On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
> > mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."
> No, it is THE Big Bang model.
>
> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of
> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word
> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of
> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in,
> that’s all.

I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not
understood, whether the math works or not.

> >
> > In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
> > far as the farthest visible star.
> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing.

How far does it reach?

> > And you see that as the end of the universe,
> > even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
> > That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
> > nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
> > expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.
> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have
> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY
> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers.
> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of
> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your
> poor choices of the materials you consume.

I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from
a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS.

> >
> > LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
> > unless there is something to expand into.
> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite
> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of
> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge
> moving into?”
>
> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE
> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also
> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still
> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?”

Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate."

To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC.
It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL.

>
> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can
> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to
> imagine this.

It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA..

>
> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to
> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the
> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward,
> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s
> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this
> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between.
> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks
> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now
> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are
> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead
> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note
> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line,
> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite
> thing can be thought of as expanding.

It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science,
if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just
an unverifiable BELIEF.

> >
> > Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
> > that we know about science.
> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the
> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the
> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends
> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand
> years ago.
> >
> > And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:
> >
> > "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction.
>
> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the
> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the
> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up.
> There is no center, there is no edge.

WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion
light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because
13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights
came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe."

WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have
begun somewhere else. We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
have begun outside of our "observable universe."

It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
science books which support it.

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:08:25 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-04-26 16:13:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:46:34 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-25 17:04:21 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:56:08 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So how do you know that the Andromeda galaxy is moving?
>>>
>>> Evidently, Mikko's question was "So how do you know that the Andromeda
>>> galaxy is moving?"
>>>
>>> Because we know that everything we can see is moving. The earth spins
>>> on its axis at about 1,040 mph. The earth orbits the sun at 67,000 mph.
>>> The sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at 486,000 mph. And
>>> the Milky Way Galaxy is moving in the direction of the constellation Hydra
>>> at 1,342,161 mph.
>> For the others the evidence is obvious but how do you know that Milky Way
>> is moving, let alone its speed and direction?
>
> We know the earth is orbiting the sun because of how the locations of stars
> change between summer and winter.

Right, the orbit is what says the Earth is moving. There is no equivalent
for the motion of the Milky Way, so you can’t assert how much the Milky Way
is moving, except in reference to other galaxies.

>
> We know how gravity keeps the earth in its orbit around the sun.
>
> We know that the stars in the Milky Way galaxy are orbiting something at
> the center that has the mass to cause all the orbiting. It is a black hole.
> There appears to be a black hole at the center of every galaxy.
>
> We know that the Milky Way and Andromeda are moving because EVERYTHING
> in the observable universe appears to be moving.

No, you don’t know that. All you know is that they are moving RELATIVE TO
EACH OTHER. But in any examination of relative motion, you cannot tell
whether one party is stationary and the other moving, or both moving.

> If they are not moving in orbits,
> they are moving toward or away from each other. Most galaxies are moving away
> from each other, evidently due to the Big Bang sending everything off in different
> directions away from the point of the Big Bang.

There is no “point of the Big Bang”.

>
> Knowing how gravity works allows us to DEDUCE what must have happened in
> the past to cause what we see today.
>
> Ed
>

I

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
> >>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> >>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
> >>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
> >>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
> >>>> incorrect statements.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
> >>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
> >>> and magnetic fields.
> >>
> >> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
> >> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
> >> field WAVES at right angles to each other.
> >
> > You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> something correctly.

There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
well over 100 college physics textbooks.

What I've found is that very few physics textbooks agree with EACH OTHER.
That's what got me interested in figuring out WHY most physics textbooks
are in disagreement with each other, and why MOST do not accurately quote
Einstein.

The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how
Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they
don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and
claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote.

Ed

On 4/27/2022 11:21 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:20:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
>>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
>>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
>>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
>>>>> NONE contains a
>>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
>>>>> page 1254;
>>>>>
>>>>> ------ Start quote ------
>>>>>
>>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
>>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
>>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
>>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
>>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
>>>>> radiation.
>>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
>>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
>>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
>>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------- end quote ------
>>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
>>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
>>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
>>>
>>> It's number 3 on this list:
>>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
>>> It's number 7 on this list:
>>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
>>> It's number 1 on this list:
>>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
>>>
>>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
>>>
>> Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not
>> exactly indicating any expert opinions.
>
> The sites are not blogs.

Yet they are fishing for affiliate sales. At least one admits so right
up front. Plus those pages are full of ads. I'd say they are a more
professional version of a blogger.

> If you have a better source for identifying
> the best physics textbooks, NAME IT. Don't just state your opinions.
>
You need to stop with your own opinions that random introductory books
are supportive of your own opinions.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks.
>>>>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric?
>>>>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are
>>>>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better.
>>>>>>> NONE contains a
>>>>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on
>>>>>>> page 1254;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------ Start quote ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of
>>>>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect
>>>>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it
>>>>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called
>>>>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the
>>>>>>> radiation.
>>>>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle
>>>>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference
>>>>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption
>>>>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------- end quote ------
>>>>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by
>>>>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
>>>>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics
>>>>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's number 3 on this list:
>>>>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/
>>>>> It's number 7 on this list:
>>>>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/
>>>>> It's number 1 on this list:
>>>>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/
>>>>>
>>>>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes
>>>> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local
>>>> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of
>>>> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be
>>>> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in
>>>> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are
>>>> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last
>>>> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like
>>>> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google
>>>> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable
>>>> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just
>>>> going to be repeating sewage.
>>>>
>>>> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating
>>>> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous
>>>> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The
>>>> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that
>>>> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your
>>>> sources.
>>>
>>> If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't
>>> you provide it?
>>>
>>> You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a
>>> month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS
>>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?"
>> Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at
>> as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any
>> credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway.
>>
>> Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the
>> wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat
>> relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not
>> going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how
>> they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that
>> are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to
>> be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of
>> even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT
>> IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything
>> substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you
>> will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and
>> the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by
>> flooding you with information sewage.
>>
>> You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period.
>
> We seem to have irreconcilable differences, making it clear it is about time
> to bring this discussion to an end.

If we’re disagreeing on whether you are wasting your time using the
internet and Google as your primary information source, and you are
unwilling to change your research patterns, then I concur that discussing
facts is useless, because you don’t have access to them. You have access to
an unfiltered cesspool of crappy data, and you are unable to do quality
control.

>
> If we disagree, we need to find WHERE we disagree and WHY we disagree.
>
> You stated: "It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top
> 3 physics textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?"
>
> In response I showed you three web sites and how they ranked the Young-Freedman
> textbook.
>
> You disapprove of those web sites, but you provide NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
> to back up your claims.

Right. Because good information about top ranking of textbooks IS NOT
AVAILABLE on the cesspool of data on the public internet. There are
industry databases, however, that are not public-facing. You are therefore
making an erroneous judgement based on the assumption that you should be
able to make that assessment with public internet sources. That’s a bad
assumption, which is what I’ve been communicating to you broadly.

>
> We are arguing physics FUNDAMENTALS. You argue that I shouldn't be looking
> at textbooks which are about physics FUNDAMENTALS, I should be looking at
> more advanced textbooks. Why? You don't say. Which books? You don't say.

That’s not true. I told you to read Feynman’s book The Character of
Physical Law, IN ITS ENTIRETY. You haven’t done that. I’m happy to dive
into that book with you, page by page. What we are NOT going to do
constructively is do a text string search and find a paragraph that
provides understanding. That’s an irrational and hopeless expectation.

>
> I support my claims by citing sources, you make claims without citing sources
> because your claims are just your personal beliefs. And you claim that I am the
> one who is "not going about this in a sensible way." That makes arguing with
> you a total waste of time.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/27/2022 11:39 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
>>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
>>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
>>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
>>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
>>>> incorrect statements.
>>>
>>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
>>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
>>> and magnetic fields.
>>
>> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
>> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
>> field WAVES at right angles to each other.
>
> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>
>>
>>>> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to
>>>> the physical situation in which there are trillions and
>>>> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration
>>>> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be
>>>> used to model a situation in which there is just a single
>>>> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them.
>>>
>>> It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns.
>>
>> Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't
>> individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons
>> which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model
>> of light.
>
> Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto
> a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye.

That is a wave effect, BTW. Light telescopes even more so with glass
lenses.

> The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that
> emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more
> photons you can collect.

Or the more wave energy you can focus, easily demonstrated by water
waves and a parabolic barrier.
>
> WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS
> so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of
> a photon will define the type of photon.
>
There are many wave effects which cannot be explained by photons.
This isn't an either/or matter. Light is a different category with both
particle properties and wave properties.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
>>> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."
>> No, it is THE Big Bang model.
>>
>> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of
>> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word
>> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of
>> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in,
>> that’s all.
>
> I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
> because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not
> understood, whether the math works or not.

Nope. Mathematics is a language that COMMUNICATES the logic. You do not
understand that language (you are illiterate in mathematics — you literally
do not understand what an equation means when it is shown), and so you miss
the logic that the mathematics has expressed.

>
>>>
>>> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
>>> far as the farthest visible star.
>> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing.
>
> How far does it reach?

It could well be infinite. No edge.

The other possibility is that it is finite with no edge. The *surface* of a
sphere (not the sphere itself) has no edge. Remember the old maps of the
world that imagined there was an edge to the world and that ships would
fall off the edge. There is no edge in reality to the earth’s surface, and
yet it is not infinite.

>
>>> And you see that as the end of the universe,
>>> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
>>> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
>>> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
>>> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.
>> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have
>> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY
>> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers.
>> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of
>> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your
>> poor choices of the materials you consume.
>
> I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from
> a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS.

I’m happy to provide non-internet sources. You up for that?

>
>>>
>>> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
>>> unless there is something to expand into.
>> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite
>> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of
>> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge
>> moving into?”
>>
>> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE
>> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also
>> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still
>> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?”
>
> Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size;
> impossible to measure or calculate."

Yes.

>
> To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC.
> It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL.

Not true. Even the Greeks knew this two thousand years ago. That’s what I’m
trying to explain below.

>
>>
>> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can
>> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to
>> imagine this.
>
> It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA.

Nope, it’s really straightforward to understand. If the Greeks can
understand it, surely you can too. Try harder.

>
>>
>> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to
>> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the
>> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward,
>> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s
>> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this
>> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between.
>> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks
>> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now
>> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are
>> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead
>> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note
>> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line,
>> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite
>> thing can be thought of as expanding.
>
> It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science,
> if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just
> an unverifiable BELIEF.

No it is not illogical. I just gave you something that coheres logically.
It may not be familiar to you. You may only be familiar with the expansion
of FINITE things, but that doesn’t means that the expansion of infinite
things is self-contradictory, as I showed above. As I said, the Greeks
understood this 2000 years ago, and I’m hard pressed to understand why you
say that it’s all impossible.

>
>>>
>>> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
>>> that we know about science.
>> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the
>> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the
>> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends
>> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand
>> years ago.
>>>
>>> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:
>>>
>>> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
>> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction.
>>
>> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the
>> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the
>> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up.
>> There is no center, there is no edge.
>
> WE are at the center of our "observable universe."

Which doesn’t correlate to any center of the universe beyond our
observation limit. There is no center in the Big Bang. None.

> We can see 13.8 billion
> light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because
> 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights
> came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe."
>
> WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
> ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have
> begun somewhere else.

No. There does not need to be a center. See the example I gave above, which
the Greeks understood.

> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>
> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> science books which support it.

There are certainly a WHOLE LOT of textbooks that say that there IS NO
CENTER of the Big Bang.

It’s clear you cannot make sense of what those textbooks say. You’re
knee-jerk response, then, is to say that all those books are wrong and you
are right. That’s not the best response. The better response is to notice
that there is something you’re probably not understanding.

Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of
>>>>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
>>>>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually
>>>>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics,
>>>>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously
>>>>>> incorrect statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually
>>>>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric
>>>>> and magnetic fields.
>>>>
>>>> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields.
>>>> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic
>>>> field WAVES at right angles to each other.
>>>
>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
>> something correctly.
>
> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> well over 100 college physics textbooks.

A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.

If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
limit, then cite them.

>
> What I've found is that very few physics textbooks agree with EACH OTHER.
> That's what got me interested in figuring out WHY most physics textbooks
> are in disagreement with each other, and why MOST do not accurately quote
> Einstein.
>
> The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how
> Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they
> don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and
> claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/27/2022 10:50 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:36:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>>> "Stationary", of course, would mean a velocity vector of 0 magnitude.
>>>>
>>>> 2) "Stationary" relative to what? You didn't say.
>>>
>>> Stationary relative to all other stationary points in space.
>>
>> What are "all other stationary points in space" ?
>
> Every photon that is emitted is emitted from a stationary point in space.
> And every stationary point in space is, of course, stationary relative to
> every other stationary point in space.

And once again, you define "stationary point in space" in terms of itself.
>
>>
>> You are defining something in terms of itself as well as coming up with
>> a "preferred" frame, in violation of the first postulate.
>
> It has nothing to do with the first postulate.

It certainly does. You have created an entire "special" category,
"stationary" space, with a unique property, which can be detected by
experiment.

> And the first postulate says
> nothing about any preferred frame.

It's all about there are NO preferred frames, the laws of physics are
the same everywhere and everywhen.

> The two postulates together are
> about TIME DILATION.

No, but he is able to derive time dilation from the postulates. And he does.

> The second postulate BY ITSELF does not involve
> time dilation. It is what we are discussing.

This entire topic is about "Stationary Points in Space", and you created it.
>
>>
>>> It's a point in space with NO "special properties."
>>
>> Yes it does. It is "stationary" with respect to "NOTHING" or to all
>> other "stationary points in space", depending on which of your statement
>> to believe. These points have the special property of being
>> "stationary", and in another post you state it's where "time runs fastest".
>
> But it has no special properties. It is just empty space. The "special property"
> isn't IN empty space.

It certainly does, you have coordinates, and you say it belongs to this
"stationary" category, and thus is special.

> It is how light works. When an atom emits a photon,
> that photon is emitted from a stationary point in space.

There you go again.

The photon is emitted from the atom, anyway.

> The atom moves
> on, but the photon travels away in a straight line from that stationary point
> in space where it was emitted. If the atom emits another photon, that
> photon is also emitted from a stationary point in space - A DIFFERENT
> stationary point in space unless the atom is somehow also stationary.

Stationary relative to what?

> ALL the stars we see in the universe we see because the stars emitted
> photons from stationary points in space.

Photons are emitted by atoms/plasma of the stars, not empty points.

>
> How do we know the point of emission is stationary? Because the star
> moved on, but the path of the photon traces back to that stationary point in
> space.

You pretty much defined "stationary" relative to itself. Again.
Besides, you allowed for only two possibilities, "moving" and "stationary".

> If it is not stationary, how can the path trace back to it in a straight
> line?

(ignoring geodesic vs. straight)
That would be a new trip to some point where the supernova no longer is.
If you go back in time, you arrive at the supernova when it blows up.
>
>>
>>> And there is no specific point in empty space where it happens.
>>> It happens wherever and whenever an atom emits a photon.
>>
>> Yet you claim it's "stationary".
>
> Logically, it MUST be stationary. If it isn't, then we wouldn't be able to
> trace a photon back in a straight line to its point of origin.

Now I am not sure your "point of origin" even makes sense.

If you trace the photon back, you arrive at the supernova.
>
> And, logically, it MUST be where time ticks fastest, because time ticks
> slower for everything that is moving relative to that stationary point.

Bzzzzt. Fails first postulate. You have conjured up a special frame, one
in which time moves fastest.

Are you claiming the first postulate is wrong and therefore all of SR in
the 1905 paper is irrelevant? If so, just say so.

> And
> the faster it moves, the slower time passes for that object.
>
Which disagrees with Einstein's SR conclusions, of course.

On 4/27/2022 11:14 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:50:59 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2022 11:30 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:33:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/25/2022 5:32 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:55:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/25/2022 11:26 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>>>> How could it be, if "stationary" cannot apply to a point in empty space
>>>>>> (Einstein), or without a reference frame "Stationary with respect to what?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Stationary to NOTHING!
>>>> That makes zero sense. None whatsoever. Everything is relative.
>>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE IS MOVING
>>>>> RELATIVE TO THOSE STATIONARY POINTS!
>>>> Then those "stationary" points are moving relative to everything else in
>>>> the universe, in an equal and opposite direction. I think you need a
>>>> better description of those points other than "stationary".
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> It appears to me that your biggest problem is that you simply don't
>>>> grasp the concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics.
>>>> You don't understand that part of physics at all. Instead you are too
>>>> stubborn to even attempt to learn about it, and would rather blame your
>>>> boogeymen for them, those evil "mathematicians" 🧟‍♂️. And add to your
>>>> manifesto, of course.
>>>
>>> I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
>>> It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.
>>
>> If you feel it's the cause of "IDIOTIC BELIEFS", you definitely do not
>> understand it. Forget Einstein, this is from Galileo.
>
> The discussion is about EINSTEIN'S Second Postulate. Galileo has nothing
> to do with anything in this discussion.

WTF? You just called GALILEO'S "concept of relative motion and reference
frames in physics" to be "IDIOTIC BELIEFS".

And this discussion is titled "Stationary Points in Space".
>
>>>
>>> It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
>>> that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
>>> moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
>>> away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.
>>
>> Because you don't understand it. If I'm on the rocket, the earth is
>> obviously moving away from me, I see it receding and getting smaller and
>> smaller.
>
> Wow! Now you are really in LUNATIC territory! If I am in a rocket, I am
> obviously moving away from the earth, because I can see earth receding and
> getting smaller and smaller. To believe that you somehow caused the earth
> to move away from YOU is lunacy that is beyond hilarious.

Now you call Galileo a lunatic? This is just ordinary relative motion.
>
>> The energy involved is relative to the center of mass, and
>> discussing how much energy it it would have to take to move the earth
>> away is meaningless.
>
> Because it would disprove your screwball beliefs.

Nope. The energy involved is proportionate to the relative distance and
speed.

You OBVIOUSLY don't understand Galileo's relative motion AT ALL. Again,
forget Einstein, study GALILEO.
>
>>>
>>> The BIG BANG provided the energy that put all the stars and galaxies into
>>> motion. Gravity then provided energy to move somethings closer together.
>>> And nuclear reactions provided energy to blast things apart again if too
>>> much got too close together.
>>>
>>> The Big Bang put everything in motion relative to the stationary point of
>>> the Big Bang.
>>
>> Nonsense. You are trying to apply ancient concepts to the Big Bang, as
>> if the Big Bang was a big bomb at a specific location which exploded,
>> and we can go see where the bomb was.
>
> We could, but it would take countless lifetimes, and it would be a point
> far outside of our observable universe. So, first you'd have to decide on a
> direction to go. The best bet is to try the direction that is OPPOSITE to
> where the blue-shifted stars and galaxies are. (They are ALL in the same
> general area.) We are traveling TOWARD the blue shifted stars and galaxies,
> which should mean that we are traveling away from some point in the
> opposite direction.

Nope. Galaxies, other than a limited few, are moving away in ALL
directions. The limited few, such as Andromeda, are part of a
gravitationally bound local cluster and remain together. Because of how
they all are moving away from us, it appears that the Big Bang happened
right here, where Earth is, right where you sit.

Go to some other distant galaxy, and they will see the same thing. The
Big Bang happened on THEIR galaxy, where THEIR planet is.
>
>>
>> Actually if you try to figure out where the Big Bang was located, it
>> will come up with the answer of wherever you are. I will get where I am.
>> The location of the Big Bang is everywhere. The Big Bang can't be
>> thought of an explosion of a bomb IN space and time, think of it as an
>> explosion OF space and time.
>
> Nonsense. See what I just wrote above.

Which is wrong.
>
>>
>>> The only thing that remained stationary is empty space.
>>> Moving through empty space requires energy.
>>>
>> Einstein: "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be
>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require
>> an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, *nor
>> assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
>> electromagnetic processes take place.*"
>> You ignored this last time I posted it. Pay attention to the phrase
>> after the comma.
>
> He appears to be saying that you do not need to assign a velocity-vector
> to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
>
> "A velocity vector represents the rate of change of the position of an object.
> The magnitude of a velocity vector gives the speed of an object while the
> vector direction gives its direction."
>
> Einstein is saying that you do not need that, because photons are emitted
> from STATIONARY points in space.

WRONG!!! A "stationary" point means a point where the velocity vector
has a magnitude (speed) of 0. But Einstein stated assigning velocities
to points of empty space is wrong. If he meant a speed of 0, he would
have said so (and violated his own first postulate).

Do you claim 0 is not a number?

There is no "change in position" involved,
> and a stationary point has no direction.

It has a change of position of 0, so it is still a valid velocity
vector, so can't be used, according to Einstein.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
>>>> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."
>>> No, it is THE Big Bang model.
>>>
>>> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of
>>> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word
>>> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of
>>> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in,
>>> that’s all.
>>
>> I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
>> because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not
>> understood, whether the math works or not.
>
> Nope. Mathematics is a language that COMMUNICATES the logic. You do not
> understand that language (you are illiterate in mathematics — you literally
> do not understand what an equation means when it is shown), and so you miss
> the logic that the mathematics has expressed.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
>>>> far as the farthest visible star.
>>> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing.
>>
>> How far does it reach?
>
> It could well be infinite. No edge.
>
> The other possibility is that it is finite with no edge. The *surface* of a
> sphere (not the sphere itself) has no edge. Remember the old maps of the
> world that imagined there was an edge to the world and that ships would
> fall off the edge. There is no edge in reality to the earth’s surface, and
> yet it is not infinite.
>
>>
>>>> And you see that as the end of the universe,
>>>> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
>>>> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
>>>> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
>>>> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.
>>> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have
>>> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY
>>> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers.
>>> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of
>>> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your
>>> poor choices of the materials you consume.
>>
>> I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from
>> a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS.
>
> I’m happy to provide non-internet sources. You up for that?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
>>>> unless there is something to expand into.
>>> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite
>>> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of
>>> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge
>>> moving into?”
>>>
>>> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE
>>> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also
>>> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still
>>> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?”
>>
>> Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size;
>> impossible to measure or calculate."
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC.
>> It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL.
>
> Not true. Even the Greeks knew this two thousand years ago. That’s what I’m
> trying to explain below.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can
>>> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to
>>> imagine this.
>>
>> It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA.
>
> Nope, it’s really straightforward to understand. If the Greeks can
> understand it, surely you can too. Try harder.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to
>>> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the
>>> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward,
>>> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s
>>> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this
>>> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between.
>>> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks
>>> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now
>>> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are
>>> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead
>>> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note
>>> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line,
>>> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite
>>> thing can be thought of as expanding.
>>
>> It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science,
>> if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just
>> an unverifiable BELIEF.
>
> No it is not illogical. I just gave you something that coheres logically.
> It may not be familiar to you. You may only be familiar with the expansion
> of FINITE things, but that doesn’t means that the expansion of infinite
> things is self-contradictory, as I showed above. As I said, the Greeks
> understood this 2000 years ago, and I’m hard pressed to understand why you
> say that it’s all impossible.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
>>>> that we know about science.
>>> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the
>>> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the
>>> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends
>>> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand
>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:
>>>>
>>>> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
>>> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction.
>>>
>>> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the
>>> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the
>>> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up.
>>> There is no center, there is no edge.
>>
>> WE are at the center of our "observable universe."
>
> Which doesn’t correlate to any center of the universe beyond our
> observation limit. There is no center in the Big Bang. None.
>
>> We can see 13.8 billion
>> light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because
>> 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights
>> came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe."
>>
>> WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
>> ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have
>> begun somewhere else.
>
> No. There does not need to be a center. See the example I gave above, which
> the Greeks understood.
>
>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>>
>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
>> science books which support it.
>
> There are certainly a WHOLE LOT of textbooks that say that there IS NO
> CENTER of the Big Bang.
>
> It’s clear you cannot make sense of what those textbooks say. You’re
> knee-jerk response, then, is to say that all those books are wrong and you
> are right. That’s not the best response. The better response is to notice
> that there is something you’re probably not understanding.
>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
>
>

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:

> >>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks.
> >> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook
> >> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe
> >> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much
> >> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding
> >> something correctly.
> >
> > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.

Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
dozens more that I just categorized as "books":

A College Text-Book of Physics Arthur L. Kimball
A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts Thomas Young
A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz
A Primer of Special Relativity P. L. Sardesai
A Source Book in Physics William Francis Magie
An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow
An Introduction to Relativity Jaylant V. Narlikar
An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity Robert Katz
Astrophysics for Physicists Arnab Rai Choudhuri
Basic Physics: A self-teaching guide Karl F. Kuhn
Classical Mechanics Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko
College Physics Eugenia Etkina, Michael Gentile & Alan Van Heuvelen
College Physics Hugh D. Young
College Physics Paul Peter Urone & Roger Hinrichs
College Physics – A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones, Stuart Field
College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille
College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & Chris Vuille
Computational Physics Nicholas J. Giordano
Essential College Physics with Mastering Physics Andrew Rex & Richard Wolfson
Essential Physics John Matolyak & Ajawad Haija
For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin
Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. Backman
Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan
Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan
Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg
Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker
Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker
Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker
Fundamentals of Physics, Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics R. Shankar
Gravitation Charles W. Meisner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler
Handbook of Space-Time Abhay Ashtekar, Vesselin Petkov (Eds.)
How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life Louis A. Bloomfield
Introducing Einstein's Relativity Ray d'Inverno
Introduction to Classical Mechanics A. P. French
Introduction to Classical Mechanics – with Problems and Solutions David Morin
Introduction to Electrodynamics David J. Griffiths
Introduction to Modern Optics Grant R. Fowles
Introduction to Special Relativity Robert Resnick
Introduction to Special Relativity Wolfgang Rindler
Modern Classical Physics: optics, fluids, plasmas, elasticity, relativity, and statistical physics Kip S. Thorne & Roger D. Blandford
Modern Measurements: Fundamentals and Applications Alessandro Ferraro et al
Modern Physics - 3rd edition Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer
Modern Physics (5th Edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn
Modern Physics (6th edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn
Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers John R. Taylor, Chris D. Zafiratos & Michael A. Dubson
Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers Stephen T. Thornton and Andrew Rex
Optics (4th Edition) Eugene Hecht
Physics James S. Walker
Physics - 2nd edition Alan Giambattista, Betty Richardson & Robert C. Richardson
Physics – Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli
Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 1 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert
Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 2 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert
Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 3 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert
Physics for Scientists & Engineers – 6th edition Raymond A. Serway & John W. Jewett
Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics Douglas C. Giancoli
Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 3rd ed.. Paul M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton
Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 6th ed.. Paul A. Tipler & Gene Mosca
Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight
Physics: A Conceptual World View Larry Kirkpatric & Gregory Francis
Physics: Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli
Primer of Special Relativity, A P. L. Sardesai
Relativity and its Roots Banesh Hoffmann
Space and time in contemporary physics: an introduction to the theory of relativity and gravitation Moritz Schlick
Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction J. B. Kennedy
Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler
Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity - 2nd ed. Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler
The Fascination of Physics Jacqueline D. Spears & Dean Zollman
The Geometry of Special Relativity Norbert Dragon
Understanding Physics David Cassidy, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford
Understanding Physics Karen Cummings, Priscilla W. Laws, Edward F. Redish and Patrick J. Cooney
Understanding Physics Michael Mansfield and Colm O'Sullivan
University Physics George Arfken
University Physics -Volume 3 Samuel J. Ling et al.
University Physics with Modern Physics - 12th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman
University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman

Here is a sample of some that I just categorize as "books":

The Special Theory of Relativity David Bohm
The Special Theory of Relativity H. Muirhead
The Special Theory of Relativity J. Aharoni
The Theory of Fundamental Processes Richard Feynman
The Theory of Relativity C. Moller
The Theory of Relativity Robert D. Carmichael

> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
> limit, then cite them.

I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
physics "textbook."

But, I might do it when I find some spare time.

Ed

On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> have begun outside of our "observable universe."

> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> science books which support it.

You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
things are from us the faster they are receding,"

On April 27, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
> because LOGIC is the basis for understanding.
> WE are at the center of our "observable universe." We can see 13.8 billion
> light years in all directions.

Yes.

> WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
> ILLOGICAL.

We KNOW that? We SEE the universe expanding away from us,
in all directions!

The problem is your DEFECTIVE logic, which is nought but your BELIEF
that the center is "somewhere else". It is ILLOGICAL and ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.

> No science supports such an idea.

What?
Science is based on OBSERVATION, that's how we contact REALITY.

> Therefore it MUST have begun somewhere else.
> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> which everything else is moving away from.

What?
The center point is the sun!

> Therefore the universe MUST have begun outside of our "observable universe."

If your theory doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG.
Your FANTASY.

--
Rich

El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, det...@outlook..com escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > > well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>

<SNIP> list of books

> > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
> > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
> > limit, then cite them.
> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
> physics "textbook."
>
> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
>
> Ed

Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).

He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> > have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>
> > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> > science books which support it.
> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
> things are from us the faster they are receding,"

Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri,
everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems
to be moving away from everything else.

BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe,
we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from
that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth.

Draw a point with lines moving away from that point. Then pick a spot
along one of the lines where Earth would be. Points on all the OTHER lines
are moving away from Earth. If things move faster at the central point
than at distant points, then even points in the Earth's line will appear to be
moving away. The points ahead of us are moving faster than than we are,
and the points behind us are moving slower and are dropping behind.

Maybe the problem here is that people think of the Big Bang as being
like a dynamite explosion. A big hole is left at the point of the explosion,
and everything that was blown away traveled at the same speed.

There was nothing to cause that kind of explosion. The Big Bang "explosion"
would have been more like unleashing a mass of springs. The first springs
travel faster than later springs because the first springs had more springs
behind them pushing them.

The Big Bang resulted from everything being COMPRESSED too much,
and it all just suddenly DECOMPRESSED. If everything eventually slows
down, and gravity pulls everything back together again, we'll have another
Big Bang.

That's the way that makes sense. An "explosion" makes no sense.
It's sometimes called "The Big Bounce Theory." https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a34941841/big-bounce-universe-theory/

Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> > > > well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> > > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> > > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> > > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> > dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >
> <SNIP> list of books
> > > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
> > > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
> > > limit, then cite them.
> > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
> > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
> > physics "textbook."
> >
> > But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
> >
> > Ed
> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's
1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify
it, but I get bogged down in the second part.

I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens
more on bookshelves around me.

Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian:
"At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random, undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of our entire universe."

Note the last sentence.

I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too
much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and
read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question.

Ed
>
> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics.

El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 17:36:48 UTC-4, det...@outlook..com escribió:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).
> As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's
> 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify
> it, but I get bogged down in the second part.
>
> I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens
> more on bookshelves around me.
>

From what you put into your web page, those kindle books are more of the type ""Star Trek: The Pod Directive." A podcast about Star Trek?"

> Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian:
> "At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random, undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of our entire universe."
>
> Note the last sentence.
>
> I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too
> much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and
> read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question..
>
By which you are just acknowledging that you select some parts of those books, which you believe, in your uninformed opinion, support your beliefs.
You have also recognized your absolute ignorance of even simple algebraic expressions.
For instance, what parts have you read from the book Gravitation?

On 4/27/2022 4:25 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
>> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
>>> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
>>> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>>
>>> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
>>> science books which support it.

>> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
>> things are from us the faster they are receding,"
>
> Yes, but that is true for everything we see. If you are on Alpha Centauri,
> everything seems to be moving away from you. Nearly everything seems
> to be moving away from everything else.
>
> BUT, if the point of the Big Bang was inside our observable universe,
> we would be able to see that point. Everything would be moving away from
> that point IN ADDITION TO seeming to move away from Earth.

There's nothing incontrovertible indicating that is true.

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
>>>
>> <SNIP> list of books
>>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
>>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
>>>> limit, then cite them.
>>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
>>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
>>> physics "textbook."
>>>
>>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
>>>
>>> Ed
>> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).
>
> As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's
> 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify
> it, but I get bogged down in the second part.
>
> I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens
> more on bookshelves around me.

LOL. sigh ; facepalm

On 4/27/2022 1:22 PM, Ed Lake wrote:

> The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how
> Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they
> don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and
> claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote.
>
The answer is: Ed Lake has HIS OWN views about how
Relativity works. Sometimes he agrees with others, sometimes he
doesn't. When he disagrees with Einstein, he writes what he believes and
claims it is what Einstein meant or wrote.

On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 01:36:48 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> >> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of
> >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks.
> >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please.
> >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook.
> >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook.
> >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have
> >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books":
> >>>
> >> <SNIP> list of books
> >>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a
> >>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability
> >>>> limit, then cite them.
> >>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now,
> >>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a
> >>> physics "textbook."
> >>>
> >>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time.
> >>>
> >>> Ed
> >> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page).
> >
> > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's
> > 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify
> > it, but I get bogged down in the second part.
> >
> > I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens
> > more on bookshelves around me.
> LOL. sigh ; facepalm

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On 2022-04-27 16:30:11 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> What about the galaxies that are NOT part of our Local Group? And is
> there a pattern to what we see in the Local Group? Are there MORE in
> one direction than another.

The most obvious pattern is that all blue shifted galaxies are near.
They are all in the Virgo supercluster.

In the M81 group there are several blueshifted galaxies:
HS 117, M81, PGC 28529, PGC 28731, UGC 5428, UGC 5442, UGC 6456
in directions 10h..12h.

In the Maffei Group:
Camelopardalis A, NGC 1560, NGC 1569, UGCA 92, Maffei 2
in directions h4..5h

There are blueshifted galaxies elsewhere, too, e.g.:
NGC 404 in the direction 1h
NGC 1313 in the direction 3h 18m

In Virgo cluster there are more blueshinfted galaxies simply because
it is the biggest cluster nearby.

Mikko

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:30:47 AM UTC+10, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> I understand the "concept of relative motion and reference frames in physics."
> It is the CAUSE of many IDIOTIC BELIEFS.
>
> It takes ENERGY to make something move in our universe. Yet you argue
> that due to "relative motion" it can be claimed that a rocket can be viewed as
> moving away from the stationary earth, or you can view the earth as moving
> away from a stationary rocket. That is MORONIC.

OK, so what about these scenarios :

1) Alice is in a rocketship with engines turned off (so unpowered, coasting inertially).Through her window , she sees the earth moving with velocity v relative to her.
So you would say that her rocketship is the one that is moving, obviously not the earth. Consequently, since time dilation is related to movement, you would also that therefore her rocketship's clocks are the ones that are are running slow - certainly slower than those on Earth.

2) Let's take a bird's-eye view of the Solar System, from a point stationary relative to the Sun (say above its north pole). We can see the Earth moving along its orbit.
Let's put Bob in a rocketship (again, powered off, just coasting inertially), also stationary relative to the sun, but on Earth's orbital path (or just to the side).
So Bob looks through his window to see Earth approaching then receeding from him at (naturally enough) Earth's orbital velocity of v = 30 km/sec.
So, since it is the Earth that is clearly the one that is moving in its orbit rather than Bob, then obviously you would say that it is the Earth's clocks that must be the ones that are time dilated - certainly slower than those positioned stationary relative to the Sun (such as those on Bob's rocketship).

So do I understand your position correctly, that you agree with both (1) and (2) ?

If so, let's put them together. There are not two rocketships, but rather Alice and Bob are both on THE SAME rocketship.

So, are the clocks on that one rocketship :
a) running SLOWER than those on Earth, as per your quote above, or
b) running FASTER than those on Earth, because the Earth is moving (contrary to your quote above) ?

I don't see how that contradiction can be avoided under what you have stated. (There is no contradiction with the mainstream position)

Of course, even more in line with this thread, we can also have Charles, in a rocketship (yep, you got it - powered off and coasting inertially) who really is stationary at one of your "stationary points in space" where time runs the fastest.

Surprise : the stationary point in space that Charles is at just happens to be close to the path of the Earth that is moving by :)

So, as per your quote above, are you saying that it is MORONIC for Charles at the "stationary point in space" to consider himself stationary and the Earth to be moving ? Would you say that Charles' clocks (where time is running the fastest) are slower than those on the Earth that is moving past him ?

>
> Ed

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 3:29:10 PM UTC-5, whodat wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 12:12 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> > which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> > have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>
> > It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> > science books which support it.
> You need to think your way out of this. Remember "the further away
> things are from us the faster they are receding,"

Yes, but that is true for EVERY place in the OBSERVABLE universe.

If the point of the Big Bang was INSIDE our observable universe, we would
see a big empty spot at that location, and everything would be moving away
from that spot IN ADDITION to moving away from us. There is no such spot.

I've pointed this out before. I'm going to respond to the posts I see that
are already in this blog this morning, and then I'm going to stop responding.
I've got too many other things I need to work on.

Ed