Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 1

# Locating the centre of the Universe

## 85 posts in this topic

Says science.

Oh yeah? Relative to what part?

The distance is increasing, but the objects themselves arent "moving". Lets take your example, but use 3 balls instead. Which direction is the center ball moving in, hmm?

Differ all you want, I really couldnt give a damn.

THEORETICAL Science!

The balloon is represented by two component parts : Part rubber skin( membrane) part air. Thus if any part of the balloon ( i.e., skin or air encompassed by membrane skin)"moves". Of necessity if the balloon moves the air within moves equivalently.

Definition of move: to go or pass to ANOTHER PLACE or in a certain direction with a continuous motion

to start AWAY FROM SOME POINT or place

to CHANGE one's residence or LOCATION

Thus: of NECESSITY if the space between two objects is increased then THE object BALLS move...from the former place( distance from each other as defined by space)to the latter( proceeding space increase). In reality space(between) increase when relative to objects is synonymous with movement or motion of the objects. As well the force acting upon the objects would be the space energy between them being expanded or increased!

Definition of motion: an act, process, or instance of CHANGING PLACE

: an act or instance of moving the BODY(skin, membrane of balloon)………….. OR its PARTS( part air)

Thus: in BOTH(Motion and movement) instances SPACE INCREASE between two objects= Motion of the "object mass(es)". Or: ‘instance of changing place, point or location‘.

The principles of relativity are expressed here. That is to say that space increase between objects represents the change in relativity (= motion/movement of “mass objects”)-- ( instance of changing "relative" place) of OBJECT relative to OTHER object(s). This change in relative placing ( due to space increase) dictates the motion or movement of the "object mass(es)”.

If more than 2 objects are drawn into the equation the same principles of "relative" change as to placing( spacing)(i.e., = Motion/movement) applies . Refer to illus.

Postulate: Space increase= the motion/movement of ALL "mass object(s). Thus any movement or motion in the universe is not initiated by the “mass object” rather “acted upon by space”. If I push one of the balls representing space energy encompassed; then the SPACE ENERGY of my “object mass” ( space energy encompassed) has acted upon the “space energy of the ball. Space energy acts upon space energy. EVERYTHING IS INVISIBLE SPACE ENERGY!

##### Share on other sites

Fine. Let me make things clearer. You have a baloon. You blow it up, and it is slowly increases in size. Where is the center of the membrane of the balloon? Answer me that and maybe I'll continue to waste my time with this simple *analogy*.

My god people. You ask a complex question on the workings of the universe, something which has been studied in and out and in again for decades by the brightest minds, along with the dimmest minds, using state of the art technology... You ask a question because you dont understand the theory. When someone gives you an analogy, a simplified version, designed to help you conceptualize the idea, you *think* you find holes in the analogy, which for some reason you and your 5 year old are the *only* ones that "found" this, all those millions of scientists just overlooked it, and act as if youve disproven the BBT. Go get an education and study the subject if you *truely* want to understand it, otherwise stop wasting peoples time arguing it.

LOL.

The center of the ballon is always the center of the balloon and is found in the center of the balloon. That center remains in the center no matter how large the balloon grows in diameter. When the balloon bursts then the center of the balloon is no longer the center of the balloon but assumes its non-centered place in the area of space. Unless of course the balloon center also falls in the center of the universe. If this is the case when the balloon burst the POINT of the center of the baloon now assumes its place with the exact POINT representing the center of the universe.

As for your other remarks i will simply add: I sense that you are just as frustrated as the "brightest minds" you parrot as they formulate theories and try to Theoretically explain them as non theory.

##### Share on other sites

the so called expanding ballon idea, doesn't explain how some galaxies are on collision courses. if galaxies aren't moving but the space they are in is moving they would never collide with each other.

In this case the "cause" is space contraction( decrease). Again demonstrating the reality that " the entity" called space dictates the existence or destruction of any and all "mass objects". Space is the immutable controlant factor of all that occurs in the universe. What is space? LIGHT ENERGY!

As well the expression "Space/ time continum" is clumsy at best. More accurately : Space controls the time continum or lack thereof ( or stopage of time).

Question: If you removed all the space out of your body what would you have? SPACE! If you removed the space outside your body comprising your house what would you have? Space!............remove the space from the universe what would remain? SPACE!

Can space ever be fully removed without leaving ...space???????

Thus: Space is the only everlasting unstopable and immustable CONTINUM! Such is the eternal quality of LIGHT and ENERGY.

##### Share on other sites

Thats because the balloon analogy is an analogy to simplify the concept of there being no center to the universe. The reason some galaxies are colliding is because they are gravitationally locked and are pulling themselves closer to each other. Picture the balloon with 2 ands on it. Each ant is a galaxy. The ants are moving towards each other while you're blowing the balloon up.

So which is it stellar: The "gravitational pull" is pulling "them" together...or they are "pulling THEMSELVES together". Paradox. If they are "pulling themselves together than how can gravity be the one pulling THEM together. If therefore Gravity is the puller how can they be said to be "pulling themselves together."

You have to stick to one and abandon the other if you wish to be consisitent. Isnt science supposed to be consisitent. Well we know that when it comes to theories there is plenty of room for inconsistencies.

Picture an expanded baloon with two ants on it. If the baloon contracts( deflates= space decrease between object ants) the ants come closer together.

Postulate: Gravity = space expantion/space contraction! We are headed toward Unified "Theory here.

1) weak attraction= space contraction(decrease)

2) strong attraction= space expantion(increase)

##### Share on other sites

No, the balloon analogy didnt fail. People failed to comprehend it. Theres a difference!

Hey daniel, what does a 3 dimensional shockwave resemble? Think hard!

Now for some phonetic relevancies. Perhaps the word comprehend will itself suggest to us who is closer to the reality. Stellar mentions the word comprehend( he refers to us as not able to comprehend , yet it is more a case of his theories( borrowed from books full of erroneous so-called science). would it be incomprehensible if i were to say that the very word comprehend bears an idiomatic message that is relevant to the discussion? Lets state the word phonetically( approximately)

CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE.

"SEE OHM PEER EACH END."

Dissimilar to stellar ( as it seems the majority of the room is) we have all been indicating that the center of the universe is inside the balloon. We see that the from letter 11 in the above succession to number 20 it reads; "reach in". well obviously this doesn’t refer to the outside circumference of the balloon. rather the IN-side ("reach in). toward the center!

If we consider letter 13-22 we see it reads: "each end". I have drawn illustrations indicating that one must find "one end" of the balloon ( anywhere along the balloon circumference) and that this point (:end) would represent point A(vector). Then they must exactly find the other "end of the balloon" ( representing the exact diameter of the balloon) and mark this end B(vector). Then by attaching "each end"( as the word compr-ehend tells us idiomatically)and exactly dividing this line in half you find the center of the balloon.( LYING ...OF COURSE.........IN THE SPACE AREA OF THE BALLOON AND NOT ALONG THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF SAID BALLOON)

FURTHER: CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE.

From the last letter in this succession(backward) to the 8th letter it could read: "IT A NICHE". What defines a niche better the outside of a balloon skin ( where one is dwelling on a 1-DIMENSSIONAL plane) or inside the balloon? You decide with the following definition of niche accompanied by appropriate synonyms:

: a recess(space) in a wall

a hollowed-out space

niche noun POSITION niche noun HOLLOW

. A cavity, hollow, or recess,

``asylum, bay, bolt-hole, cache, carrel, concealment, cove, cover, covert, coverture, cubby, cubbyhole, cubicle, dark corner, den, dugout, foxhole, funk hole, hideaway, hideout, hidey hole, hiding, hiding place, hole, hollow, inglenook, lair, oriel, pitchhole, place, position, recess, recession, refuge, retreat, roomlet, sanctuary, secret place, slot, snuggery, stash, undercovert

CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE

lets go farther: Notice that the first 7 letters could phonetically read: "SEE OHM". WHAT IS AN OHM? DEFINED:- a unit of electrical resistance equal to the resistance between two points on a conductor when a potential difference of one volt between them produces a current of one ampere

Postulate: Space = electrical resistance................. ( strong force or weak force dependent upon the amount of light/energy, electric resistance)........ .....equal to the resistance between two points................. ( A and B on the circumference of the balloon either proportionately moving toward or away from each other equal to the amount of space expanding or contracting relative to A-B.)............................. on a conductor.................... ( the balloon circumference skin/plain/conductor. Remember: the two points(A and ARE on the skin of the Balloon and the balloon skin represents the conductor, However the electric resistance dwells within the balloon= space expansion /contraction(weak or strong resistance). ...................... when a potential difference..........................( addition of electric light energy space)............................ of one volt between them.............................( space between A-B added= electric light energy added)................... produces a current..............................(space addition between A and B increased= motion/movement)(space energy added).......................of one ampre( produces a "furtherance" of the distance between A-

Thus "See OHM refers to the space inside the balloon.

A lot can be learned from a consideration of the idiomatic expressions found within words , letters. Phonetics

The word comprehend means in part: comprehend - include in scope; include as part of something broader( As I am demonstrating a broader view of the universe as bearing many phenomenon’s including those lying within language); have as one's sphere(universe with a spatial center) or territory.

I can resist to draw attention to the fact that the word BARAC as well as CHERUB as well as ADONIAH also are found within the word comprehend. Perhaps a visit to my rooms ( Manipulating the retina leads to discovery)(Satellite images explain all that is mystery) would peek ones interest in the relevancies of this. I have also been showing others the need to comprehend relevancies in this regard.

##### Share on other sites

The balloon is represented by two component parts : Part rubber skin( membrane) part air. Thus if any part of the balloon ( i.e., skin or air encompassed by membrane skin)"moves". Of necessity if the balloon moves the air within moves equivalently.

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.

to go or pass to ANOTHER PLACE or in a certain direction with a continuous motion

to start AWAY FROM SOME POINT or place

to CHANGE one's residence or LOCATION

No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.

Thus: of NECESSITY if the space between two objects is increased then THE object BALLS move...from the former place( distance from each other as defined by space)to the latter( proceeding space increase). In reality space(between) increase when relative to objects is synonymous with movement or motion of the objects. As well the force acting upon the objects would be the space energy between them being expanded or increased!

That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.

Definition of motion: an act, process, or instance of CHANGING PLACE

: an act or instance of moving the BODY(skin, membrane of balloon)………….. OR its PARTS( part air)

Thus: in BOTH(Motion and movement) instances SPACE INCREASE between two objects= Motion of the "object mass(es)". Or: ‘instance of changing place, point or location‘.

Nope. Not from a physics stand point.

The principles of relativity are expressed here. That is to say that space increase between objects represents the change in relativity (= motion/movement of “mass objects”)-- ( instance of changing "relative" place) of OBJECT relative to OTHER object(s). This change in relative placing ( due to space increase) dictates the motion or movement of the "object mass(es)”.

Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.

The center of the ballon is always the center of the balloon and is found in the center of the balloon. That center remains in the center no matter how large the balloon grows in diameter. When the balloon bursts then the center of the balloon is no longer the center of the balloon but assumes its non-centered place in the area of space. Unless of course the balloon center also falls in the center of the universe. If this is the case when the balloon burst the POINT of the center of the baloon now assumes its place with the exact POINT representing the center of the universe.

But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.

The "gravitational pull" is pulling "them" together...or they are "pulling THEMSELVES together". Paradox.

What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.

if they are "pulling themselves together than how can gravity be the one pulling THEM together. If therefore Gravity is the puller how can they be said to be "pulling themselves together."

Really? Are you ****ting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?

##### Share on other sites

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.

No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.

That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.

Nope. Not from a physics stand point.

Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.

But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.

What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.

Really? Are you ****ting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?

and that brings us back to the question. if the universe is expanding and the universe is everything what is the universe expanding into?

##### Share on other sites

and that brings us back to the question. if the universe is expanding and the universe is everything what is the universe expanding into?

We dont know.

##### Share on other sites

To everyone else: Please try to understand this. Describing space as `curved' is, in a sense, just another analogy (just like our much debated friend the expanding balloon).

It would be more correct (and correspondingly less meaningful to non-physicists and mathematicians) to say that the presence of mass and/or energy makes the metric of space (roughly speaking, you could define `metric' as the process for defining a coordinate system in the spot you are observing based on the spot were you are standing) not translationally invariant (i.e. the process by which you explain what you are looking at changes depending on where you are standing).

One way of describing this is to visualize and n-dimensional curved object embedding in m-dimensional space (where m > n).

So, if, for example, we think the Universe is a 3D object embedded in a 4D (or higher dimensional) region, then - and only then - is it relevant to speak of `what the universe is expanding into'.

It is important to realize that this need not be the case. The entirety of existence could be bound up in only 3D (or 4D, or 11D, or whatever). Space could still be considered `curved' - without anywhere for it to curve into.

You could have the Universe be on the skin of a balloon, without having any interior or exterior to that balloon.

I'm not saying that's the way it is, I'm just saying there is no reason why that can't be the way it is.

##### Share on other sites

Bloody hell.

What is it with you people?

Daniel: don't ask questions that have complex answers if you're going to whinge when the simplification is too abstract.

i think this thing is getting more and more complex. i believe the universe likes things simple. the simpliest is a sphere with a middle of the universe and not a middle of nothing.

This is where you utterly fail. The universe, its structure and constituents are mind-meltingly complicated. Just because can't grasp the basics doesn't mean that the universe suddenly has to follow simple rules.

You're right, the simplest idea is a sphere with a centre. But that isn't what the universe is structured like, and no amount of whinging is going to change it.

You think this is getting more and more complex? Damn right it is, and you know what, this isn't even 2% of how complex this can get.

physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.

Postulate: Gravity = space expantion/space contraction! We are headed toward Unified "Theory here.

1) weak attraction= space contraction(decrease)

2) strong attraction= space expantion(increase)

My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.

Triade: do you not understand the idea of an "analogy"? Do you actually think that Steller is suggesting that we live on a giant balloon???

debate "the evidence" that we're in a giant balloon?

This is what is known as a "lost cause".

This thread has gone absolutely nowhere - a question is posed with a complex answer that takes a bit of abstract thinking, and an answer challenged by minds that seemingly couldn't be any less capable of abstract thought.

If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong.

Edited by Emma_Acid

##### Share on other sites

Bloody hell.

What is it with you people?

Daniel: don't ask questions that have complex answers if you're going to whinge when the simplification is too abstract.

This is where you utterly fail. The universe, its structure and constituents are mind-meltingly complicated. Just because can't grasp the basics doesn't mean that the universe suddenly has to follow simple rules.

You're right, the simplest idea is a sphere with a centre. But that isn't what the universe is structured like, and no amount of whinging is going to change it.

You think this is getting more and more complex? Damn right it is, and you know what, this isn't even 2% of how complex this can get.

physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.

My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.

Triade: do you not understand the idea of an "analogy"? Do you actually think that Steller is suggesting that we live on a giant balloon???

This is what is known as a "lost cause".

This thread has gone absolutely nowhere - a question is posed with a complex answer that takes a bit of abstract thinking, and an answer challenged by minds that seemingly couldn't be any less capable of abstract thought.

If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong.

no telling me what something is like when we have no idea what that something is like is wrong.

in a balloon type structure, you have a rigid edge. in a shockwave, you have a flexable edge. further in a balloon everything is pushed out nothing is left in the middle. how ever in a shockwave, the substance that makes up the wave in this case space doesn't really move it just sits still while everything on the wave moves outward and as has been indicted if it hits something solid oh i don't know like another shock wave it bends around it if it is able too.

also if you don't like my question don't respond to it.

and the answer is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it. this universe isn't everything. just like the earth wasn't everything during the dark ages.

##### Share on other sites

no telling me what something is like when we have no idea what that something is like is wrong.

What???.

in a balloon type structure, you have a rigid edge. in a shockwave, you have a flexable edge. further in a balloon everything is pushed out nothing is left in the middle. how ever in a shockwave, the substance that makes up the wave in this case space doesn't really move it just sits still while everything on the wave moves outward and as has been indicted if it hits something solid oh i don't know like another shock wave it bends around it if it is able too.

Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.

also if you don't like my question don't respond to it.

I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".

and the answer is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it. this universe isn't everything. just like the earth wasn't everything during the dark ages.

This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.

Edited by Emma_Acid

##### Share on other sites

What???.

Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.

I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".

This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.

i didn't use that argument. i used the argument that the earth was everything in the mind of the church during the dark ages. that is the earth, the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars all of which orbited the earth.

and again if those two dots are moving away from each other then how can the third dot also on that surface be moving toward either of the dots.

if the galaxies are not moving, but the space between them is getting larger then they cannot be moving toward each other.

personnally i don't think we're riding a shock wave. i think said shock wave or balloon edge left us behind long ago and we are in the middle of said area. that doesn't mean i think we are the center. there may not be a center. what we call the universe may only be a group of galaxies inside a much larger area and there may be far more groupings of galaxies out there.

then again as someone stated in another thread we may simple be inside a black hole.

Edited by danielost

##### Share on other sites

and again if those two dots are moving away from each other then how can the third dot also on that surface be moving toward either of the dots.

It isnt moving towards them due to the expansion of the universe. The balloon is merely an analogy to explain how everything can be moving away from each other due to expansion. Why do you keep bringing up a 'third' moving toward either of the dots? Really? What does this have to do with anything?

if the galaxies are not moving, but the space between them is getting larger then they cannot be moving toward each other.

No, you're just dealing with two separate things. Due to the expansion, the distance between stationary galaxies will increase. If the gravity of two galaxies pulls them together, then their motion through space can be greater than the distance being put between them by the expansion of the galaxy and hence they will move closer togheter.

##### Share on other sites

My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.

This breakfast didn't happen to involve Moebius strips of bacon, did it?

-------------------

Seriously, though, here is a quantitative answer.

Where is the centre of the Universe?

If the big bang was t years ago (something like 14 billion years, I think), then the centre of the Universe is t light-years away in any direction.

Obviously you can only get there if you can travel faster than the speed of light (otherwise, by the time you get `there' the centre of the Universe would be at least 2t light years away from your new position, in any direction), and if you did somehow manage to get there you'd probably regret it.

(This doesn't mean that any of the other answers - and by that I mean real answers - are any less valid or true. This is just another way of thinking about it.)

##### Share on other sites

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.

No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.

That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.

Nope. Not from a physics stand point.

Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.

But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.

What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.

Really? Are you ****ting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?

I give up! "Lost in the 60,s tonight"! He is so predisposed as to be blinded by the predisposition(s)

##### Share on other sites

Emma_Acid ￼

physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.

MY RESPONSE:

"If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong".

QID PRO QUO!!!!!

##### Share on other sites

"If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong".

QID PRO QUO!!!!!

Not really applicable, given that what Steller's been talking about has scientific backing the world over, and is verified by decades of observation, while your "ideas" are of no value or applicable use whatever, and demonstrably so.

##### Share on other sites

What???.

Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.

I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".

This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.

Refer to illustration.

What expands space? SPACE! Exclusively . Unless of course you can explain something else that expands or contracts space. What is the force acting upon space that expands it? Where does it come from? So many rhetorical questions!

Properties of gravity: If an object planet is such and such distance from another planet the SPACE between them ( as being sufficient)is what controls their relative positioning. If the space between them contracts( decreases) then the objects come closer together ( not sufficient . DANGER DR. WHO). Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together? What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???

Thus: what would draw the objects together would be the increase or decrease in the SPACE BETWEEN THEM resulting from the expansion or contraction of the SPACE BETWEEN THEM.

So what is space? EVERYTHING! Space acts upon space. Bulk space( "invisible" ether) acts upon vestige space( "visible" ether relative to bulk space= small reflected bubbles of space( small or large circles enclosing part of bulk space) reflecting the properties and qualities of bulk space). Or bulk space acting upon PLANE space( not plain ).

Gravity = (space increase or space decrease between objects)= motion or movement of object(s) relativity to one another= (expansion or contraction of distance between objects)= SPACE

Gw( gravity weakened= weak force)=S( DISTANCE BETWEEN OBJECTS)INCREASED.

Gs( gravity strong= strong force)=S (Distance between objects)DECREASED

EMF( Electromagnetic force)= S(space)ever existential and ever-relative to "mass objects"

NF( Nuclear force)= Proton (S=space) electrical charge found in the CENTER of all atoms( center of all “balloons”; and represents the space energy force which dictates the DISTANCE between two or more nucleons(“mass object atoms= MICRO nucleus…..or “mass object being/forms=MACRO nucleus). This Nuclear force controls the distance between the circumferences of each atom or each “mass object”. Thus of necessity also controls the relative spacing of the nucleuses( centers) of the sphere atoms or spherical “object masses.”

Thus the “residual strong force” would represent EMF increase( space increase-expansion) between “mass objects”. The “strong interaction” would represent EMF decrease( space decrease-contraction) between “mass objects.”

WICIPEDIA :At SHORT DISTANCES(Gs..refer to above)) the nuclear force is stronger than the Coulomb force;(Nevertheless, the dependence of the electric force with distance (inverse square law)”….is relevant) it can overcome the Coulomb repulsion of protons inside the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much larger range and becomes the only significant force between protons when their SEPARATION EXCEEDS(Gw…refer to above)separation exceeds about 2.5 fm.

You yourself said it: 'As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.' Indeed: As the universe is everything; so to is "everything made up of space energy.' Thus the universe = space energy.

Thus: space energy controls all functionings of the universe. when space energy asserts itself within or into our universe all motion/movement, spin, revolution, distance, speed, location, time, stretching, contracting.....relativity of mass objects ...is altered.

when space energy relaxes "itself" within or into our universe all motion/movement, spin, revolution, distance, speed, location, time, stretching, contracting.....relativity of mass objects ...is altered.

despite entropic decision the ultimant determinant factor of the universe lies squarely/circularly with the entity called space=LIGHT!

##### Share on other sites

Sorry - given that you don't even know something basic such as how gravity functions, I'm not going to even try to address any of your other points.

##### Share on other sites

I'll take one for the team, I guess.

What expands space? SPACE! Exclusively .

No. Residual inertia from the big bang and Dark Energy expand space.

Unless of course you can explain something else that expands or contracts space.

Residual inertia from the big bang is known and quantifiable. Dark Energy... well, we're working on it.

What is the force acting upon space that expands it? Where does it come from? So many rhetorical questions!

Just because you don't want to listen to the answer doesn't make the question rhetorical in general.

Properties of gravity: If an object planet is such and such distance from another planet the SPACE between them ( as being sufficient)is what controls their relative positioning. If the space between them contracts( decreases) then the objects come closer together ( not sufficient . DANGER DR. WHO).

Absolutely not. The relative distance between two objects defines the strength of their interaction in a spatial potential.

Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together?

Yes, that is probably `said'. It is completely wrong though. Gravitational pull between two massive objects is always drawing them together. Occasional conditions, such as the aforementioned expansion of space or the much more common Conservation of Angular Momentum (i.e. in planetary orbits) is sufficient to keep objects from crashing into each other.

What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???

Well the theory involves actual equations which can produce quantitative predictions. Your postulate is vague rambling with erratic use of punctuation.

Thus: what would draw the objects together would be the increase or decrease in the SPACE BETWEEN THEM resulting from the expansion or contraction of the SPACE BETWEEN THEM.

No. To draw objects together you definitely must decrease the space between them, no argument there. That does not suggest that the space between them must be contracted in and of itself. The objects can easily be moving through space.

So what is space?

All physical locations occupied by only the vacuum potential?

Gravity = (space increase or space decrease between objects)= motion or movement of object(s) relativity to one another= (expansion or contraction of distance between objects)= SPACE

Gw( gravity weakened= weak force)=S( DISTANCE BETWEEN OBJECTS)INCREASED.

Gs( gravity strong= strong force)=S (Distance between objects)DECREASED

EMF( Electromagnetic force)= S(space)ever existential and ever-relative to "mass objects"

NF( Nuclear force)= Proton (S=space) electrical charge found in the CENTER of all atoms( center of all “balloons”; and represents the space energy force which dictates the DISTANCE between two or more nucleons(“mass object atoms= MICRO nucleus…..or “mass object being/forms=MACRO nucleus). This Nuclear force controls the distance between the circumferences of each atom or each “mass object”. Thus of necessity also controls the relative spacing of the nucleuses( centers) of the sphere atoms or spherical “object masses.”

Second, why is there a different time scale, parity, and symmetry-breaking rules for a `Gw' interaction than for a `Gs' interaction if one is merely the inverse operation of the other?

Third, why is your general case of space increase/decrease, gravity, mutually attractive while every other above described force is mutually repulsive?

Forth, if all forces are basically the same action upon space why do they all act on different degrees of freedom (mass, flavour, colour, charge)?

despite entropic decision the ultimant determinant factor of the universe lies squarely/circularly with the entity called space=LIGHT!

Light is just the mediator of electromagnetic interactions.

##### Share on other sites

Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together? What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???

I dont see how that can express reality. What is happening in the case of my cup of tea resting on the table? The gravity pulling it down towards the center of the Earth is still there, hence in your case the contraction of space should still be happening, no?

Or how do you explain say the Sun and the Earth? They are gravitationally linked, yet the Earth is in a stable orbit. Is the space there still contracting due to gravity?

##### Share on other sites

Wicipedia: Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.) This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him – see History section below.) In modern language, the law states the following:

I propose the following: “every massive particle in the universe IS ATTRACTED to every other massive particle”….. DUE TO the “force” of space /energy (EMF) and that there “masses” or inconsequential. In reality there is no such thing as “mass” rather “everything is space energy. When a “visible space energy” object is attracted to another it is because the space(invisible) between them is either contracting or remaining constant. If the “force” of space is constant the objects remain constantly at such and such distance with no deviation. If the “force” (space) is decreased the objects come closer together. If the “force “ of space expands the objects “change from one point to another altering their relativity thus …MOVING! The “force of attraction” is an inference caused by the fact that we only perceive the “object mass(es)” with our eye seeming to move when in reality it is the space we do not “see with our eyes” either ( ETHER) expanding or (ORE) contracting relative to the objects. Space is relative to all objects as well defines all object “shapes” as distinguishable and separated from other objects. The object” masses” are never moving in reality but are at constant zero motion. Only when space increases/decreases between them does the illusion of “object mass” movement occur. To reiterate it is the light space energy that is either expanding or contracting resulting in objects SEEMING to be either attracting, separating, or remaining constant.

It is imperative to note that although “ Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity.” As it concerns our discussion we are confined to a discussion of gravity thus my comments are particularly related to this context.

I agree with the following synopsis of space( force of attraction …..or not…or “attraction” constant) relative to mass: inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.)”

Notice that this work( wicipedia) demonstrates the eloquent principle; that being: “ as if ALL their mass were concentrated at their centers.” This supports almost fully what I have been proposing that ALL matter consists of “space energy.“ Further that the relevant factor of Attraction of one object to another is located at the center. That is: when we view the earth and its moon we do not perceive the core centers of both as well we assume because we can live on the circumference of the earth and see only the circumference of the moon, as well because we perceive “mass” by the sense of touch , that “mass” is different from space. I ask what does space feel like? Physics has proven that space FEELS like many things. Touch any so-called “mass” object and you are feeling “space energy‘. Everything is space energy. Thus the only distinguishing factor between what we see ( visible space energy) and what we do not see ( invisible space energy) is the product of our vision….the eye. Apparently our eye (inferior as it is relative to other beings…I.e. animals and insects) cannot visually perceive light energy as it is: infinitesimal atomic energy circles . Our eye conglomerates the atoms thus because of this all of the small “atoms” are massed together so that there combined( myriad) “little bodies” form a larger circumference circle/sphere. In other words our eyes are so designed that there must be so many microscopic atoms collected( in “Mass”) together until they form a large enough “image” for us to visually comprehend. Thus all mass is ( what we are perceiving as mass) is space light PHOTONS building up to the point thus creating a large enough “amount” to become visible to our “macro-oriented” eye. Other creatures seem to have a more Micro-oriented eye meaning that they can see smaller fractions of light photon( perhaps to the point of comprehending the “atom“ in its infinitesimal form) with no need of any “magnification.

##### Share on other sites

Mass= “volume” of light energy photon communicated to any perspective mirrored eye. ALL of the center of the volume of light ( thus the only real mass= captured space center(s)) is “concentrated in the center of every organism. ( im not refering to any mythical chi, rather a scientific proposal). This center volume of space ( verses “mass”=illusion) represents a single space energy atom whose diametric size is reflected or magnified out from its center as far as space will allow. The farther space allows the atom to reflect outward into space the larger and more magnified the diameter of the visible equivalent reflection of the invisible space energy atom(s). If space contracts “in on” the atom the former magnified diameter ( magnified to the point of our eye perceiving it) shrinks. Eventually if space continues to contract in on the atom, the atom will “vanish” from our view. Thus another quality of space expansion/contraction is its ability to magnify an atom to a threshold we can visualize or to “shrink” an atom to a threshold beyond our visual perception. The universe is comprised of atom(s)( or ONE ATOM!)=( light- energy photon(s)…”basic unit of light“) those/this atom(s) can either be infinitesimal( space contracting in on them/it) and thus not perceived by the HUMAN anatomical eye; or: magnified ( due to the same space expanding ”outside” of the atom) to the point of our eye registering them. The tragedy is that as soon as the atoms were magnified to a size we could comprehend them ( progression in our ability to comprehend physics) we labeled them mass, gave them a weight, through in the theory of gravity( force of attraction), abandoned the reality that everything is invisible space energy, and made the mistake of distinguishing what we do not see from what we do see as if they were different. All of this pseudo-scientific and inferential rationalizing resulted in predispositions that caused a stagnancy in physics or even further a regression in the ability to move on in our thinking!

The universe as it concerns so-called “physical matter” is merely a product of ATOMIC REFLECTION. That is to say : Invisible light energy( infinitesimal “atom(s)”) is being reflected/magnified to our eye by means of the expansion/ contraction of space within, around, beside , between atom(s) . The same principles of the functioning of the eye ( mirroring/reflecting light photon) is occurring throughout the entire universe. That is: Bulk light within the universe…. when reflected…. forms circumferential planes ( an ether ore skin of sorts); defining “each” atomic organism: Big or small) that either reflect the light photon at a constant position relative to light( light around and within atom NEVER increasing or decreasing), or reflects the light photon space as it expands outward ( atom expanding= mass increasing) or contracts inward on the atom( atom contracting/shrinking).

Eventually the atom( “mass” light photon) will be contracted to the point that its inner space……….. relative to the outer space that surrounds it…. reaches a point of singularity.

Singularity = when light photon( atom= “energy quality” of light though not fully accounting for all of the properties of space LIGHT energy) atom( representing space captured( plane light energy atom)) shrinks to the point that it returns to space light bulk.

To illustrate look at accompanying picture: When the black circle circumference shrinks to the center then the ENERGY quality of light as representing the “atom” returns to the FULL nature and quality of light as represented by the green space outside. Conversion( E=mc2)= when space energy CAPTURED returns to space energy free flowing. Or: When energy/light, plane, atom reflected…………. returns to Light energy un-reflected bulk!

##### Share on other sites

Wicipedia further: Every point mass ( idealized…and that which I do not agree with )attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points

The “force pointing along the line intersecting both points” represents the force of space between( along the line) by which A is relative to B.

Look at the equation in illustration 2:

where:

F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,

G is the gravitational constant,

m1 is the mass of the first point mass,

m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and

r is the distance between the two point masses

F= magnitude of the space between M1 and M2. Where magnitude = space increased or decreased

G= EMF(Light energy)= no magnetism at all. Rather the “extent” at which space expands or contracts. The gravitational constant represents NO increase or decrease in the space energy( EMF) between M1 and M2.

M1; M2 = defined appropriately. Except for this reality: The mass isn’t found at the circumferences of these to objects( M1 and M2), rather resides only in the infinitesimal center. Circumferences are irrelevant to the constant distance between. Thus the true phenomenon of EMF( space energy) relative to M1 as to M2 is only found at the infinitesimal center. Thus the true metric between to objects is not found by measuring the distance from one circumference to the other , rather from the center of M1 to the center of M2.

R= the distance between the CENTER of M1 as to the CENTER of M2. This distance is defined by either the constancy of the space between them or the expansion or contraction of the space between them.

The circumference of any object we see is never relevant and is meaningless in the true functionality of the universe. It is the center of all objects that is exclusively relevant and represents merely an infinitesimally small vestige of invisible space energy…..BEING REFLECTED TO MACRO -SIZE and thus comprehended by our eye. Thus everything we “SEE” with our eyes is in reality merely infinitesimal invisible space energy being magnified( by our eye) via reflection. Indeed everything in the universe is made up of atoms. Or perhaps our universe represents a single light energy “atom” being magnified to the diameter it is due to the accommodation of space. That is to say a single “atomic,,” energy- light, spatial form of light bulk growing in size and dimension due to the expansion of space outside of it …thus of necessity inside

## Create an account

Register a new account