23 2

Space explained - look in a "empty" cardboard box - what do you see - space, or area. That space is no different than the space that is light years away. now put 2 tennis balls in the box, push them in opposite directions - what do you have? you have 2 objects moving apart - this doesnt mean that space is expanding - its just 2 objects moving through space. but some scientist make the claim that this is proof that space expands. it is important to analyze data correctly if you are to understand the truth about anything.

By gater7
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


A post based on a limited understanding.

ToakReon Level 7 Mar 15, 2019

Limited? Try non-existent.


Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe:
Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

The background and history of the possible discovery of the reasons for
cosmological redshift

Evidence the Universe ISN'T Expanding, Oxford University Space and Astronomy Society Presentation

Thanks! Your comment is certainly more compelling than simple assertions.

@indirect76 truth is truth - im sorry I didn't wrap it up in a pretty package for you

@gater It’s OK, but you can’t expect people to just take you on your word, right?

@indirect76 I taught math - the best way to illuminate a concept is to break it down to the simplest form.

@indirect76 and no - I don't want anyone to take my word for it - im hoping people will start to use their own ability to apply logic and discover what I said it true.


I know I've explained this before, but I might as well try. The reason it's we know it's expanding is based on how the galaxies are moving away from us. The further we look out into the universe, the faster they are moving away from us. The rate of expansion averages out to be about 70 km/sec per megaparsec. That means for every 3.24 million light years apart, galaxies move apart at a rate of 70 km/sec. So a galaxy that is 6.48 million light years away is moving away from us at 140 km/sec. A galaxy that is 324 million light years away is moving away from us at 7,000 km/sec. At around 7 billion light years away, a galaxy is moving away from us at about half the speed of light. At around 14 billion light years, a galaxy is moving away from us at near light speed. That means that if galaxies were simply moving, the most distant galaxies we can see are traveling at the speed of light. That's impossible and those galaxies would break apart. They'd break apart at 7 billion light years and half the speed of light. That's how we know it's not just galaxies moving. Based on observations, we know that galaxies are moving away from each other at a certain rate.. which would be expansion and not just from momentum.

Also need to remember that if we look at a galaxy that is 7 billion light years away and it's moving away from us at half the speed of light.. we (The Milky Way galaxy) would appear to be moving away from them at half the speed of light. If we see a galaxy moving away from us at near light speed, we are moving away from them from their point of view at near light speed. We know our galaxy isn't moving at near light speed though, and from that we can deduce that they aren't moving at near light speed either.

We don't know why yet, but the amount of space between galaxies is increasing at a specific rate.. causing all the galaxies to move apart evenly. That action is expansion.

the galaxies are nothing more than tennis balls - objects moving apart

@gater So, you're telling me a galaxy at the edge of our observable universe is traveling at near the speed of light?

@FatherOfNyx no - I never said that

@gater Well then you would agree that galaxies are moving apart at a specific rate?

@FatherOfNyx no - various rates. if galaxies move apart they were part of a explosion years ago, they move through infinite space.

@gater So their movement is momentum?

Thanks for an actual scientific explanation. People who have not studied a scientific concept, yet claim that it’s “simple,” and offer up some mundane “explanation” generally are wrong. Like the people who (believe it or not) still claim that rockets won’t work in space because “there’s nothing to push against.”

@johnprytz It was never an explosion.. If it was, the galaxies that are moving away from us would be traveling at a similar rate. Instead, what we see is them moving away from us faster the further they are. An explosion wouldn't explain that, expansion would.

@johnprytz You just aren't getting it. That isn't what we observe. What we observe is galaxies moving away faster from us with distance. That means they are accelerating as they get further away from us. That doesn't happen in an explosion. If anything, an object ejected from an explosion would slow down as it traveled.

Plus, if it were from an explosion, that would put our galaxy/local cluster at the center of the explosion. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest we are at the center of a massive cosmic explosion that was so powerful, it would cause galaxies to be flung away from us up to 14 billion light.. all while accelerating up to the speed of light.


I’d go with the scientists who might have thought of that, rather than bloke smile038.gif on the internet.

No offence or anything but...

Hear, Hear and Amen.

none taken, but its sad that you can't use your own ability to apply logic.

@gater but I’m not qualified in any way to out think the people who’ve spent their lives studying this stuff.

It would be deeply arrogant to use my “own ability to apply logic”

I’ll let the people who actually know stuff inform me.

It’s deeply sad that people who don’t know stuff want to be rude to those who just recognise their own place in this.

@OwlInASack not being rude - did you blindly listen to everything your preacher said? and accept it as truth?

@gater do you think that what the preacher says and what a scientist with double blind placebo trial behind them, have to say are equivalent?

Here’s a clue: they aren’t.

I’m coming over as more aggressive than I intend to here. But accepting science just isn’t the same as accepting religion. That’s got to be not too controversial?

@OwlInASack no - in both cases you either accept what they say because they are "experts" in their fields - or you apply logic to what is being said.

@gater Suppose your ability to apply logic is inadequate to the task, and the task is counterintuitive? How would you know either of those things?

@gater I have accepted the scientific method as being a reasonable and falsifiable way of finding things out.

I have found no reason to accept the religious approach to knowing things.

So it’s not about accepting the claimed knowledge of experts. It’s about accepting or rejecting their mechanism for acquiring knowledge

One is repeatable and is not absolute. The other is unprovable and claims to be absolute.

@johnprytz fairly clearly not this one though.

@johnprytz yes - agreed: I suppose I have obvious concerns with anyone who thinks that trusting science and trusting a preacher are equivalent.


Wasnt there a guy named Albert Einstein who had some input on the nature of space? Our whole understanding of gravity, at the moment, is predicated on the concept of space being malleable. Twistable. Stretchable. Got a better idea? Certainly there are other theories and ideas being put forth, but unfortunately for the OP, at the moment, the standard model is the best we have. The theory of relativity is one of the best evidentially supported theories in science.

Metahuman Level 5 Mar 15, 2019

Einstein was wrong about the nature of time and space.

@gater ok, then youll have to explain all the experimental verification of his theories. Please lay out your theory in a mathematical framework that explains all observed phenomenon at least as well if not better than his, and show why hes wrong and you are right.

@gater -- When you provide adequate support for your posit, you will be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize in Physics and all of us who have been working on a false model will have to go back to the drawing board and start afresh.

@evidentialist logically time and space are infinite. the key is understanding the true nature of time. Einstein theorized that time slows, the Big Bang Theory is built around this idea. But Einstein was wrong - time is a constant.


The movement of objects through space does not define the expansion of the universe any more than the movement of food through one’s bowels define the expansion of one’s waist. The expansion of “space” becomes observable through the study of the electromagnetic spectrum (which includes, but is not limited to the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum), by observing and recording the appearance of change in the wavelength (blueshift or redshift), astronomers can determine the range, trajectory, and velocity of an object relative to our own location in space. Examining a single object does not, in and of itself, identify the expansion of the universe, however by comparing all of the objects observed and recording their relative position, trajectory, and velocity in 3 dimensional space, we can create a visual model of the expansion of the observed universe.

I see arguments like this from flat-earth folks all the time

PJWanders Level 5 Mar 14, 2019

except space is infinite - it can not expand

@gater We don't know for sure that anything is infinite, to include space. There are no examples of anything that is infinite.

@gater I’m curious to learn how it is that you can support this claim. As @Shouldbefishing expressed, and as limited as our natural perception of the universe is, such a claim cannot be substantiated other than by observation and independent corroboration of such observations.

@Shouldbefishing logic tells us space is infinite - it can not end, even if theres some sort of 'void' - that would stll occupy space. space is absolutely infinite.

@Shouldbefishing 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...

bare with me and I will give you an example of an infinate number of 0's, it just might take forever.

It drives me crazy when I see the oversimplification of the expansion of space. Along with the CMB, both blue and redshift data are pretty clear on the expansion of the known universe. A localized "universe" is not infinite. Just....very...very...very largesmile001.gifThanks PJ!

@Antifred numbers are abstract human concepts. What material things are infinite?

@gater go ahead and explain it.

@Shouldbefishing All material things known, as far as I know, are composed of elements of the periodic table of elements. As to the infinate lasting of these matters is not a matter I have interests in finding out. But, there are those that have interest in ever lasting life, perhaps it is for them to worry about.

@Antifred Hmmmmm. Provocative thoughts.


Fairly sure I've never seen a worse explanation, but you responses to criticism (entirely justified criticism, btw) leads me to believe it wouldn't matter.

In your example the box would be expanding pulling the tennis balls further apart and the tennis balls movement would be independent of the boxes expansion. Pretty sure you won't understand that, but it's for someone else to grasp, not you. Anyways, there's lots more wrong with your post but why bother? Just farting in the wind.


The expansion of space doesn't have to do with movement through space at all. Imagine putting two dots on the surface of the balloon and blowing it up. The dots aren't moving along the surface of the balloon (which would be analogous to your tennis balls moving through space), but they do grow farther apart as the surface of the balloon expands. At least that's how I understand it.

towkneed Level 7 Mar 15, 2019

matter can expand - not space

@gater why can't space expand? You keep asserting that, and youve made a couple of rhetorical arguments as to why. Can we have the real meat of your argument, now, please?

@Metahuman time and space are infinite. space extends forever - it always has. what is infinite by definition can not expand. understanding this requires logic, and understanding of the nature of space.

@gater ok. Several questions.

How do you know time and space are infinite? Can you prove that? Please do so. Also, in what WAY are they infinite?

How does the definition of infinity preclude its expansion?

@Metahuman 1st you must understand the laws governing space and time. time is a constant, meaning there was no beginning of time. space is just area, it continues forever because that's the nature of space. Infinity means never ending, to say infinity plus one (as in expansion) is redundant.

@gater time is not a constant ( in all frames of reference, anyway). This is well proven. Even if time were a constant, which it isn't, it would not necessarily follow that there was no beginning of time. Non sequitur. You say it continues forever because that's the nature of space, this is simply saying that a equals a. You have demonstrated nothing. Why is it the nature of space to continue forever?

Further, to say that something is infinite says nothing about its properties. Space could very well be infinite and still be compressible and expandable locally. For instance imagine a rubber band of infinite length. We could still compress or expand sections of that rubber band, no matter how long it is. I don't know that that's the case with space, but you certainly don't know that it isn't. There's a lot we don't know. However there is a lot that we do know. And we have tons of evidence supporting what we think. So far you have supplied zero evidence to justify your assertions.

I would probably have enjoyed debating this with you. However you ignored the questions and points made and keep simply trying to hammer home something without justifying it. You keep saying logic, let's see a syllogism.

Anyway, have a nice day.

@gater -- Show me the descriptive math that describes what we observe using your model. Show me that it is consistent with all observations in all conditions. Again, your saying something doesn't mean anything without proper support.

@evidentialist He's mixing up concepts. "Space" as a conceptual coordinate system is a mental construct. The space-time continuum can be described by such but it's something different from that. Space as a mathematical concept is not the same thing as "space" in physics.

@Metahuman time is a constant - it does not start, stop, slow down or speed up. there is no evidence of time being anything but constant.

@gater actually that's false. Relativity shows that time slows down at extreme speeds. Without compensating for this gps would be off by miles.

@towkneed wrong - that's time dilation - not time.

@gater sigh. time dilation would be a correlate of time itself. Therefore, a description of a function of time, therefore a description of the behavior of time, therefore, yes, time itself. What do you mean time dilation not time? That's ridiculous. You're saying that a description of time is not time. Well of course it isn't. But it's certainly relevant to our description of time.

@Metahuman time dilation does not effect time - nothing effects time. time dilation is the effect gravity has on devices that measure time, thus giving more accurate gps readings.

for like the 25th time Ive had to explain this

@gater time only has meaning in it's observation. Arguing that somehow " time" has any meaning outside of it's experience is mysticism. Sorry, but there aren't any "chronotrons".

For the first time. ?

Anyway I'm getting tired of arguing. I don't think I'm going to be able overcome your blindspots anyway.

@evidentialist, @gater you're right. Time dilation does not affect time. It is a property of time. Didn't I already explain this?


I was going to point out all the non sequitur arguments below, but there are too many.

Metahuman Level 5 Mar 15, 2019

The empty cardboard box is not like space that is light years away. The empty cardboard box contains the molecules of gas that make up our atmosphere.

@johnprytz That is what is between everything.

@johnprytz Yup, I think that is pretty much the accepted definition.


that's a theory

@gater You're a theory.


space is a distance of scaled measurement between 2 points. an area or a volume. rather simple. Space in and of itself is not a thing. It is not a matter to be listed on the periodic table of elements. Yet, space exist. Space has always been and space will always be, it cannot be created nor destroyed. Remove all known elements from existance and still left with space even if there is nothing to measure it with. Space a paradox. the existence of non-existance.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 14, 2019

very good!

Is that some kind of eastern thing?

@Hominid Not eastern that I know of. More like originating at the center of infinity in every direction.

@johnprytz Would you say there is antispace?

@johnprytz so like matter and antimatter is to its own? What about whatsamattee?


the real problem people have when it comes to understanding the universe - is that they think everything had to have a beginning - thats true with most things - but not the universe - its always been here, and it absolutely extends forever.

gater Level 7 Mar 14, 2019

As would make sense with the 1st law of thermodynamics as we understand it.


You misrepresent the situation. The tennis balls are accelerating away from one another. Scientists aren’t say that this is conclusive proof, they are saying it is evidence for space expanding. There is a distinction there. Do you have a better explanation?

its very simple - objects move through space - space does not change

@gater What do you think is causing the increase in redshift observed in objects that are further away? Do you think it’s a fifth fundamental force?

@indirect76 these are things seen through a telescope - trust logic - not a blurry image light years away.

@gater Logic is great, but unless we are talking about mathematics, you can’t use logic alone. We have observations that support the idea of space expanding. What observation do you have to support the idea that space does not change?

@johnprytz OK, do you have an alternate explanation for what has been observed?

@johnprytz We aren’t really getting anywhere. Let’s take this one step at a time so we can flesh out why that is. Please tell tell me what points you disagree with if any.

  1. Distant galaxies are redshifted and is evidence for them moving away from us.

  2. More distant galaxies are more redshifted and is evidence for them moving faster away from us.

  3. Points 1 and 2 are evidence for the idea that galaxies are accelerating away from us.

@johnprytz My friend, I’m not trying to argue for the expansion of space. We obviously disagree on that. I’m trying to figure out where else we disagree, to further the discussion.

So, you don’t think galaxies are accelerating away from us. That’s fine. If you agree with point 2 and you say that the galaxies are moving at a constant rate, would you also agree that this means we are at a unique position in the universe? We would be in the center?


Show the math that proves space doesn’t expand and time is a constant!


Has anyone tried to dispute what I posted?

Dispute it? Interesting. Hardly conclusive. Certainly not proof of anything. The field of science is a wash with countering theories, hypothesis, etc. The standard model is still the champion, differing opinion notwithstanding.

@Metahuman Well then how can you possibly believe what you believe so resolutely then? They're all theories with some sort of evidence presented. Nothing in science is really "conclusive". People here wanted evidence and math and I provided it from scientists (astrophysicists). So when presented with opposing evidence, it's "not proof of anything" because it doesn't support your bias? You have rejected evidence of the contrary so easily. Nothing in science is "proof of anything". It's all just evidence that either supports a theory or it doesn't.

@Piece2YourPuzzle you are, of course, correct. But the point is that its all best guess, best conclusion to whatever collective understanding we have. Definitely, nothing is ever 100% for sure. Its not that I "resolutely believe" anything. It's that all the evidence at the moment, taken together, points in a certain direction. Its not that there isn't evidence that seems to point in other directions, it's the collective understanding of it all. Certainly new paradigms will come and maybe the universe isn't expanding, that's certainly possible. But at the moment it sure seems like it is, and that's our best guess.


Because things on various size scales always act the same...


Also want to add, that you're basically fucking up the idea that the universe is infinite. Like I've said before, I believe the universe is infinite as well.. but to say that space cannot expand because it's infinite is putting a limit on it, and therefore wouldn't be infinite. I know you agree that an infinite universe wouldn't have a shape, that would be putting a limit on it.

In an infinite universe, you could take an area that is 100 times larger than our observable universe and compress it down to the size of an atom.. and you'd still have an infinite universe. You could take away or add any amount and you'll still have an infinite universe. It can expand or contract, you could go Thanos and destroy "half" of it, you could magically double every atom in size.. no matter what happens, you'll still have an infinite universe.

By saying that an infinite universe cannot expand, you're exposing your ignorance on what it means to be infinite.

wrong - what is infinite extends forever. it can't expand because theres nowhere to expand to.

@gater Again, you're putting a limit on it.. which isn't infinite. It wouldn't be expanding into anything other than itself, that's big bang dogma that you can't shake. It would just be expanding. In an infinite universe, you can have areas that expand and areas that contract and areas that remain stagnant without affecting the rest.

@FatherOfNyx how am I putting a limit on infinity?

@gater If you can't understand after I literally explained it 2 times, I doubt a 3rd time will help.

@FatherOfNyx space does not - can not expand - matter can expand.


But everything is moving away from us. Given that we are spectacularly unlikely to be the centre of the universe then it implies that the universe expands; draw a circle on a balloon and inflate it- the circle will expand away from its own centre in all directions, even if the circle is not on the centre of the balloon.


But, even when assumedly 'empty' a cardboard box is not truly empty in that it still contains something, i.e. AIR, just saying it and not intending to deride/ridicule or any such thing btw.

Triphid Level 8 Mar 14, 2019

you're right - but that's why I put "empty" in quotes smile001.gif

@gater Technically, even Outer space isn't exactly empty nor a Total Vacuum since it still contains molecules of dust and gases wafting around through it.

@johnprytz Not really because then cardboard box would add matter to the void, thus there would no longer be a 'void' as such.


All was antispace, then the little POOF created space pushing back antispace and the space race was on to see what space made it to infinity first.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 14, 2019

I don't know if you're kidding, but if you're being serious you are overcomplicating space.

@gater a little poof of humor. space is a distance of scaled measurement between 2 points. an area or a volume. rather simple.


I have tried explaing using a match box. Open match drawer, created space?

Antifred Level 7 Mar 14, 2019

If the objects moving apart are picking up speed, I might concur with the theory of dark energy pushing matter apart. Space can be filled with intangible, imperceptible, nameless "stuff".

sure, space can be occupied by anything.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:310557'.
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for humanists!