[Bored chemist]

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

[Bobolink]

Thanks for all your efforts so far.

I can't say the same for you.

[Bored chemist]

Hi
Is there anyone here with  whom Dave isn't having a  childish "I'm not listening" hissy fit?
If so you could you ask him if he understands how a ship with a top speed of 10 knotts might get between two ports 19 nautical Miles apart in an hour, if there's a 9 knot current.

Because it's possible that understanding that will help him understand how, if space is moving, a thing can move through space at  less than C but end up sufficiently far away that it seemed to exceed C,

And maybe then he will recognise that the BBT and inflation is perfectly consistent with relativity.
Alternatively, perhaps Dave would like to just grow up a bit, and respond for himself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.

Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?

[Kryptid]

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?

Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works, regardless of how much we explain it.

[Bored chemist]

I know Dave can be frustrating, but let's not let this discussion devolve into insults.

Thanks Kryptid
I do appreciate your request that this discussion wouldn't devolve into insults.

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?
"Frustration" by Google: the feeling of being upset or annoyed, especially because of inability to change or achieve something.
That high negative emotion could lead us into awful things as insults.
Why not using the word - "disappointed"?
You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.
So, I'm disappointed that you believe in space expansion, while you are frustrated that I don't accept your point of view.
So, let's make it clear:
What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?
If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?
So, I'm disappointed that you mix up between space expansion to matter expansion, while you are frustrated that I can't see those activities as one.
So, please is there any possibility to keep our emotion at the level of disappointed instead of frustration?

By refusing to address points we raise, you are deliberately frustrating our attempts to educate you.

What do we really see?
Do we observe the space expansion itself or only the expansion in the matter in space?

We really see the expansion of space.
Because matter can not expand through space at more than C

[Bored chemist]

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

[Bobolink]

However, why do you claim that Dave can be frustrating?

The most frustrating thing is Dave's willful ignorance.  Dave is enamored with his absurd Conjecture D and the only way to continue to believe that it is viable is to reject physics.  Dave will therefore ignore, mischaracterize or obfuscate any explanation given to him on why his ideas are wrong.  If that fails Dave will say all the physicists are wrong and he is right.  Dave works very hard to remain ignorant.  I believe that level of willful ignorance is idiotic.  It is also troll behaviour and as such I should not get frustrated and realize he cannot be educated because he absolutely does not want to.  So discussion with Dave is useless, just pointing out his ideas are wrong is the best you can do.

You all believe that by supporting the space expansion, you speak in the name of science, while I think that this activity is a direct contradiction to science.

you are wrong.

If we only see the matter expansion, do you agree that it is forbidden to claim that we observe the expansion in space?

We all agree you are wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Because we seem to be incapable of fixing the misconceptions you have about the way physics works

Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

[Kryptid]

Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

We have been, but you consistently fail to understand it when we do.

[Bored chemist]

Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

Red shift

Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually  go on about).

[Bored chemist]

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:37:17
Well, can you please show me one real observation or physics law that supports the BBT which I have rejected?

Red shift
Now it's your turn.
Tell us anything that contradicts the BBT.
(The real one, not the strawman one you usually  go on about).

There are several contradictions
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG

Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]

In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.

This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.

So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)

Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.

If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!
Only one is needed.

[Bobolink]

There are several contradictions
Let me start with the following Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPG

Fit of redshift velocities to Hubble's law.[24] Various estimates for the Hubble constant exist. The HST Key H0 Group fitted type Ia supernovae for redshifts between 0.01 and 0.1 to find that H0 = 71 ± 2 (statistical) ± 6 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1,[25] while Sandage et al. find H0 = 62.3 ± 1.3 (statistical) ± 5 (systematic) km s−1Mpc−1.[26]

In this diagram they want to show us that there is a correlation between distances to redshift velocity.
They have selected Ho = 68 km/s Mpc
Therefore, at 15 Mpc the velocity of the galaxies is expected to be about 1000 Km/s
However, we clearly see in this diagram that in virgo cluster there are two galaxies that are located at about 15 Mpc from us. Based on their redshift, one is moving away at about velocity of 500 Km/s, while the other one is moving at almost 2000 Km/s. So, the relative velocity between those galaxies is 2000-500 = 1500 Km/s, while both are located at 15Mpc from us.
Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.

This constant is vital for Hubble's law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at velocities proportional to their distance.

So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.
However, that law was the base for the BBT:

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.[2][3] The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.[4]. It is often expressed by the equation v = H0D, with H0 the constant of proportionality—Hubble constant—between the "proper distance" D to a galaxy, which can change over time, unlike the comoving distance, and its speed of separation v, i.e. the derivative of proper distance with respect to cosmological time coordinate. (See uses of the proper distance for some discussion of the subtleties of this definition of 'velocity'.)

Please remember that this Hubble constant is used at Einstein formula as the "forbidden" cosmological constant.
Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.
No more "Puzzled" scientists!
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today or we should find in the future for small scale and large scale.

All of this has been explained to you and yet you ignore the explanations.
Prime example of willful ignorance.
There is nothing wrong with being ignorant and you can learn what you don't know, there is everything wrong with being willfully ignorant.  Fighting reality to hold on to your ignorance is crazy.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.

Except for the fact that it is not possible, you can't go faster than light.  So your 'perfect explanation' is a fantasy.
Your conjecture fails miserably, on almost every point.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, that by itself should kill the concept of Hubble constant.

No more so than the presence of a car on the road.
A car at a distance of practically zero would have a red shift of zero, but teh police are perfectlly able to measure that shift with a speed trap.

The explanatuion is that a car has an engine.

The explanation of some things having a speed that differs from the one calculated by Hubble's law is that expansion isn't the only thing that makes things move.

So, there is a severe problem with Hubble law at small scale.

At small scales, the other factors are relatively, more significant- obviously.
That's not a problem for Hubble's law or for the BBT.
It's a problem of your understanding.

Therefore, an error in this constant should kill the whole BBT theory.

Obviously nonsense, all measurements have errors associated with them.
How did you imagine the errors would somehow "kill" the theory?
If anything, it is when measurements get better that they are able to kill theories.

Theory D with its rocket over rocket (or galaxy over galaxy) concept gives a perfect explanation for this diagram and for any real observation.

No it does not- because it breaches relativity.
This remains true no matter how many times you pretend it isn't true.

Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today

Theory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations,  it does not agree with relativity.

If you can find one real observation that contradicts Theory D (now or in the future) at any scale, than I'm ready to set it in the garbage!

There are lots.
Take your pick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

[Bored chemist]

There are several contradictions

You forgot to show any.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:06:32
Therefore, Theory D is the only one which fully meets any observation that we see today

Theory D does not meet the observations that we make, because, unlike those observations,  it does not agree with relativity.

Sorry, this is incorrect
Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!
I have already offered this article:

our scientists clearly see that galaxies at the far end of the Universe are moving faster than the speed of light as was expected by theory D.
https://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/.
"As you look at galaxies further and further away, they appear to be moving faster and faster away from us. And it is possible that they could eventually appear to be moving away from us faster than light. At that point, light leaving the distant galaxy would never reach us."
That by itself is a valid confirmation for the key foundation in theory D.

So, it is very possible that galaxies appear to be moving away from us faster than light!!!
This is real observation
However, as expected this observation is not good enough for you.
Based on your full control on science, this Observation is none relevant to any other theory except of the BBT, while the relativity is relevant to all theories except the BBT
So, our scientists can decide which one can use the observation and which one can use the relativity
Therefore, based on your wisdom, it is forbidden to use this observation as an observation unless it is used in the BBT!!!
In other words – you take this observation for the benefit of the BBT, while you keep all the other ordinary people to fight with the relativity.
This is your biggest problem.
There is big difference between two locally galaxies to two very far away galaxies.
The BBT has no royalty for relativity or for that clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster that the speed of light.
As we do see/observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light than it proves that the relativity works only locally. This is correct for the BBT and for any other theory.
Once you claim that the BBT can use the Observation and ignore he relativity due to some nonsense that you wish, than this by itself is a severe contradiction in science.
Therefore, you do not speak in the name of science, but in the name of the BBT.
How can you present yourself as a scientist while you speak in the name of the BBT?
You should consider changing your title to "BBT scientist" or BBT believer!

In the following article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of the relative velocities that are subject to the laws of special relativity (and thus subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light).
So, the laws of special relativity is subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light.
So, they don't say even one word about relativity for far away galaxies.
Do you really feel that you can band the science law as you wish?
How do you dare to speak in the name of science, while you band the observations and science laws to support only your wishful BBT.
There is a clear observation that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light.
Observation is at the top level of evidence.
As we observe that far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light, than it proves that relativity works ONLY locally.
I don't need to deal with relativity or with the BBT.
This observation is free for all!!!
It is your problem. You have to adjust the relativity to meet the observation
Our mathematical calculations or formulas should represent the observations and not vice versa.
If you don't agree with this article that claims that relativity works locally and you also reject the clear observation, than it is your problem.
Galaxies at the far end are moving faster than the speed of light with the BBT or without the BBT.
For theory D this observation is good enough!!!

[Bored chemist]

Our scientists clearly see/observe far end galaxies as they are moving faster than the speed of light!

You seem to be deliberately missing this

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.
Imagine that it is trying to make its way South against the current, and the current is traveling at 11 knots North i.e.in the opposite direction.

Which way does the ship move?

OK now imagine another ship with a top speed of ten knots, and it is traveling North i.e. with the current.
If its traveling between two ports 19 nautical miles apart, how long does it take to get from one to the other?

If you can do arithmetic you will see that the ship, with a top speed of ten knots travels 19 nautical miles in 1 hour- that's nearly twice its top speed.

Do you understand how that can happen?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Imagine a ship in the sea, It has a top speed of ten knots.

I really don't care about the ship in the sea or in the space. I only care about real observation.
Do you agree that our scientists really observe that the far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light?
If so, then we both can use this observation in our theories.
So, please keep your ship in the sea. However, you have no authority to claim that it is forbidden for me to use this clear observation, while you use it in your BBT.
By doing so, you clearly position yourself as a BBT believer and not as honest scientist that only care about real science.

With regards to the Expansion in space:
The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.
As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?
Those idea are none naturals.
It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.
This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.
We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.
So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?
If yes, then I'm really sorry for this interrupt. I have to ask for apology from all of you.
This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.

[Bobolink]

The expansion in space can't be natural activity and therefore it is a severe contradiction to all physics law.

Wrong.

As you like the concept of Minkowski space-time, and you assume for space expansion, than why don't you also assume for time expansion?

No.

Those idea are none naturals.

Not talk good.

It seems to me that only god could set expansion in space or expansion in time.

This, like all your other ideas is silly.

This could also explain why you do not deal with the energy before the bang.

More silliness.

We all know that god can supply unlimited energy at any given moment.

I don't know that.

So, if someone wants to show that god is involved in the creation of the Universe, than the BBT could be the ultimate solution.
Actually, could it be that I miss something?
Is there any connection between your believe in god to your believe in the BBT?

The silliness continues.

This could clearly explain your deep frustration from my thread.

This has already been explained, it is your willful ignorance that is frustrating. 
Your attempt provoke people in this post isn't frustrating, it is just pathetic trolling.