[Bill S]

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 too have worked with the Criminal Courts, but I find it difficult to spot the significance of this to the OP.   

[opportunity]

I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.

Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.

[Kryptid]

I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.

Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.

The Universe is expanding in our local neighborhood. It's expanding just as fast in the Milky Way as it is in the Andromeda and just as fast there as it is in the distinct quasars. That's the thing you don't seem to understand: metric expansion of space does not consider us to be at the center of some geocentric expansion event where space expands slowly in the Solar System and faster and faster as you move further out from it. That's only an illusion.

If you were in a quasar billions of light-years from Earth. you would see the exact same thing as we see on Earth: things further away from you would seem to be moving away from you faster and faster as the distance increases. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that concept, then think about dots on the surface of an inflating balloon. The rubber on the balloon's surface is stretching at the same rate in all locations, but the dots that are far apart from each other will move faster relative to each other than those dots that are near each other. That's the key. If you were standing on one of those dots, the dots far from you would be moving away from you faster than those nearby. This would be true no matter which dot you chose to stand on. It's the same kind of thing for the metric expansion of space.

[opportunity]

I think I may be taken out of context here. Weighing up facts is essential to "theory", "conjecture".....I hope.

Now, I think also this has been a good thread, despite no one being able to answer why space in our small precinct of the Universe isn't expanding. I'm not the only one who is dissatisfied with no one being able to explain why space in this precinct isn't expanding, and many others out there don't want to suffer as fools. I ask questions to a point it becomes obvious there is no answer, clear one, according to GR and SR. Believe it or not, this is one of the topics most people treat with incredulity, namely FTL spatial expansion. Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.

The Universe is expanding in our local neighborhood. It's expanding just as fast in the Milky Way as it is in the Andromeda and just as fast there as it is in the distinct quasars. That's the thing you don't seem to understand: metric expansion of space does not consider us to be at the center of some geocentric expansion event where space expands slowly in the Solar System and faster and faster as you move further out from it. That's only an illusion.

If you were in a quasar billions of light-years from Earth. you would see the exact same thing as we see on Earth: things further away from you would seem to be moving away from you faster and faster as the distance increases. If you have trouble wrapping your head around that concept, then think about dots on the surface of an inflating balloon. The rubber on the balloon's surface is stretching at the same rate in all locations, but the dots that are far apart from each other will move faster relative to each other than those dots that are near each other. That's the key. If you were standing on one of those dots, the dots far from you would be moving away from you faster than those nearby. This would be true no matter which dot you chose to stand on. It's the same kind of thing for the metric expansion of space.

Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.

Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?

Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.

[Kryptid]

Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.

Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?

Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.

So is it that you are asking what is causing space to expand? Otherwise, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking.

[opportunity]

Look, I took your explanation, the same explanation promoted for years, as gold.

Then, "then" I started to ask......where's the expansion, "what" is the DNA, spatially. You can say, "yeah, space must be expanding, just consider the red shift effect", and yeah we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space, and yeah we can say "over that" is another expansion that is FTL.....ok, what is the spatial DNA of the FTL?

Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.

So is it that you are asking what is causing space to expand?

The "FTL" to be precise.

"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?

[Kryptid]

The "FTL" to be precise.

Any positive rate of expansion, no matter how small, will result in faster-than-light recession velocities at some sufficiently large distance. If space was expanding a thousand times slower than it is now, then the distance away from us at which recession appears to be superluminal would be a thousand times more distant.

"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?

No, because the Solar System is much too small for the recession rates between any two objects inside of the Solar System to be faster-than-light. For a distant quasar beyond our Hubble Horizon, the entire Solar System would be receding away from it faster-than-light. However, the space inside of the Solar System itself would still be expanding at the same rate in the quasar's frame of reference as it would for ours (much, much slower than light).

[opportunity]

The "FTL" to be precise.

Any positive rate of expansion, no matter how small, will result in faster-than-light recession velocities at some sufficiently large distance. If space was expanding a thousand times slower than it is now, then the distance away from us at which recession appears to be superluminal would be a thousand times more distant.

"I understand" how we can conceive of the FTL via mathematics.....yet that mathematical explanation, is it topographically accurate for our own reference in space? Is it a follow-on from "every point in space"? Simply, "is there proof for FTL spatial expansion "here"?

No, because the Solar System is much too small for the recession rates between any two objects inside of the Solar System to be faster-than-light. For a distant quasar beyond our Hubble Horizon, the entire Solar System would be receding away from it faster-than-light. However, the space inside of the Solar System itself would still be expanding at the same rate in the quasar's frame of reference as it would for ours (much, much slower than light).

No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised. "Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws, "over" the idea of "every point in space"?

[Kryptid]

No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised.

I don't know what you mean when you say "jump". There's nothing special about superluminal recession rates compared with subluminal ones. The only difference is distance. Nothing is actually moving faster than light through space.

"Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws,

What do you mean when you say "over" local laws? No laws are broken by faster-than-light recession.

"over" the idea of "every point in space"?

I don't understand what you mean.

[opportunity]

No, you're still using words that don't acknowledge the jump from how FTL is realised.

I don't know what you mean when you say "jump". There's nothing special about superluminal recession rates compared with subluminal ones. The only difference is distance. Nothing is actually moving faster than light through space.

"Space" expanded initially as the BB, apparently, and then FTL stepped in......"over" local laws,

What do you mean when you say "over" local laws? No laws are broken by faster-than-light recession.

"over" the idea of "every point in space"?

I don't understand what you mean.

Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states. You haven't explained how that works, how space acts differently in such a manner.

[Kryptid]

Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states.

What is a "superluminal state"? What "bubble"?

You haven't explained how that works,

I don't see how the balloon analogy isn't sufficient to explain it. Nothing fundamentally different is happening when the recession rate is 0.3c, 0.9c or 1.5c between two objects. The same thing is responsible for all of it. The only difference is distances between the two objects.

how space acts differently in such a manner.

Differently from what? I'm afraid part of the problem here is that I am having difficulty understanding the wording of your sentences.

[opportunity]

Well, no, that's where you are still wrong. You're almost saying that local laws and associated mass are in a bubble in superluminal states.

What is a "superluminal state"? What "bubble"?

You haven't explained how that works,

I don't see how the balloon analogy isn't sufficient to explain it. Nothing fundamentally different is happening when the recession rate is 0.3c, 0.9c or 1.5c between two objects. The same thing is responsible for all of it. The only difference is distances between the two objects.

how space acts differently in such a manner.

Differently from what? I'm afraid part of the problem here is that I am having difficulty understanding the wording of your sentences.

English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English. You're not answering my question.

"Superluminal" is FTL.

[Kryptid]

English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English.

Very good. Still doesn't help me understand some of your sentences.

You're not answering my question.

Because I apparently don't understand the question. I'm trying to figure out what it is that you are asking and why the balloon analogy does not answer the question.

"Superluminal" is FTL.

I know.

[opportunity]

English is my first language. I studied Latin as a basis for English.

Very good. Still doesn't help me understand some of your sentences.

You're not answering my question.

Because I apparently don't understand the question. I'm trying to figure out what it is that you are asking and why the balloon analogy does not answer the question.

"Superluminal" is FTL.

I know.

That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.

[Kryptid]

That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.

I am actually trying to understand what you are asking. I'm not being snarky. This is genuine confusion on my part. Why does the balloon analogy not suffice? Why do you say it fails?

[opportunity]

That's gold. Cut everything up like the overall meaning is no longer meaningful.

I am actually trying to understand what you are asking. I'm not being snarky. This is genuine confusion on my part. Why does the balloon analogy not suffice? Why do you say it fails?

The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?

[Kryptid]

The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?

There's the problem again. I don't know what you mean when you say "DNA". I know that you don't mean literal DNA, but what you mean by that metaphor I do not know. Are you saying that space stores an information sequence of some kind?

[opportunity]

The "balloon" analogy? Where's the DNA of space there with the BB?

There's the problem again. I don't know what you mean when you say "DNA". I know that you don't mean literal DNA, but what you mean by that metaphor I do not know. Are you saying that space stores an information sequence of some kind?

Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?

[Kryptid]

Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?

I think so. It's based on nothing more than the observation that the recession speeds of objects increase as their distances from each other increase. Nothing special is required to explain recession rates between two objects being above the speed of light. It's not any different than if those same objects were only recessing from each other at 100 kilometers per hour. The same principle is at work, only the scale has changed. It's not at all like moving linearly through space faster-than-light.

[opportunity]

Ha. Very good point. No. When I refer to DNA as a metaphor I'm asking what space FTL is based on. Does that help?

I think so. It's based on nothing more than the observation that the recession speeds of objects increase as their distances from each other increase. Nothing special is required to explain recession rates between two objects being above the speed of light. It's not any different than if those same objects were only recessing from each other at 100 kilometers per hour. The same principle is at work, only the scale has changed. It's not at all like moving linearly through space faster-than-light.

I like what you've said, and it can be read nearly everywhere on the subject, "yet" the recession is exactly that, a mathematically derived concept. This mathematically derived concept canvasses all of space it seems, without any attention to the underlying (every point of space) big bang, no?