[Bill S]

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?

Opportunity,  I was a little surprised when you said that English was your first language.  It is mine, and I too studied Latin, but neither of those facts helps me to understand some of your questions, nor what it is about the answers provided that you find unsatisfactory.

Perhaps you would have the patience to help me out a bit?

where's the expansion,

My answer would be “everywhere”.  Do you have a problem with that?  If so, what is it?

"what" is the DNA, spatially

I couldn’t attempt to answer this, because I completely miss the significance of the analogy.  I would need some help there. 

we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space,

What is a “paradoxical infinite point”?  Is it what is more usually referred to as an infinitesimally small point?  You probably realise that I sometimes take issue with the infinite/infinitesimal, but what do you identify, here, as a paradox? 

Perhaps, if we could pick our way through a few points at a time, we could get somewhere positive.

[Bill S]

we can say from the big bang allegedly everything expanded from a paradoxical infinite point of space,

I missed a point I meant to include.  I'm not aware that anyone claims that the Universe expanded from a point in space.  If that really is your understanding; that could be the root of the problem.

[opportunity]

I'm being polite. I think we've thrown the idea around already in this forum the big bang was like a multitude of points, like on a golf ball, that expanded. What's your take on the "initial conditions" of the big bang, those spatial and temporal dynamics? The Big bang is a theory, don't get me wrong, and its an idea that found itself notoriety from two key issues, the red shift effect and the CMBR.

[Colin2B]

OK, let’s take a deep breath here and step back for a moment. There seem to be communication problems here that need resolving.

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".

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.

"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.

As you can see from the above quotes, people here are finding it hard to understand your questions and your comprehension of the replies seems to be limited. I was also about to ask whether your first language is English, but apparently it is.

Questioning that topic is not trolling, it's almost a natural human right.

True, questioning is not trolling, but certain ways of behaving are.

- trolls use obscure, technical sounding language which does not clearly state the question. They can then repeatedly parrot “you didn’t answer the question”.
- trolls will ignore answers to questions and reintroduce their own ideas eg “local laws” - which we explained are your idea not ours.
- trolls will denigrate science, theories etc. Pseudo scientists also do this to try and give weight to their own pet theory.
- trolls will also disrespect the person trying to help with comments like “Man, give it a go, answer "that" question. Stop using crayons to explain the FTL spatial expansion.” This is a particular tactic of adolescent trolls.
- they will also do the following:

I hate blowing smoke, but relative motion to "what" in the middle of nowhere? Yes, flat space time, yet the same flat space-time that is responsible for FTL spatial expansion?

what you do here is quote out of context. If you look to the post previous to that one you will see that you have misunderstood and taken it out of the context.

You do this quite a bit, misread and misquote articles and standard texts.

The question is being asked, “why are you here?” Are you here to push your own theory? Are you here to snipe at science? Or are you here as a genuine seeking of understanding. The jury is out and folks are getting irritated with you lack of ability to communicate. Can you please improve your communication and take time to understand what has been said.

Also, please be aware that science is not about proof, nor about finding deep root-causes. It is about observation, measurement and modelling to predict the behaviour of systems.

[Kryptid]

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.

It isn't just math. It's objectively measurable.

This mathematically derived concept canvasses all of space it seems, without any attention to the underlying (every point of space) big bang, no?

The Big Bang need play no part in it. We don't need to know anything about the Big Bang in order to observe that redshift is correlated with distance.

[Bill S]

Opportunity, I hesitate to follow Colin’s post before you have replied, but if, as I hope, you are looking for clarity, this could constitute a first step.

I'm being polite.

I have no recollection of suggesting otherwise. 

Can we have a go at clarifying the points in my earlier post. Unum post alium, fortasse?

where's the expansion,

My answer would be “everywhere”.  Do you have a problem with that?  If so, can you specify the problem?

[trackpick]

The current discussion seems better for a separate thread. I asked (or intended to ask) my original question within the context of a current accepted understanding of physics (*). The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics, so I think opportunity should start a new question/thread and then the discussion can move there? Doing so will also give it more visibility to others. Ta.

*: let's not nitpick over this phrase please

[Bill S]

That sounds like a good idea; especially if we could try to eliminate misunderstanding and lack of clarity from the start.

  let's not nitpick over this phrase please

Nitpickers on TNS?  Never! 

BTW. was your original question answered adequately?

[Colin2B]

The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics,

I think it is more to do with opportunity’s understanding of the answers. Asking questions for clarification is a good way to increase understanding, but we seem to have hit a problems getting clear questions.

As @Bill S askes, has the thread, and in particular the reply #1 by @Janus, made the answer clear for you?

[trackpick]

The current discussion seems to be questioning the accepted understanding of physics,

I think it is more to do with opportunity’s understanding of the answers. Asking questions for clarification is a good way to increase understanding, but we seem to have hit a problems getting clear questions.

As @Bill S askes, has the thread, and in particular the reply #1 by @Janus, made the answer clear for you?

Yes I'm very happy with the answers I got. My question was answered way back in this thread :-) My understanding is that the rate with which space expands is really minute and at small scale the effects are insignificant and clobbered by other forces. At large scale, a minute rate of expansion is still going to result in huge effects and they're not overcome by other forces (gravity has an insignificant effect at long distances).

[Colin2B]

Yes I'm very happy with the answers I got. My question was answered way back in this thread :-)

OK, I’m going to lock this thread for the time being so that it doesn’t drift further off topic. Anyone with related, but different questions can open another topic.

I will review this if  necessary.