Big bang clarification?

[theorist-constant12345]

So you contend that the universe is already of an infinite size, then?

Yes when referring to the Universe as space and referring to matter as the visual of the universe.

If there was no matter or the matter had past its vanishing point , the space would still exist but would be unobservable.

Im going off now for a while.

I will leave you with this thought of the box analogy, how many times can you fit a box inside a box?

 

[Dr_Toad]

126 posts per day from you since you joined. I'm sure you think they are all pearls of wisdom.

I'm pretty damned sure you're the only one who thinks so.

 

[paddoboy]

My questions were never answered.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Yes when referring to the Universe as space and referring to matter as the visual of the universe.

If there was no matter or the matter had past its vanishing point , the space would still exist but would be unobservable.

Im going off now for a while.

I will leave you with this thought of the box analogy, how many times can you fit a box inside a box?

Taking your last presumption first, there is nothing to think about. Firstly your analogy does not fit the situation involved, secondly, as I have told you before, all analogies have limitations.

On your other misinformed statements.
There are three types of Redshift.
[a] Doppler Redshift: Caused by the relative motion of the light emitting object and/or the observer.
Gravitational Redshift: Caused by the curvature of space-time-gravitational field, when observed from a weaker region of gravity or less space-time curvature.
[c] Cosmological Redshift: Caused by the "expansion of space-time" between an observer and a light emitting object.

What I find strange about your opinion is that you see the BB as invalid because it is an expansion of space and time, with no outside or edges or center, yet it is you that also proposes the crazy notions that dark and shadows are real, while light is not, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
Let me state it to you again, as like most alternative pushers, you seem to insidiously ignore all that is relevant to the subject at hand....Many things about cosmology and SR/GR on face value appear to be counter-intuitive.
But the Universe is a weird and wonderful place and many new concepts that were at one time thought to be counter-intuitive, are now accepted as fact, and really not so counter-intuitive as we thought. Let me list a few............
Space and time are not absolute: Time dilation and length contraction are observed results: All frames of references are valid as each other: The BB was an evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] Before the BB, there was no space and no time as we know them: Effectively before the BB there was nothing.

Now all the above are not just guesses pulled out of someones rear end, as your childish proposals appear to have originated.
They are all at the top echelon of scientific theories, supported by much evidence, which has been listed for you before.

 

[paddoboy]

I am just discussing the possibilities, I am saying I can not personally see that space itself is expanding, this is not to say that matter was not formed by a big bang but in space, and space pre-existed at an infinite value.

We have and are observing the expansion of spacetime. We see cosmological redshift of the EMR.
On the other hand, I see no reason for anyone to accept the fact that dark and shadows are real and that light is not, or any other of your rather befuddled ideas.

 

[paddoboy]

There is no evidence that space is moving away from us, all observation is of matter moving away through space.

You remained confused and befuddled.
Spacetime is expanding in every direction over the larger scales. We observe cosmological redshift.
It is not matter moving away or a Doppler redshift per se...It is just taken along for the ride.
Taking cosmology as a whole, what you are claiming does not match observational data.

theorist constant, why do you ignore all evidence that invalidates your nonsensical approach to cosmology?
As I have suggested before, is this just a "opposition to accepted cosmology, for oppositions sake?" and one you like wearing as a "badge of honour" to show you can "think" [I use that word loosely in this context] for yourself?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

We have and are observing the expansion of spacetime. We see cosmological redshift of the EMR.
On the other hand, I see no reason for anyone to accept the fact that dark and shadows are real and that light is not, or any other of your rather befuddled ideas.

''We have and are observing the expansion of space time.''

We have and we are observing matter that is moving away . Only matter interacts with light, space does not interact with light. It is not I ignore the evidence, your own evidence is the evidence that we observe matter in space and do not observe space.

 

[Kittamaru]

I think at this point, it's safe to move this to Pseudo as well... there's no science about it anymore...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You remained confused and befuddled.
Spacetime is expanding in every direction over the larger scales. We observe cosmological redshift.
It is not matter moving away or a Doppler redshift per se...It is just taken along for the ride.
Taking cosmology as a whole, what you are claiming does not match observational data.

theorist constant, why do you ignore all evidence that invalidates your nonsensical approach to cosmology?
As I have suggested before, is this just a "opposition to accepted cosmology, for oppositions sake?" and one you like wearing as a "badge of honour" to show you can "think" [I use that word loosely in this context] for yourself?

So tell me then Paddy , how do we observe the expansion of space itself? and that does not mean you can cheat and say redshift of matter and avoid the actual question,

 

[origin]

''We have and are observing the expansion of space time.''

We have and we are observing matter that is moving away . Only matter interacts with light, space does not interact with light. It is not I ignore the evidence, your own evidence is the evidence that we observe matter in space and do not observe space.

So your claim is that mass repels other mass? That is kind of the opposite of what is actually seen.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

So your claim is that mass repels other mass? That is kind of the opposite of what is actually seen.

I never said that or insinuated that, I have not even insinuated there is not a big bang, my proposal is that infinite space pre-existed the big bang and space itself is not expanding, that matter is moving away from our observation through infinite space , no different than a bullet flying through the air, why would it be any different?

 

[origin]

If there was no matter or the matter had past its vanishing point , the space would still exist but would be unobservable.

Yes, space is transparent so you cannot see it. That is not really an earth shattering discovery on your part, .

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yes, space is transparent so you cannot see it. That is not really an earth shattering discovery on your part, .

You are not considering that this ''transparent'' is infinite, and the blackness background of space you observe , is not even blackness but also ''transparent'', all matter in that space is to small to see by perspective view distance and vanishing points, stars are washed out by distance and ambient light.

Remove all matter from around the earth and the sun, the blackness would feel and look really close,

 

[origin]

I never said that or insinuated that, I have not insinuated there is not a big bang, my proposal is that infinite space pre-existed the big bang and space itself is not expanding, that matter is moving away from our observation through infinite space , no different than a bullet flying through the air, why would it be any different?

A bullet is shot from a gun, what is making the mass move. Why is the mass moving away from us in all directions? If there was a big bang in space then there is a center of the big bang. If your silly conjecture is correct then the earth is in fact the center of the universe. Is that your proposal?

 

[origin]

Remove all matter from around the earth and the sun, the blackness would feel and look really close,

How close would the blackness look? I feel like I am talking to a 4 year old....

 

[theorist-constant12345]

A bullet is shot from a gun, what is making the mass move. Why is the mass moving away from us in all directions? If there was a big bang in space then there is a center of the big bang. If your silly conjecture is correct then the earth is in fact the center of the universe. Is that your proposal?

The Earth is the center of observation, not necessarily the center of the Universe, and the big bang pre-dates the expansion and the expansion is something else in my mind.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

How close would the blackness look? I feel like I am talking to a 4 year old....

Lol, the blackness would make us feel real small, the sun would look like a light in a box lid.

 

[paddoboy]

''We have and are observing the expansion of space time.''

We have and we are observing matter that is moving away . Only matter interacts with light, space does not interact with light. It is not I ignore the evidence, your own evidence is the evidence that we observe matter in space and do not observe space.

Don't be so bloody daft!
We observe a cosmological expansion that increases the further from us we observe.
Oh, and yes you most assuredly you do ignore all evidence contrary to what conflicts with your befuddled thoughts.
That is evidence in near every post that you have made.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Don't be so bloody daft!
We observe a cosmological expansion that increases the further from us we observe.
Oh, and yes you most assuredly you do ignore all evidence contrary to what conflicts with your befuddled thoughts.
That is evidence in near every post that you have made.

We observe what exactly paddy?

what is expanding?

 

[paddoboy]

So tell me then Paddy , how do we observe the expansion of space itself? and that does not mean you can cheat and say redshift of matter and avoid the actual question,

I've told you......
And there we go again......Showing your total dishonest methodology in claiming observed, proven redshift [cosmological] is avoiding the question.
Just for you, as you are the only one unable to understand it.....We observe a cosmological redshift that increases with distance.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I've told you......
And there we go again......Showing your total dishonest methodology in claiming observed, proven redshift [cosmological] is avoiding the question.
Just for you, as you are the only one unable to understand it.....We observe a cosmological redshift that increases with distance.

I know you told me Paddy, you have not told me a red shift of what exactly?

a red shift of a humming bird flying solo away from the light?

am I suppose to guess Paddy?