Since the universe is expanding, is it possible that the space our bodies occupy, as well as the earth, etc, is also expanding? If so, it would be relativistic - to us the sizes wouldn't appear to change. A modern day human would be a few hundred feet tall directly compared to a human from a few hundred thousand years ago.
>>7916586
If the space changes accordingly how would you know there was any change in height?
>>7916586
Unlikely, intermollecular forces far outweigh the expansion of space. Besides, just because expansion happens uniformly on an intergalactic scale, there's no way of knowing if the same holds true on a smaller scale.
>>7916601
>intermollecular forces far outweigh the expansion of space
source? genuinely curious on this subject
>>7916606
>source
Not everything is flying apart like a bunch of marbles
>>7916607
why would it? the space that molecules occupy would also expand. molecular bonds would still function.
>>7916586
That's not how it works. Space doesn't stretch.
>>7916666
That's exactly what it means.
>>7916597
If everything were to double in size overnight, all rulers would double in size so you would never know.
Actually this has been proven incorrect since your atoms would also double in size and therefore alter their properties. Furthermore, if this expansion kept happening night after night, eventually the quantum would cease to be quatum and instead operate in a classical way.
>>7916601
Expansion doesn't happen uniformly though, as is evidenced by the CBR. Actually expansion doesn't happen at all, as it leads to insane arguments like the one in OP.
>>7916670
I kinda like my theory of expanding rulers
>>7916586
The Big Bang created space and time. At the beginning of the universe, the space was completely filled with matter. The material was very hot and dense origin, it then expanded and cooled to eventually give the stars and galaxies we see in the universe today.
The Earth is not expanding, just as the solar system, nor the Milky Way. These objects were formed under the influence of gravity and stopped expanding. Gravity also holds galaxies together, in groups and clusters. It is mainly the groups and clusters of galaxies moving away from each other in the universe.
>>7916586
It's like onions.
>>7917295
>hasn't read an astrophysics paper in 20 years...
>>7917307
You are not completely wrong but what is wrong in my post ?
>>7916670
>since your atoms would also double in size and therefore alter their properties
if everything expanded uniformly then how would their properties be altered? are there any papers that discuss this?
>Since the universe is expanding, is it possible that the space our bodies occupy, as well as the earth, etc, is also expanding
No, we are not expanding, the gravitational forces of Earth and other celestial bodies are holding themselves together, humans are held together by chemical bonds.
The only reason the universe is expanding is because it's expansion velocity is faster than it's own escape velocity.
>see critical density, Omega, etc
>>7916586
You're not expanding. But distance between points is. The electromagnetic force of your molecules keeps you together because it is stronger than the expansion of the universe.
>>7917439
>the gravitational forces of Earth and other celestial bodies are holding themselves together
If our atoms also expanded in size, all uniformly, then their gravity would increase, holding them together. The chemical bonds would still function because everything would scale together, there would be no noticeable difference to us.
>>7917448
>The electromagnetic force of your molecules keeps you together because it is stronger than the expansion of the universe.
yeah, we're kept together, but keep in mind that the space that we occupy is primarily space. remember that first talk in science class where your teacher says that we're primarily space, but due to molecular bonds we don't fall through the floor? If that space between our atoms were to stretch out at a set pace, and our atoms were to stretch out at the same set pace, then the electromagnetic force of our atoms would stretch out at the same set pace.
>>7917454
Think it's about time to apply Occam's Razor. There's no reason to assume this is occurring so what is the point of even bringing this up?
>>7917457
>space is expanding
>we occupy space
>the space we occupy is NOT expanding
doesn't make sense
>7917356
>7917454
Even though space expands, the speed of light remains constant, so it would be easy to notice if things themselves were also expanding.
If the forces themselves also grew in strength as space expanded, then light from faraway galaxies wouldn't redswift since it would also expand.
>>7917512
>greentexted post numbers
Well, I'm an idiot.
>>7917461
this
>>7917512
/thread
>>7917512
how often do we check in on the speed of light? serious question. and are our instruments so sensitive that they could detect if light had sped up or slowed down by a few meters per second?
also, if everything expanded at the same rate then a redshift would stay the same.
>>7917537
nope, try again
>>7917512
your knowledge of physics is just as bad as your ability to properly quote
>>7917454
think of this way: how do we know space is expanding while we aren't? Because we can actually see it expand. We know the distance between large astronomic objects such as galaxy clusters is expanding while their size or the size of the galaxies themselves stays the same. This tells us that the driving force behind this can act on large scales but is too weak to influence matter on a smaller scale.
>>7917553
>Because we can actually see it expand. We know the distance between large astronomic objects such as galaxy clusters is expanding while their size or the size of the galaxies themselves stays the same.
if I throw a softball then its distance from me increases, but the ball itself doesn't change in size. if large astronomic objects are moving away from each other then that could be due to their own acceleration relative to the other objects or to ourselves. that doesn't mean space is expanding at that rate.
>>7917558
so then tell me who threw those galaxies away from us?
>>7917558
It's expanding at ~70km/sec/mpc
If we were expanding it would take billions of years for us to even double in length so I don't know the point of this discussion, it's more trivial then the whole "hur dur how do we know we aren't in a hologram? b-but Stephan Hawkings"
>>7917570
and not just a few, all of them all the while when gravity predicts they should converge
No, people are just getting fatter because they're increasingly affluent but also work longer hours and live a more physically sedentary life.
If your hypothesis is true we would be expanding at a rate of 2.3x10^-24m/s. So your question is trivial
>>7917600
good lord, where to start, your understanding of our universe seems rather limited
>the big bang. an explosion that sent matter in every direction
no, the big bang was the expansion of space itself, matter was pretty much distributed evenly throughout the universe at that time
>that's one theory. theories are often debunked.
no they are not. a theory is somethng that has been proven on several occasions. what you mean is a hypothesis
>>7917621
>implying that things happening on a small scale are trivial
genius
>>7917549
Gravitational wave detectors are constantly measuring the speed of light in long corridors, so they would probably notice it. The actual rate of expansion we've measured consists of only a few centimetres per second for every light year, so it might take a while before any noticeable changes occur, but at least we have the technology to do it.
Another good argument is the background microwave radiation. It proves that the universe was far denser in the past (dense enough to be opaque), so if matter had expanded along space, we would all be swimming in a sea of giant plasma particles.
>>7917623
>a hand grenade isn't an explosion, it's the expansion of the space that the hand grenade occupies!
theories are debunked. hypotheses more so, but theories have also been debunked.
>>7917553
>how do we know space is expanding while we aren't? Because we can actually see it expand.
We don't actually see it expand, we only see their light being 'redder' than it should be, which could only happen if they were moving away or if OP's mom was sucking energy from particles while they travel through space.
>>7917624
It would literally take ~60 quadrillion years for the human body to expand 1 meter that is 14 million times older than the universe
yep it's trivial
>>7917654
>14 million times
4million*
>>7917660
>only people in texas know what hand grenades are
what a genius
>>7916586
Globally space is expanding but on the scale of the solar system the effect is pretty negligible compared warping caused by the mass of the bodies in the solar system
>>7917461
We are ON/IN space-time. We move through space-time.
We are NOT made of space-time.
>it's hard
>>7918048
>what is the void between the atoms that humans are comprised of?
>>7916586
breddy spuuky idea m8
10/10
>>7917356
Yeah there is a book called Labyrinths of Reason that deals with the concept of a demon capable of doubling the universe each night. At first the author says there is no way to tell, but then some physicist came up with a test involving the atomic weight of some element. Not sure if quantum doubling was allowed in the demon experiment, actually doubling the sizes of the atom each night would have very noticeable effects and the entire universe would likely cease to exist/explode.
>>7917549
>>7917630
The speed of light is changing constantly. There are some good videos by Rupert Sheldrake on the subject. Basically scientists kept getting all of these different values for the speed of light and the measurement kept going up and down so they defined the metre to the speed of light so that if the speed of light changed their measurement would change also.
>>7918055
its most likely dark energy (energy that is NOT accounted for by thermodynamic laws iirc)
>>7918333
Excellent response to this thread, thank you for it. I'll be looking into those videos.
>>7916615
>>7916586
I fucking hate threads like this. Threads in which someone who obviously doesn't study science posts totally asinine bullshit that only demonstrates how tenious their grasp is on the subject. Read a god damn book in order to at least grasp the basics of the subject you're talking about instead of rushing to /sci/ in a desperate attempt to start a dialogue on something you're incredibly uneducated in. It's nothing but fucking laziness compounded by a need to post something in order to feel like you're fitting in, ignorant to that fact your contributions are trivial, bland and only serve as an exercise in correcting an elementery misunderstanding in whatever you endeavour to talk about. Now fuck off back to youtube.
>>7918658
I love this meme
>>7916586
To the sun, were all just moons.
dude weed
does this also mean light travels faster??
>>7918658
I fucking hate threads like this. Threads in which someone who obviously doesn't study science posts totally asinine bullshit that only demonstrates how tenious their grasp is on the subject. Read a god damn book in order to at least grasp the basics of the subject you're talking about instead of rushing to /sci/ in a desperate attempt to start a dialogue on something you're incredibly uneducated in. It's nothing but fucking laziness compounded by a need to post something in order to feel like you're fitting in, ignorant to that fact your contributions are trivial, bland and only serve as an exercise in correcting an elementery misunderstanding in whatever you endeavour to talk about. Now fuck off back to youtube.
>>7919138
There he is. There he goes again. Look, everyone! He posted it once again! Isn't he just the funniest guy around?! Oh my God.
I can almost see your pathetic overweight frame glowing in the dark, lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room, giggling like a like girl as you once again type your little science reply up and fill in the captcha. Or maybe you don't even fill in the captcha. Maybe you're such a disgusting NEET that you actually paid for a 4chan pass, so you just choose the picture. Oh, and we all know the picture. I imagine you little shit laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your Doritos on the floor, but it's ok, your mother will clean it up in the morning. Oh, that's right. Did I fail to mention? You live with your mother. You are a fat fucking fuckup, she's probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all goddamn day, every day, for a grown man who spends all his time on 4chan posting about a science bullshit. Just imagine this. She had you, and then she thought you were gonna be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand, and then you became a NEET. A pathetic ifuckinglovescience-loving NEET. She probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes she could just disappear. She can't even try to talk with you because all you say is "I fucking hate threads like this." You've become a parody of your own self. And that's all you are. A sad little man laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he's done a million times now. And that's all you'll ever be.
Forever...
>>7919101
actually yes it does
>>7917600
Jesus, if you took a basic uni physics course, hell even a college physics course, you'd learn the big bang wasn't an explosion.
>>7920723
>the big bang wasn't an explosion
well memed, traveler
>>7920734
You need to leave and never return.
>>7916670
>quatim.
Fucking illiterate cunt. You belong hanging from a ceiling.
>>7920738
>>7918916
>>7917316
>hubble constant
>dark energy
>>7917461
Space is expanding, Not matter. If the space in your body expands, particles would move farther apart, particles wont double in size.
However the particles in your body doesn't move farther apart because the the force holding them together is wayyy to strong. Even fucking gravity is strong enough to hold a galaxy together.
>>7920890
Space is not expanding. The galaxies are just moving away from us. The cosmological principle is an overly complex explanation and in science the simplest explanation is generally the right one. It's a fudge. That's all.
>>7921028
The cosmological principle merely assumes we aren't special while you assert we are the center of the universe. Both are assumption, but asserting we are the center of the universe is a bit more involved than assuming we aren't special. Furthermore, metric expansion is supported by the red shift data: real velocities would fall with distance, not increase, and they would be bound by special relativity.
>>7916606
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
Strong Force.
>>7921055
All the evidence from the CMR bachground points to the entire universe being aligned with the Earth's polar axis and its plane of ecliptic. Considering how small the Earth is compared to the observable universe, how is this remotely possible? Scientists are just ignoring this fact at present, as well as its implications.
I agree with you that choosing Earth as the centre of the universe or some other point or no point as in the cosmological principle comes down to philosophy and not science, but that's the thing. Either viewpoint should be acceptable at present but I was only ever taught one of them. Guess which one?
>metric expansion is supported by the red shift data: real velocities would fall with distance, not increase, and they would be bound by special relativity.
Not if the Universe is rotating around the Earth. More like general relativity, but either way its bunk. There is a whole debate going on here as to the reasons why relativity is wrong at best; either that or a complete fraud. >>7912946
By postulating the cosmological principle physicists have brought in a whole range of untenable ideas like dark enery, dark matter. And this is on top of equally preposterous notions like those in relativity. The entire argument, while interesting to think about, is counter intuitive and anti-science.
>>7921773
Is the Earth also flat?
Idk where you got your information that the universe is aligned with Earth's ecliptic, but our solar system isn't even aligned with the ecliptic of the Milky Way.
>>7920880
Dark energy and expansion of the universe are nothing to do together.
On a very large macro scale, the galaxies move away from eachother. Nobody knows why; maybe some property like entropy is pulling all the galaxies and making them accelerate towards empty regions of space.
Gravity, however, is much stronger than this expansion force, so the galaxies and systems themselves will stay together. Kind of like how entropy makes air molecules spread out in a vacuum, but it is far too weak to make the individual O2 molecules split into separate oxygen atoms
>>7916586
>is it possible that the space our bodies occupy, is also expanding?
So that's why I had to buy that bigger belt!
>>7922478
but your old belt would have also expanded at the same rate. you're just a fatass. quit making excuses for your poor lifestyle choices.
>>7922038
Oh man, there's a huge difference between our galaxy and the entire universe. The three probes sent up to look at the CMB have all returned results which state that the CMB cosmological dipole, quadrupole are aligned with the Earth's equinoxes, with the Earth's equator.
The odds of this happening to a combined degree are approximately one in one hundred billion. The universe is also (somehow) polarising light from quazars to align with the Earth equinox's. Weird.
Here's a few search terms to get you started;
Why is the solar system (or Earth) aligned with the universe?
>>7922864
Give links
>>7922864
no matter where you are in the universe it's going to seem like you are at the center of it.
>>7923468
when we look at the universe on a macro and micro scale, as far as we possibly can, then we humans seem to be at the center of it.
>>7923750
exactly
>>7923750
if you're saying that the earth would still appear to be at the center of the universe even if we looked at it from a telescope in a galaxy billions of light years away, you are wrong.
The center of the universe would seem like it's located at whatever galaxy we were using the telescope from
>>7916670
>since your atoms would also double in size and therefore alter their properties.
How is that true? If two particles have a distance r, due to the strong force then an increase in distance r+h by space expansion would be immediately countered by the strong force and shrink the distance r+h back to r. (Assuming the strong force produces a higher acceleration than the space expansion does)
This means that only the distance between macro objects increases through space expansion. The actual dimensions of objects does not increase.
If space expansion increases the size of atoms it would lead to particles being torn apart of the atom itself. Meaning it would not increase their size, but effectively destroy their bond and therefor destroy all atom configurations by pulling individual parts apart.
>>7916670
>If everything were to double in size overnight, all rulers would double in size so you would never know.
redshift
