Summations Only

Take a short break, for reasons I would have thought self-evident.

Alfred,I agree with you. My point is that Son Goku was referencing the homogenous fluidity of the earth as witnessed from a non-moving observer perspective, and I disagree with the whole notion of measuring or quantifying things from one perspective within the universe, and one outside of it. There is no such thing as outside of the universe, unless we agree to begin talking about supernatural.The universe is everything, not a subset of something else.

It depends. Some non-intuitive concepts may not contradict good sense upon further examination. If not taken literally the idea that space bends is a useful metaphor for it's better than its alternative- the concept of aether. Of course, what is meant by the bending is a trajectory of moving entities, not any literal bending of a hard plane which would be nonsense. Hardly any good explanation but may serve some practical purposes well until a better explanation is found.Other non-intuitive ideas are clearly bunkum oil and should be treated as such. Stretching intergalactic distances obviously belongs to the latter category. If gravity bends space, then the putative antigravity by analogy should keep unbending the bent instead of inflating volumes as it is alleged to be doing.
The whole of existence possibly contracting into less than a pea is clearly just a religious fraud devised by the priestly Lemaitre. Nothing to do with relativity and science in general so is definitely to be treated as such. It's not my problem if most of the educated humanity have gladly swallowed the creationist spiel shielded with dodgy maths. No possible observer is at rest to the Friedmann's co-ordinates. Friedmann was my compatriot bullshitter and his metric is pure hot air. If you love toying with space-time modelling there are plenty of much more interesting maps that are trying to keep it closer to the territory. Try Irving Ezra Segal, if you want to learn what a good metric might look like.
The Copernican principle as devised by Nicholas of Cusa is an assumption that the cosmos would look the same on average from any location. That is, an assumption that a hypothetical observer may take along with him the centre of the imaginary sphere wherever he may possibly go and would never see the edge of cosmos from anywhere. That applies both to space and time necessarily. It means anywhere at any instant. For space and time are interchangeable measures of distance. Far, far away cosmologically means long, long ago. Big Bunk idea does not satisfy the requirement as it presumes that the cosmos looked much different in Planck epoch or Dark Ages. The principle is thus violated with a vengeance for no observer at that distance from here may even fit in a Planck volume. Clearly the primeval atom hypothesis has got none to do with relativity.
Now predictions mostly belong to astrology. Especially when they are used to serve a proof that claiming something physically impossible is a good modern science. As far as I know all the major predictions of the big bunk hypothesis have failed to come true and the ideas had to be retrofitted to the data with all sorts of patches and fudges. So any defender of the hypothesis asking an opponent of the hypothesis to provide predictions must have plenty of cheek.
Science is to do with good rational explanations of the causes to the effects, not predictions.

Atoms are hypothetical objects, they can't be seen directly, otherwise, yes, atoms, protons, electrons to be objects of any causal action must be possibly drawn and imagined to have 3D shape. Anything 0,1,2D is a mathematical concept. It can't possibly move or be moved. To move an object must be capable of being circumscribed by a sphere. No motion, no causality.

I certainly wasn't, if the Earth was a homogeneous fluid, me and you wouldn't be having this conversation. When you do a mechanics problem, you commonly solve it in the rest frame of the object. For example when working out the stress on a bridge, you commonly work in the rest frame of the bridge and not the frame of a plane passing by. You could if you wanted to, but it would simply be more difficult.Hence, when we use the coordinates of an observer to whom the average velocity of the universe is zero, we do so to make calculations simpler.This involves no mention of anything outside the universe.Edited by Son Goku, : Small error.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : I cannot spell!

Straggler has dealt with the rest, so let me focus for a third time on this argument.1. The Big Bang model is given by the Friedmann—Lematre—Robertson—Walker (FLRW) metric.2. This metric is a solution to the equations of General Relativity.3. As a solution to the equations of Relativity, it is explicitly related to Relativity. Edited by Son Goku, : Bracket wrong way round.

Presumably you're excluding gravity from this statement ? The earth and I aren't moving in relation to each other, but we're still exerting a force on each other - "causing" an effect on each other, if you will.

So what do you think the age of the universe is and what frame of reference are you using to come to this conclusion?What predictions does your model make? Is it even testable?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Silicon atoms taken by electron microscope. Please correlate.

No, I am not excluding anything. I would not be certain that gravity exists as a separate phenomenon. If there is what could be described as a force of nature, it could only be one and only force of motion. The rest being its different manifestations on different scales. That is because there can't be any negative motion as that only means moving in the opposite direction which is a relative thing. If so then there is a direct physical mechanism to its workings that needs to be explained and described. That effect you are talking about is the combined effort of every atom of the earth and every atom in your body interacting. All that is in constant relative motion down to the oscillating quarks. They all are in direct touch with one another mutually translating their respective motions resulting in what appears to be a mutual attraction. No spooky action at a distance. I don't think so. Nor do I think there is any attraction really. Just momentum being passed on. Attraction would mean all matter moving towards all other matter. What direction is that exactly? Practical observation would tell that moving towards something is always moving away from something else. The same goes for repulsion. Direction is relative and only motion itself is absolute. That appears to be circular so angular momentum and rotation is the best candidate. Actually the word Universe literally means just that- rotating unity.

That qualifies as 3D objects well and truly.

My firm conviction is that the Universe as a whole has no possible age. Time measurements are relative to every relative location. Time measurement on the large scales is a relative distance measurement. Far, far away is equivalent to long, long ago. Time is therefore local while the Universe has no possible location being everywhere at once so it is timeless. Every finite object has a measurable age while the Universe being not a finite bounded object in relative motion has none.

I'm having some difficulty following some of the consequences of your thinking here.Just as a thought experiment, (although we could carry it out for real), imagine an empty drinks can on a flat table. You have got two magnets, either side of it. If you move the magnet on the right close enough to the can, then the can will move across the table to the magnet. Now, as I understand it, you are saying that all of this can be explained through the one and only force of motion - all of the motion in the atoms and sub-atomic particles forming the can starts, on average, to move in the direction of the magnet.But what is it that makes them decide to do that ? How do they all know that the magnet is nearby. if the only force in question is motion ? We know that they can't all have a predisposition to be moving to the right, because they can instead move to the left, if we choose to move the left hand magnet. They must somehow know, and adjust their motion, based on the proximity of the magnet. What's your mechanism for that phenomenon ?In fact, we can pop back and have a look at gravity again. What's the mechanism whereby all of the atoms and sub-atomic particles in the earth manage to combine to average a force of motion in the direction of the sun (cancelled out, of course, by centripetal force in the opposite direction) ? And what is the mechanism whereby the atoms and sub-atomic particles in, say, the sea, change their average momentum on an 8 hourly basis or so, to create the tides in response to the moon's orbit around the earth ?I don't see the mechanism which you are proposing for these changes.

My friend, by relativity I mean the deepest underlying principle of relativity which is that everything is related to everything else and that the relation is following strict ratios and not a particular doctrine such as GR. Nicholas of Cusa, Galileo, the Copernican principle, Mach, Minkowski are much more fundamental to relativity than Einstein alone could ever be.
Now that the distinction between perfect and imperfect Copernican principle is a bogus one clearly follows from Minkowski unity of space and time. The principle could be as much imperfect as a pregnancy. You are either pregnant or you are not. The big bunk cosmogony is clearly barren of the principle and is therefore not a relativistic one. Nicholas of Cusa may not have known anything about the constancy of light and the rest of implied physics so him and Copernicus would naturally never realised and stressed the dual aspect of the principle. Modern professionals have no such excuse. They should know that spatial separation and distance in time is one and the same. Looking from anywhere far enough is looking in the past. Yet it cannot be the same past seen from everywhere. The past seen should be strictly relative to location. So if the past is different and peculiar to every location that should preclude any possibility of any common point of origin for the whole cosmos.
Therefore the idea of cosmos evolving in time as a whole violates the principle necessarily.

I know Zaius started it, but its use seems to be growing, so I have to ask: is it just me, or is this an incredibly condescending way to begin a message. Would you mind using the same meaning of the term relativity that everyone else is using? When you need to talk about relatedness you should probably actually write "relatedness," not relativity.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.