beecee

The BB is not about the beginning of the universe/space/time. Please read my post again... Let me help you further...the BB is the overwhelmingly, evidenced based theory, on the evolution of the universe/space/time [as we know them} from t+10-45 seconds. You speak obviously from a position of ignorance. Not only is my cousin in M31 the center of his observable universe, but we, you and I are at the center of our observable universe, just as any ET anywhere is the center of his observable universe. The following is around 20 years old, but is till fairly accurate today. Perhaps you can learn something from it....https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html and his another to help hopefully.... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Electric currents do not travel at light speed.

The BB is the theory of the evolution of the universe/space/time (as we know them) from t+10-45 seconds. All of space and time, (as we know them) was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus, so as a result, the expansion occurs everywhere, with no hint of any center, as the blowing up a balloon analogy typifies. The CMBR at 2.7K is a generally uniformed temperature through all of space. The various tiny variations in that temperature, are the seeds for galactic formation. We are certainly the center of our observable universe, the same as my cousin in M31 is the center of his observable universe. The BB while certainly still having some problems, aligns with the four main pillars of cosmology. [1] Observed expansion mentally reversed, [2] Generally Uniformed CMBR, [3] abundance of lighter elements, and [4] galactic formation. You see the biggest part of your post/thread that has me wondering and full of doubt, is that as per many many others that somehow believe they have discovered/fabricated a new model of the universe and how it came to be, you fail to post in the correct thread. Why is that?

Nonsense. This is what I see as philosophical absurdity. Are you a flat Earther? Why should the overwhelmingly evidenced greater majority, give any consideration to such nonsense? Mathematics is the language of physics. Because I don't understand another language, does not invalidate or make it any the less objective.

I'm saying basically that sometimes philosophical jargon, as you seem to be engaging in, is absurd. Must leave now...catch a bus that I trust will be on time. back later I trust! [I substitute the word trust for faith]

I'm sure you do. Understand that is.

I'm simply saying as I said to you before, that you will never convince all people all of the time, no matter how objectively real or genuine something is. That does not detract from that objective reality though.

Sometimes philsophical jargon, goes against objective reality.eg: A spheroidal shaped Earth.

Sure! Holes are real and exist in certain circumstances. Some people are mentally unstable and still object to the objective reality of a spheroidal shaped Earth in favour of a flat mythical one. We can and do and must have certain trust in certain things...eg: the deeper insights of GR as evidenced by reputable science and observational and experimental data. And finally philosophy is not the be all and end all of anything, and as per my previous quote, philsophers can make absurd statements/comparisons/analogies etc.

And objective reality shows you are wrong. Just because a small percenatge of ratbags still believe the Earth is flat, in no way detracts from the objective reality that it is most certainly an oblate spheroid.

You are not making much sense. We all need certain "faith" in certain circumstances. I have faith [for want of a better word] that my bus to my local football club will be on time...I have "faith" that they will have my favourite beer on tap...I have "faith" that the supermarket I go to will have ample supply of toilet paper... That better word is "trust"

See Oliver Heaviside quote.

I exist and I'm anything but controversial! 😜 I consider it to be totally unrealsitic and so unlikely as to be absurd..... There is much I don't understand either, about SR/GR, but in some respects, I have "faith" in reputable scientist, science and the scientific methodology. Let me offer you another quote...... "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"? Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

I've reached what I see as a reasonable consensus. Part of that being that you may convince some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you will never convince all of the people all of the time. It's not a personal attack. It's a quote from a real live person. My views on philosophy are well known I think, as I said earlier, they more or less align with Professor Krauss. I'm entitled to that view without anyone taking it personally. Let me though rephrase. There are good philosophers; there are also bad philosophers.

I let my Mrs do the talking to God. At the same time I self isolate with a six pack of VB. Let me finish with a quote..... "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it" .Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman:

Yes it is...philosophical claptrap that is. Just because some amongst us still adhere to the nonsensical notion that the Earth is flat, does not mean that the oblate spheroid that the Earth really is, is not objectively real to the reasonable minded among us. The sarcasm exhibted I believe, was to show how silly sometimes philosophical banter can be, in my opinion, and that of my old mate Professor Lawrence Krauss. Something does not need to be physical to be real and/or to exist.

I could also do my demonstration in front of a bunch of people of average intelligence and have my proof accepted. So it isn't as cut and dried as you put in the following... I can prove it to many. Good point. But the hole did exist for a certain amount of time, otherwise the membrane of the balloon would continue to be under presssure. The point is holes exist for a time. Something does not need to be physical to be real and/or to exist.

Sure it can be proved that a hole exists! (not withstanding extremes of philosophical claptrap) The air within the elastic membrane of a balloon is under some pressure. Put a hole in that membrane and the pressure is released...bang! I dig a hole across the path you are walking home and cover it up from view. You fall down that hole. Isn't that proof enough that the hole exists?

I believe that studiot was making the point that something does not need to be physical to be real. And of course that holes do exist.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110816.html A NASA-led research team has confirmed what Walt Disney told us all along: Earth really is a small world, after all. Since Charles Darwin's time, scientists have speculated that the solid Earth might be expanding or contracting. That was the prevailing belief, until scientists developed the theory of plate tectonics, which explained the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere, or outermost shell. Even with the acceptance of plate tectonics half a century ago, some Earth and space scientists have continued to speculate on Earth's possible expansion or contraction on various scientific grounds. Now a new NASA study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, has essentially laid those speculations to rest. Using a cadre of space measurement tools and a new data calculation technique, the team detected no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth. So why should we care if Mother Nature is growing? After all, Earth's shape is constantly changing. Tectonic forces such as earthquakes and volcanoes push mountains higher, while erosion and landslides wear them down. In addition, large-scale climate events like El Nino and La Nina redistribute vast water masses among Earth's ocean, atmosphere and land. Scientists care because, to put movements of Earth's crust into proper context, they need a frame of reference to evaluate them against. Any significant change in Earth's radius will alter our understanding of our planet's physical processes and is fundamental to the branch of science called geodesy, which seeks to measure Earth's shape and gravity field, and how they change over time. To make these measurements, the global science community established the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. This reference frame is used for ground navigation and for tracking spacecraft in Earth orbit. It is also used to monitor many aspects of global climate change, including sea level rise and its sources; imbalances in ice mass at Earth's poles; and the continuing rebound of Earth's surface following the retreat of the massive ice sheets that blanketed much of Earth during the last Ice Age. But measuring changes in Earth's size hasn't exactly been easy for scientists to quite literally "get their arms around." After all, they can't just wrap a giant tape measure around Earth's belly to get a definitive reading. Fortunately, the field of high-precision space geodesy gives scientists tools they can use to estimate changes in Earth's radius. These include: Satellite laser ranging -- a global observation station network that measures, with millimeter-level precision, the time it takes for ultrashort pulses of light to travel from the ground stations to satellites specially equipped with retroreflectors and back again. Very-long baseline interferometry -- a radio astronomy technology that combines observations of an object made simultaneously by many telescopes to simulate a telescope as big as the maximum distance between the telescopes. Global Positioning System -- the U.S.-built space-based global navigation system that provides users around the world with precise location and time information. Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite -- a French satellite system used to determine satellite orbits and positioning. Beacons on the ground emit radio signals that are received by satellites. The movement of the satellites causes a frequency shift of the signal that can be observed to determine ground positions and other information. more at link............................. conclusion of above article...."The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant. "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu".

Not really. Again, no. It's your interpretation that is faulty at best and ridiculous at worst. Your pseudoreligious claims in the OP remain unsupported at best, and fanciful at worst. No. All you have offered is a fanciful pseudoreligiously inspired interpretation. Of course! In much the same way that Goldilocks and the Three Bears are discounted when speaking science and scientifically. The bible is nothing more then a vague obscure text, written in an obscure age, by obscure men, in an obscure manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth expanding Earth or growing Earth hypothesis asserts that the position and relative movement of continents is at least partially due to the volume of Earth increasing. Conversely, geophysical global cooling was the hypothesis that various features could be explained by Earth contracting. Although it was suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any significant expansion or contraction of Earth Main arguments against Earth expansion[edit] The hypothesis had never developed a plausible and verifiable mechanism of action.[15] During the 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics—initially based on the assumption that Earth's size remains constant, and relating the subduction zones to burying of lithosphere at a scale comparable to seafloor spreading[15]—became the accepted explanation in the Earth Sciences. The scientific community finds that significant evidence contradicts the Expanding Earth theory, and that evidence used in support of it is better explained by plate tectonics: Measurements with modern high-precision geodetic techniques and modeling of the measurements by the horizontal motions of independent rigid plates at the surface of a globe of free radius, were proposed as evidence that Earth is not currently increasing in size to within a measurement accuracy of 0.2 mm per year.[1] The lead author of the study stated "Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties".[26] The motions of tectonic plates and subduction zones measured by a large range of geological, geodetic and geophysical techniques supports plate tectonics.[27][3][28] Imaging of lithosphere fragments within the mantle supports lithosphere consumption by subduction.[3][28] Paleomagnetic data has been used to calculate that the radius of Earth 400 million years ago was 102 ± 2.8 percent of today's radius.[29][5] However, the methodology employed has been criticised by the Russian geologist Yuriy Chudinov.[30] Examinations of data from the Paleozoic and Earth's moment of inertia suggest that there has been no significant change of Earth's radius in the last 620 million years.[

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/amazon-rainforest-now-emits-more-greenhouse-gases-it-absorbs-180977347/ Climate change and deforestation have transformed the ecosystem into a net source of planet-warming gases instead of a carbon sink The Amazon rainforest may now emit more greenhouse gases than the famously lush ecosystem absorbs, according to new research. Long considered to be a bulwark against climate change because of its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, a new study suggests rising temperatures, increasing drought and rampant deforestation have likely overwhelmed the Amazon’s ability to absorb more greenhouse gases than it emits, reports Craig Welch for National Geographic. more at link................ The article concludes thus............... “The main take away from this work,” she says, “should be a call to arms to prevent further degradation of the Amazon system.” or is the complexity of what is involved beyond science at this time? Is the only choice available is that as a species, we need to adapt...Am I being to cynical? Let's hope that the science is wrong! Would the science probability of attempting to "change the Earth's albedo by "seeding" clouds help in anyway if the probability and science of the article is correct?

But space is not an object, nor is it physical. Remembering of course something does not need to be physical to be real.

Speaking for myself, not so much taking a "dim view", more an exercise in futility [sometimes] I'm in the Lawrence Krauss school.

"Down" is denoted and determined by the pull of gravity; "Up" is that direction that is opposite to down.