Expanding Universe

I am pretty sure theorists suppose that space-time itself is expanding. They came up with that before they noticed the redshift... the redshift discovery was more of a confirmation to the expansion supposition

When something is stretching uniformly, at any point of this something where you try to measure recession, it will appear as this point is central.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another reason for suspicion....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So... if I stand at any point within the balloon... it will appear the central point? But the distance between the farthest points would be difference. That is... it will be closer to the end of one side then to the other.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How about this... your plane of existence is on the surface of a sphere. Imagine it is expanding. No matter where you live on the sphere, you appear to be the center point of it all. It's expanding in 3D, but since you live in 2D, all you can see is what is on your plane of existence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The redshift is not the only observational evidence of the universe's expansion.
I suggest you read the wikipedia article on metric expansion of space... it explains the distance thing among other interesting things

 

Well I still subscribe stubbornly to the occilating theory. Eventually, after the "universe"(there might be more - outside "known" space we can't see) stops expanding and does what James described everything coagulates into super massive multigalaxy blackholes with occasional re bursts of energy until one OMEGA black hole forms...then erupts into another big bang or ALPHA quasar.

It is possible we are one of many of these "universes" for lack of a better term. Universe originally means "everything" including other...alpha/omega dramas. There is really no evidence yet to support it.

 

Just to add abit more here.

The expansion is considered to be fact because thousands of independent observations have given the exact same results.

And the reason space is also considered to be expanding is due to the fact that all the most distant objects are moving at speeds that exceed the speed of light. And since matter cannot do that, it has to be space itself that's expanding - not the material objects themselves.

 

What is it just radiation?

 

All the analogies are all well and good (if) one thinks of (space) as a
material, some thing that has properties, we know space has electrical
properties but, its proposed ability to stretch and bend AFAIK have never
been demonstrated.
If we confined our observations to nothing but our own galaxy ,there would
be no way to observe space expanding, as it is only non gravitationally
bound bodies that are seemingly getting further apart.
The idea that bodies can exceed the speed of light (if) they are (fixed) to
space seems to be slight of hand trick ,as is the idea that space can be (formed) by gravity.
Until i can find a definition of what space (is) any explanation scientists
give will remain hollow.

 

Quite the contrary, in fact. The requirement is that space be a non-material.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you wish - but everything you've just said indicates you have little real knowledge of the subject. Perhaps a little studying might be in order before you oppose what thousands of professionals accept?

 

Which makes no sense whatsoever, scientists have (given) space these
proposed properties, not me, so what the heck are you on about?
Maybe you have such an in depth understanding of what space is that you
can explain all the above valid observations, without resulting to rhetoric.

 

The fact that space itself must be non-material for the material objects in it to move at speeds higher than c. And as I said, they have made many, many observations that bear out those facts.

So now the question becomes: what's YOUR problem?????

 

What you say is just total and utter nothing, space is non material? and yet
it can expand, can be warped by gravity, has electrical properties, get real,
as i have said (i) did not imagine these scientificaly given properties, scientists did.

 

You simply don't know enough to realize what YOU are saying is totally absurd. Certainly space can expand - it's just the distance between points. And where did you you get the crazy notion that ANY scientist ever said space has electrical properties????????????????? Time for you get real - go back to school. And if you're still there (which I suspect to be the case) stay until you learn a lot more.

 

What does the constant 'epsilon0' refer to?

 

Humm... yes... I heard that explanation several times. Unfortunately, the universe is believded to be flat. For a matter of fact, the same characteristics that support the Big Bang support the flatness of the universe. However, you see the problem with having a flat universe on the surface of a balloon, don't ya?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The redshift is currently the major evidence in favor of accelerating expansion. Without it, inflation is nothing but a whole bunch of weak hypothesis tied together!

 

Heck, give me an explanation of what (you think )this (non entity) is ,that can some how cause bodies to get further apart, please no more rhetoric, a proof of what space is, i suspect you are relying on some suspect logic and
are able to twist it to your ideas.

 

Sorry, but I have to ask. Where did you come up with the idea that the universe is flat??? There's nothing I'm aware of that even remotely indicates that. And besides, the big bang also supports a spherically shaped universe as well.