Well! you find an easy explanation of it. However it is still not easy.... you will be surprised to know I can do some of my own equations , however these would be different to what you are use to and simply you would not understand it like I don't understand some science maths. I am ok with formula and if I wanted to calculate an X,Y angle I would use a protractor.
The sky isn't anything, it is neither bright or dark, you only see the star to be light. In an infinite observation without boundaries yes, the ''background'' would look bright. In a finite observation there will always be ''gaps'' . But you can never have an infinite observation because the size of bodies is finite.
But the baseball does not grow, which is the point. If I were allowed to change the realities to fit my imagination then scientific explanation and fact no longer matter. Science does not do "IF" except in hypothesis and even then only with some basis. Dark clouds are entirely a matter of perspective. Look up on a clear and dark night to see the "Clouds" in our own Milky Way. They are only dark and block starlight from here, if you were within said cloud it disappears.
Obviously! An earlier point I have made is about the observable Universe contracting. This is not a contraction of the bodies that are in expansion, this is a contraction of the observation. For as these bodies that are in expansion have volume contracted to a 0 point of observation, our observable universe will contract to the last observed body. So if all the galaxies and stuff ''vanish'' , we will be left with an observable Universe the size of the Milky way.
You seem to posit your imagined possibilities as theoretical possibility with nothing to back them and often much to debunk them in reality. This presents you as somewhat ignorant and unworthy of serious attention, you may want to evaluate this situation.
I am not ignorant, what I said is very simple physics and not imaginary . Remember your point about the baseball? As you move away from the baseball, the baseball visually contracts. Also when the baseball moves away from you it visual contracts. When you cannot see the baseball anymore it has reached its vanishing point and becomes a 0 point when concerning with dimensions. So the bodies in expansion are moving away from us, eventually you will not be able to see them because they too will reach this 0 point. So if you can no longer see these bodies, what do you think you will see? You will just observe ''blackness'' where those bodies were. The observation of the Universe will then be of the last point source, the furthest away. Which is less far away than the expanding bodies. I.e a universe observation contraction. Now this is really simple physics to understand, if you can't understand this simplicity perhaps I need a new ''handler''. I can explain it other ways and even show this in experiment, so please try to understand this simplicity before we move on. I like your style so hope we can maintain our discussion.
654321 Understand: Take away 1 and you can only see as far as 2. Take away 2 and you can only see as far as 3 and so on. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Could you clarify somethings for me Is there any boundary of the universe, or is Iinfinite And Given that stars are moving away from us....what are they moving into?n are they moving into previously starless space And Are there any scientists who agree with your ideas, or are these ideas based upon your own work?
The Universe is infinite but that does not mean it has no boundaries. They are moving into more space but that space is not necessarily starless space. I have had a few people agree on some things but I do not know if they were scientists or not. On the internet anyone can be anybody and trolls love to troll. I have had some agreement that there is no time dilation and indeed it is a timing dilation. Regardless of others opinions anyway , read my part paper and judge for yourself. I believe my research and corrections to be 100% axioms. P.s its all my own work.
You seem to be confusing distance with some strange Physics and making complexity out of simplicity. What you are claiming as physics is basic observation and motion.
I am not confusing distance with anything. Basic observation and motion is a part of physics. Nowhere does it mention in Physics about an observation contraction in the ''future''. If you want to discuss in more intricate detail the electrodynamics of moving bodies I have no problem with that. However it would be best to keep it simple, not everyone will understand if we go into ''deep'' details. The present distance of observation WILL contract when the last furthest away body observed enters the non-observable universe. Our observation will contract to the last observed point source. Basic physics is it not? (and obvious).
It is not. Perhaps you do not comprehend the definition of contraction. I assume you are using it in the context of physic and relativity, if so you are incorrect and ignoring light speed.
Contraction, the opposite to expansion, Expansion >4/3πr³ Contraction <4/3πr³ I know very well what I am talking about. We are talking about geometrical positions, if there is an object dx=10 ly and another object at dx=5ly if we lost dx=10ly to the non-observable zone we can only then see dx=5ly
Okay.... Relativistic Length Contraction One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed relative to the observer.
That's a different sort contraction to the above. However it is quite easy to show that the object does not actually contract in length. I have covered this particular notion and again it is ''parlour tricks''. The actual observation length contraction is because of the light and angles, it actually has nothing to do with respect to the carriage. I know you will not like this reply , but physical facts and facts about speed show this to be false. In short and without being to lengthy , for the carriage to contract while in linear motion, the front of the carriage would have to be moving slower than the rear of the carriage.
MIT have been nice enough to put the materials covering their undergraduate courses online so there is no excuse for anyone not to learn or at least try to learn what already is known concerning a field/subject before coming up with independent theories. https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
You're speaking of the metric expansion of space which began to accelerate again about 5 billion years after the expansion of the singularity or the beginning of the universe. Here the universe does expand creating space-time as it does. This is a very large scalar event which is inhibited by smaller scales on the order of galaxy clusters by local gravitational events. It only happens over length scales beyond those consistent with the age of the universe and average matter densities. Although we can see light from beyond the cosmological event horizon we see it because it is already in our field of vision. Further light is beyond the horizon and traveling faster than the speed of light via general relativity effects of space-time being created. So we will never see that created light only that already in our event horizon. But we can see markers of light at vast distances that are candles giving us their brightness and distance from us. This is how we know the universe is expanding even though we don't know the exact mechanism for it. This is why we invented the concept of 'dark energy' which means there is an energy accelerating the expansion of the universe we can't see or understand. That by no means says the universe isn't expanding; merely we don't know the source of that energy. These concepts are not intuitive. So unless you understand the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and a ton of more math and much more concepts and math you are lost. I can't even understand the nature of the electron beyond a certain point and virtually none of the math. That should give you pause as to how complicated the universe is and not my meager knowledge.
Personally I do not come up with theories, I give axioms and physical facts of reality. You are all welcome to ignore my posts and continue living in this land of make believe. If the physical facts do not fit ''your'' notions, then obviously your notions are incorrect, so repeating all the present information in the world will not fix that.
Ostensibly : as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so; apparently. A word I have used which everyone seems to be ignoring. Most of you use terms like space is expanding because that is what education taught you and you are just mimicking this and repeating this without even correctly considering the implications of this. I can 'see' why you think space is expanding but I assure you it is not because I have done and looked at the physics and implications involved, space expanding is ostensibly and ''you'' are not seeing past the illusion that is fooling you all. It did not fool me.....
This sort of tickles me. It reminds me of the pair of local science buffs (1000 AD) that stood on the cliff overlooking the vast ocean. They speculated what lie over the boundary of sight. Both were positive they were right though they did not agree. It is sort of fun to stop to try to think what is beyond known space boundary. Somehow I have never saw it as having boundaries. But no proof by me can be accepted by anybody. I have no proof.
I don't agree with the OP. Why, only a few days ago NASA said that the universe had got bigger by 2 and a half inches in the last fortnight.
