Summations Only

I think that you just told a stupid lie about me, but your posts are so far from being written in the English language that I'm not sure.

I said density of objects in motion, not any density. You forget the input of motion from the heating source. Mathematically that would be distance travelled per unit time per volume the objects are confined within. The velocity increased per unit volume per unit time as molecules move faster when heated. There is no oven in the bigbangist scenario, anyway. The Planck unit is self-confined, contains no free space to move in, cannot possibly expand, therefore the scenario is total hogwash

What lie? I gave you an exercise with one and zero and you got two rabbits and an environment from that. Three. Either cheating or stupidity just like I said. You choose what it was.

You said "the density of objects in confined chaotic motion", rather than "the density of objects in motion". The molecules of one litre of water in a one litre container are in confined chaotic motion (Brownian motion).Nevertheless, the issue remains that you have stated that temperature is density. It is not. The two can often have an impact upon each other, but they are not the same thing.

You are lying to me about my own opinions.I think. Because before I even dare conjecture what your stupid gibberish means, I would have to figure out what you would be saying if you could speak English.But I think that what you would be trying to do if you could speak English, which you can't, is that you would like to lie to me about my opinions. Which would be stupid. But I am not totally convinced that you are a lying halfwit, because the fact that you are illiterate prevents me from knowing what it is you mean to say.

Your reply doesn't even contain the word 'zero'.
Since you supposedly know so much about the BBT, it is bizarre that you can't provide any material supporting your claim. Is the request too difficult?I'll ask again:
Can you show where the Big Bang Theory says that something is multiplied by zero?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If you have one apple how many apples do you have?

Then there is a rabbit.Is your grasp of logic so frail that even this escapes you?There is a universe. You don't get to sit in a universe and claim it doesn't exist. The universe is expanding. The other galaxies are all moving away from us. We can see them moving away by their redshift. We don't need to sit outside of the universe to see it expanding since we can sit in the universe and see it expanding. Can the fly in the baloon see the sides of the baloon moving away from it? Yes, absolutely. The fly doesn't need to be outside of the baloon to see it expand.

Tacky, you don't appreciate the cat's charity granting the rabbit onto you crypto-creo lot. The rabbit is not legitimate to begin with, remember? You've got the rabbit from Friedmann's mathemythical hat. No physical justification was provided by the mathemagician.
The fly inside a balloon is another cheat. Of course, the fly cannot conclude anything. To conclude it's a balloon that expands the fly would need to conceptualise that the inside surface has an outside to expand into and so on. Besides, you are not that fly, you see no surface on the inside.
More gall from Tacky. I said there are perfectly rational explanations of the redshift phenomenon not involving any impossible expansion of abstractions. Did you hear that or it fails to register being against your bigbangist religion?
The universe is not a balloon, Tacky. Deal with that. It's against your religion? Tough.
No God, nor the Devil, nor your priests Hawking and Krauss can turn the concept of the Universe into anything capable of physical expansion. The Universe is all that what all objects do. Itself is not an object with an expanding surface.

Then it is a poor analogy for the universe since the universe does exist. No need to conceptualize. We observe that everything is moving away from us. We observe the expansion. Such as?

Let's grant your view. What about a fraction of a second after the universe was Planck Sized? Would it be possible to say the universe was hot then? I think it must. It would also be comparatively dense to today's universe (whatever that means).Therefore it is true that the big bang proposes that Universe expanded from a hot dense state.We could also agree that at the Planck Scale the universe had a lot of energy. A simple definition would be 'having the capacity to do work', and I think anyone would agree that creating the structure and life of the universe took work.If you don't like 'hot', then replace it with 'high workable energy density' or something like that. Let's assume again that motion is required for temperature to exist. If we take any instant of the universe at a Planck Time, we'd observe no motion, surely we'd need to define a time period where things happen in order to determine motion and therefore temperature.But if we take the universe from Planck Time to say t=10^-25 seconds we'd have motion and thus temperature. I haven't done the maths but I've read that if we did this we'd get a temperature between 10³²K and 10¹³ K (erring vastly towards the hotter end of that range). I think that qualifies as 'hot', right?

Whim, temperature is one of those vague concepts nobody got much of a clue what they are talking about. If I put density first may not mean it is central to temperature. Objects and their motions is the only key. Temperature, heat, energy are all vague concepts. All can be reduced to objects and their motions. Distance travelled is the ultimate reduction of any of those measures. No further reduction is possible. Objects are and to move is what they do. The rest is big bunks and fairy tales.

Many words are said.
Not much wisdom to be found.
Nothing from something.

Do you observe everything moving away from you? Or all objects moving away from all other objects? I don't. What I observe though is that any object moving away from something is moving towards something else. No exceptions so far. That observation puts paid to bigbangism.

Astronomers observe a correlation between distance and redshift when looking at other galaxies. Redshift is due to those galaxies moving away from us, and the farther away they are the faster they are moving away. This is further supported by relativistic effects seen in highly redshifted type Ia supernovae where the evolution of the supernova appears to move more slowly due to the difference in velocity. I have just shown you the exception.