[N0B0DY]

RP,

I conceded that the strong force is precluded from being a force that increases with distance. I conceded that a magnetic field explains expansion from and contraction towards a center very well. I even acknowledge that there is observable motion, like a hand moving in front of your face, but you are not meeting me half way to acknowledge that there is a difference between a relative perspective and what would be an absolute perspective - defined as opposite.

If from our relative perspectives there is motion, from an absolute perspective there would be no motion. I say "would be" because the above universal perspective can't exist, but is nevertheless the only possible state of the absolute universe.

It is generally agreed that all existence is contained within the absolute universe, and any motion from point A to point B within it is said to be actual motion from a relative perspective. Yet, if the absolute universe is simultaneously at both point A and point B, how could it be said that the absolute universe is in motion?

I don't think it can, and the above logic can be applied to "everywhere" in the universe, which to is synonymous to the "thing" being nowhere. If we apply it to the big bang via a false vacuum, it is even less logical because there is no space outside which would allow for expansion followed by any bang. If you follow me, even if there is uniform expansion of the entire universe, everywhere, the absolute universe would already be "there" so it would not have to move anywhere.

Finally, I am not trying to make people crazy or trying to be a troublemaker either, RP. Just trying to be fair with regards to how we are interpreting scientific implications based on both theoretical and empirical data.