JohnLesser

Yes you understand well, that is exactly why the balloon analogy is a terrible analogy because of the skin of the balloon, that is why I like to use an inflating ghost.

Things certainly change over time, either that or I am slipping through parallel dimensions lol. I was told this on other forums before.

I do not understand where we get gravity curvature from, things seemingly fall to the ground in a straight line, a linear force. What are you saying is curved?

These co-ordinates, then, become the MODEL, and we can make analogies between the volume of space/universe and the co-ordinates of the model. These co-ordinates are the point sources, without these point sources XYZt could not be used. But to be honest, I would not need coordinates to land a rocket on mars.

Why a black hole? how would you perceive a spec of dust 100m away from you? I would perceive that the spec of dust was reflecting and emitting light but I could not see this, I would perceive that there was this invisible sphere surrounding it that I could not see, i.e a black hole.

This is where multi-verse come in to affect, the realism of a multi-verse is what we are discussing now, if we can imagine several ''balloons'' floating around in a box in darkness, each balloon an isolated system but only isolated by the laws of light. They may view us as a black hole? Scientific method proves for things to expand there has to be more space to expand into, I do not buy into this before the BB was nothing malarkey , evidence suggest otherwise.

Technically yes, but you can't see the skin of the balloon you can only see the points on the balloon. Only the points reflect or emit light , we can't see anything else. If we removed all the point sources from the space, although there was light, it would be relative dark to you. Believe it or not the darkness you see between distant bodies is actually daylight. There is just nothing to see that is reflecting or emitting light. The balloons skin in my mind represents the light we cant see between bodies.

Thank you Strange, yes that is much more accurate in description and I have no complaints. So is it right to assume that beyond our observable Universe there is more space that the ''balloon'' is ''expanding'' into?

Space itself does not expand, it is made of nothing, the light between bodies is stretched the more distance, space itself does not redshift, it is the light that redshifts that is being emitted/reflected by the receding bodies. The light is expanding relative to moving bodies, it is the same thing in my eyes. It would expand equally at every point if the surface existed, the surface only exists where the points are on the surface that doesn't exist. added - it may be easier to consider a ghost who has paint splatters on his surface and inflating the ghost. You can observe the splats but you can't observe the ghost.

The mathematics of Einstein fitted our visual Universe inside of a BH. The second one is much more accurate than the first one, the balloons skin is not actual there, the balloons skin is to show a light sphere, the sphere expands because the point sources are moving away from a central point, if you removed the point sources from the virtual light sphere the observable Universe would contract to the edge of the milky way.

I can imagine that yes, that is why I try to use only axioms, tried and tested axioms on my friends. I understand ambiguity of answers, I try to clean up the answers to remove ambiguity. When somebody can prove my premise wrong I will admit I am wrong. Axioms do not lie. There was no assertions, I used vectors etc, all ''your'' own science from Wiki.

How do you know our observable Universe is not a Black hole in an infinite universe? Let me explain your very own balloon analogy. The Observable Universe is expanding, Imagine dots on a balloons surface and the balloon inflates. That would not be entirely correct. Imagine a virtual box and inside the box it is dark. Now inflate the balloon with the dots on the surface as before, the universe is not expanding, the light point sources are extending allowing us to see further into the darkness of the box, That would be entirely accurate?

I must then presume that you are talking about observable universes inside an infinite space , i.e BH's

How can it be more dense?

I would of thought the opposite personally and the space would of been less dense until some how gravity appeared?

I know it doesn't that's why it was a question . An infinite space, always was, always is and always will be , could not have a starting point, all observers from any geometrical position would observe infinite, there could not be a starting point?

Not at all, we have just drifted into different discussion, however related discussion, it is still about space. My own ideas? No, you have all said space is nothing. I am a bit confused, infinite space can not have a starting point?

You just did not understand me. I wasn't talking sci-fi lol. I started 7 years ago roughly , so I am seven years ahead in my thinking in this. Well! after several years yes, the evidence points that way. MY mind can be changed like anyone else, but for that to happen people would have to prove my notions about your notions to be incorrect.

I understand the expansion, I know it is point sources that are moving away therefore the space between's length extends. It is rather explained poorly when people say space is expanding. So before the big bang , what ? there was infinite space?

Yes indeed and there is no border that can isolate space from space. Question - The universe is expanding, expanding into what ? Space is expanding? not likely. The observable point sources are moving away, the observable Space is ''expanding'' because the point sources allow us to observe further. Changing coordinates to contract space when the space does not contract is observer effect. Using numerology in deceit should be a crime.

If there was any sort of spacial ''fabric'' or any sort of Aether, the balloon would not inflate. The space could not ''penetrate'' the balloons surface and end up inside the balloon. I ''see'' this as evidence that space is a whole and ''coupled'' no matter where the space is or what the divider is. I can't discuss it too much, I have been told not too. The balloon question is just something that shows space has no physicality, things without physicality can not contract or expand or deform. I am about 7 years ahead in thinking about this, so it may sound like I am from the future because I am relative seven years ahead in thought. I was told to ask questions, so I asked a question which has some difficult in the answer. There is no trigger, it is just a thought, I have the ability to pluck thoughts out of fresh air about almost anything.

It does not bother me in the slightest that you can not punch space because the space will pass right through your fist like a ghost passing through a wall or a wall passing through a ghost. Space is passive to matter and matter is passive to space. Thank you for answering the length contraction and it was what I feared but I will not discuss it. Space is not a mathematical construct, Minkowski space-time is a coordinate system and mathematical construct. Space is just space, a volume ''emptiness''.

sorry I missed your edit , you say the length of the rocket contracts, how strange, so how does this affect the molecular structure and stress levels of the rocket ? I think length contraction is a visual thing involving the angle of light , not a physical contraction .

I can not quote I have switched to my phone , you are correct in a way. What you just said made no sense to me because you are not explaining what contracts. The length of what contracts ?

Ok, and you will probably shout at me for this, I have a second question, How can there be a length contraction of space when like you have just explained space is made of nothing, not a substance and can't be displaced? I am not isolating geometry , I was using geometry to measure . I was considering no matter how thick the walls , we can't isolate space from space.