Jump to content

Does space have mass ? If not, how does it accelerate ?


Recommended Posts

In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with mass with respect to time. 

In physical reality, since F=ma, only objects with mass can accelerate, and objects without mass can't, because there is no mass to accelerate.

In cosmology, however, SPACE ITSELF has ACCELERATION (attributed to the expansion rate of space itself). If space is not an actual object with mass (but a mere geometrical concept, which expands for no explainable reason), then WHAT exactly in this 'expanding space' is accelerated, and by what ?

Let me guess, it's dark, it's mysterious, and it's everywhere in space. And it's having a really bad day at physics. Space accelerates to in excess of light speed because something dark and mysterious, allegedly called the DARK ENERGY (because the DARK FORCE was already taken by STAR WARS copyright) is possesing space and makes it accelerate faster and faster and faster. Are we sure this is science and not pseudo-science,  and an extremelly bad one at that ?

I've heard dark age theories which make more sense. Like rats being spontaneously created by satan to spread the plague. Ok, not entirely scientific, but it didnt even pretend to be a scientific theory, and otherwise the theory made perfect sense given what we know about satan. He is dark, he is evil, and doesnt like humans very much. So that was to be expected from a dark medieval era. But this dark science, this is not expected from this Enlightened era and it is simply ridiculous, and atrocius at the same time, that the scientific community is not only coming up with such theories, but it is actually claiming that this utter non-sense is actually 'proven by observations'. Because they simply observe a redshift of light, i.e. a loss of energy of light proportional to distance. So that means space expands with incredible acceleration in excess of the speed of light, because they can't explain it otherwise. But they can't explain why space itself expands with such incredible acceleration either. So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it ? Because Vatican, who actually invented this big-bang abortion of a theory, as 'scientific evidence' for the creation myth, and money, that's why.  

Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Marius said:

In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with mass with respect to time. 

In physical reality, since F=ma, only objects with mass can accelerate, and objects without mass can't, because there is no mass to accelerate.

In cosmology, however, SPACE ITSELF has ACCELERATION (attributed to the expansion rate of space itself). If space is not an actual object with mass (but a mere geometrical concept, which expands for no explainable reason), then WHAT exactly in this 'expanding space' is accelerated, and by what ?

Let me guess, it's dark, it's mysterious, and it's everywhere in space. And it's having a really bad day at physics. Space accelerates to in excess of light speed because something dark and mysterious, allegedly called the DARK ENERGY (because DARK FORCE was already taken by STAR WARS copyright) is possesing space and makes it accelerate faster and faster and faster. Are we sure this is science and not pseudo-science and an extremelly bad one at that ? I've heard dark age theories which make more sense. Like rats being spontaneously created by satan to spread the plague. Ok, not entirely scientific, but it didnt even pretend to be a scientific theory, and otherwise the theory made perfect sense given what we know about satan. He is dark, he is evil, and doesnt like humans very much. So that was to be expected from a dark medieval era. But this dark science, this is not expected from this Enlightened era and it is simply ridiculous, and atrocius at the same time, that the scientific community is not only coming up with such theories, but it is actually claiming that this utter non-sense is actually 'proven by observations'. Because they simply observe a redshift of light, i.e. a loss of energy of light proportional to distance. So that means space expands with incredible acceleration in excess of the speed of light, because they can't explain it otherwise. But they can't explain why space itself expands with such incredible acceleration either. So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it ? Because Vatican, who actually invented this big-bang abortion of a theory, as 'scientific evidence' for the creation myth, and money, that's why.  

Yes, space has mass. Substitute a dark energy for E in E=mc2 and you get the space mass.

PS. As my math teacher used to say, "For my every question he has his every answer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marius said:

But that formula does not apply to Dark Energy, Einstein. Because no one knows what a dark energy is. That's why its called Dark.

But the second part in Dark Energy is Energy. That is what goes into that formula, Masha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If space has mass then Ether exists. If Ether exists then Einstein is an idiot, because he removed the ether from space.

 

And then ether would explain why light would loose energy - because light travels through a medium of etherium. Not because space itself expands.

Edited by Marius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Marius said:

But that formula does not apply to Dark Energy, Einstein. Because no one knows what a dark energy is. That's why its called Dark.

Why? Because no one knows what it is?

I would agree that it's not very useful to think of dark energy in terms of mass, but what principle of physics are you invoking here?: No one knows what something is, therefore it can't have mass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be helpful to consider that, although the vacuum has energy, and therefore a masss equivalence, the vacuum, or space, does NOT have a velocity.
So your definition of acceleration

47 minutes ago, Marius said:

In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with mass with respect to time. 

is not quite applicable.
What we are considering is an accelerated rate of expansion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Marius said:

If space has mass then Ether exists. If Ether exists then Einstein is an idiot,

So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it ?

Everyone's an Idiot, and/or is retarded!😉 Someone really needs to take an aspro and have a good lay down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

[...] is not quite applicable.
What we are considering is an accelerated rate of expansion

Indeed. The OP clearly means inertia, rather than gravitational mass. There's also the confusion between acceleration due to a force (that can never exceed the speed of light) and acceleration due to space expansion (that can). Further, there's confusion between what's accelerated and what's got the mass in F=ma. There could hardly be more elements of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parrot always remains as a 4D structure in the Block Universe.  For thermodynamic reasons we cannot get to him.  

Really, he's just resting.

 

I'm sorry, but how many more wacky dark energy tired light threads are there going to be this week?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I'm sorry, but how many more wacky dark energy tired light threads are there going to be this week?  

+1

The first thing one needs to ask themselves, is are the questions "asked" in these thread genuine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marius said:

In physical reality, since F=ma, only objects with mass can accelerate, and objects without mass can't, because there is no mass to accelerate.

That seems to be an incorrect application or interpretation of the formula. Maybe you could try asking a question instead? For instance something like "Does Newtonian physics predict any behaviour, for instance acceleration, for massless objects?" or "Does the formula F=ma work for massless objects such as photons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The first thing one needs to ask themselves, is are the questions "asked" in these thread genuine?

Evidently not. Nonetheless, many of the answers given are genuine, and thus of value to casual readers, if not to the OP

 

5 hours ago, Marius said:
5 hours ago, Marius said:

In cosmology, however, SPACE ITSELF has ACCELERATION

No. I already explained this on another thread - metric expansion means that measurements of distances outside gravitationally bound systems are time-dependent, so the outcome of such measurements depend on when they are undertaken. Metric expansion is just a specific example of the absence of time-translation symmetry in a system.

There’s nothing that is being physically accelerated by any forces - you could attach accelerometers to each galaxy in the universe (including our own), and they would all read exactly zero. Yet distance between them is measured to be increasing as the universe ages into the future, irrespective of where you are performing the measurement from.

Spacetime is not a “thing”, substance or fabric subject to mechanics of any kind.

5 hours ago, Marius said:

So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it

I don’t think comments such as this will help your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Evidently not. Nonetheless, many of the answers given are genuine, and thus of value to casual readers, if not to the OP

Of course, that goes without saying. Your own accounts/answers (without pissing in your pocket) have been of value to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marius said:

IF SPACE HAS MASS, HOW DOES IT EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT ?

Space has no mass and the apparent “acceleration” of expansion is an acceleration in the rate of change rather than an acceleration by force so F= ma does not apply.

From the perspective of those distant galaxies accelerated beyond c, it is our galaxy that has been accelerated beyond c while they remain stationary but we feel no effects of a forced acceleration and they feel no effects either because the expansion of space is a change in the relationship between our observations of distance and time.

Our measurements of distance appear to be increasing with time- this is the “expansion” of space- while our measurements of time appear to be quickening. You could say our meter sticks are growing shorter while our clocks tick faster.

The galaxies are not flying apart into greater volumes of pre-existing space like ejecta from some gigantic explosion. It is space itself that appears to be expanding as our metrics of distance and time change as the universe evolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marius said:

So why not just leave it at 'we don't know what is causing the galactic redshift', and leave others who are not fucking retarded to explain it

!

Moderator Note

You were told not to bring this up again, and we can also do without such a characterization of people

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.