The Expansion of the Universe Debunked

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />'Creating new space' between two galaxies is just another formulation of increasing the distance between them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Creating new space" increases the distance between two galaxies without motion by either of them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Motion is <i>defined</i> as a change of distance (v=dx/dt), so one can not have an increase of distance without motion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The crucial point is that if the distance between all galaxies increases, the number of galaxies in each cell of a hypothetical lattice structure defining space (consisting of rigid rods and covering the whole space) would decrease everywhere throughout space.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But that is the opposite of how "space" is defined in the Big Bang. Brand new space that did not exist before is continually being created within each "lattice", enlarging it. There are no "rigid rods".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Spatial coordinates can not be defined without reference to some physical system, e.g. a ruler (or as suggested here, a reference grid of rods). As such a physical system defines the reference standard, it is by definition essentially invariable (note that the BB theory assumes anyway that physical objects do not expand together with the postulated increase of the distance between galaxies, which means that indeed the number of galaxies in each grid cell (as defined by the rods) would decrease, which would violate mass conservation).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This would thus violate mass conservation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not necessarily, because the total mass of the universe might remain constant even as the total volume of space increases. [Remember, BB is not an explosion INTO space, but an explosion OF space.]

However, it is widely recognized that BB does not conserve energy, because the "new space" is created with "dark energy". BB is a "creation ex nihilo" theory, and is therefore not worried about conservation principles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For an infinite universe a total volume can not be defined (the total mass is obviously also infinite, but in this case one can argue with the violation of the continuity equation (which requires that when the density decreases in some cells, it must increase in others)).

Even for a hypothetical finite 'space' one would run into contradictions here: consider for instance the frequently used balloon analogy: assume that initially the balloon does not expand and that you cover its surface with some kind of physically rigid grid structure (this grid structure defines thus the 'space' constitued by the balloon surface). If one now lets the balloon expand (assume that somehow the rubber does not physically interact with the grid) then what happens is that points on the rubber surface (which may represent the galaxies here) will simply move out of the space as defined by the stationary grid structure, so again mass conservation is violated (in this case one would even have abruptly a zero density in each grid cell).

If on the other hand you just paint a grid onto the rubber, then effectively nothing would happen at all, as all points on the balloon surface would maintain their grid coordinates (i.e. no expansion would be observed at all).

So this shows that the concept of an 'expansion of space' is logically flawed as it turns basic physical concepts and principles on its head.

Thomas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Hi JMB, do we see the Peltier effect where we see the Creil effect?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I knowonly one Peltier effect: the exchange of heat at a junction of two electric wires. Peltier found a potential created by a jet of water vapour. There is no connexion with the CREIL effect which is purely optical.

I'm not trying to be facetious here, but how could we tell a universe in which space is expanding from one in which matter is shrinking?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />Motion is <i>defined</i> as a change of distance (v=dx/dt), so one can not have an increase of distance without motion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB and relativity have both changed the defintions of many common words in physics to accommodate their weirdness. In BB, "motion" must be relative to local space. Think of dimes taped to an inflating balloon is the 2-D analogy. The dimes don't *move* on the 2-D surface, yet are getting farther apart.

Look. Your entire argument is based on common sense and principles that I might agree with. But BB is based on neither. Each theory is entitled to its premises, and BB has some weird ones. So stop making me defend BB. Both of us agree it is wrong. But that must be shown by observations and experiments. Your method is to argue that its premises are unreasonable, which is a subjective argument unlikely to convince any BB supporters. To you, mass conservation is important. To a BB supporter, it is irrelevant. Quassi-Steady-State Coismology (QSSC), the leading alternative to BB, even has continuous mass creation as its lead feature.

So to whom are your argumenrs directed? -|Tom|-

First of all, apologies for the delay with my reply, but I have been away for a couple of weeks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />Motion is <i>defined</i> as a change of distance (v=dx/dt), so one can not have an increase of distance without motion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">BB and relativity have both changed the defintions of many common words in physics to accommodate their weirdness. In BB, "motion" must be relative to local space. Think of dimes taped to an inflating balloon is the 2-D analogy. The dimes don't *move* on the 2-D surface, yet are getting farther apart.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They move <i>relatively to each other</i>, which is the only way how you technically can define motion. There is no such thing as 'moving relatively to local space' as 'space' is not a physical object but a metaphysical notion associated with the distance between objects. So 'motion' and 'change of distance' can indeed be considered as logical tautologies here, i.e. it is not possible to change the definition without producing a logical contradiction.

Note that even some BB proponents consider the question whether galaxies are moving away from each other or whether space is expanding as equivalent point of views, depending merely on the choice of coordinates (see this entry in Ned Wright's FAQ). So even if you use the conceptually flawed concept of an expanding space, it is not really an issue for the point addressed here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Look. Your entire argument is based on common sense and principles that I might agree with. But BB is based on neither. Each theory is entitled to its premises, and BB has some weird ones.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is not about the weirdness of premises here, but about their conceptual and logical consistency.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
So stop making me defend BB. Both of us agree it is wrong. But that must be shown by observations and experiments.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This can be a dangerous point of view. It is exactly this which enabled the Ptolemaic (geocentric) system of the universe to be the accepted cosmology for almost 2000 years. It was in a physical sense a conceptually inconsistent theory which was permanently modified in an ad-hoc way such as to match the observations. So the 'theory' was always correct <i>by definition</i>. If you look at the more recent developments in cosmology, then you get indeed a very similar feeling here. Big-Bang cosmologists have been permanently revising and expanding their theory in an incoherent way just for the sake of making it fit the observations. So there is little point in trying to discredit the Big-Bang theory decisively on the basis of specific observations. People should be convinced instead that it is a flawed concept on the basis of conceptual and logical consistencies alone (only this should lastly decide the success of a theory).

Having said this, the modification of the balloon analogy suggested in my previous post (with the 'space' initially defined by a rigid reference grid) proves in fact that the expansion of the balloon surface would cause all points on it to suddenly to disappear from within the reference grid, i.e. we should not be able to see any galaxies at all (which obviously contradicts observations). This shows that there can not be such a thing like an expanding space (in the balloon case, the 'space' does indeed not expand but changes to a different space (which has no overlap with the initial one)).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
So to whom are your arguments directed? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To everybody who even remotely admits the possibility that the concept of an expanding universe could be a physically viable explanation here (whatever the observational details may be).

Thomas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
So to whom are your arguments directed? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To everybody who even remotely admits the possibility that the concept of an expanding universe could be a physically viable explanation here (whatever the observational details may be).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thus, you accept to discuss about the sex of the angels.