Can spatial expansion possibly be detected?

The metaphor that is always used is if we think of a balloon being blown up. The entire fabric of the balloon is always stretching out. In other words, its very dimensional scale is growing.

To say that a resident of the two-dimensional surface that is the balloon can possibly devise an experiment to test whether its dimensions are growing seems to be the height of philosophical absurdity.

In our universe, this is the same as saying that we can detect the expansion of a meter stick. In other words, for us, a meter stick will always be a meter stick. If our very standards of measure are changing scale, then it stands to reason that there cannot be such a thing as an "objective measurement" of dimensionality itself.

Fractal Universe!! Thats my belief.



Obviously, you'd translate the surface of a balloon to a 3D surface. And the whole thing, including the interior is something else.



:a-thought:Maybe dimension is nonexistent in actuality. It is interesting to note that if we perceived the expansion of a meter stick it is still 3D, and yet we are 3D. And so it must be for the universe that if it is expanding there must be an outside to it, otherwise it cannot relatively expand. (Though the expansion of the universe is just of Olber's Bubble, not of the whole of the cosmos)

So dimension is like the force of enclosure. Even though objects do not enclose or are outside of an object, that's a poorer way of looking at it; objects are only either a part of another object, or not a part of it. There is nothing to really say that something can enclose something else, because that would constitute a change in dimension. That's what change in dimension must do. It allows for systems to enclose systems, but without compromising all of the effect they have on each other.

I think dimension is a lot like position, velocity, and acceleration graphs.

If we are to perceive a 3D object, then in a 2D perception, we see an ever changing face. If there is a sphere, then there is motion and therefore we get the end of the sphere appearing as the point, turning into a larger and larger circle, until it shrinks back down again. In a 1D perception and observing a 2D object, there would just be an ever changing line. If a circle, then the line expands and shrinks and oscillates that function. In a 3D perception, observing a 4D object will exhibit motion too. A 4D sphere might appear as a sphere expanding and contracting over and over again. Hypercube as an example.

So it is like the position velocity and acceleration graphs in proportion to time, because if I and fixed in a position-time state lets say, then the area of the position state equals velocity. (And lets say position is 1D and velocity is 2D and acceleration is 3D; area is the appeared motion, and slope is the fixed state.) So velocity doesn't appear as constant unless it is a square area, right?, or exhibiting uniform motion which is like 0D . And if I am fixed to a velocity-time state then the area equals the acceleration, and the slope equals the fixed position at the tangent.

So the universe is only perceived to be expanding, when we have delved into a realm transcending the mind, constituting the need to expand it to a 4D realm in which the universe is perceived instantaneously at the same time that we are just a part of it (NOT INSIDE OF IT). It is an illusion that we are inside of the universe, that it encloses us, if it truly does expand. (If it were endless, then yes it does enclose us, but perhaps scientists are right):rolleyes:

So no, we cannot measure spatial expansion. Besides, dimensionality is all in the mind anyways as a means to organize the environment, I believe, though I have absolutely no proofs to back any of this stuff up with.

Fractal Universe!! Thats my belief.
**SNIP** Sorry about that -BaC

I just want to mention though that the fractal universe is, IMO, a projection of reality, of the mind's environment... in no way does it correspond to actuality. I still believe actuality is monistic, reality dualistic (evoking the causal duality symmetries on the mind).

Also, dimension is subjective, not objective, again though... my opinion. I don't think a fractal universe implies any connection to dimensions or membranes if in the possible actuality.

Spatial expansion is explained by the Doppler effect.
Objects appear slightly blue as they move towrds one.
They appear slightly red as they move away (The red shift)

The further that stars are away from us, the more red they get.
Thus everything is moving away from us.
Thus the universe is expanding.

Spatial expansion is explained by the Doppler effect.
Objects appear slightly blue as they move towrds one.
They appear slightly red as they move away (The red shift)

The further that stars are away from us, the more red they get.
Thus everything is moving away from us.
Thus the universe is expanding.

Then we would be the exact center of the expanding universe?

You answer is that of an easy one.....

The singularity would be;)

-BaC

Speaking of light, I bet if I said that you could tie light into a knot, you would think I was truly insane.

-BaC

You are saying that we are 'the singularity'?
Individually or collectively?

We are 3D beings, so your see 3D.

Say there was a place, of 2D, those living in this 2D place, would see 2D only.

If we where to say, wave our hand in their realm, what you think they would see?

Our hand and arms waving doesn't only show as 2D to them, but we have motion, how do you suppose you show the third dimension?

Again they can't see the 3D planes, so they try to 2D'ize this "thing". Since they can't really see the other planes, they see something very odd indeed.

Matter of fact they see something of odd motion, something like a odd liquid metal, that comes in and out of their senses.


-BaC

Some recent theories postulate the universe to be the result of the collision of two(or more) multidimensional 'branes'
You can understand this by using the Flatland analogy which is just what BaCaRdi is explaining here.
The plane of intersection of colliding 3D objects is itself a variable surface. If you take two equal sized regular spheres colliding directly head-on the intersection would be a growing circle until the moment the spheres overlap completely, after which the circle would begin to shrink again. If you vary the geometry or size of the colliding objects or the trajectory of the collision you would get different intersecting surfaces. You might get an ellipsoid for instance.
I do believe that this is one analogy that can bear the stress of being scaled up one dimension.
What we perceive as a gravitational force has in fact already been shown to be an effect of geometry.