused by dark energy and we attribute this energy to the vacuum (empty space). The more empty space there is, the more dark energy present and the more expansion there will be. This is why things close together like the sun and earth are dominated by gravity and not dark energy. But when you get to a certain very large distance away from earth, the expansion rate just happens to be equal to the speed of light. If you go past that distance the expansion rate is more.

>>8858328

The real units of expansion aren't really distance over time, by the way. It would be more accurate to say velocity over distance. For example the space in the universe expands 75 kilometers per second for every mega-parsec of empty space. This number is called the Hubble constant, and if you notice these units actually end up being Hz. If you take the reciprocal of this expansion rate, you will find it has the units of time, and it happens to equal the age of the universe.

File: 1484301625226.png (63KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x522px

>>8856451
Wait, if the expansion moves far away galaxies away from us in superluminal speeds, why doesn't that get time dilated like everything else does?

>>8855113

Leave this board

OP doesn't realize that the speed of light is a time constraint and anything not constrained by time just completely ignores it.

>>8858839
idk
Here's a video on how connected/disconnected they are to us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk

>>8855020

essence of /lit/: think of themselves as so smart that they can critique current science, yet are unable to enter the field and actually do anything without being laughed out of the room.

>>8854817
>scientific consensus
>ad populum
Truth is not deternimed by what scientists agree on, but by what the studies show.

Although i do agree that shit sounds queer.

>>8859019
but peer review isn't an ad populum fallacy, it's quality control

>>8859025
>but peer review isn't an ad populum fallacy
yes.

File: 1493098610055.png (5KB, 320x73px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 320x73px

This turned into a fight of opinions, not a scientific discussion. Behave like lovers of science, not religious extremists who kill themselves to prove something they do not even know if it's real. Every person has his opinion, but no opinion is absolute truth, yet each deserves minimal respect.

>>8858282
>Radius of universe is about 45 ly. If the radius is increasing faster than speed of light, it means that if it is 45 ly now, it has to be at least 45,5 (or 46) ly next year.
>Wrong or right?

Somewhat wrong, but not entirely wrong.

Imagine a universe, infinite in spatial extent. A uniform expansion of space, no matter how small, necessarily means that some points in space will be forever separated in causality, e.g. "moving apart faster than the speed of light".

Pick some expansion rate, no matter how small, as long as it's positive. That means that you will be able to find a distance, which might be quite large, so that the expansion rate on that length is faster than c.

>>8858206
Big bang inflationary cosmology has made a bunch of accurate predictions, ranging from details in the cosmic microwave background radiation, relative abundance of hydrogen, helium, and other elements in the universe, red shifting, and so forth. It's way more than just "red shifted light from faraway galaxies". Seriously, even wikipedia probably lists out a lot of this. Go read a book. At least bother to understand what you're attacking before you attack it.

>>8858504
>The real units of expansion aren't really distance over time, by the way.
The question wasn't about the Hubble constant, it was about how much the Earth-Sun distance should expand in a year.

>If you take the reciprocal of this expansion rate, you will find it has the units of time, and it happens to equal the age of the universe.
That's false, it's the Hubble time which isn't the age of the universe. If you take the Planck15 value for the Hubble constant at 68 km/s/Mpc then the Hubble time is 14.4 bn years but the age is 13.8 bn years. The fact that they are close is largely coincidence. If standard cosmology is correct the Hubble constant will saturate as the cosmological constant comes to dominate, this means the Hubble time will tend to about 18 billion regardless of how old the universe gets.

>>8859705
>The question wasn't about the Hubble constant, it was about how much the Earth-Sun distance should expand in a year.

same fucking thing, brainlet

>>8859743
That's not the same thing you idiot. The Hubble constant is the rate of expansion per unit distance. With 1 AU you have the distance so it's a speed.

>>8859285
Those are not predictions, they are explanations. A prediction is when you conclude something that you did not know, then test it, and it happens to be true. An explanation is when you take something that you already know and find that it can be explained with a given theory. Religion also makes a bunch of explanations, they basically explain everything using God. Religion may be much more extremist, but my point is that explanations are equally invalid.

As for alternatives, wich they are not needed to prove something is wrong, but people doesn't usually like the accept the unknown, I would say:
1- Red shift is what used to theorize about the big bang, so it is in no way a prediction. Can be explained as a property of light.
2-Details on cosmic microwave: No idea. Still background noises are everywhere and can be produced by literally anything, so it's not much of a solid argument.
3-Abundance of less massibe elements. It just makes sense to be like this when you take into cosideration that to form a more massive element you have to fuse elements of lower mass. The tendency will always be to have less massive elements. We know that those fussions already happen on stars, so there is no reason for the big bang to have ever happened.

AFAIK all arguments in favor (and against) of big bang are pretty lame.

>>8859705
>If you take the Planck15 value for the Hubble constant at 68 km/s/Mpc then the Hubble time is 14.4 bn years but the age is 13.8 bn years. The fact that they are close is largely coincidence.

I always thought the reason there was this discrepancy was because inflation wasn't taken into account. So if the Hubble time is not equal to the age of the universe, then how do we interpret it, physically speaking? And while we are at it, how should we physically interpret the Hubble constant? Why is the expansion rate in units of Hz, and does this correspond to a frequency of a physical system?

if space isn't expanding then how come the moon was alot closer to earth 5000years ago then it is now?
>b-but muh gravitational orbits
>i dont know what will happen with the moon in a hypothetical situation if we were on the edge of the universe though
fukin burn u cunt

File: france_120114-005.png (168KB, 622x350px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 622x350px

>>8859947
> A prediction is when you conclude something that you did not know
Like the scalar spectral index being less than one. That was a prediction of inflation which was confirmed later.

>Still background noises are everywhere and can be produced by literally anything
Yes, literally anything can produce these beautifully clustered data that has an SED which is a blackbody as well as has been measured. Bullshit. These spectra are not random. Standard cosmology predicted the features of the power spectrum before it was measured, a prediction. Come back when you have a physical model that can fit this.

>3-Abundance of less massibe elements. It just makes sense to be like this when you take into cosideration that to form a more massive element you have to fuse elements of lower mass. The tendency will always be to have less massive elements. We know that those fussions already happen on stars, so there is no reason for the big bang to have ever happened.
You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. Standard cosmology predicts the relative abundances of the light elements in primordial matter. That is a prediction which is still being tested as better measurements are made of different isotopes.

>>8859965
It has nothing to do with inflation as far as I'm aware. The Hubble time is just a number, it doesn't really mean anything. In de-Sitter spacetime which is a cosmology where the Hubble constant is fixed and expansion is exponential the Hubble time is the time it takes for an e folding expansion.

The Hubble constant just tells you that on large scales each Megaparsec can be said to expand by 70 km per second. It is in units of Hz because it is a fractional growth as demonstrated by Hubble's law.

>>8860291
>In de-Sitter spacetime which is a cosmology where the Hubble constant is fixed and expansion is exponential the Hubble time is the time it takes for an e folding expansion.
I was actually playing around with the math of the expansion rate and I found this out for myself. If you write the expansion velocity as a function of the distance, v=75*[x Mpc] km/s, then solving for x=e^(t/14.4 billion)+x0. I guess I assumed that 75 km/s was a fixed constant, but you pointed out it is not. Could you explain why or how it changes over time?

>It is in units of Hz because it is a fractional growth as demonstrated by Hubble's law.
I don't quite understand. Why does fractional growth imply units of Hz?

>>8860325
If you've studied Newtonian dynamics then it's relatively simple to derive the Friedmann equations using some slightly handwavy physics. They can be derived from GR but that's not really as simple. They describe the basic evolution of universe including how the Hubble constant varies. It's basically a game between gravity and pressure.

>I don't quite understand. Why does fractional growth imply units of Hz?
Because Hubble's law implies that recession velocity is a linear function of distance. Hubble's constant is the slope of that graph and velocity/distance is Hz. To think of it another way it says each megaparsec grows by 70 km per second, 70km/s/Mpc. km and Mpc are both units of distance so they cancel (which appropriate conversions) leaving you 1/s, Hz.

itt another /lit/ philosopher gets blown the fuck out lmao

go back to jerking it to derridurr and foucucklt

>>8860364
>They describe the basic evolution of universe including how the Hubble constant varies. It's basically a game between gravity and pressure.
I'm pretty sure I've seen something like this in PBS spacetime so I'll look back into it.

>km and Mpc are both units of distance so they cancel (which appropriate conversions) leaving you 1/s, Hz.
Okay so when you cancel the units you end up with ~10^-17 Hz. This means that every meter grows by 10^-17 meters every second, every Mpc grows by 10^-17 Mpc every second, and so on. You could even say that the universe grows by 10^-17 universes every second. I guess because it has units of Hz my brain tried associating it to a frequency of some kind (like the lowest frequency light possible in our universe or the angular velocity of the entire universe or something profound like that). If you multiply this number by the actual age of our universe (you said it was 13.8 billion years) you can determine how much the universe expanded in total. The number turns out to be .95, or the universe was today is 95% larger than it was on day 1. This of course is before accounting for inflation.

>>8860406
>If you multiply this number by the actual age of our universe (you said it was 13.8 billion years) you can determine how much the universe expanded in total.
You can't actually do that. Because it's a fractional change the growth isn't linear. Secondly the Hubble constant was much higher in the early universe. We can relate how much the universe has expanded to redshift. For example the Cosmic Microwave Background has a redshift of z~1000, the wavelengths of light are a thousand times longer now than when the CMB was emitted. At that epoch the universe was about 1000 times smaller than it is today. The scale of the universe at any particular epoch is a=1/(z+1). This is not to be confused with how big the observable universe is at any epoch.

>>8860460
>You can't actually do that. Because it's a fractional change the growth isn't linear.
Okay, I had a feeling something wasn't right. Thanks for clearing that up.

>Secondly the Hubble constant was much higher in the early universe.
How does one determine that? Does it come from the Friedmann equations also? What experimentally shows it's true?

>the wavelengths of light are a thousand times longer now than when the CMB was emitted. At that epoch the universe was about 1000 times smaller than it is today.
Same question as before. How do we know the expansion rate was higher near the beginning? Why can't we assume the expansion rate is uniform and the universe was actually more than 1000 times smaller, as well as older, than we think it is?

>The scale of the universe at any particular epoch is a=1/(z+1).
Where did this equation come from?
>This is not to be confused with how big the observable universe is at any epoch.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. Isn't it pointless to talk about anything outside of our observable universe because it's impossible to observe anything there?

>>8860514
>How does one determine that? Does it come from the Friedmann equations also? What experimentally shows it's true?
It can be calculated from the Friedmann equations. Cosmological tests like Baryon Acoustic Oscillation confirm are consistent with the fact that the Hubble constant was higher in the past.

>Why can't we assume the expansion rate is uniform and the universe was actually more than 1000 times smaller, as well as older, than we think it is?
You can't just fix something without a model to justify why that is possible. The data isn't consistent with uniform expansion either.

>Where did this equation come from?
Again it comes from the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric.

>Maybe I misunderstood your post. Isn't it pointless to talk about anything outside of our observable universe because it's impossible to observe anything there?
The size of the observable universe is both a function of the speed of light and the expansion of the universe, it would grow even in a static universe. The scale factor applies to all cosmological distances.

When looking at the speed of inflation, do we actually know that the rapid expansion isn't just a trick of gravitational- or some other time dilation? If the universe was expanding at a pretty reasonable pace, but it looks incredibly fast when we look at it today because energy didn't have the time to settle. Like a relative difference, but in time. Perhaps it would slow the acceleration too, then there wouldn't be any difference i guess. How would we tell the difference?

Anyone confident in this? Been wondering about this for a while.

>>8854817
The expansion of space is an analogy that describes the mathematics of Minkowski space.

You're a moron with little to no scientific understanding other than what you've learned from popsci videos.

>>8861235
Why are physicists so reluctant to view spacetime as an actual thing, but so happy to make up wild ideas about what the probability wave function represents(splitting reality's, duality, etc.)?

You think Einstein didn't see the fabric of space as a thing when he was trying to figure out relativity?

I'm not saying we can ever know, but it just seems like there is a doble standard going on here.

Non rhetorical questions by the way, I'm happy to be shown that I'm an idiot.

>>8858328
So Sun-Earth orbit should feel a force that is equivalent to moving the Sun 10 meters/year, and this force should be countered by gravity. Why can't we measure the first or second force?

>>8861583
In GR the Earth is in free-fall, you can't measure the forces on it like that.

>>8861634
So if I am in free fall and two insects is pushing me from opposite directions, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO MEASURE SUCH THING?

god damn these retards

>>8863044
Physical pushing can be measured, these are gravitational forces which is different. Imagine falling from space towards the Earth, the Earth and the Moon are acting on you but you can't measure forces from either because all you feel is being weightless.

>>8863107
Not him.
Gravitational fields apply dieferent amount of force based on distance, so as long as you can measue two points at diferent distances and make the diference you can measure the two forces. Your precission will depend on how far apart those points are and how far apart the origin of the gravitational fields are, so in real practice this will be much useless, but the thing is that it's not impossible.
(To measure the diference you could connect the two points using a force meter, but again the error would be to much to get any meaningful result)

Galaxies are like gears in a watch, with the spokes being gravity. The universe isn't expanding. Its shifting.

Wheres my nobel peace prize?

>>8863487
Yes you can measure tidal forces but that force from expansion will be tiny.