Is that absolutely true?

opelmanta1900 wrote:

Interesting, I've actually been thinking of something similar. Possible explanation for some things in relativity.

Thought about the concept of maybe c is only constant to our relatve perception, but is not constant relative to the size of space. Basically think about it this way... our ruler in our local gravitational potential is a meter... but relatively speaking, in expanded space, the ruler locally would still be a meter... but it would appear larger to an outside observer. Thus, if our distances were defined by the size of a single unit of space, then c would not be constant. Anyway, just a thought experiment I had... thought I would share it.

bgz wrote:

I don't know a ton about astrophysics, but if you're asking about whether the observation of distant objects takes into account the expansion of the galaxy over time, and the fact that observations in the now are of things which actually occurred millions/billions of years ago and only reached us at the speed of light now.... they have already been accounting for that and I believe the expanding distance measured by that unit c over the same time.

victor809 wrote:

I know what you're talking about, but that's not what I was saying.

I'm saying the same object expanded space will appear larger to us if we were to observe it from our local gravity as opposed to observing it in our own.

bgz wrote:

Interesting, I've actually been thinking of something similar. Possible explanation for some things in relativity.

Thought about the concept of maybe c is only constant to our relatve perception, but is not constant relative to the size of space. Basically think about it this way... our ruler in our local gravitational potential is a meter... but relatively speaking, in expanded space, the ruler locally would still be a meter... but it would appear larger to an outside observer. Thus, if our distances were defined by the size of a single unit of space, then c would not be constant. Anyway, just a thought experiment I had... thought I would share it.

bgz wrote:

I mean... if a meter is expanded external to our local gravity, that would have been identified already.

Items in space would be the same size to an astronaut as they travel with the item from earth, to space (lets say both the observer and the object expand 2x)... but both would appear larger to observers on earth.

I think our tech is sufficient that we would have picked up on that (perhaps not with something as small as an astronaut, but with measurements of planets/moons as well as the distances to them.

(granted... I only am assuming our tech is sufficient to have noticed that. A small enough difference may not get picked up)

victor809 wrote:

I don't think our tech would be able to detect that. Even deeper in our solar system I would think the difference would be too small to detect. Gravity is pretty weak relative to the other forces.

Our ability to test gravity is quite limited... thus the reason we still don't have a unified theory.

Then again, I'm not in the field, I'm just a fan and keep up with all the latest, so there's a good chance I'm wrong;)

bgz wrote:

You should watch some Sean Carrol, that dude is awesome. I've watched quite a few of his lectures.

I actually envision if you were able to teleport a ruler from here, to the deepest known void, the ruler wouldn't be able to hold it's mass together due to the lack of gravitational potential.

Again, I'm probably wrong;)

bgz wrote:

That I'm pretty sure is incorrect.
the ruler would hold together just fine (assuming it survived reassembly after a teleportation). Forces holding it together are mostly not gravity. But even just gravity should be sufficient, especially in a void with no other gravitational forces. The individual molecules would be exerting the only gravitational forces around, so they would stay together. Sort of the opposite effect of how a black hole's enormous gravity will strip molecules off as you spaghettify

victor809 wrote:

Ok, lets go the other way with it, lets teleport it to the center of the earth, is its overall structure going to stay the same, or is it going to collapse?

I'm making the claim that in the deepest of voids, the space between the particles would be too far to effectively hold it's structure. At the very least it would become incredibly brittle.

Unfortunately, this is not testable... kinda curious now, probably have to research it more later.

bgz wrote:

Void meaning a place in space time where the effects of expansion are relevent. We have no means to test such a place. We cant even get out of our own galaxy let alone to a point in space where expansion matters.

You sound certain that you are correct though... we need to get us a physicist in here.

bgz wrote:

I know, they talk about a “God Particle” but that is a metaphor.

Brewha wrote:

I'll have to come up with a better way to explain what's going on in my head.

Basically, I'm taking the best theory we got, and doing a thought experiment on what the theory is stating.

If space is expanding... then the individual units of space expand... or more space is created in the absense of a meaningful gravitational field, or it's just one plane that gets larger but there are no meaningful units of space.

A paper got published recently claiming to have found evidence that suggests there may be individual units of space. That's what caused my thought experiment.

So my thought experiment was exploring the possibility of individual units of space time expanding in the absense of a meaningful gravitational field.

I took it farther than what I described, but if you can't visualize what I'm saying, then the rest if it will split your dome. Ive actually considered seeking out some physicists to discuss this, as nothing that I'm saying disagrees with the standard model. It's just going down the rabbit hole of what it means if individual units of space actually exist.

bgz wrote:

All absurd except for Opel who has indeed found the heart of the matter then had the balls to point it out.
Lots of chuckles there in those predictable absurd responses.
And no you can't even claim 98% knowledge because
You could be wrong about that.
Unless of course you borrow from my worldview

Dg west deptford wrote: