Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:24:18 UTC No. 16206111

>>16206103
Paperweight on God's desk

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:32:19 UTC No. 16206115

>>16206103
The universe isn't expanding into anything. It's just expanding. Imagine an infinite space that keeps going forever in all directions. Now imagine that, over time, the distances between all points in that infinite space are getting bigger. That's what an empty expanding universe would be like. Since the real universe has stuff in it it's a little more complicated, with gravity holding things together against the "pseudo-pull" of expansion, but that's the gist of it.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:40:55 UTC No. 16206124

>>16206103
First prove that universe has to expand into anything.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:44:24 UTC No. 16206127

>>16206103
The mainstream answer is "magic" but with a lot more words.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:53:18 UTC No. 16206137

No proof of anything you just said

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:07:39 UTC No. 16206155

>>16206137
lrn2reply, faggot

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:09:31 UTC No. 16206160

>>16206115
Then there is no difference between space expanding and remnant inertial motion from the big bang

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:11:06 UTC No. 16206164

>>16206160
The big bang wasn't an explosion. Common misconception among the poorly educated.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:12:48 UTC No. 16206172

>>16206160
If that were the case then expansion would be slowing down over time. It's actually accelerating.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:26:07 UTC No. 16206192

OP here. So the universe is an infinite space that is expanding. But the universe started as a singularity. There must have been something around the singularity even if it was just void. Is that the multiverse?

Boo-ker at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:27:22 UTC No. 16206194

>>16206192
That's the best mentality to have, I'm sure others would say the same. You don't like the best, unfortunately we walk with you down your begotten road.

Boo-ker at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:28:23 UTC No. 16206195

>>16206194
You ordered this, sir. You're looking at a big difference. Maybe an ear, maybe a leg, maybe a sad person.

Boo-ker at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:29:24 UTC No. 16206197

>>16206195
You want me to be sad for you and seek your swift end? Your good return? Then nows the time to act.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:29:26 UTC No. 16206198

>>16206192
>But the universe started as a singularity.
That's not a known fact, just a naive assumption. If you wind metric expansion backwards to its logical conclusion, you get a state of infinite density. But if that state existed, it was not a point. It was literally everywhere in all of infinite space.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:33:08 UTC No. 16206204

>>16206164
Yes I know it wasn't an "explosion", but the inertia from the rapid expansion would still be undifferentiatable from the "expansion of space", no?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:37:44 UTC No. 16206209

>>16206194
>>16206195
>>16206197
Did I trigger a bot?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:39:36 UTC No. 16206210

>>16206204
No. You're still picturing expansion as everything moving outward from a point in space. That's not correct. What's expanding is the metric (in simple terms, the distances between points) throughout infinite space.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:41:05 UTC No. 16206215

>>16206198
So the farther back in time you go, the universe becomes infinitely smaller? Then there was no big bang?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:50:32 UTC No. 16206224

>>16206210
But everything is moving outward from every point in space

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:50:48 UTC No. 16206225

The Big Bang was always a bunch of nonsense to perpetuate atheists beliefs and give an explanation of the unknown.

You obviously can’t observe the universe realistically because it’s beyond our ability to travel and experience. It’s just too massive.

Even simple shit like the Hubble constant is incorrect a majority of the time. what makes these idiots think they know how the universe began?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:54:40 UTC No. 16206231

>>16206215
>So the farther back in time you go, the universe becomes infinitely smaller?
No, it appears to be infinite and to always have been infinite. It's just the farther you go back in time, the DENSER it gets.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:02:12 UTC No. 16206241

>16206225
weak b8, no (You) for you

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:02:22 UTC No. 16206242

>>16206231
This just a game of semantics just playing with words and math to give an explanation.

I want material reality dumbass not abstractions!!!

Prove to me materially that the universe is expanding, if you can’t your argument = invalid and shutting the fuck up would be best

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:04:45 UTC No. 16206250

>>16206242
>Prove to me materially that the universe is expanding
Redshift.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:07:49 UTC No. 16206257

>>16206231
So infinite density?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:16:44 UTC No. 16206266

>>16206250
This doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a phenomenon. (Something that happens) I want something a 5 year old can see and understand just by looking.

Like gravity when they drop things off my goddamn dinner table to piss me off.

You can’t dumbass. Stop living in fantasy land and come back to reality

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:18:26 UTC No. 16206270

>>16206257
Yeah, if you wind it all the way back, but that's just being naive. There's no real reason to believe that infinite density can have any meaning in the real world.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:19:27 UTC No. 16206273

>>16206266
>I want something a 5 year old can see and understand just by looking.
You must be this tall to ride the ride, anon. Sorry.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:20:46 UTC No. 16206276

>>16206266
>Like gravity when they drop things off my goddamn dinner table to piss me off
But gravity also isn't a force and is a combination of other motions

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:26:47 UTC No. 16206290

>>16206103
you know how if you scroll down in an excel spreadsheet you can leave the cells with information behind and you just get endless empty cells? or if you enable noclip in a video game you can fly away from the map forever. and the same rules apply, there's just nothing there for them to apply to. that's what the universe is expanding into says I

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:39:53 UTC No. 16206313

>>16206290
That is a succinct, simple and accessible explanation that happens to be completely wrong.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:40:48 UTC No. 16206314

>>16206266
Ok, look at this picture. You can not see this in the night sky because these objects are moving so fast away from us, the colors get stretched and we need special machines to see these stretched colors. Isn’t that amazing.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:51:22 UTC No. 16206321

>>16206314
But since photons travel at c then their relativistic distance to any location should be 0 and everything should be visible

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:03:20 UTC No. 16206326

>>16206321
Speed and frequency are two different things.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:06:24 UTC No. 16206329

>>16206326
frequency is just d/t

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:09:34 UTC No. 16206333

>>16206329
And if the universe is expanding, you have a change in distance.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:20:41 UTC No. 16206348

>>16206333
But not for the photon, in fact it should reach its destination even faster if the destination is approaching it at an increasing speed

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:26:10 UTC No. 16206357

>>16206321
>>16206348
Are you measuring the energy of the photon in it's frame? No. So what happens in that frame is totally fucking irrelevant.
What nonsense. The same fallacious argument would conclude the Doppler effect doesn't exist, but it does.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:27:47 UTC No. 16206359

>>16206103
everything is falling, all the shit spread out as far as it could go due to it's density and now it's falling back down.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:33:22 UTC No. 16206365

>>16206103
>Sound like the universe is finite, and this area is infinite
The Universe is infinite but bounded.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:35:13 UTC No. 16206366

>>16206160
You literally could not be more wrong.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:35:43 UTC No. 16206368

>>16206357
It still makes no sense, if a photon is emitted at A and it's travelling towards B at c even if space was expanding at c then A should reach B at normal time since B was moving towards A at the same rate that space was expanding at

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:39:43 UTC No. 16206372

>>16206321
Only from the photons point of view. Photons move through space at c. They do not mpve through time.
You are different. You interact with the Higgs fields and as a result move through space at less (much less) than c and also move through time. You travel through spacetime at c.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:40:44 UTC No. 16206374

>>16206348
Like talking to a fucking duck.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:41:44 UTC No. 16206375

>>16206368
Photons never experience time.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:45:12 UTC No. 16206383

>>16206372
>Photons move through space at c. They do not move through time
That makes no sense, you can't move through space without tickling the time metric, similarly how you can't measure any amount of time unless you play with the space metric
>>16206375
Nothing experiences time, time is a made up metric, that has nothing to do with the argument

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:47:54 UTC No. 16206388

>>16206368
Expansion changes the energy of the photon, not the speed.

Also expansion is measured in velocity per unit distance, like the Hubble constant being 70 km/s of velocity per megaparsec of distance.
That fact means that as the distance between two galaxies grows so does the velocity between them. If at the time of emission A and B are moving apart at c then the photon will never cross from A to B. The space between them is expanding faster than c, and it is effectively accelerating.
This only applies at extreme distances, most redshifts are not this high. c is a bad example.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:48:08 UTC No. 16206389

>>16206383
>I will counter with two incompatible arguments because i truly do not understand any of this.
All objects move through spacetime at exactly c.
For photons, their motion is solely though space. The do not experience time.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:52:24 UTC No. 16206394

>>16206388
>Expansion changes the energy of the photon, not the speed.
Yes, I know that
>If at the time of emission A and B are moving apart at c then the photon will never cross from A to B.
But since B is also moving away from some other point at c then it is also approaching where A was at the same rate, which means the net difference should be zero

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:53:49 UTC No. 16206395

>>16206103
>the Big Bang created the universe
It didn't, that's a common misinterpretation

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 16:57:59 UTC No. 16206401

>>16206394
>Yes, I know that
And yet you keep talking only about speed, which is irrelevant for redshift.
>But since B is also moving away from some other point at c then it is also approaching where A was at the same rate, which means the net difference should be zero
I have no idea why you think this makes any sense. Some third point is not going to change the relative velocity between A and B. Draw a diagram and calculate the velocities.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:17:14 UTC No. 16206423

>>16206394
>I am going to apply classical thinking to relativistic phenomena and act surprised when things don't work.
Kek.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:07:59 UTC No. 16206533

>>16206115
What do you mean by space expanding? Is there actual new physical space just being generated?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:22:57 UTC No. 16206558

>>16206533
That’s a good question. I take up space. Am I a little bigger than I was yesterday?

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:24:29 UTC No. 16206561

>>16206314
that's just AI generated goyslop, its not a real image

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:37:03 UTC No. 16206578

>>16206394
I think the problem is you’re thinking of the photon as a particle going from A to B. It behaves like a wave (with a frequency). As two wave peaks travel through space, space expands and the wave peaks become further apart and the frequency changes.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:39:11 UTC No. 16206583

>>16206561
>that's just AI generated goyslop, its not a real image
Blasphemer!

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:10:12 UTC No. 16206637

>>16206103
Space is infinite.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:50:10 UTC No. 16206980

>>16206561
Prove it.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 00:14:34 UTC No. 16207017

>>16206225
>what makes these idiots think they know how the universe began?
It's a cult, people needs reason and gods are withdrawn. So they came with the next bullshit. Charlatans reaching for money and power, as always.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 00:20:43 UTC No. 16207028

I don't presume to know how the universe works

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:49:10 UTC No. 16207436

>>16206164
It by definition must be an explosion if it caused a perpetual outward expansive force, how else would you describe it, an implosion, an equilibrium?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:51:20 UTC No. 16207437

>>16206225
>to perpetuate atheists beliefs
No, it was a theory made by the catholic church to imply the necessity of a creator and absolute beginning point instead of a perpetual infinite steady state universe.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:52:21 UTC No. 16207439

>>16206250
Tired Light

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:54:19 UTC No. 16207441

>>16206313
That is a rambling, defamatory and confrontational reply that happens to be completely not an argument.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:55:42 UTC No. 16207442

>>16206365
You might as well say the universe is itself and the opposite of itself.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:57:21 UTC No. 16207444

>>16206375
So the speed of light doesn't apply to photons since time is the denominator of speed?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:58:47 UTC No. 16207447

>>16206389
c is measured in both space and time, it needs meters and seconds to be c m/s, so anything that moves at c, or any other speed for that matter, specifically depends on time.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:05:31 UTC No. 16207451

>>16207017
yeah, they made tons of money with the big bang theory. i liked penny tho.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 08:24:25 UTC No. 16207464

>>16206290
So it's like scrolling through board in basedjak party ? (Sorry if the comparison I made may seem bit odd, that's the best example that comes to my mind)

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:10:24 UTC No. 16207494

>>16206115
>>16206103
Have you noticed how ridiculous the basedence appears?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:40:05 UTC No. 16207862

>>16207442
Infinite and bounded. Many such cases.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:55:24 UTC No. 16207873

>>16206401
>Some third point is not going to change the relative velocity between A and B
It is if the expansion is uniform everywhere, coming back to the doppler effect imagine riding behind an ambulance at some fixed distance and velocity, the space between you expands so the apparent velocity changes, but since you also have to go along with the expansion your velocity would have to equally increase, so even if the distance between you and the ambulance is larger and the distance between wave peaks is larger, your velocity should increase proportionally such that the apparent distance between wave peaks remains the exact same and there is no doppler shift
>>16206578
No, I don't think of photons as particles, the electromagnetic field is a continuum
>As two wave peaks travel through space, space expands and the wave peaks become further apart and the frequency changes.
But if the space expands in front of you it should also expand behind you and you should still hit the peaks like you usually would, the only way this wouldn't be true was if Earth was the direct center of expansion for the universe and the expansion was non-uniform, which does not conform to the currently accepted model.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:03:26 UTC No. 16207882

>>16207436
Metric expansion. Look it up.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:11:43 UTC No. 16207891

>>16206533
>Is there actual new physical space just being generated?
Yes.
>>16206558
>Am I a little bigger than I was yesterday?
No. The stong and weak forces and gravity hold you together.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:20:15 UTC No. 16208010

>>16206533
>Is there actual new physical space just being generated?
It's kind of a mistake to think of space as being a physical thing. It's not tangible. It has no mass, no substance. It's just empty space. When you look at it through that lens, the question kinda becomes meaningless. What's the difference between things getting farther apart and "space" being "generated?"

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:35:21 UTC No. 16208046

>>16207873
>riding behind an ambulance at some fixed distance and velocity
If you define the problem such that there is no expansion, there is no expansion. It's totally circular. You haven't proven anything.

Why don't you try a quantitative example and apply your "logic" to the FLRW metric, which describes expanding spacetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:00:25 UTC No. 16208097

>>16208046
>If you define the problem such that there is no expansion,
Read again lil' nigga

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:28:08 UTC No. 16208153

>>16208097
I understand what you're assuming. But it's fucking retarded. Why is this telescope being accelerated at massive velocity to match the velocity of a galaxy? And it only works for one object. What happens when you turn to any other galaxy? Oh, there is redshift.
Saying you can cancel out the redshift for one object is not special or interesting. It doesn't mean that expansion doesn't cause redshift.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:35:30 UTC No. 16208172

>>16208153
What telescope are you talking about? Do you need an English tutor?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 18:56:05 UTC No. 16208199

>>16208172
>What telescope are you talking about?
The observer. I said telescope to highlight how silly it is when you start taking about the real situation, rather than this ambulance.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:01:56 UTC No. 16208209

>>16208199
Everything in existence is an observer, completely irrelevant to the discussion
>when you start taking about the real situation, rather than this ambulance.
Then replace the ambulance with a galaxy, retard, same shit applies, the doppler effect is the same everywhere

Barkon at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:09:39 UTC No. 16208217

What came first was a great vortex. The big bang is so stupid. It big. It bang. This is such a stupid fallacy. What is big, the bang? What is bang? The big? You don't even spell out what you mean by that, thus you're retarded, and this paradox has probably occurred: the retarded everywhere are in chaos over the fact your retardation is too retarded, and now they all must die because there is no room for them. You retard.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:16:34 UTC No. 16208227

>>16208209
>Everything in existence is an observer, completely irrelevant to the discussion
There is an observer in your situation. The frame from which the frequency/wavelength is measured.
>Then replace the ambulance with a galaxy, retard, same shit applies, the doppler effect is the same everywhere
So you do understand. Then you can think about the rest of what I said:
>>Why is this telescope being accelerated at massive velocity to match the velocity of a galaxy?
>>And it only works for one object. What happens when you turn to any other galaxy? Oh, there is redshift.
>>Saying you can cancel out the redshift for one object is not special or interesting. It doesn't mean that expansion doesn't cause redshift.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:28:45 UTC No. 16208246

>>16208227
>Why is this telescope being accelerated at massive velocity to match the velocity of a galaxy?
Because it's subject to the same expansion effects as every other object, if the line stretches then everything on that line has to match the stretching, if the object in front of you accelerates due to the line stretching then you should accelerate the same amount
>And it only works for one object
No, it applies to every object, that's why the expanding space model doesn't work, it necessitates a fixed center from which the expansion is taking place and earth would coincidentally have to be the center of the universe, which is statistically unlikely

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:35:03 UTC No. 16208257

>>16208246
>Because it's subject to the same expansion effects as every other object, if the line stretches then everything on that line has to match the stretching
No it's not. Expansion is per unit distance. If there are two galaxies along the line of sight one is stretching away faster than the other. You cannot match both.
And then in an expanding universe you can look in any direction. All objects are expanding away in different directions. If you match velocity to one galaxy every other galaxy is moving away from you.
>No, it applies to every object, that's why the expanding space model doesn't work, it necessitates a fixed center from which the expansion is taking place and earth would coincidentally have to be the center of the universe, which is statistically unlikely
Wrong. Expansion is homogeneous, by definition. All observers see the same thing, all galaxies receding from them.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:06:12 UTC No. 16208303

>>16208257
> If there are two galaxies along the line of sight
But there aren't two galaxies, there's billions of them, the expansion can't be equal unless there is a hard center from which things were expanding
>one is stretching away faster than the other
So? The velocity changes the exact same way.
>Expansion is homogeneous
Then your previous point does not stand, all things should be moving at the same speed

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:15:18 UTC No. 16208315

>>16208303
>But there aren't two galaxies, there's billions of them, the expansion can't be equal unless there is a hard center from which things were expanding
What do you mean by "the expansion can't be equal"? I have no idea.
Note that every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy in this scneario, it is absurd to claim you can match velocity to all of them.
>So? The velocity changes the exact same way.
There is one observer frame. One "velocity". You cannot match the velocity of two different galaxies which are moving at different velocities.
>Then your previous point does not stand, all things should be moving at the same speed
Wrong. You don't understand expansion. All points expand away from all other points. Every observer sees the other galaxies moving away from their position, but any position would see the same. If all things were moving at the same speed there would be no expansion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 22:04:54 UTC No. 16208477

>>16208246
>which is statistically unlikely
No it isn't. God made the Earth that way just like it says in the Bible. It is impossible to believe in the big bang without belief in God