For a couple years, every month or so, I would randomly think about this for a few hours, trying to prove that the concept was insane, and instead, I came up with a testable hypothesis. The ether, as something that possibly exists, or the concept, that the sun could be expanding so fast, that it literally pushes us away from it as fast as it gets bigger, make this idea incredibly difficult to imagine testing... but I eventually settled on something fascinating. The moon should be getting smaller. The earth is not hot enough to propel the moon away from it, at a speed that would allow it to appear the same size. Why? The moon has far less particles of matter, than the earth, so... If matter is constantly expanding, the moon should appear to shrink.
If matter is expanding, what is it expanding relative to? If we're going to posit that mass is expanding, then we're implying a hypothetical measurement could exist of it's expansion. If we could thought-experiment our way to a hypothetical measurement, what would that measurement look like?
This discussion gets to the heart of probably the biggest unsolved question in physics, what is mass? We measure mass, we can manipulate it, and we can infer it's existence where we cannot see it. But we don't really know what it is. We can define mass as that which exists in the presence of matter, but this is wholly unsatisfying. This question is what prompts particle physicsts to look for "god" particles, and particles responsible for gravity, because we haven't really solved the problem of what mass is.
I've goofed off in physics forums before, but once I suggest that the fundamental flaw in relativity, is that it says perception is reality, the trolls just yell at me for being wrong... Then they proceed to explain, relativity, in numerous different ways, all of which, fundamentally suggest that perception is reality. "Well if the light stops moving, time stopped, because otherwise how can you measure time?". To which I suggest, "Well, you could count in your head. Time is an consequence of consciousness, it's just our way of measuring movement"... "No, that's nonsense, space time is a thing, it's curved, and it stops existing for other people when you move at light speed."... I mean, really, how do you respond to "scientists" who say that?
.
Ask yourself a very hard question. This is a very difficult question to mentally wrestle with.
At what speed does information travel? What is the maximum allowable speed of information? This would have to be limited by physics if it we are supposing it is limited, right? I mean, if you could hypothetically grab Jupiter and move it around the earth at whatever speed you wanted, how long would it take for any effect of Jupiter's close proximity and fast orbit of earths position to reach and affect Earth? That's the kind of maximum speed we're talking about. Try to imagine that the universe has a maximum speed at which things can affect each other, and then try and figure out what that speed is. If the universe does not have a maximum speed limit for information, then everywhere we point our telescopes, we should be looking at present-time. However, we know this is not the case, becuase the further we look into the universe, the stranger things look, the less planet/star/galaxy-like things are.
When you start playing with that question, you start to realize a lot of things.
Is relativity science?
in Science & Technology
Posted
If matter is expanding, what is it expanding relative to? If we're going to posit that mass is expanding, then we're implying a hypothetical measurement could exist of it's expansion. If we could thought-experiment our way to a hypothetical measurement, what would that measurement look like?
This discussion gets to the heart of probably the biggest unsolved question in physics, what is mass? We measure mass, we can manipulate it, and we can infer it's existence where we cannot see it. But we don't really know what it is. We can define mass as that which exists in the presence of matter, but this is wholly unsatisfying. This question is what prompts particle physicsts to look for "god" particles, and particles responsible for gravity, because we haven't really solved the problem of what mass is.
Ask yourself a very hard question. This is a very difficult question to mentally wrestle with.
At what speed does information travel? What is the maximum allowable speed of information? This would have to be limited by physics if it we are supposing it is limited, right? I mean, if you could hypothetically grab Jupiter and move it around the earth at whatever speed you wanted, how long would it take for any effect of Jupiter's close proximity and fast orbit of earths position to reach and affect Earth? That's the kind of maximum speed we're talking about. Try to imagine that the universe has a maximum speed at which things can affect each other, and then try and figure out what that speed is. If the universe does not have a maximum speed limit for information, then everywhere we point our telescopes, we should be looking at present-time. However, we know this is not the case, becuase the further we look into the universe, the stranger things look, the less planet/star/galaxy-like things are.
When you start playing with that question, you start to realize a lot of things.