JustJoe

I say correct things , my diagram shows exactly what you mentioned .

You can't see space for crying out loud , look up how we see if you don't beleive me . You can't see air for the same reason , air does not reflect or emit visible light .

I talk about real physics not made up stuff , why are you defending outright lies ? Space cannot reflect or emit light , humans percieve space , they can't observe it . If there was no visible matter we'd see nothing but darkness .

Might as well ban me if on here you are going to ignore the actual physics and make up a load of rubbish . You know very well how we see and how we observe visible matter . You know very well that space does not emit or reflect light . I don't want to be part of a forum that is going to directly lie to people just to keep a theory ''alive'' . No offense but you are making this forum come across as ''religious'' rather than scientific . I also suggest other members quit this forum because it is nothing more than an American power trip ! Again , another moderator who wants to preach instead of discussing . Tm is right what he said about scientists Not true

''Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted:'' Observations of space isn't possible so how can anyone conclude an expansion of space ? If redshift is deemed to be a Doppler like effect , then the observations show receding galaxies rather than an expansion of space . The measure between distant galaxies can expand but in no way does this imply an actual expansion of space itself . Also what do you mean by redshift exactly ? Does science observe 750nm or there about ?

Ok, let us discuss the alledged evidence that space itself is expanding . Please provide evidence for this ? Space cannot be observed because it does not emit or reflect light , Hubble does not observe space , it observes observable matter and the light from this matter .

I understand time is a dimension and the expansion is equal and proportional to the time dimension . Within nanoseconds of the BB , the hot dense state had gained a volume and this is what I'm talking about . There is no need to imply that space had gained a volume ?

In my opinion time is only relative to matter and in regards to the point in time you provided , I see that as related to the expansion of the dense state rather than the space . m/V rather than m/0 if there is no space . 🤔

From what I have read there is no evidence that space is expanding or has ever expanded in any way . There is evidence by the Hubble observation that observable matter is receding away from our observation position . Space itself isn't observable by any means because it does not emit or reflect light . ''Space existed at the time of BB (the "~10-43" point). The BB has happened everywhere in that space.'' I thought you did imply this , perhaps I misunderstood your post , my apologies .

Those who imply space itself started from the big bang are implying before the big bang nowhere existed , i.e there was no space . Yourself implied a tiny spec of space that outside of that tiny spec was no space , nowhere .

Right , so you are saying a tiny tiny portion of space existed before the big bang that was surrounded by nowhere ? Sorry but it sounds absurd because it is absurd . Nobody can prove that nowhere ever ''existed'' , it is more likely that there was somewhere meaning lots more space than a tiny tiny portion .

I can conceptualise the big bang but not without there being space . I actually think the author messed up , they should of said there was the absence of light and matter rather than the absence of space which is absurd in my opinion . A hot dense state has to occur somewhere is my belief because nowhere doesn't exist .

I have heard that too but it doesn't seem right that there could be a hot dense state without any space . Where would this hot dense state be ?

It really isn't like that at all . A scientist or scientists had an idea that over time they turned it into a theory by supporting evidence and general concensus . We all know that the big bang theory may not be exact but so far it is the best available theory unless you know one better ? In science they aren't really that bothered about a beginning because the present is always more important . You don't pay taxes for theories such as the big bang , you pay taxes for medical science and many other science applications that have real world uses . Your device you are communicating on now is a product of science and research for example .

I am not great with wording either but almost infinite isn't possible because there is no end to something that is infinite . I think a highly dense state is the big bang wording and if you put your own words in , some people on here may not understand your question . Also you mention blackholes , I don't think the big bang mentions black holes either FYI .

That's quite poetic , well done . Do you know much about this supposedly aether ? Is the modern version dark energy ?

Hello , I'm not totally clued up but I don't think the big bang theory says that . It says something like the universe started from a high temperature , high density state . It doesn't mention infinite as far I know . There is also lots of evidence apparently .

There once was a great artist who knew it was always better to start with a blank canvas . He knew that for every dot he painted , that dot would remain fixed in position on the canvas for all of time . I am not really clever but it seems to me that lots of scientists believe there is a fixed dot that they call an aether .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hauksbee Could we add some blades and let the wind do the work ?

I withdraw the statement , it was silly of me to say such a thing without any sort of evidence , my apologies . What is one of them ?

Of course to extend on this , the Earths EM field acts as a gravitational field . If any object is within the fields magnitude , it can ''communicate'' through the ''wire'' to the ground . Note words in '''' are not exact definition and are a comparitive . I don't try to explain the mechanics of everything using only electro dynamics . The electrodyamics of a moving body is not the reason for orbits .

An object has a weight , an acting force measured in Newtons . I am explaining the weight is electrical grounding but I am not using grounding strict to definition . ''Grounding, also called earthing, is a therapeutic technique that involves doing activities that “ground” or electrically reconnect you to the earth. This practice relies on earthing science and grounding physics to explain how electrical charges from the earth can have positive effects on your body.30 Aug 2019'' Obviously ignore the therapeutic technique part .

Ok, I'll try to explain better . An object at inertial rest relative to the surface of a large mass can be viewed as being grounded to the surface . The conserved internal charge of the object undergoing a grounding process than can be viewed as the conserved internal charge of the object being attracted to the conserved internal charge of the ground . This grounding process resulting in a radius between object and the surface of r=0km . Ok, I understand this but if there isn't already a scientific meaning then how is a person suppose to describe something without using everyday words ?

Yes , I started a thread in another section that asked a question about Earths conductance and in that thread a grounding process was explained that was based on electrical dissipitation . I then considered aeroplanes are grounded so used this word as a comparitive . Grounding and grounded both have the word ground in it , I would assume the reader should automatically associate the thread with the ground . All ''loose'' objects are grounded in my opinion by the grounding process . Perhaps more in science terms I should of said inertial rest relative to the ground .

Ok, I understand that but are you saying that students should never question presented facts when they can think of a counter argument that may disprove those facts ? I have presented two queries of the balloon and plasma ball and unless these queries are satisfied with a rational answer , then I will never understand how science can say the force between two atoms is balanced . I understood your F+F-=F+F- = 0 net force so please give me some credit when I offer counter argument . I provided F ≠ F- proven by the balloon