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 .