Ah, OK sorry, I hope I didn't disrupt you conversation.

The "battle" will continue my friend! :wink: — Haglund

:smile: Yes but I don't see our exchanges as a battle.
We should be able to 'dig' each other within the 'guidelines of debate.'
I think we do that quite well.
It's nice for folks like @SpaceDweller to play 'moderator', as well.
All good stuff. I remain a fan Haglund even with your roleplay polytheism.

Not at all! It's nice that you wanted to see if you could assist us.
I am away to watch some episodes of Star Trek Discovery series 3!!

We should be able to 'dig' each other within the 'guidelines of debate.'
I think we do that quite well — universeness

Yes! Enjoy StarTrek! Great series hey? Space, the final frontier...

Perhaps jgill would comment on the maths argument used above. — universeness

The arithmetic of infinities is a subject of axiomatic set theory. IMHO little to do with the real physical world. Others would disagree. As for the "expansion" of space, Wikipedia says it best:

The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time.[1] It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense, but rather it is the metric (which governs the size and geometry of spacetime itself) that changes in scale. As the spatial part of the universe's spacetime metric increases in scale, objects become more distant from one another at ever-increasing speeds.

(Wiki)

How can space expand? I can see how it bends, but expand?

This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense

The distance between objects changes in some sense.

The distance between objects changes in some sense. — jgill

And the photons travelling between them get red-shifted - a simple observational effect.

Maybe very fringe. Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist.

My view is that space does not bend and surely, not break. The immaterial does not bend or stretch, etc.

My view is that space does not bend and surely, not break. The immaterial does not bend or stretch, etc. — val p miranda

It does look that way, doesn't it? Confusion arises when 4D spacetime is introduced with a different metric, and said to curve, etc. But space itself does seem to show signs of curvature. Beyond me.

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise.

It's quite hard to break or snap it indeed. But it can be bend. But how can it expand without matter? Only if it expands in an extra dimension. There is no law in general relativity that forbids. The dogma though says that 3d space is intrinsically curved without being embedded in a 4d space. Embed the universe in a 4d space and dark energy is explained. You gotta keep matter attached to 3d though.

Maybe very fringe. Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist. — val p miranda

Theoretical p's in loop view?

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise. — val p miranda

That's exactly the tactic of atheists. I partially agree with them. I mean, it's clear to me they gotta be there, so I disagree. But insofar they are atheists because of moral issues about human relations I agree.

The problem of evil will surely surface.

The new increaded measured weight in electron volts of the W boson poses a threat to the Standard Model. So I await more information.

The problem of evil will surely surface. — val p miranda

It has already...

The new increaded measured weight in electron volts of the W boson poses a threat to the Standard Model. So I await more information — val p miranda

I'm very pleased to read that! In the standard model it's said to be fundamental. I think it's composed.

That was too vague. Some theoritical physcists who are proponents of loop quantum gravity think that time does not exist; they want to reconcile relativity and mechanics, too.

IMHO little to do with the real physical world. — jgill

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to contribute. It's always better to hear about the use of infinities in mathematics from those who really know about the use of infinities in mathematics.

This expansion involves neither space nor objects in space "moving" in a traditional sense

The distance between objects changes in some sense — jgill

I have fallen asleep whilst listening to 'Something from nothing,' by Laurence Krauss audiobook a few times. He talks about drawing a grid of equidistant dots on paper (I assume transparencies would be best) and then drawing a bigger grid of dots with a larger equidistance between each dot on a second piece of paper He then suggests picking any same dot from both papers and superimpose them on each other. You will then see that not only has the distance between every dot increased but the distance between your chosen dot galaxy will have increased by a factor of 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 etc related to how far away from your chosen dot it was on the first grid. This is basically how expansion works in our universe. For me, the second grid is 'bigger' than the first which suggests 'new space' is being created during the expansion rather than a 'stretching' of space between galaxies. If new space is being created and our Universe is not expanding into anything as it is everything then space cannot be already infinite in extent.

If you use the search words 'Does expansion create new space' on sites such a quora, physics stack exchange etc. You get many many viewpoints but they mostly split between 'new space created' and 'spacial stretching.'
One physicist on Quora posted:
"I personally think new spacetime is being created, since before time began there was no space, but who really knows, which is why I say it is the free space being created by stretching it, it is not anything to do with the space within matter expanding. Imagine you had 9 people stand in 3 lines of 3 to represent the singularity, then free space grew by 1 metre between each of them so they would now all be a metre apart. The middle did not move faster than the edges because none of the people actually moved in free space. There was relative velocity between the people but no real velocity since none of them had actually moved through free space. If originally the 9 people were standing on black crosses, they would still be standing on the same black crosses after the expansion. Each person had a zero displacement, therefore zero velocity. This also explains why the edge of our Observable Universe is about 47.5 billion light years away even though the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. The most distant galaxies didn’t have to move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, it was free space expanding away from us faster than the speed of light that enabled them to be that far away."

"How does something come out of nothing?" Nothing does not exist. Either something exist or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist; therefore, something existed, the first existent which initiated the universe. In the pre-universe was the first existent; there was no time and, therefore, no before and no cause. How does something come out of nothing should be reworded as I did. From nothing comes nothing is true, but there never was nothing in the pre-universe, otherwise there would not be a universe.

Some theoretical p's in loop view think that time does not exist. — val p miranda

I think time is a measure but I also think it's a measure of motion from the standpoint of 'the duration of an event.' I think the view of reality for humans is that time is linear, past present future but I accept that may merely be what humans label reality rather than what reality IS. Mark Tegmark posits that past events have not 'gone.' I think he views events in time as being recorded in some sense in the fabric of space. Almost as if each 'bit' of space holds a series of layered photographs of all that has 'happened' in that bit of space since it formed. Perhaps the expansion creates the layering. I think I am now at best paraphrasing Tegmark and at worse projecting on him or misunderstanding him.
Have you ever tried to describe the Universe without reference to the concept of linear time?

Some theoritical physcists who are proponents of loop quantum gravity think that time does not exist; they want to reconcile relativity and mechanics, too. — val p miranda

Carlos Rovelli is one of the most respected proponents of loop quantum gravity. Have you watched his youtube offerings on time such as:

"How does something come out of nothing?" Nothing does not exist. Either something exist or nothing exists. But nothing does not exist; therefore, something existed, the first existent which initiated the universe. In the pre-universe was the first existent; there was no time and, therefore, no before and no cause. How does something come out of nothing should be reworded as I did. From nothing comes nothing is true, but there never was nothing in the pre-universe, otherwise there would not be a universe. — val p miranda

I like Christopher Hitchen's response to this. Firstly he recommends reading the Laurence Krauss book on the subject of something from nothing and then suggests that you worry more about the fact that all the current evidence suggests that the fate of the Universe is to become nothing.

With God as the first existent, how can that be attacked? Maybe by asserting that man created God, not otherwise. — val p miranda

Perhaps you could have a quick look at my thread titled 'The Penrose Bounce.' I cant be bothered repeating here what I typed there in response to your point above.
I have also always insisted that man created gods.

I have fallen asleep whilst listening to 'Something from nothing,' by Laurence Krauss audiobook a few times. — universeness

No wonder you fell asleep reading Krauss He's a total bore and little girls lover...

Space simply doesn't expand, nor is there new space created. It's an apparent effect only.

Ah, you meant LQG. There time exists all the same. But its behind the scene. Every 10exp-43 seconds, the scene changes but what makes it change every 10exp-43 seconds? There are creatures with a little stopwatches, who watch to and click every 10exp-43 seconds, and the scene progresses. :wink:

No wonder you fell asleep reading Krauss He's a total bore and little girls lover... — Haglund

I did not read Krauss, I listened to him narrate one of his audiobooks.
I listen to audiobooks often before I fall asleep. Sleep happens regardless of the author of the book.
I don't hold with your opinion of Krauss and I would take care when you accuse people of heinous
tendencies on a public forum.

Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand? — Haglund

Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating — Haglund

It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand — Haglund

How can space expand? I can see how it bends, but expand? — Haglund

Space simply doesn't expand, nor is there new space created. It's an apparent effect only — Haglund

You are not exactly consistent in the way you present your arguments. Your approach regarding expansion is rather 'scattergun.'

You are not exactly consistent in the way you present your arguments. Your approach regarding expansion is rather 'scattergun.' — universeness

Ah yes. The consistency counter. So what? Life is inconsistent. As I said, space "seems" to expand. So it both expands while not actually expanding. It scans different cross sections of 4d space (5d spacetime).

I don't hold with your opinion of Krauss and I would take care when you accuse people of heinous
tendencies on a public forum — universeness

It is a well know fact Krauss likes sweet sixteens. I do too but I don't actually try them out by being a hot shot in a cosmology in which he fakes something is created from nothing.

I have also always insisted that man created gods. — universeness

Answer by Fredric Brown (1906 - 1972)