[force5]

Hi cristian(ccristi99)?

I copied your questions and comments so I can respond to as much as I can.

"C"
Option 2 said that all components of the BB (matter, space and some rules for interaction) already existed, and were not created together with the BB. This makes the BB itself not very special. If you cram all those elementary particles in such a tiny space it's no wonder they will "expand rapidly" like you said.

"J"
1. Matter existed but space did not. The space that exist today began comming into existence at the beginning of the BB.
2. I think the term "tiny" is relative. The actual volume of matter at that point is very speculative.

"C"
Therefore the BB is not all that interesting, but the actual creation of these things is, regardless if this creation happened together with BB, or long before it.

"J"
IMHO, the BB was the beginning of the current expansion cycle.

"C"
Fair enough to say that the amount of energy created at the beginning is the same as the one floating through space now (conservation law). It's not very clear how this energy forms into matter, and how matter interacts, but many people around here seem to have some ideas. But my question was about space itself, not as in "what's in an empty space" but rather "what does movement through space mean".

"J"
1. Sorry, but I didn't state that the energy was created "at the beginning".
2. IMHO, the energy is not floating thru space, but "is" space.
3. The "space" energy recombined with the "matter" energy as a result of the previous Big Crunch.
4. Consider the possibility that mass is not "moving thru space" but maybe the space itself is being produced, consummed or pushed aside. or reflection, refraction or radiated. (not the best analogy)

"C"
Ok if there exists a "vacuum energy" but how does it explain concepts like "direction" or "distance"? What does it mean that a particle has "moved"? Why do things tend to move in a straight line until told otherwise? These concepts are taken for granted when one talks about particles or their interaction.

"J"
1. Things like distance, direction and movement are simply methods of comparing one or more objects with other objects in relative terms.
2. I believe the laws of inertia are well defined by others who have explained it much better than I could.

"C"
I insist on this because all known forces seem to be functions of space, that is they affect a particle's position rather than anything else. How can you understand the force if you don't know what "position" is?

"J"
I think of it in a slightly different way;

1. When you refer to space, to me, this is just another form of energy.
2. I think of the fundamental forces as the inter-action of energy at different stages.

Keep in mind, I'm simply stating my personal view of things that has evolved over the last 50 plus years. I will change my understanding of things if either someone else or myself can come up with a better explanation.

Stay curious..........John