[PmbPhy]

Ok, so that person was you......that's the alleged third person I was referring to. Should have been obvious. It was in direct response to your reply. Apologies if you thought I was making "you" the third person. I mean, when I read my reply to yours I still can't see how I made you the third person......

First you say "...that person was you......that's the alleged third person I was referring to[/i] and then you say "Apologies if you thought I was making "you" the third person. "

Were you or were you not referring to me?

Regarding " when I read my reply to yours I still can't see how I made you the third person......" When you post a response right after mine referring to someone then it implicitly means me. If not then I recommend being more precise in the future.

Maybe this topic is a little hot for some and blinds us from seeing the facts?

Not really. The problem is always that people refuse to learn the physics before taking a stand on it. That always always always leads to failure.

I'm still a little stunned no one has answered my questions though ...

They were answered. That you don't understand or disagree with it is another issue entirely.

...other than saying what I have allegedly done wrong in terms of forum protocol or how great they are with what they're currently studying.

Nobody here ever says or thinks that ... well .... at least not I or Colin or Jeff or evan etc. Listen to them. They know what they're talking about.

Try studying Medicine, ...

I have and I do. I've been stricken with several horrible medical problems since 2000 and I refuse to be ignorant on the topics so I learn what I'm able to and its save me some suffering in certain cases. In another area I learned more than my doctors and in fact am writing an article on it.

many many abstract concepts there that are "factual".

If something is abstract it cannot be factual at the same time so you must mean something else. Please clarify. Otherwise:

See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abstract

Abstract

1 - Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
1.1 - Dealing with ideas rather than events.
1.2 - Not based on a particular instance; theoretical.
1.3 -  (of a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/factual

Factual

1 - Concerned with what is actually the case.
1.1 - Actually occurring.

I've had the benefit of not only studying Medicine, yet understanding the "flaws" in Medicine theory, namely taking an incorrect history. For instance, much of Medicine is based on taking a good history, yet the history the patient provides is not exactly honest most of the time.

And who can blame them. More often than people are aware of, telling the truth can not only lead to harassment but can lead to death. As a solid example consider the following case study

The Other Victims of the Opioid Epidemic Susan A. Glod, M.D., N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2101-2102
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1702188

The poor victim had nothing to hide when it came to his addiction to cocaine. When he got cancer he had so much pain that he agreed to take narcotics whereas before that he avoided them like the plague. Read the article to see how abusive medical personnel were to him because he had the label "addict" attached to him and he was going to take narcotics. If it doesn't piss you off then I doubt you're human.

I could tell you horror stories about my own experience with abusive a-holes. It even led to me being refused to go to the ER once when I had crippling chest pains. I had doctors perjure themselves on the stand before a judge to get me to stay in a hospital where I was after a suicide attempt.

Hey! Even God lies when appropriate. Although most Christians are either too ignorant or too stupid to know about it. Jews on the other hand are much smarter.

[opportunity]

Ok, you're venting. That's cool.

The criminal justice system weighs up "problems". You/we can have problems and still get through. It's the "relevance" though and "weight" of the lies that is weighed up (I forgot to mention I've worked in a legal context).

I wouldn't approve any funding to prove the big bang, let alone space expanding in this quadrant, miniscule as it seems, of the apparent universe.

Studying Medicine, and here's the armchair problem, is not just being a "patient"......

First, you get a "cadaver" in "anatomy". This with histology and biochem basics.

Then histology and biochem go to a new level.

Then in year 4 you apply that knowledge to "patients"....for another 3 years before you're qualified.

"That's" not arm-chair Medicine.

It's hard to explain to someone who bases their medical understanding on being a patient.

The "problem" with Medicine is simple....."how do the vastly difficult concepts of each facility of learning work with each other"? For instance, a drug is applied to treat a problem in a certain defined region of medical classification......how does that impact on the other regions of the body, the other systems. Is that arm-chair Medicine?

Any Doctors in the forum?

[PmbPhy]

Ok, you're venting. That's cool.

No. I'm not venting by any means. If there's not an expletive in every other sentence in a post I make then its not a vent. I'm describing facts. Nothing more and nothing less - Period.

I wouldn't approve any funding to prove the big bang, let alone space expanding in this quadrant, miniscule as it seems, of the apparent universe.

That's due to two reasons (1) you're not a cosmologist so it makes no difference to you and (2) its not possible in any science to prove a theory. Do you think I make recommendations for  the fun of it? No. I make them for good reasons and in this case you made a serious error.

Before you post again PLEASE read more on the philosophy of science. Here's great place to start
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf

Then go here: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/common_misconceptions.htm

Watch the two videos of the following misconceptions
1) Physicists Have Proved That The Big Bang Did Happen
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_03.mp4
2) Physics Is About Proving Things
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_04.mp4

Alan Guth is one of the worlds leading cosmologists. He's also a good friend of mine. He's probably the nicest more generous person on earth too. He's an amazingly wonderful person.


Studying Medicine, and here's the armchair problem, is not just being a "patient"......



It's hard to explain to someone who bases their medical understanding on being a patient.

You confused learning medicine with learning to become a doctor. They are not the same thing.

Medicine is the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease.

Learning medicine means learning that science. However learning to become a doctor means learning how to become a practitioner of medicine and that's different. I can learn all the facts that a doctor knows. That means I can learn medicine. However that doesn't make me a doctor.  When you finally decide to start learning the philosophy of science you'll learn these things. Until then we'll have to keep correcting these kinds of mistakes. Especially the flaws regarding "proof" that you keep making.

Is there a good reason you don't want to learn the philosophy of science or are you doing it and not saying you are? If that's the case I recommend choosing better material to learn from.

Please don't confuse this constructive criticism as being insults. Also, please don't assume you know what my emotions on a subject are because I don't appreciate someone claiming I'm venting when in reality I'm describing the reasons people lie and why its virtuous in those cases.

[opportunity]

No no, not insults.

Look, my Father was a Doctor, so the code was ingrained.

We weren't patients.

Yet, I consider I went above and beyond "normal" practice in using a legal leverage in Insurance.....getting facts any medical experience "does not" want the time for.

I didn't do that deliberately, that path, it just seemed like a missing piece.

I can't talk about any of that, not allowed to, period.

I still have to say that space not expanding "here" is a little "odd".

[PmbPhy]

Sorry, sport. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean to me and no idea what that has to do with this thread.

Learn the philosophy of science. Okay?

[opportunity]

Sorry, sport. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean to me and no idea what that has to do with this thread.

Learn the philosophy of science. Okay?

I know you've offered links to your learning, but can you provide it again so I can take a look....I'm sure you're sincere.

[PmbPhy]

I know you've offered links to your learning, but can you provide it again so I can take a look....I'm sure you're sincere.

They weren't links to my "learning". They're links to my knowledge. The main website is here

http://www.newenglandphysics.org/

The section on misconceptions is here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/common_misconceptions.htm

There is a lot of literature here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/other.htm

I highly recommend reading

Expansion of the Universe - This PDF file consists of Chapter 14 of Cosmology: The Science of the Universe - 2nd Ed. by Edward Harrison, Cambridge University Press, (2000). See pages 270-301.

The link is here: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/expansion_of_universe.pdf

The philosophy of science article to start with is here
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf

I know that some of us may appear arrogant, that we "know so much more than you etc." Some people really are arrogant so don't get me wrong. But for some of us its nothing more than what we've done to get to the state of knowledge that we presently have and for which we love to share. And its not as if we all think we're right. Far from it. Often than not my acquaintances and friends correct me when I make a boo-boo. But the farther away I get from when I graduated the more I learn, the more experience I obtain and the less boo boo's I make. If i had to describe what I've read it would be in terms of the height of all the texts I've read and that would be several feet. The number of homework problems I've had to solve is in the thousands. And I shiver at the thought of how many hours I had to study. The thought of it actually creeps me out a bit. And all of us who do this are just as skeptical as the next guy. But its a healthy skepticism since we know how to approach it.

Bye the way. I make no claims as being flawless. In fact I have always admitted my limitations. For example: to this date I don't know the multiplication table. But that didn't stop me from getting a second major in math. In fact it didn't even hinder my being the best math major my alma mater has since 1990.

That was Merrimack College in Andover MA in case anybody wants to verify that.

[opportunity]

I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.

I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.

Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?

[PmbPhy]

niche

I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.

I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.

Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?

Sorry. I have no idea what any of that means.

[opportunity]

niche

I hope any of my previous posts haven't been misinterpreted.

I think that no one cares about niche ideas though. Your idea is not niche, obviously.

Ultimately, what's helping our "use" of the planet, and what's that "time-line"? Is thinking about space expanding "helping", or can we be more "immediate" and "practical" with the "future in sight"?

Sorry. I have no idea what any of that means.

I'd like to talk about your interests but it seems off-topic here.

[PmbPhy]

There's always the "Just chat" forum and PM. Feel free.

[Colin2B]

I'm still a little stunned no one has answered my questions

Which questions are not answered?

The OP’s question was answered in #1

You asked:
“how can a theory of everything be a theory of everything if there are objects out there we can't account for because they are in the realm of the faster than light expansion of space?” Which has been answered.
“"how" can objects that aren't visible be understood?” Has been answered.
“What if the proposed big bang had a faster than faster light speed "shell" at the time everything went faster than light in terms of spatial expansion? “ which has been answered.

You also make statements like “No expansion here (in this quadrant of a universe) is a red flag” whereas that was also answered.

As @PmbPhy implied we can’t write a textbook for you on a forum, but somehow I’m not convinced you are really looking for answers, you spend a lot of time criticising physics you don’t understand, but haven’t bothered to learn much about.
We ofen find your posts confusing and it would help us if you would make your questions clearer as they are often intermixed with broad statements, misquotes and confusing terminology.

[opportunity]

Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.

"I have highlighted" above and beyond "anyone else" the mechanics of the proposed Big Bang.

For instance, I have recognised the "initial" explosion event, sub light speed, I have recognised that such an event happened as though it was  in "every point of space", I have recognised that local laws developed in that process, .....

"and I have recognised" the faster than light expansion that occured "after" all those dishes were done.

Now, the "problem" you haven't recognised is "where" that FTL happened......you're saying its not from every point in space but a mythical perimeter.....too far away from "us" for local laws to apply?

I think its rude for anyone to repeat themselves. I'm sorry for being rude, but you haven't answered this question. In your defense it's probably an oversight, which is why I am asking the question a final time, ideally.

[PmbPhy]

Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.

YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.

[opportunity]

Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.

YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.

No actual answer to my post?

[Colin2B]

but you haven't answered this question. In your defense it's probably an oversight, which is why I am asking the question a final time, ideally.

I think it may be that we are assuming you have read and understood our posts, which is likely not true.

Now, the "problem" you haven't recognised is "where" that FTL happened......you're saying its not from every point in space but a mythical perimeter....

I certainly didn’t say that, nor am I aware of anyone else saying it. @PmbPhy said clearly there is no shell.
Yes there is a limit to what we can see, but just as we have a horizon on earth it doesn’t imply it is a perimeter with nothing beyond or a shell on which ftl is occurring. That limit is a physical one and in no way mythical.
How the expansion occurs throughout all space was explained by @Janus in #1.

too far away from "us" for local laws to apply?

No one has said local laws don’t apply at all points in space, this is an interpretation you have made.
We have no reason to believe that the laws of physics change from one area of space to another* just as we don’t expect the laws of physics to change between equator and arctic, but what does change are the conditions. @Janus very clearly explained how conditions change when comparing those conditions within our local galaxy and those between galaxies further away.

*there are suggestions that gravitational laws might change at extremes of range between objects, or within black holes. Also that inertia might operate differently at very low speeds, but these are still being debated and we would still expect them to operate consistently over all space.

Colin, I'm not the one using broad brush strokes here. In fact, I'm the one focussing on "theory" more than anyone else.

YEs you are and its why I can't take you seriously anymore. You ignore everything we've told you so you either are unable to grasp it or unwilling to learn. In either case I can't waste anymore time on this nonsense. Goodbye.

@opportunity Unfortunately you have lost a unique opportunity here. @PmbPhy has worked closely with some of the top physicists working on early universe and has an inside track on the detail.

[opportunity]

Colin2B, you've answered well.

In the absence of any other explanation for space, despite space not expanding "here", you're a "winner" and I credit you.

[PmbPhy]

@PmbPhy has worked closely with some of the top physicists working on early universe and has an inside track on the detail.

Let me be clear on this point. Those top physicists are friends of mine. We've discussed the physics often over the last 20 years. I've been criticized heavily for mentioning them but that was by internet nutjobs freaks so I don't care. Alan Guth is one of my good friends. In 2014 he (and two others) won he Kavli prize (which is the Norwegian equivalent of the Nobel Prize) for the inflationary model of the universe. He received $1,000,000 for it. I suppose I shouldn't mention this but what the hell. Alan has used some of that to pay for my physics website. He also sat and did videos for it. He's also helped me financially when I needed it when my health was a risk and I was suffering. He's a wonderful person like that.

I spent a huge amount of time studying general relativity and cosmology and know the physics solid, although far from Alan's level of understanding. So its in that context that I've "worked" with them. It's not as if them and I are worked on papers or anything like that. I like to be precise about these things so as not to put on airs that I don't rightly deserve.

Colin - Your attempt at helping him is more than admirable. However there is a time to give up and that time has long past.

[jeffreyH]

@opportunity If you are intending to prove how much better informed you are on the subject then you have failed to produce any evidence to back up your assertion. To ask questions implies that you are willing to take the time to consider the answers you have been given. You are not spending enough time to do this. You are immediately challenging those answers with responses that do not rebut the ideas with evidence. That seems to imply that you are employing the tactics of a troll.

[Bill S]

Fascinating thread!  I think it has covered the OP reasonably well, but, like a quantum particle, it has taken a wide variety of paths. 

One thing I would like to add arises from:

The universe doesn't have a shell.

As far as we know, that is the case, but the history of scientific progress indicates that if evidence of a shell/boundary were found, most scientists would be open minded enough to pick up the idea and run with it. Possibly after a lot of initial kicking and screaming.

A good example of this is the response of the geological establishment to Wegener’s ideas.  Of course, there are still those who maintain that he was wrong, that the Earth’s tectonic plates don’t move, but their motives seem rarely to be geological or scientific.