Joman writes:
... while trying to draw attention to the fact that if a reference is absolute then the measurement can be absolute also.
And I've been saying that the reference is
not absolute - so the measurement is not absolute either. As far as I can tell, you're the only one who claims it is.
Your a math man?
In everyday life, I pose as the mild-mannered gunfighter, Ringo.
But when danger threatens, I become Math Man!
What scientific observational data are you extrapolating from?
The Big Bang was originally extrapolated from observations of all of the objects in the universe. The math and the observations agree.
I don't want to use a balloon skin.
Then why did you bring it up?
My argument is that if you really were extrapolating from a observational data pov then you could indeed pin point the origin of the expansion.
I know that's your argument, but you haven't done anything to back it up.
Look at the dreaded balloon analogy: There are an infinite number of points on the surface of the balloon, representing an infinite number of points in "space". You seem to be thinking in terms of standing "outside" the points and observing all of them at once. But there is no "outside". You can only stand on one point and observe the others
relative to that point.
... if expansion were true then the earth wouldn't appear as the center unless it was.
Huh?
Balloon analogy again: the surface of a balloon
has no "center". The earth can neither "be" at the center nor "appear" to be at the center.
In a true expansion many redshift measurements would exist. However, none would be perpendicular unless secondary causes intrude.
There are secondary causes. What's the problem?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC