dude we all know space is a concept the “space” between the galaxies is getting bigger, that which we measured to be x long is x*something long. there is more of it in between. and since everything is moving apart from each other as opposed to a direction you can only deduce its the totality of space.
either we are expanding or we are not,
p.s what you are saying would not be expanding but merely a separation, expanding entails getting bigger.
well technically the universe is never “flat.” since to some degree it is always bent by the energy within it, so we are always bent only more in some parts.
also since this is the case the universe necessarily “bends on itself” since it cannot be bent by nothingness (absence of energy).
“no one can travel in a straight line.”
Yes, that is what is referred to as the expansion of the universe. It is the separation of galaxies, or if you will, the expansion of space between those galaxies.
no thats what you say it is, in conventional wisdom expansion of space means just that expansion not a separation.
Space expansion is not necessarily conventional wisdom. It is a separate term with its separate meaning when referring to space expansion of the universe that specifically refers to what I described already, not what you assumed it meant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
“The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts “moving” anywhere. This is not the same as any usual concept of motion, or any kind of expansion of objects “outward” into other “preexisting” space, or any kind of explosion of matter which is commonly experienced on earth.”
The metric expansion thing, I understand and can be easily explained by entropy.
What I am finding no explanation for is the concept of bent space.
You know when a cylinder is straight when all of its sides are the same length and the ends are at 90 degrees to them.
When that is not the case, the cylinder is bent. You can bend a cylinder. You can potential bend every cylinder.
And you possibly could bend every object in space. But what does that have to do with “bending space”?
If you are going to say that the objects in space are bent, then you are saying that the space itself is not.
If you are saying that the space is bent, then you are saying that the “bent” objects are not.
And if you say that the space is bent, then what do you get when you “unbend the unbent” objects?
It seems then you would have to say that all of the objects in space are now straight.
And if you line them up in their new “unbended” state, they would point straight toward something… what would that be?
You can’t unbend unbent objects, I don’t understand your question that was in quotations.
Okay, let’s see if I can give an example;
You have what appears to be a properly formed straw. But you realize that you are in “bent space”.
You determine the direction of that bend and bend the straw opposite to it.
Now if you do that with 1000 straws and line them up, to where would they be pointing?
The answer is they are pointing to whichever way space is bent in relation to how you bent them. What’s it matter if its 1 or 1000?
Just to emphasize a direction.
That doesn’t seem to be a coherent statement.
Can you reword it?
Its coherent. It is vague because we aren’t speaking of specific directions.
Well then pick a direction, speak of a specific, and remove the vagueness.
Shouldn’t you do that? It was your hypothetical. I’m only responding to it.
Well if you can’t “respond” without being vague, then I have to take it that you do not understand the issue.
If you want me to choose a direction, fine;
You determine that space is being “bent” toward your left due to gravity fields or whatever.
You measure to what degree it is being “bent”.
You then bend a straw opposite to that and in the same proportion to the right.
Now in what direction is the straw pointing considering an endless line of straws bent exactly the same way?
Its pointing straight because of space time curvature, however it is bent to the right. Or its pointing to the right, however since we are in a non bent part of space, we see it as pointing straight. Its all relative.
Okay, so the line of straws would be pointing “straight”.
Where would the line of straws end or cross itself?
Would the line of straws be infinitely long without crossing itself?
Don’t know. If the straws were infinite they would eventually cross themselves or run into their same line though. When or how is not known. This isn’t a well defined scientific theory you know on a curved shape of the universe, just some speculation.
Well that is what I am seeing. The whole “theory” isn’t really adding up at all.
If a theory can’t stand up to relatively simple logic, why is it even considered a valid theory of “Science”?
It appears to me to be an obfuscated, distorted ontology wherein the meanings of words and concepts change throughout the understanding merely depending upon what someone wants to say at the time. The only foundation for it seems to be an appearance of having something to do with physics and “those smart people”.
Its not, as I said it my past post.
If something is not a well defined scientific theory and is just speculation then it is not a scientific theory.
It is not a “Scientific theory”??
Really??
So why is it constantly found in physics forums, physics discussions, science magazines, and science journals referencing Einstein?
And btw, “a theory” IS “a speculation”.