If the universe is infinite, how is it expanding?

[Azaril]

I am completely lost as to where this idea that as time goes forward matter is shrinking? Is this something new like the string theory that our thoughts have defined reality?

Anyways, Redshift isn't just the fact that the farther the object is the redder it is, you have to have a base for the shift. Some one looks at a star in the sky at dd/mm/yy. they measure all the fun aspects of it and wait until xx/mm/yy+1 and measure every thing again. They can then compare the light spectrum from the star and see that the wavelength of the light emitted is getting longer, i.e. shifting to the red end of the spectrum. From this they can calculate how far the star is from us and more importantly how fast it is moving away from the earth.


The Earth is the center of the universe idea most likely came from the fact that every star in the sky is moving away from the earth at relatively the same rate. for all stars and galaxies that are say, 1 million light years from Earth, they are moving at the same rate, but they're also moving away from us faster than stars that are 100,000 light years away. This is like this for any and every point in space we have measured so far.

What's even stranger though, is that they have calculated that this phenomenon is true for any object in space. Everything is moving away from each other at a faster rate the farther away it is from an object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

The universe itself has no center and has no edge. After Einstein started to put together the theories of gravity space and time, people far more brilliant than you and I have since learned that space and time are the same, which is why you see space-time said and used instead of just space.

This is also why the universe is infinite, because time is infinite.

As others have said, the metric expansion of space-time doesn't effect local groups (even local super-clusters which contain dozens or hundreds of galaxies) because of gravity. What we believe is pulling the universe apart, dark matter or energy, is still bound within the effects of gravity and gravity IS the strongest known force in the universe.

This video also answers the question as to why space-time is expanding and infininate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxJ4M7tyLRE

[Osmeric]

I am completely lost as to where this idea that as time goes forward matter is shrinking? Is this something new like the string theory that our thoughts have defined reality?

It's nonsense someone just made up. It has no basis in actual science, as done by actual scientists.

[Azaril]

It's nonsense someone just made up. It has no basis in actual science, as done by actual scientists.

Thats what i thought. I especially like the other post.

If our instruments are made of matter

like it would be something different.

[semaphore]

I am completely lost as to where this idea that as time goes forward matter is shrinking? Is this something new like the string theory that our thoughts have defined reality?

No, it's a crackpot idea subscribed to by people who refuses to understand why standard cosmology is the way it is.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 05:57 PM ----------

There is a scientist who has noted that light loses energy to a medium which causes a redshift

The "tired light" hypothesis is completely unsupported by observational evidence and is nothing more than yet another example of crackpot pseudoscience.

[Osmeric]

The "tired light" hypothesis is completely unsupported by observational evidence and is nothing more than yet another example of crackpot pseudoscience.

It's worse than that, it's directly contradicted by the observational evidence.

For a debunking of Tired Light, see: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

[Bigbazz]

This one is easy, it is infinitely expanding, which is why it is infinite.

[Scorp969]

if the void is infinite, then the matter expands into void ,universe is void ,matter is limited
dunno how to say it proper but the main thougt is there

[auBerg]

I am completely lost as to where this idea that as time goes forward matter is shrinking? Is this something new like the string theory that our thoughts have defined reality?

Anyways, Redshift isn't just the fact that the farther the object is the redder it is, you have to have a base for the shift. Some one looks at a star in the sky at dd/mm/yy. they measure all the fun aspects of it and wait until xx/mm/yy+1 and measure every thing again. They can then compare the light spectrum from the star and see that the wavelength of the light emitted is getting longer, i.e. shifting to the red end of the spectrum.

Pretty sure that's not how they "officially" calculate redshift. Got a link?

The redshift is proportional to the distance the light has traveled. I don't believe they compare measurements on different days.

The Earth is the center of the universe idea most likely came from the fact that every star in the sky is moving away from the earth at relatively the same rate.

Such a conclusion is absolutely unavoidable from Hubble's law since the expansion as well as it's acceleration are the same for the same distances in all directions in Earth.

for all stars and galaxies that are say, 1 million light years from Earth, they are moving at the same rate, but they're also moving away from us faster than stars that are 100,000 light years away. This is like this for any and every point in space we have measured so far.

What's even stranger though, is that they have calculated that this phenomenon is true for any object in space. Everything is moving away from each other at a faster rate the farther away it is from an object.

The universe itself has no center and has no edge. After Einstein started to put together the theories of gravity space and time, people far more brilliant than you and I have since learned that space and time are the same, which is why you see space-time said and used instead of just space.

This is also why the universe is infinite, because time is infinite.

As others have said, the metric expansion of space-time doesn't effect local groups (even local super-clusters which contain dozens or hundreds of galaxies) because of gravity. What we believe is pulling the universe apart, dark matter or energy, is still bound within the effects of gravity and gravity IS the strongest known force in the universe.

Again, refer to this pdf here: docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3VjQ

Hubble, Fermi, DeBroglie, and other famous scientists died without believing in the expansion of the universe because they felt shame for implicating a consequential return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe.

[Azaril]

Pretty sure that's not how they "officially" calculate redshift. Got a link?

it's not officially how they do it no. I remember hearing it on the Universe series when they were talking about something. probably had nothing related to what we're talking about here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

[Wikiy]

Hubble, Fermi, DeBroglie, and other famous scientists died without believing in the expansion of the universe because they felt shame for implicating a consequential return to the middle ages with Earth at the center of the universe.

I don't see what's the problem though, the center of the universe isn't the Earth, the entire universe is its center. At the same time, the universe doesn't have a center. This problem with things moving away from us is very easily explainable by this. Just imagine in it in 3D.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 08:28 PM ----------

No, it's a crackpot idea subscribed to by people who refuses to understand why standard cosmology is the way it is.

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 05:57 PM ----------


The "tired light" hypothesis is completely unsupported by observational evidence and is nothing more than yet another example of crackpot pseudoscience.

Also, "losing energy"? You don't even have to be anywhere close to being a physicist, or interested in it, to know that energy is constant.

[frott]

there's a lot of straying from the initial question here, and it really is a simple answer:


if you declare "the universe" to be equivalent to "everything"...
...then everything cannot expand as in "gaining more".


if you declare "the universe" to be the non-dark (for lack of a better term) matter, then everything can expand, things that are 1 foot apart can now be 2 feet apart, etc.



It's a pseudo-philosophical / mathematical question that has no correct answer until you assert meaning or definition to the terms "universe" and "expand"...



According to modern physics the matter created in the big bang is expanding and that's what our universe consists of. It delves into the philosophical when then asserting "well wasn't that dark space there before the big bang, if so isn't it everywhere, and thus it cannot expand."

---------- Post added 2012-12-18 at 07:33 PM ----------

This one is easy, it is infinitely expanding, which is why it is infinite.

Something infinite can't expand, since it's already infinite.

That's like saying infinity = infinity + more, and generally confusing quantities with limits. Infinity representing which you'd like isn't a choice really...

[Ghâzh]

So who's responsible for bringing this dead topic back again? The thread is expanding at a rate that will soon turn it in to an infinite mess. The signs of people contradicting each other and going around circles can already be seen. Give it some time and the first posts will have moved far enough to not be perceived by us ever again due to the limitation at which speed particles carrying information can move. Do we start again as if the thread had a new beginning or will there be traces of posts existing prior to the moment when all observations about said posts ceased?

Are we learning anything new anymore or are people just venting for the sake of hearing their own voice? (because I know I am)

[auBerg]

I don't see what's the problem though, the center of the universe isn't the Earth, the entire universe is its center. At the same time, the universe doesn't have a center. This problem with things moving away from us is very easily explainable by this. Just imagine in it in 3D.

Oh thanks, that makes it all better.

Also, "losing energy"? You don't even have to be anywhere close to being a physicist, or interested in it, to know that energy is constant.

Ever note the atmosphere warming when sunlight passes through it? Where do you think the CMBR obtains its required constant energy from?

[Dominian]

It is infinite because it's expanding.

[Sayl]

Again, refer to this pdf here: docs.google.com/open?id=0B_6N6Q10PWKhVkdLTlZUYjd3VjQ

I really wish people would stop citing cranks. If you're unaware of Ruggero Santilli's ridiculous antics or somehow think his ideas merit consideration, you're not tall enough to go on this ride. I'm sorry.

[Alcsaar]

Its Crazy. Space is the one thing human's can't possibly explain the existense of/ect. And probably never will be able to.

Mystery still exists.

[Dhrizzle]

I am completely lost as to where this idea that as time goes forward matter is shrinking? Is this something new like the string theory that our thoughts have defined reality?

Nothing like that, if you remove the idea that we are privileged observers you see that, whilst space may be expanding in relationship to matter this also means that matter is diminishing relative to space.

The earliest mentioning of this (that I have found) is from Arthur Eddington who stated in his 1933 book "The Expanding Universe";

All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

So not my theory, not imagined by crack-pots and not a threat to the current scientific dogma.

[Osmeric]

Nothing like that, if you remove the idea that we are privileged observers you see that, whilst space may be expanding in relationship to matter this also means that matter is diminishing relative to space.

The earliest mentioning of this (that I have found) is from Arthur Eddington who stated in his 1933 book "The Expanding Universe";

All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

So not my theory, not imagined by crack-pots and not a threat to the current scientific dogma.

Eddington was a semi-crackpot, actually. Look at his numerology with the fine structure constant, or the shabby way he treated Chandrasekhar. Astrophysics didn't become an entirely respectable enterprise until after the war.

The notion that matter is shrinking is 100% crackpottery. It requires that all the constants of physics change at the same time, to preserve the relationships we see between the various properties of matter. It also requires things like orbits of planets, or orbits of stars in a galaxy, to shrink right along with everything else (we can measure the orbits in the solar system to such precision that we'd have detected it otherwise.) Why go to all this trouble when the expansion of the universe is a direct prediction from general relativity, a theory that has passed every test thrown at it?

[Hiricine]

The universe is expanding into the nothingness that is always there. Whats "expanding" is the volume that the matter takes up. If you're standing next to someone, and walk 10 feet away, you two "expanded" but the space you were in was always tehre.

[Garnier Fructis]

Nothing like that, if you remove the idea that we are privileged observers you see that, whilst space may be expanding in relationship to matter this also means that matter is diminishing relative to space.

Once again, as you approach the quantum scale volume ceases to have meaning. Elementary particles do not have a volume. How is it that something with no volume can decrease in volume?

Or, once again, if you consider the atom to be shrinking, that would require the electromagnetic force to change over time (to pull the electrons closer to the nucleus on average).

Expansion has none of these problems associated with it.