What is the proof (is there?) that *space* is expanding?

[rrrADAM]

It is far easier to disprove (falsify) a theory than it is to prove (confirm) a theroy... The more a theory is confirmed, and is not falsified, the stronger it gets. But even multiple confirmations do not prove a theory, as Newtons Laws were thought exact until Einstien's theories, but we still use Newtonion mechanics, as it is accurate enough for most purposes.

That said... As far as I know, there have only been more and more accurate confirmations of an expanding space. Do you have any theories in ming that provide an alternative explanation that can be tested ??? As nobody can disprove that I, rrrADAM, am responsible for what appears to be expanding space, and I even make it fit all the theories so people won't know I'm doing it, and that I can proactively hide this fact from discovery.

See my point ??? It is that scientific theories are based on observations, and the theories make predictions in advance, that are then confirmed by experiment, but that also allow for falsification. The 'cart pulling the sun across the sky' was a guess, that was disproved (flasified).




Here is a great analogy Richard Feynman used in describing how we "find things out":

Paraphrasing:

Let's suppose the Gods are playing chess, and we don't know the rules, but are allowed to watch the moves on the board. After a while, we will notice that bishops ALWAYS stay on the same color. We theorise that they always stay on their color, predict that all future moves will be made to their same color, and watch more to confirm (observational evidence to confirm the prediction). After watching 10's of games, we see that each bishop does stay on its own color, is always on it, and seems to only move diagonaly... This is a confirmation of the prediction made by the first theory, so a law is made that bishops always stay on their color, and it is further theorised that they only move diagonaly... After 10's of games more, its 'confirmed' that they always move diagonaly, so now there are two laws, one is that they stay on the same color, one black and one white, and the other law is that they only move diagonally... All confirmed by observing many games, and always satisfying the predictions about how bishops behave.

Now for 1000's of games this is observed to be the case, so these laws are now considered fundamental laws, and are not questioned. But, get this... After 10,000 games, it is noticed that a measly pawn makes it to the other side of the board and instantly turns into a bishop on a white square, but there is already a bishop on a white square, and the black one was captured many moves ago... What's this ?!?!? We now have a violation of what we knew as a fundamental law.

Thus, we now have a revision to what were thought to be fundamental laws, we have a new theory (this now needs to be confirmed before it becomes a law, but at 1 in 10,000 it may take a while), and we have a lesson... Keep watching and evaluating, as this has happened throughout history, in that what was presumed to be true, has ultimately been proved incorrect. If we stop evaluating we will not see it, and will thus be WRONG in what we think is the truth.

Again I'll ask, but in another way:

Is it possible that you do not want to believe this, and are looking for a justification not to ???

[korosten]

Ok, now it's getting more philosophical:
I have had never any shred of doubt to the current mainstream theories (big bang), and always took it as a 100% truth (99% maybe :-)

Recently, I had read several books about relativity, black holes etc and just had a few naive questions. Those questions started to lead to other questions, and it dawned on me that the entire foundation for the big bang theory is a) not as strong as I always thought it was and b) there are so many "fixes" and "patches" and strange explanations to it the more we need to fit the theory to the observations, that I just cannot believe that nature is truly so weird.

So, I started to ask more fundamental/critical questions, and I am looking for alternative explanations to assumptions I find in particular not very strong.

The far weakest part of the big bang theory is the reason of the red shift.
Almost the entire theory is based on that redshift. (The microwave bg is not a very strong indication as it is predicted by all alternative theories)

So I am searching for alternative (solid!) explanations.

The redshift =expanding space idea has several issues:
(and I do not know yet how solid each observation is, and I'd like to confirm each):
- quasars have huge redshifts. Yet they may not be as distant as one thought. Observations indicate they may be associated with the radio plumes of galaxies much closer.
- redshift calculations do not fit certain star types
- redshifts seem to be quantisized (which is very odd if true!)

etc etc... :-)

I am trying to check each observation and want to see what all the facts are, and *if* there is any other possible explanation.

(I know, what's the point of this you may ask, but to me these are quite fundamental questions!)

Whatever we find out, I am sure we learn a lot while doing it, and maybe it will turn out that the big bang is after all what is the best (current :-) theory!

Chantal

[rrrADAM]

The more we learn abou the nature of reality, the more questions it raises.

Think of the magnification levels of microscopes over time... As we have developed higher and higher magnification, we see things in more and more detail... Many times, we discover new things we never imagined at or verified theories (i.e. quarks within protons and neutrons, nuclei within cells, etc...) But it still raises more questions, as it always appears we can look deeper, and we just have to wait for better magnification sometimes. This is analogous to the 'tools' developed and/or improved upon over time to increase our understanding of the natural world and the fundamentals of physics.

[thedeester1]

Hello again. long time no see. Ive been away working and reading...for those of you that remember me. Im not a graduate...i think im about to prove it. As i understand it the universe is expanding...so far...i dont look so dumb. what else seems to be the fact is that where ever you "stand" in the universe everything is moving away from "you" and everything is moving away from everything else. Now as far as i understand this is impossible in 3 dimensions?
So long as i didnt make a fool of my self already it is possible for a 3 dimensional object to exist in a 4 dimensional space?....so long as the dimensions of the object dont exeed the space it occupies then all is good. Ok this is hurting now...picture in mind doesnt come to the fingers....If we we and a whole lot of other planets were contained in a 4 dimensional space which inturn was contained in a x dimensional space...which was contained in x...so on so forth....this is the only explanation i can conclude for infinite space...which is what people keep telling me it is. Even with that ecmondwhite therory of universes rubbing together and creating new universes. there has to be something in which the universes exist....now im not convinced it the pocket of god and i can only gather that the interaction is more dimensional than physical...ok confused myself once again...gonna bed before you laff.

[rrrADAM]

Originally Posted by thedeester1

what else seems to be the fact is that where ever you "stand" in the universe everything is moving away from "you" and everything is moving away from everything else. Now as far as i understand this is impossible in 3 dimensions?

Actually, this is not true brutha... Read the ballon analogy, as it applies to a 3D space, and a 4D spacetime. Picture it in your mind, and you will see.

[korosten]

Does anyone know more about plasma physics? What about the effect that plasma can cause a redshift:

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

Chantal

[editor]

Check this out. From UCLA
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

[korosten]

Thanks, I have read it (I think I saw that one before). It does not go into any detail though with regards to the redshift.

Here are 2 publications about the redshift, and I printed the abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

1st link:
Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.
__________________________________________________ ________
2nd link:
It is known that many astronomical observations cannot be explained by means of the ordinary Doppler shift interpretation. The mere examination of a recent catalog of objects having very large redshifts shows that among 109 quasi-stellar objects, in which both absorption and emission lines could be measured, the value of the absorption redshift in a given object, is always different from the one measured in emission for the same object. It is clear that such results cannot be explained as being due solely to a Doppler redshift.
A new mechanism must be looked for, in order to explain those inconsistent redshifts and many other observations related to the “redshift controversy”.
It is shown in the present work that it is possible to calculate a very slight inelastic scattering phenomenon compatible with observed redshifts using electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics and without the need on introducing ad hoc physical hypotheses.
A careful study of the mechanism for the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by gaseous atoms and molecules shows that an electron is always momentarily accelerated as a consequence of the momentum transfer imparted by a photon. Such an acceleration of an electric charge produces bremsstrahlung.
It is shown in the present work that this phenomenon has a very large cross section, in the forward direction and that the energy lost by bremsstrahlung causes a slight redshift. It is also demonstrated that the relative energy loss of the electromagnetic wave for blackbody radiation, such as for many celestial objects, follows the same "Dn/n =constant" law as if it were a Doppler law.
This redshift appears indistinguishable from the Doppler shift except when resonant states are present in the scattering gas. It is also shown that the energy lost should be detectable mostly as low frequency radio waves. The proposed mechanism leads to results, which are consistent with many redshifts reported in astrophysical data.
__________________________________________________ ______

Questions:
- can you see anything wrong with either of those 2 publications?
- if not, then how else would you explain their observations?

Chantal