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.

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.
[astronomy.ohio-state.edu]

@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?

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.

@johnprytz That is what is between everything.

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

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.

Limited? Try non-existent.

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

@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.

that's a theory

@gater You're a theory.

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

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.

except space is infinite - it can not expand

@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.

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 largeThanks PJ!

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?

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.

sure, space can be occupied by anything.