Originally posted by KellyJayIf analogies aren't good enough for you, you're going to have to get into the physics and mathematics. How much time do you have on your hands? A few years of full-time study should do it.
You can tell me how something gets larger without it getting larger by
occupying more area I'd ready to read it.
Kelly
Originally posted by vivifyNo, not at all, a 4th dimension is not necessary. The only thing that is needed is the thre ones we are aware of.
The problem with your analogy, is that it doesn't matter whether or not the creature "cares" about, or is "aware" of a third dimension. A third dimension is still necessary for the balloon to expand, regardless of what the creature thinks.
If you believe in a 4th dimension, then point out the direction to that particular dimension.
With aware I mean of course if there is any science that the extra dimension is needed, or the extra one is observed. It isn't. Not in our 3 dim universe, nor in the two dim surface of a balloon.
Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, not at all, a 4th dimension is not necessary. The only thing that is needed is the thre ones we are aware of.
If you believe in a 4th dimension, then point out the direction to that particular dimension.
With aware I mean of course if there is any science that the extra dimension is needed, or the extra one is observed. It isn't. Not in our 3 dim universe, nor in the two dim surface of a balloon.
If you believe in a 4th dimension, then point out the direction to that particular dimension.It's called time, so look to the future.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTime is not a spacial dimension.If you believe in a 4th dimension, then point out the direction to that particular dimension.It's called time, so look to the future.
Or do you mean that the universe expands out in the time dimension? That the universe is surrounded by time and not space? Isn't that to complicate things...?
1 edit
Originally posted by humyA balloon is not 2D, it is 3D simply ignoring that doesn't mean it is not
I just covered that in my previous post (to vivify ) with:
"...The fact that, in 3 dimensional space, there is a 3 dimensional space outside the 2D curvature of a balloon simply means that, just like all analogies, this is not a perfect analogy so it isn't safe to extrapolate too much from it...."
humy
In other words, what is true in 3 dimensions is sometime, as in this particular case, NOT true in 4 dimensions.
moving into another area. If it were truly 2D it would not progress into a 3D
dimension.
Kelly
Originally posted by humyIf the space between objects were expanding, then they are growing intoI'm quite serious
what makes you think I didn't know that?I don't see how you
or anyone else can say something is expanding if it is isn't moving into
new areas prior to expanding, hence the word, "expanding".
WHY don't you “see” that? Are you incapable of understanding the simple concept of the space between ...[text shortened]... raw you a simple diagram with arrows to make you visualize it if only I could post you diagrams.
areas that they didn't occupy before. If a chain was 3 feet long then the
tips on the ends were 4 feet apart, it grew a foot. If the links split and space
between them got larger, then different space is being used/occupied or
created to hold the chain in it. I'd also point out of that were true, you are
no longer looking at a chain since the thing broken down as soon as the
link were severed to they could drift apart.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'm asking a very simple question. You cannot grow into an area that isn't
If you'd like to understand how it works you will have to study some general relativity and cosmology.
there, you cannot expand into an space that isn't there. So if you are either
expanding or growing it is into some new place or area.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI read about the rulers being laying end to end, and didn't think it
That picture was designed to explain why points past the cosmological horizon are moving away faster than light, in apparent contradiction of special relativity. It doesn't really help with the notion that space can expand without anything to expand into.
One resolution is that if the universe is infinite, then expanding it doesn't change the overall ...[text shortened]... better than this. It's more of a concept one gets used to rather than one that one understands.
addressed the question at all. If there were 12 rulers and you moved each
one whatever it takes to equal a 12 inches of space between them, you may
as well just stick another ruler on one end and not move them. It is still
having the rulers slide apart into new space. There has to be space for them
to move, if not you would not have room to move. Put the 12 rulers into a
box that can hold them end to in you not be able to cause them to separate
in the box, take them out and place them on a table large enough you can.
Blowing up a balloon so it occupies more cubic inches of space has
that balloon moving into space it wasn't in before.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJaySpace isn't expanding into space. It IS space.
I read about the rulers being laying end to end, and didn't think it
addressed the question at all. If there were 12 rulers and you moved each
one whatever it takes to equal a 12 inches of space between them, you may
as well just stick another ruler on one end and not move them. It is still
having the rulers slide apart into new space. There has to be s ...[text shortened]... upies more cubic inches of space has
that balloon moving into space it wasn't in before.
Kelly
Space is [probably] infinite. AND space is expanding...
The best analogy I can think of is to use the natural number line.
At time zero, the number line consists only of integers.
Each integer represents an atom in space, and they are all bunched up right next to each other.
Then at time one, the number line expands to include numbers with 1 decimal point.
Now each integer [atom] has 9 decimal numbers between it and the next integer.
The number line has expanded without expanding into anything and while still being infinitely long.
At time two, the number line expands to include numbers with 2 decimal points...
And so on and so fourth.
The natural number line isn't expanding into anything, and it started off being infinitely big.
But at each interval the space between integers grows larger [exponentially so].
Now that is not to say that our space, our universe might not be part of some larger hyperspace.
Some hypotheses [eg: String/M Theory] suggest that that might be the case, but we have no
direct or conclusive evidence of or for that yet.
But standard cosmology says that the space we live in IS all there is, and that there is no larger
space around it, and nothing for our space to be expanding into.
The thing with the balloon analogy is to realise that it is JUST an analogy, and you can't disregard
the part where someone says 'now imagine the universe is the surface of the balloon'. You have to
pretend there is no 'space' around [or inside] the surface of the balloon for the analogy to work.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf the question was "very simple" I don't think it would have taken until the 20th Century to figure out the geometry of spacetime.
I'm asking a very simple question. You cannot grow into an area that isn't
there, you cannot expand into an space that isn't there. So if you are either
expanding or growing it is into some new place or area.
Kelly
Originally posted by googlefudgeNow I think we are speaking about two different things.
Space isn't expanding into space. It IS space.
Space is [probably] infinite. AND space is expanding...
The best analogy I can think of is to use the natural number line.
At time zero, the number line consists only of integers.
Each integer represents an atom in space, and they are all bunched up right next to each other.
Then at time one, th ...[text shortened]... etend there is no 'space' around [or inside] the surface of the balloon for the analogy to work.
If space is the same then the only thing we are talking about are all the
things that fill it. Those would be moving into areas where only space was
before.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe problem is you are imagining space as being an object in space, then imagining what happens if that 'space object' expands within space. It is not an object in space that is expanding but the very space itself. I think you will find it hard to create an analogy within space time because you will always pick on an object that is in space time and thus always have a larger frame of reference.
I'm asking a very simple question. You cannot grow into an area that isn't
there, you cannot expand into an space that isn't there. So if you are either
expanding or growing it is into some new place or area.
Kelly
Another curious aspect of space that I know you don't accept, is that it isn't flat. ie it is pinched up around massive objects so there is less space in the region of the sun, than there is in a comparable area near the earth. If you draw parallel lines from one side of the sun to the other, they eventually meet up. If you were to draw a triangle almost anywhere in the universe, and measured its internal angles with perfect accuracy, they would not add up to 180 degrees.
9 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHe explained it well enough I think and you are clearly still totally confused and I don't understand why. Do you at least understand "..Space isn't expanding into space. It IS space. ..." so space can expand WITHOUT moving into some other kind of space (which doesn't exist -space is just space ) ? -because this somehow seems to me to be part of your confusion.
Now I think we are speaking about two different things.
If space is the same then the only thing we are talking about are all the
things that fill it. Those would be moving into areas where only space was
before.
Kelly
Is the source of your total confusion an inability to accept a none-standard meaning of the word "expand" in this context (of space expanding ) that doesn't require something moving through something else?
If so, just accept the fact that is is a none standard meaning of the word "expand"when applied to "space expanding" that doesn't involve it or anything else moving through something else -simple! There is no problem here. Unlike when anything else expands, when space itself expand, that is the exception to the rule that when something expands it must be expanding into something else because SPACE itself expanding, because it is SPACE ITSELF, doesn't imply it is something expanding INTO something else.
Originally posted by RJHindsGlad you explained it. I must've missed the chapter on cosmology in Leviticus.
I believe you guys don't understand the two main types of space. One type of space consists of nothing and the other type of space is an invisible substance than can expand into the nothingness of space.