# Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 18, 2019)

The sound of settled science strikes again. 

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 18, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...


@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound of settled science strikes again.
> ...


Poor baby feels threatened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 18, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Haha...yeah, I'm scared of leprechauns, too. And unicorns.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Figures.


----------



## OldBiologist (Oct 19, 2019)

It doesn’t “point” to anything other than our lack of understanding. Lack of understanding is not proof of any deity, or even of anything supernatural. Lack of understanding is in fact not proof of ANYTHING, it is candid admission of ignorance. Here, give a listen to the first few minutes where a clear and simple explanation is given for “the argument from ignorance”.

Oh, and “settled science” is a phrase most commonly used by those who have little understanding of science.


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> @moderators
> 
> Please move to religion section or rubber room



Small penis?

You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana cannot withstand real science, and since he a small penis, will drop out.

Here is what has been found:

We have natural physical constants and with improvements to technology, these natural physical constants have been measure more accurately such as pi, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, Planck constant, and more.  These improved measurements differ from previous measurements only slightly.  For example, the speed of light or c was measured to be about 3.007x108 meters per second around 1750.  In the 19th century, the measurements of the speed of light generally fell between 2.999 x 108 and 3.001 x 108 meters per second.  If we assume that today's accepted value of 2.99792458 x 108 meters per second is correct, then the 18th century value differed from the 20th century value by only 0.3%.

The Hubble "variable" isn't a real physical constant, so we should not expect its value to be calculated as consistently as the speed of light has been.

Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light.  This shows it is not really a constant.




 

As we learn more about what is happening out there, then the age of universe will be adjusted.  Hasn't it recently been adjusted downward instead of rising since Hubble?


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...








I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me.  I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole.  If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide?  How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.


Another madeup creationist talking point that you don't even understand. Your comment belongs in the religion section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?


Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.  

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same. 

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
> ...








I have seen plenty of explosions in my life.  Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


If those rocks were large enough and close enough together, and you waited long enough...

...yes, you would eventually see a rock moving at 90 degrees to the direction of the blast, due to gravity

In fact, you can look at the planets in the night sky and watch them do this every single night.

So, the problem in your  observation is your technique, not the theory being tested.


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







They would never pass at right angles to each other.  Can't use gravitational influence either, at the big bang gravity would be nearly non existent so the blast would spread equally in all directions.  No way for an interaction.

The planetary perturbations you describe don't apply.  They are well governed by gravity now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

westwall said:


> They would never pass at right angles to each other


False. Every single night a planet moving about the Sun is moving perpendicular to the Sun's velocity relative to some object in the universe.

But, I should stop stringing you along. You are making a huge, fundamental error. While you are wrong even within the incorrect model you have constructed for the sake of discussion, your entire diatribe is, in fact, nonsensical. There is no "direction of explosion". One cannot point in a specific direction and say they are pointing to the origin point of the explosion. That is not how the expansion of space works. There is no "center" of our universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

westwall 

Consider a simplistic analogue:

Reduce the dimensions of space from 3 to 2. Imagine all of space as the surface of a balloon. Imagine dots drawn on the balloon. Then, inflate the balloon. All the dots are moving away from each other, as their "space" (the two-dimensional surface of the balloon) expands. 

There is no "direction of explosion" in this 2D space.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall
> 
> Consider a simplistic analogue:
> 
> ...


How 2D of you. 
Fact remains, we know very little about the universe, and people teach sheeples like you to parrot nonsense conclusions.


----------



## james bond (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.
> ...



, you have not been keeping up. 

I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup.  It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.

Anyway, the Hubble constant is not constant -- ESA Science & Technology - Latest Hubble measurements suggest disparity in Hubble constant calculations is not a fluke [heic1908].

This article describing a younger universe by a billion years backs my argument up -- The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why..


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


No wonder he hates me, mine is 11”.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fact remains, we know very little about the universe,


Neat!

But we do know a few things, including that space is expanding. I hope you learned something from my analogy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.


Hmm, no, youre confused. That wasnt me.

I am not interested in your regurgitated YEC nonsense that you don't even understand. Go peddle it to that other idiot up there ^^


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fact remains, we know very little about the universe,
> ...


I could care less what the universe is or is not doing. It’s irrelevant to everything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I could care less what the universe is or is not doing.


Yet you started this thread and felt compelled to comment on my post describing what the universe is doing. Obviously you do care. 

You have the lying skills of a toddler.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less what the universe is or is not doing.
> ...


The same with manmade climate change. To mock you know it alls.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Haha, good for you.


----------



## Vastator (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...


Science Is never settled.... Thread fail.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Oct 19, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis .


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > They would never pass at right angles to each other
> ...









That's because they are in ORBIT.  Please explain how a rock can travel perpendicular to another rock when there are no orbital mechanics extant.

You keep thinking in terms of a Universe already created, I am not.  I am talking about the Universe at the time of creation.


----------



## OldBiologist (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound of settled science strikes again.
> ...



I find this very easy to envision. Galaxies were not formed in the initial Big Bang, they formed afterwards as clumps matter condensed. It is visible everywhere we look that we see spiraling concentrations of matter, whether it’s solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, whatever. As these gigantic clumps spiral around themselves and each other, much matter gets spun off in slingshot effects. In our own solar system we see asteroids on eccentric orbits, having those orbits changed by chance encounters with other gravitational masses. We see asteroids that originate from outside our solar system. We see galaxies colliding and gravitationally influencing each other in the same manner, just at enormously greater scales. It is a vector nightmare out there. And all of these things are occurring in an expanding universe.


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...yes, you would eventually see a rock moving at 90 degrees to the direction of the blast, due to gravity



Not in outer space you idiot.


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.
> ...








  +


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

OldBiologist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...







That is the current theory, but it had to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years before the galaxies formed.  All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin.  In all directions. 

Now, if the Universe is far older than we think, and it didn't expand as rapidly as is claimed,  then as tha galaxies coalesced and bounced off the edges of the slowly expanding Universe, that would explain the changes in relative motion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> That's because they are in ORBIT


Which is just acceleration due to gravity. That is the ONLY "orbital mechanism", so your choice of this cryptic description of it is odd. Same as when an interstellar object enters our solar system, changes direction, and exits, due to the gravity of the Sun. Is this object in orbit? No. Has gravity changed its velocity? Yes.

Really, your question should be (and is, essentially)  to ask why there are galaxies at all. The same force (gravity) that causes them to exert forces on each other is the force that formed them in the first place.

And that is an interesting question: Why isn't the universe perfectly uniform? Scientists have a working explanation: quantum fluctuations in the early universe.

And again: "perpendicular" is just a result of frame of reference. There is no "direction of explosion" to use as the frame of reference. So there are no objects in the universe moving perpendicularly to the "direction of explosion" or "of expansion". Because that "direction" simply does not exist in our three spatial dimensions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Not in outer space


Yes, gravity still works in outer space.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin.


That is not how the expansion of space works.

In the balloon analogy: where is the "point of origin" in the 2D space? There isn't one. Space itself is expanding in all directions.


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound of settled science strikes again.
> ...


idiot


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Back to the balloon analogy:

Lets add some detail. Zoom in close enough to the balloon that the surface appears virtually flat. Draw the tiny dots on the balloon and inflate it. While it can be said that there is no "center" of this 2D space (essentially, a plane), an easier way to think of it may be to say that EVERY point on the balloon is at the center of the universe, from its frame of reference.

Choose any dot on the balloon, and draw a circle centered on it. This circle represents the "horizon", or the edge of the observable universe from the frame of the dot at the center. While this horizon is receding from the dot and increasing in radius at the speed of light, the dots located on this circle are actually receding from the dot at the center at a speed FASTER than the speed of light, due to expansion.

Eventually, the far away galaxies will start to "wink out" one by one. And we will be looking at an empty sky, save for galaxies in our local group.

Eventually, those galaxies will "wink out", too. And we will be looking at a sky with no major galaxies, save for our own Milky Way.

What will scientists in that era think of our universe? A watershed moment in cosmology (and in philosophy and in religion) was to learn that we are in one of 100s of billions of obervable galaxies. Scientists in this later era won't be able to come to this conclusion.


----------



## Vastator (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> OldBiologist said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


But what if the “black hole” theory is correct? Perhaps our local part of the universe is falling into a black hole... that might explain why all the other systems seem to be racing away at more than light speed. What if they’re relatively static to us; but our particular region is falling toward a singularity?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Vastator said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OldBiologist said:
> ...


Interesting...but confusing. Were we heading toward a singularity, that would still produce a clear vector of velocity, to an earthbound observer, directed at the singularity. That would produce redshift for the galaxies we observe in the direction opposite this vector, but a blue shift in the galaxies in the direction of the vector (the ones we are moving toward).

Yet everything seems to be moving away from us in every direction, in general.

Can you point me to some reading on this?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin.
> ...







You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Vastator said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OldBiologist said:
> ...







That could explain a lot.  However we see galaxies collide throughout the Universe.


----------



## Vastator (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Not sure that the collision of galaxies eliminates the local collapse theory. Galaxies apparently collide. My thought was merely; rather than assume everything was “racing away from us”... what if it were us racing away from it? We know things get weird when it comes to black holes. And the only things that seem to move faster than light speed, througH a vacuum are black hole related...
I just wonder if we may have this backwards. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s us...?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D


You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
> ...







No, I am thinking in 4D


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


False. When you spoke of things not moving perpendicular to the direction of explosion, you were thinking in 3D.

In doing so, you made a fundamental error in your understanding of how inflation works, and I gave you the tools to understand. The error you made is common. Because this concept (inflation of space) is not intuitive.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Vastator said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...








I am merely going by current theory which dictates that everything had to be going away from ever


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Vastator said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Can you explain how such a scenario would cause everything else , in every direction, to appear to be moving away from us?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...








You have to add the element of time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The element of time had nothing to do with your comments. Nor are you explaining how it did, or how that affects your comments or my explanation.  So what are you getting at?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







Yes, it does.   If the big bang theory is correct,  there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down.  We don't have a clue what happened at that time.  In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured. 

The question is why.  Time has everything to with that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> If the big bang theory is correct, there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down. We don't have a clue what happened at that time. In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured.


That doesn't make sense.  There is no "angular motion", because there is no "direction of expansion" or "of explosion". Angular motion depends on a frame of reference. the frame of reference you are implying simply does not exist.

Furthermore, your point was regarding perpendicular motion, not angular motion, relative to the imaginary "direction of explosion". Unfortunately, that also does not exist, for the same reason.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If the big bang theory is correct, there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down. We don't have a clue what happened at that time. In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured.
> ...








Take a look at videos of explosions.  Try and spot any debris moving in a direction away from the blast direction.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Take a look at videos of explosions. Try and spot any debris moving in a direction away from the blast direction.


You are making a fundamental error: there is no "blast direction" from the big bang in space. I am trying to help you understand this.No objects in space can be said to be moving in a different directionthan the "blast direction", because the "blast direction" of the Big Bang does not exist.


----------



## Crepitus (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That's because you've never seen an explosion last long enough for gravity to be a factor.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...







There was no gravity at the time of the big bang


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


But again, the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

The fundamental error being made here is a result of intuition failing us. Our space doesn't "expand into" anything. That is very hard for us to understand.

You cannot trace the big bang back to a point in our space. You cannot pick an object and say it is moving in the "blast direction", then trace its history back to the "location" of the big bang.


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
> ...



You are an idiot.  The 2D balloon analogy is suppose to help us think in 3D .  Maybe you should let someone else explain 

"The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional situation. The way you're _supposed_ to think about the balloon analogy is that everything which happens in two dimensions on the balloon's surface actually happens in three dimensions in the universe. For example, the balloon's surface "stretches" proportionally in *TWO* directions as the balloon gets blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in *THREE* directions. The third dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the balloon's surface and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the equivalent of the *FOURTH* dimension in our universe."

Is the universe really like an expanding balloon? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> The 2D balloon analogy is suppose to help us think in 3D


Correct. And it is a perfect illustration of a few of these principles. Reducing the dimensions allows our limited minds to grasp the concepts of expanding space, and that there is no "center" of the universe, and how the cosmic horizon works.

Your error is to think I am comparing the expanding universe to a balloon shape expanding into space. That is not what my analogy does.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D
> ...


You think there’s only 3 dimensions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No i don't, and that's not relevant to this discussion regarding movement of objects relative to the nonexistent "blast direction" of the Big Bang.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Hilarious. Quantum Fluctuations just concerns 3 Dimensions. Good one!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Not what I said. 

In this context, we are talking about proper motion in three spatial dimensions.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


How 3 dimensional of you. At least 27 dimensions were involved at that point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Neat!

Now, this is where you explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing, specifically.

Do you think the big bang has a "blast direction", in three dimensional space? You can start there.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I’m having too much fun watching you stuck explaining things in 2D in a 27D universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


In other words, you have no idea what we are talking about and don't know anything about this topic. And that's fine. Maybe you will learn something.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

An intersting sidebar:

Assuming a 4th spatial dimension is to assume an infinite number of 3D "universes".


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I’m busted!  Carry on with lectures on the beginning of time and it’s 3D physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Actually, we are talking about time since inflation and today. And about the concept that there is no "blast direction" of the inflationary event in 3D space.


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fundamental error being made here is a result of intuition failing us. Our space doesn't "expand into" anything. That is very hard for us to understand.
> 
> You cannot trace the big bang back to a point in our space. You cannot pick an object and say it is moving in the "blast direction", then trace its history back to the "location" of the big bang.







Correct, but explosions all behave the same.  Matter is converted into heat and whatever remains solid is propelled in a direction away from blast origin.  What does not happen is a piece of that matter crossing the direction of the blast.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Consider another idea:

We observe galaxies "10 billion light years away". But we have to keep in mind that we are just saying we are seeing the light emitted by the galaxy 10 billion years ago. When the galaxy emitted that light, it was less than 10 billion light years from Earth. And, at this moment, it is much farther away than 10 billion light years. And the farther it gets from us, the faster it will be moving away from us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

westwall said:


> Correct, but explosions all behave the same.


Not this one. This one did not explode "into" space, like the explosions you are describing. It is space.

You could never point in the direction of the "origin" of the Big Bang. This direction simply does not exist in space. As such, nothing can be said to be moving with any proper motion to any "blast direction".

We can't point our telescopes to this point in space, because it does not exist. So, instead, to take a snapshot, we had to image the entire observable universe.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...


The problem with the Universe is that no one knows what they are looking at, or where it came from or where it is going or what part we play in it and what we are.  This renders everything a guess including any mathematics because all the variables are unknown.  A solution to a problem that has no parts is not possible, the big bang is the starting point and is also pure conjecture.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Also, the expansion itself created matter, it appears. And it may have done so without any energy expense, as the other things it created impart negative energy unto our universe. The net energy of our universe may be zero.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Also, the expansion itself created matter, it appears. And it may have done so without any energy expense, as the other things it created impart negative energy unto our universe. The net energy of our universe may be zero.


So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.

Nice theory but current physics does not allow for something coming from nothing, only fluctuations of matter and energy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Frannie said:


> So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.


No. It was created by the expansion of space, in the theory we are discussing.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying that matter was created by the expansion of nothing.
> ...


There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there.  I do find it comical for any human to seriously say that matter just created itself because the big bang just felt like creating a universe.  There is no theory that allows even a single atom to be created from nothing, so one comes back to particle fluctuations


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 20, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


He doesn’t know what particle fluctuations means.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Frannie said:


> There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there.


 I don't disagree entirely. There is, however,  good reason to assume it was , at the very least, compacted into something unrecognizable and beyond our knowledge of the laws of physics. And expansion would then had to have happened, by what we know. So the meat of the big bang theory still holds, in any event.

There are a few interesting ideas that elimimate the singularity entirely, or rotate faulty into imaginary time to deal with spatial singularities/the information paradox, or that propose singularities can't be said to be zero-dimensional, as our physics break down before that.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


But he thinks he does and that counts in the mental ward


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > There is not any reason to assume that space was not always there.
> ...


First you say that space was created from nothing then you say it was compacted presumably by a space compactor

I do not think you are hearing yourself

The answer is clearly God, denoting God as the knowledge to create anything, have that and you can easily create 1 or a trillion new Earths to be fruitful and multiply on


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2019)

Frannie said:


> First you say that space was created from nothing


I didn't once say or imply that.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > First you say that space was created from nothing
> ...


Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.  I have heard physicist say the same thing and quite frankly the statement is meaningless...……………...


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



"But he thinks he does and that counts in the mental ward."

Worth repeating ad nauseum.

That's the best explanation for Fort Fun Indiana.  He gets his explanations wrong which I've already pointed out with the balloon analogy.  He provides no links and just keeps talking like he knows and understands big bang, but he inserts stupid things and then you just roll your eyeballs.  He doesn't understand what someone else is trying to patiently explain to him.  I come back from enjoying my Sunday and he's still rambling.  This guy is seriously autistic, but no idiot savant.  Just a plain old idiot who needs his meds and belong in a mental ward.

Did he explain how his expansion started?  How did spacetime just appear?  I gave up after he didn't understand how astronomical or natural explosions work like supervova (not as well understood as we like to think (!)), solar flares, volcanoes, sound waves at supersonic speeds, etc.  It is the buildup of gases and high temperature.

Anyway, we need to move on.  At least for Fort Fun Indiana, we figured out what was wrong in_ his_ universe .


----------



## james bond (Oct 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Correct, but explosions all behave the same.
> ...



I knew you were going discuss telescopes eventually .







 +



Even your balloon analogy had a beginning. a direction, and hole you were blowing in.






There, there, Fort Fun Indiana, we understand.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't disagree entirely. There is, however, good reason to assume it was , at the very least, compacted into something unrecognizable and beyond our knowledge of the laws of physics. And expansion would then had to have happened, by what we know. So the meat of the big bang theory still holds, in any event.



Violation of the laws of physics.  This is from YOUR magical sky fairy .


----------



## Frannie (Oct 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I thank God that I do not understand you


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.


False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Violation of the laws of physics


False. It's a theory fleshed out by the people who discovered and taught us the laws of physics. So your comments are laughably absurd.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.
> ...


Look kid physics does not age, only human interpretations of how the universe works age


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Violation of the laws of physics
> ...


The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..  So your laws are wrong


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..


False.


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then why do galaxies collide?


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..
> ...


NASA says that the universe is expanding at 5 times light speed


007 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


There would also need to be a void where expansion began


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


And where did the void come from, and where does the void end?


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



The big bang determines that matter should form a sort of a shell of expanded matter traveling out from the center that now would be a void.  The lack of this huge area is a major flaw to the big bang theory as is the speeding of expansion


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


I think the big bang theory is a big bust.

But the show on TV is pretty funny.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...



Someone was ask about the void being missing and they claimed that there really was no big bang just a moment when matter came into existence.

Corky has as much idea about where the universe came from as anyone


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


I don't think we can wrap our heads around any of it when questions like, when did time begin, how did everything come into existence, and how big is the universe are asked. We simply don't even have the capacity to comprehend such things. All we can do is guess.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers.  On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers.  On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl


WHAAAA... ??

What does ANY of your reply have to do with ANYTHING I just said? I never said anything about asking questions, or that asking questions was wrong, or school, or SNORTING DRUGS.

Sheeeezuz...


----------



## Frannie (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is wrong with any of those questions, or in seeking the answers.  On the other hand paying to send ones child to a school because some professor claims to know makes less sense than snorting Fentanyl
> ...


Triggered professor...……………………

Why would you assume that what you say is relevant to me anyway?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> if the universe is expanding from a central spot


It isn't. So there you have it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> I think the big bang theory is a big bust.


Well, it isn't. It is still the accepted model and is supported by all the evidence.


----------



## OldBiologist (Oct 21, 2019)

Go to the 8:15 point in this video linked and he explains that pretty well.
“Breaking the vacuum” with petawatt laser




007 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > if the universe is expanding from a central spot
> ...






It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it.  The Singularity was the size of a proton,  so yes, it is indeed expanding from a central spot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it.


But, it is not "expanding into space", which is the error in the analogies of explosions you presented and to which you continue to defer.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It is expanding from the Singularity that spawned it.
> ...








Of course it is expanding into space, it is CREATING that space as it expands.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> Of course it is expanding into space,


That's just not accurate. Here, read this:

According to the big bang, space itself is expanding. I don't understand: If space is expanding, into what is it expanding?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is expanding into space,
> ...







Ummmm, that's pretty much what I said.  You need to read my second sentence


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It actually completely contradicts your first sentence, though. And this error by you is what is causing your misunderstanding.


----------



## 007 (Oct 21, 2019)

Frannie said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Idiot... b'bye.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...






No, it doesn't.   The entire Universe spontaneously erupted from a Singularity,  as the Universe expands, it creates space at the same time.   That is fundamental cosmological theory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> No, it doesn't. T


Yes it does, clearly and completely. Your statement:

"Of course it is expanding into space"

...is utterly incorrect, and the article is an attempt to explain why it is incorrect.

This misconception on your part is the source of your errors and of your nonsensical queries, such as to ask how matter moves "perpendicularly to the direction of the explosion".

That query is nonsensical. You think it isn't. And this is due to the fundamental error I have described. 

I think i have exhausted all resources at my disposal that would help you understand why you are making a fundamental error. I encourage to to keep reading up on the topic and to ask others. Prehaps you will come to understand your error.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, it doesn't. T
> ...






What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.


Which, obviously, is false and is self soothing nonsense, as I am reporting the actual findings of scientists, and what is considered widespread agreement among all cosmologists, physicists, you name it. You, on the other hand, are saying nonsensical things that anyone who takes 5 minutes to read up on and to try to understand this material can see for themselves.

That includes you. So, at this point, There is no excuse for your intransigent and poor behavior.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What is clear is you are not capable of thinking in complex enough ways to carry on a conversation about a subject that is far beyond your comprehension.
> ...







No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences.  That pretty much explains your limits.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences


I used a 2D model to explain a few specific traits of occurences in 3D. I reverted to this simpler model in hopes of helping you understand your fundamental errors. To say it is a 2D model explaining 4D occurences is yet another error on your part, as the "fourth dimension" you list is time, which holds perfectly fine in the analogy I described, making it a 3D model, by your very own logic.

Furthermore, the 2D model holds perfectly, when extrapolated to 3D space, insomuch as illustrating how the expansion of space works. That is why scientists, who by the way agree with me and disagree with you to a man, use this analogy to help laymen understand the expansion of space.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

You can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space as well.

Imagine you and a friend are holding the ends of a rope, pulled tight.  The rope is 1 meter long. Every minute, 1 meter of this rope expands to 2 meters in length. After 1 minute, you and your friend are 2 meters apart. After 2 minutes, you are 4 meters apart. After 3 minutes, you are 8 meters apart.

This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are trying to us 2D models to explain 4D occurrences
> ...







A 2D model is incapable of addressing the issues.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It is perfectly capable of addressing some of the issues. Such as, grasping the expansion of space, and why no "origin" point of the expansion exists in this space.

No dot on the plane described can be said to be "the one center". Furthermore, every dot on the plane is the center of its own, observable universe. Furthermore, the illustration shows us both how and why everything is moving away from everything else due to expansion, and why farther apart objects are moving away from each other more quickly than closer objects are.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...






No, it isn't.   Time is a fundamental aspect of the big bang and the 2D model doesn't take it into account.   That makes it worthless because the dimension of time is the most important part of the theory.

The rest is simple mechanics, it's the time factor that causes the issues


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

westwall said:


> Time is a fundamental aspect of the big bang and the 2D model doesn't take it into account


False. There is clearly time in the 2D model i presented, as it expands over time. By your own logic, that makes it a 3D model. But that is a silly thing to point out, as there is no distinction between the time in 3 spatial dimensions and what, in my analogy, simply represents a 2D cross section of that 3D space. They both have the same timeline.

You keep stumbling. You keep piling on the errors. Your questions are nonsensical due to your misconceptions, and your statements are at odds with the entire scientific community.

Does all of that not give you pause? A reasonable person would consider all of the above and pause to wonder if he is making fundamental errors.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

What is the Universe Expanding Into? - Universe Today

"The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe *isn't expanding into anything*, it's just *expanding*. .."

.......
*AUTHOR: FRASER CAIN*
Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today. He's also the co-host of Astronomy Cast with Dr. Pamela Gay.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> All we can do is guess.


False. We can also test those guesses (we call these guesses, "hypotheses"). One  instance of this is the discovery of the CMB.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Violation of the laws of physics
> ...



False.  The laws of physics were discovered by people who believed in God and creation such as Aristotle, Democritus, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, and more.  The other thesis using no spacetime and sudden energy expansion was created by your sky fairy Satan, the father of lies.  Satan influenced atheists such as Epicurus, James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and more.  How else can you explain no evidence for other universes you speak of?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> False. The laws of physics were discovered by people who believed in God and creation such as Aristotle, Democritus, Sir Isaac Newton, Sir Francis Bacon, and more.


That has no bearing whatsoever on your claim that the standard model of cosmology violates the laws of physics (which, indeed, is your claim). You are just flinging your own poo, at this point. You sound no less absurd than someone who insists they will jump off of their roof and fall up.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2019)

007 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



One we have observation.  The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.


Also not really accurate. The fact is, we dont know what this theoretical baseball is (which is the definition of the surface of this baseball, in fact: the boundary of our ability to gain information from the region, or "baseball"). In fact, asking what happened before this point in time does not really have meaning, in our timeline.


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What is the Universe Expanding Into? - Universe Today
> 
> "The short answer is that this is a nonsense question, the Universe *isn't expanding into anything*, it's just *expanding*. .."
> 
> ...



Come now.  We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime which we know has to be there.  So spacetime is expanding, too.  It's also curving at the edges like a scroll.  Our most powerful telescopes show that and is explained by general relativity.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The other we have the hypothetical baseball that appeared from energy I guess.
> ...



Your theoretical baseball goes sideways.  We do not see anything in the universe that acts like it unless it's propelled by someone or something..
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime


100% false. That is the point I have been making since page one, and it is a fact you clearly have not managed to absorb.



james bond said:


> Your theoretical baseball goes sideways. We do not see anything in the universe that acts like it


Yes, exactly what i said. In fact, we can't know how it acts. That's literally the definition of its surface.

So there you go...all the human ignorance you will ever need in order to wedge in a magical god, presented to you in a neat, little package.

"You're welcome"

Signed,

The scientists


----------



## james bond (Oct 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > We all know that the universe is expanding into spacetime
> ...



It's what we are observing.  Einstein said that with general relativity any mass or even energy could bend spacetime.  We see that and the universe curves in following that direction.  The universe can't just be bent that way.  It would take a much more massive object to make it's expansion curve.  We do not know exactly what spacetime is let alone create it.  What scientists think is causing this expansion is dark energy, but we have no idea where it came from.

ETA:  I think dark matter is the stuff in the universe since we can measure it even though we can't see it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> We see that and the universe curves in following that direction.


And yet the geometry of the universe is, essentially, flat. Do you understand wby? For one, it can be, as the warping of spacetime by gravity is very localized. Its effect is inversely proportional to the *square* of the distance.

Gravitational lensing beds spacetime to observers in all directions. This curvature is still localized, though, even in the case of groups of galaxies.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet the geometry of the universe is, essentially, flat. Do you understand wby? For one, it can be, as the warping of spacetime by gravity is very localized. Its effect is inversely proportional to the *square* of the distance.



I suppose you mean the shape.  Yes, I've heard the universe is flat, but I don't think it's as certain as NASA claims.  Yes, the _curvature_ of spacetime is localized per Einstein's general relativity, and I agree the effect is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

Yet, NASA states, "The fate of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity.  The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe."

WMAP- Shape of the Universe






What is the shape of the universe?

NASA is basing their WMAP measurements on the big bang theory, but we still have the three shapes.  Your analogy was arguing for the positive curvature and from it we can observe galaxies colliding.  We can see that with negative curvature two galaxies can also collide if they start out at opposite sides.  With the flat curvature, we shouldn't have galaxies colliding.  It also goes along with what Einstein thought and that eventually the universe will collapse onto itself.

Thus, the measurements seem to fit the flat universe and big bang, but our observations show different.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Thus, the measurements seem to fit the flat universe and big bang, but our observations show different.


Uh...what? The measurements and the observations are different? That doesn't make sense.


----------



## james bond (Oct 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh...what? The measurements and the observations are different? That doesn't make sense.



The WMAP measurements show that we are in a flat universe.  In a flat universe, we move parallel to each other.  If the galaxies are moving farther apart due to expansion, then how can they collide?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> The WMAP measurements show that we are in a flat universe.


The overall geometry of our universe is flat. That doesn't necessitate that only parallel velocities are permitted...?



james bond said:


> If the galaxies are moving farther apart due to expansion, then how can they collide?


Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space due to expansion. But galaxies are moving through space.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space as well.
> 
> Imagine you and a friend are holding the ends of a rope, pulled tight.  The rope is 1 meter long. Every minute, 1 meter of this rope expands to 2 meters in length. After 1 minute, you and your friend are 2 meters apart. After 2 minutes, you are 4 meters apart. After 3 minutes, you are 8 meters apart.
> 
> This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.


The rope doesn’t expand.  It stretches or lengthens. And as it stretches, it’s diameter is reduced.  Until it reaches its tensile limit and breaks. 

Never mind that your one dimensional analogy is still in three dimensions.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.



Actually that too is inaccurate. Everything is moving away from everything else. Which is how the apparent velocity between objects can exceed the speed of light without the objects themselves exceeding the speed of light.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

As near as I can tell the expansion of the universe is more like a ripple on a pond. In that it is fairly flat. It’s not spherical. The representation is a cone because of the 4th dimension of time.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That dude is a legend in his own mind. 

Is it fair enough for me to assume that you have a science or engineering background?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space as well.
> 
> Imagine you and a friend are holding the ends of a rope, pulled tight.  The rope is 1 meter long. Every minute, 1 meter of this rope expands to 2 meters in length. After 1 minute, you and your friend are 2 meters apart. After 2 minutes, you are 4 meters apart. After 3 minutes, you are 8 meters apart.
> 
> This helps us understand why the farther something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us.


Actually it doesn’t explain why the farther something is from us the faster it is moving away from us. 

If you explained why every meter of rope expands to two meters of rope every minute, that would explain why the farther something is from us the faster it is moving away from us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Actually it doesn’t explain why the farther something is from us the faster it is moving away from us.


Of course it does. It clearly demonstrates that your friend is moving away faster, the longer the rope. Maybe read it again, see if you can figure it out.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it doesn’t explain why the farther something is from us the faster it is moving away from us.
> ...


Dude, I don’t need to read it again.

Why is the rope expanding 2 meters every minute for every 1 meter of rope?

Because whatever the answer is to that question is the reason for why everything is accelerating away from everything else.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it doesn’t explain why the farther something is from us the faster it is moving away from us.
> ...


I’m not arguing it doesn’t demonstrate. I am arguing it doesn’t explain why every object in the universe is accelerating away from every other object in the universe.

You said it explains it. It doesn’t.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...






PhD in geology from Caltech


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Why is the rope expanding 2 meters every minute for every 1 meter of rope?


It isn't. It's expanding by 1 meter per minute per meter of rope. So maybe you do need to read it again...?

And I chose those numbers because they are easy to work with.

So yes, please read it again. All the informationyou need to understand why expanding space causes objects farther from us to move away from us faster is there.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> I am arguing it doesn’t explain why every object in the universe is accelerating away from every other object in the universe.


The expansion of space explains that. The illustration just helps to understand the explanation.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

westwall said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I can tell.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I am arguing it doesn’t explain why every object in the universe is accelerating away from every other object in the universe.
> ...


You are talking in circles.

You said you can use a 1D model to help explain the expansion of space. Then you provided your example of a 1 meter rope being pulled by two people and that every minute 1meter of this rope expands to 2 meters. After 1 minute you are 2 meters apart from your friend. After two minutes you are 4?meters after three minutes you are 8 meters apart.

Then you said this helps us understand why the farther something is away from us the faster it is moving away from us.

Your 1D model - which isn’t a 1D model - doesn’t explain why space is expanding at all.

You saying the expansion of space explains why every object is accelerating away from every other object explains why every object is accelerating away from every other object is the definition of circular reasoning. 

Why is every object accelerating away from every other object?  And please don’t say because the expansion of space explains it.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Actually that too is inaccurate. Everything is moving away from everything else. Which is how the apparent velocity between objects can exceed the speed of light without the objects themselves exceeding the speed of light.



The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.  We know this because of the measurements Hubble first took between us and galaxies farther out from us.  Now we have better technology for better measurements.  Fort Fun Indiana is an idiot, but he's right on this.  No need to rehash.  

You are right that it does not mean that the galaxies are moving FTL through our universe.  Einstein's special relativity is not violated.   Einstein's special theory says that nothing in our universe can move FTL, but it doesn't say the expansion of the universe itself cannot move FTL.  Hubble measured the the recession velocity of the galaxies over time and it showed it was FTL.  It does not mean that the galaxies were moving under their own power to get from point A to point B, the expansion of the universe was.  That said, this expansion is not really speed as we know it.  It's FTL expansion.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. If an object is moving at 75% the speed of light and another object is moving away from the first object at 75% of the speed of light then then they are moving away from each other at 150% of the speed of light but neither object is traveling faster than the speed of light.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It isn't. It's expanding by 1 meter per minute per meter of rope. So maybe you do need to read it again...?


What isn’t?  Your lame 1D model which isn’t a 1D model at all or space itself?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Then you said this helps us understand why the farther something is away from us the faster it is moving away from us.


And it does exactly that. If it doesn't help you understand, that just means you need more help than most people.



ding said:


> Why is every object accelerating away from every other object?


Because space is expanding. Just as in the rope example, you and your friend are speeding away from each other at an accelerated rate. Your misunderstanding of the illustration is your fault.



ding said:


> Your 1D model - which isn’t a 1D model - doesn’t explain why space is expanding at all.



It is not meant to do that. It is meant to help you understand the expansion of space, and what results. As was already pointed out to you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> 1D model which isn’t a 1D model at all


It, of course, is. The rope is merely a line. 1D.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.


Relative to the Earth? False. Regions of the universe are, indeed, receding from us faster than the speed of light.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

So, to review:

The rope analogy is a 1D analogy (the rope is a line segment) meant to help us understand why, the farther form us something is, the farther it is moving away from us.

The longer the rope, the faster the rope is expanding. A 2 meter rope expands to 4 meters in one minute, while a 4 meter rope expands to 8 meters in one minute. As you can see, the longer rope is expanding faster: 4 meters in one minute, as opposed to 2 meters in one minute for the shorter rope.

If the rope is long enough, you and your friend will be speeding away from each other at a relative speed greater than the speed of light.

The expanaion of space is expressed in similar units (distance/time/distance): kilometers per second per megaparsec.


----------



## james bond (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. If an object is moving at 75% the speed of light and another object is moving away from the first object at 75% of the speed of light then then they are moving away from each other at 150% of the speed of light but neither object is traveling faster than the speed of light.



That's what I just said.  It means the expansion is traveling FTL.  No need to rehash stuff that was covered already.  Don't take up 20 pages arguing about stupid shit with FFI.  This is a good thread and does not need to be ruined.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Then you said this helps us understand why the farther something is away from us the faster it is moving away from us.
> ...


Why is space expanding?

I am fully expecting you to say the answer is because objects are moving away from each other to complete your circular logic loop.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Then you said this helps us understand why the farther something is away from us the faster it is moving away from us.
> ...


You shouldn’t use intentionally misleading expressions like explains and understands. 

You haven’t explained why space and time is expanding. You don’t even know that saying space and time is expanding is saying the same thing as all objects are moving away from themselves. 

You literally believe the reason that all objects moving away from all other objects is because space is expanding.  Like you believe that is a physical phenomenon. That the boundary is getting bigger which causes all objects to move away from all other objects.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Why is space expanding?


Well, one component is expansion still resulting from the inflationary period. But now expansion has sped up. And nobody knows why.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Ding: Why is every object accelerating away from every other object?

FortFun: Because space is expanding. 

Ding: Why is space expanding. 

FortFun: Because every object is accelerating away from every other object. 

Brilliant.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why is space expanding?
> ...


Expansion isn’t the cause. Expansion was never the cause. 

Expansion is the consequence. Expansion has always been the consequence. 

What is it the consequence of, FortFun?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 1D model which isn’t a 1D model at all
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light.
> ...


Did you even read what I wrote?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> You literally believe the reason that all objects moving away from all other objects is because space is expanding.


As does the global scientific community. Surely you don't think this is because of hopes and prayers, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Expansion isn’t the cause. Expansion was never the cause.


You asked why space is expanding today. And I gave you the correct answer. One component is "momentum" from the inflationary period. But most of the current rate of expansion is due to an unknown cause.

Ding, these are simple, correct answers. You are tripping over yourself to disagree, which is silly.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You literally believe the reason that all objects moving away from all other objects is because space is expanding.
> ...


I’m almost certain that you are the only person who believes space expanding is a cause and not a consequence. 

Are you fishing for the answer?


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Expansion isn’t the cause. Expansion was never the cause.
> ...


Momentum of inflation?  What does that mean exactly? 

Walk me through it.

Since you are so knowledgeable about this and all.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You asked why space is expanding today.


I don’t believe I did ask why is space expanding today, FF. 

I asked why is space expanding?  

I also asked why are all objects accelerating away from each other and your brilliant answer was because space is expanding.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> I’m almost certain that you are the only person who believes space expanding is a cause and not a consequence.
> 
> Are you fishing for the answer?



Did "for an unknown reason" give it away?  Ding, stop prancing and dancing, you fancy little fuck. We don't know why space is expanding. Some of why it is expanding today is because of the inflationary period in the past (it has a defined time). And we don't know why that happened, either.  Do you?



ding said:


> I don’t believe I did ask why is space expanding today, FF.



Ding: "Why is space expanding?"

Also ding: "I wasn't asking why it is expanding today."

Okay.  Glad that's all cleared up, now.  Moving on...


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’m almost certain that you are the only person who believes space expanding is a cause and not a consequence.
> ...


Space is expanding for the exact same reason it expanded in the first place.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’m almost certain that you are the only person who believes space expanding is a cause and not a consequence.
> ...


What gave away your fishing for an answer was your asking me if I thought it was expanding because of hopes and prayers while dodging the question. 

I assure you that the scientific community understands why the universe is expanding. You want to obscufate the reason for expansion by muddying the waters with the uncertainty of the rate of expansion. It’s the rate of expansion that is debatable. The cause of expansion and the reason that all objects are moving away from each other has never changed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

So,  the "Big Bang" is marked by an inflationary period of rapid expansion, which then slowed and stayed slow(er) for quite a while. But, about 4 billion years ago, it started to speed up.  We don't know why either of these things happened. And the expansion is accelerating. In about 4 billion years, the furthest galaxies we will start to fall over the cosmic horizon.  Obviously, we will be viewing this from a different vantage point, as our Sun will be swelling into a red giant at about that time.Eventually, black holes will come to dominate the whole universe, with no two having any effect on one another.Then our universe will be dark.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You asked why space is expanding today. And I gave you the correct answer. One component is "momentum" from the inflationary period. But most of the current rate of expansion is due to an unknown cause.
> 
> Ding, these are simple, correct answers. You are tripping over yourself to disagree, which is silly.



You seem to claim quite some knowledge of cosmology.
What background do you have to support your statements?

Most of what you have presented can be gathered from watching ample YouTube videos.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Space is expanding for the exact same reason it expanded in the first place.


Okay. And the reason is? 


ding said:


> What gave away your fishing for an answer was your asking me if I thought it was expanding because of hopes and prayers while dodging the question.


I clearly am telling you that we don't know the answer. You really need to get past this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> You seem to claim quite some knowledge of cosmology.


Irrelevant. And I claim no such thing.  Try to stay on topic.  Or, just read and maybe learn something.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Irrelevant. And I claim no such thing.  Try to stay on topic.  Or, just read and maybe learn something.



There is no need to be rude.
I was simply asking if you were formally educated in Cosmology, astrophysics or any other science dealing with related subjects.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. And I claim no such thing.  Try to stay on topic.  Or, just read and maybe learn something.
> ...


Neat!


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Space is expanding for the exact same reason it expanded in the first place.
> ...


The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This is not a steady state system. As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structures which continued on their paths.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> The universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anr


That's why the universe is expanding?  I'm not sure what you meant to say, there.



ding said:


> As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structure which continued on their paths.


Okay.  But you can accelerate matter all day, and you have not expanded space. One nanometer of space expanded to 10 light years of space in a tiny fraction of time.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and anr
> ...


Read the whole thing and stop parsing it. 

The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This is not a steady state system. As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structures which continued on their paths.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Read the whole thing and stop parsing it.


I did. And you can accelerate matter all day, and it doesn't explain why the universe inflated as it did. This remains unknown. By you, or by anyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

The inflation event ended about 10^-32 s after the big bang. The first subatomic particles were not formed until later, about 10^-11 seconds after the big bang.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Read the whole thing and stop parsing it.
> ...


What I just described is an energy source beyond imagination. It’s what started everything. Everything you are trying to describe is secondary to what started it all. 

What is left in the universe is a tiny percentage of what it started with.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The inflation event ended about 10^-32 s after the big bang. The first subatomic particles were not formed until later, about 10^-11 seconds after the big bang.


You are a moron. You are discussing things that have no meaning to you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

We don'tt know why the universe is expanding. We dont know exactly the rate at which it is exanding, or why it appears to be speeding up in its expansion. Did a fluctuation in its earliest state determine the makeup of the universe and the laws of physics in it? Possibly!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> You are a moron. You are discussing things that have no meaning to you.


Well ding, I gotta tell ya, thats not a good defense of the following as the reason why space is expanding:



ding said:


> The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.



....given that the matter to which you attribute the expansion of space did not exist until after the inflationary epoch.

You are demomstrably wrong. And you do not know why space is expanding. Nobody does.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Read the whole thing and stop parsing it.
> ...


What part of nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter which existed as subatomic particles annihilating each other did you not get?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> What I just described is an energy source beyond imagination.


Haha, what a great ding line. I award you 100 pap points.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are a moron. You are discussing things that have no meaning to you.
> ...


Again. Stop parsing what I wrote. 

The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This is not a steady state system. As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structures which continued on their paths.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> What part of nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter which existed as subatomic particles annihilating each other did you not get?


What I don't get about it is how you offer that as an explanation for the expansion of space, given that none of that existed until after the inflationary period.

I don't get that, because it is absurd. Nobody does or should "get" that.

We dont know why space expanded then, or why it is expanding so qickly now. We are searching for fields in our universe resembling the field postulated to have caused the initial expansion. 40 years later, no luck.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We don'tt know why the universe is expanding. We dont know exactly the rate at which it is exanding, or why it appears to be speeding up in its expansion. Did a fluctuation in its earliest state determine the makeup of the universe and the laws of physics in it? Possibly!


Sure we do. The creation of space and time caused it.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What part of nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter which existed as subatomic particles annihilating each other did you not get?
> ...


What exactly do you believe happens when matter and antimatter interact?

Now picture what is left over as a tiny fraction of the matter and antimatter that interacted. 

You don’t need to go any further for the smoking gun of the force that put the remaining matter in motion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> The creation of space and time caused it.


That's not an explanation. Why would such an event cause such rapid expansion, from a smaller state? Why would it wait 10 ~36 s to do so?  Why would it then slow? 

You are just replacing mysteries with mysteries, there. They are they same mysteries we already face. To reband them doesn't explain them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> What exactly do you believe happens when matter and antimatter interact?


Irrelevant. Neither existed until after the inflationary period. You really need to abandon that line entirely, ding. You are discrediting yourself.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The creation of space and time caused it.
> ...


It absolutely is because the creation of space and time involved nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter whose reaction provided the energy to put the remaining matter into motion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> It absolutely is because the creation of space and time involved nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter


...but the inflationary epoch came before, and had ended.

Say it with me, kids....


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly do you believe happens when matter and antimatter interact?
> ...


It’s totally relevant that the universe began with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. 

Whose massive energy release provided the energy to put the remaining matter in motion.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It absolutely is because the creation of space and time involved nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter
> ...


Which means what exactly?

You keep saying these words like they mean something to you. Describe in detail the process you are pretending to understand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> It’s totally relevant that the universe began with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.


As an explanation for why the universe intially expanded, it is not. You can look it up.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly do you believe happens when matter and antimatter interact?
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Oct 23, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...




Exactly 


Science has proven Genesis


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It’s totally relevant that the universe began with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
> ...


So the energy released did not create a force?

What exactly do you think they mean by inertia of inflation?  Can you tell me what that means?

You did say that the inertia of inflation caused the initial expansion, right?  What does that mean?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

So, the best explanation on the table for inflation is a field that caused the rapid expansion.

On deck is CCC: Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, the best explanation on the table for inflation is a field that caused the rapid expansion.
> 
> On deck is CCC: Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia


Can


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, the best explanation on the table for inflation is a field that caused the rapid expansion.
> 
> On deck is CCC: Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia


it doesn’t say what caused the expansion. 

Can you show me where it says that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> You did say that the inertia of inflation caused the initial expansion, right?


False. I said the inflationary period of the early universe probably contributes a small amount to the expansion today . As you or anyone can go back in the thread and see.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Where did all the antimatter go? | The United States at the LHC

“...Scientists suspect that the Big Bang was a huge tear the fabric of space that ripped equal amounts of matter and antimatter into existence...

...If equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the Big Bang—and if matter and antimatter annihilate each other into a ball of pure energy on contact—..”


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

But this pure energy that was created would have had no effect on the matter that wasn’t annihilated in the matter and antimatter annihilations. 

At least according to FF.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> it doesn’t say what caused the expansion.


The wiki link about CCC? Or the CCC theory itself?  CCC theory basically, eliminates it in its current form. It frames it more as an optical illusion, resulting from repeated bangs.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You did say that the inertia of inflation caused the initial expansion, right?
> ...


I know you said that. You just have zero data to back it up and you deny what started it all. 

Besides according to the link you posted you  believe the universe didn’t even have a beginning. Which is super odd because by your own account the universe is accelerating too fast for a Big Crunch.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Besides according to the link you posted you believe the universe didn’t even have a beginning.


False.  I don't rule it out, though.  Obviously, there is a difference. The kind of "belief" you describe is for religious folks like you, and your affinity for wallowing in it probably why you just made that dumb error.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn’t say what caused the expansion.
> ...


I think you are posting shit that doesn’t address what we are discussing, has zero credibility given the current perceived expansion rate and that you don’t understand any of this and that’s why you keep grasping for anything you think keeps you from looking like an idiot.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Besides according to the link you posted you believe the universe didn’t even have a beginning.
> ...


The link you provided does. It’s a cyclical model.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Besides according to the link you posted you believe the universe didn’t even have a beginning.
> ...


I didn’t make any errors. I described in great detail the cause of why all objects are traveling away from each other. 

You are just too stupid to realize it. But please do keep throwing out buzz words you don’t understand and links that don’t back up anything you claim.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Its probably a good time for me to restate the reason that all objects are moving away from each other. 

The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This is not a steady state system. As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structures which continued on their paths.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Its probably a good time for me to restate the reason that all objects are moving away from each other.
> 
> The creation of space and time started as subatomic particles occupying a very tiny space in nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This is not a steady state system. As the matter and antimatter annihilated each other, the resulting energy released from that interaction provided the energy to accelerate the remaining matter which quickly coalesced itself as hydrogen and helium and began forming cosmic structures which continued on their paths.


 This is wildly and demonstrably false.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Thats atheists problems 

Modern scientists today are not atheists if not crooked !!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

^^
Do not feed the russian troll


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Its probably a good time for me to restate the reason that all objects are moving away from each other.
> ...


Tell it to CERN

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Right, exactly as I have been saying. The best explanation we have is the Big Bang model.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> Do not feed the russian troll


The more I listen to you talk about what caused all objects to move away from all other objects, the more it sounds like you believe it is magic.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


That’s funny.  

What exactly do you believe caused the energy release?

Expansion


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Ding: why are objects moving away from each other?

FF: the universe is expanding.

Ding: what caused the expansion of the universe?

FF: objects moving away from each other.

Brilliant.


----------



## ding (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


What exactly in the Big Bang model is the source of expansion or all objects moving away from each other?


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Oct 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ^^
> Do not feed the russian troll



We have proof of a beginning

That proves we have a planning creator

Human advancement over all other life forms proves the plan is humans to become gods of the universe

Human speed use to be 15 miles an hour

Now up to 150,000 miles and hour

That advancement is only pre wired into humanity

In gods image    Now we understand !!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Ding: why are objects moving away from each other?
> 
> FF: the universe is expanding.
> 
> ...


No, I actually said we don't know what caused the initial expansion, or what is causing the expansion now. Several times. Because that is accurate. Ding, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


the explosion cannot come unless something was added 

And that works out the same way as something and all of this coming from nothing which is impossible 

That added help was from the creator that created that added thing to bring the explosion


----------



## GreenAndBlue (Oct 23, 2019)

The plan by the creator 

Humanity to be gods of the universe


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 23, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



All objects in the universe travel away from each other....

So, the ignore function is a law of physics...


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I actually said we don't know what caused the initial expansion, or what is causing the expansion now. Several times. Because that is accurate. Ding, you are embarrassing yourself.



Yes, ding is embarassing himself and he's a Catholic Christian who believes in the big bang theory. 

The Bible says it was God causing the initial expansion and continued expansion.  Also, he causes gravity.  "Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea;" Job 9:8

Secular/atheist scientists attribute it to dark energy.  God is dark energy.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


If they ignored the laws of physics they wouldn’t have accelerated when acted on by the energy release when anti matter and matter collided during the creation of space and time.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ding: why are objects moving away from each other?
> ...


And then proceeded to contradict yourself when presented with the link from CERN which said the energy release propelled the expansion.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

The energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations - of which were of nearly equal amounts - is what created the force to propel the remaining matter outward  and cause the expansion of the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> The Bible says it was God causing the initial expansion and continued expansion.


Maybe it was. But that still doesn't actually explain anything. So we forge ahead...


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, I actually said we don't know what caused the initial expansion, or what is causing the expansion now. Several times. Because that is accurate. Ding, you are embarrassing yourself.
> ...


The Big Bang is totally consistent with the account of Genesis. So is evolution. Unless of course you are reading Genesis literally.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible says it was God causing the initial expansion and continued expansion.
> ...


Im pretty certain the Bible doesn’t address expansion as the account of Creation in Genesis is allegorical.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

ding said:


> Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium
> 
> The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.
> 
> The energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations - of which were of nearly equal amounts - is what created the force to propel the remaining matter outward  and cause the expansion of the universe.



This is all BS.  The universe was not crammed into an invisible particle.  You have no evidence for such singularity and infinite anything violates the laws of physics.  All we have found are quantum particles, quantum entanglement, qubits, and have made a breakthrough in quantum computing.  This is the the big deal with quantum mechanics.  No scientist and company in their right mind are trying to find singularity.  The evidence is against the big bang theory, but only scarce evidence for it is publicized.  BBT does not explain light, darkness, void, water vapor, water in oceans, and more.  That could not be set up in less than 20 mins.  Nothing complex can come out of FTL expansion when there wasn't any spacetime.  One has to be stupid AF or delusional to believe such nonsense, but yet here we are .







OTOH, the above chart explains it all very well and the evidence backs it the facts.  Halleluah!  The sun rose again, and it's the start of a brand new day.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

ding said:


> The Big Bang is totally consistent with the account of Genesis. So is evolution. Unless of course you are reading Genesis literally.



The big bang could not happen.  What evidence do you have for it?  It isn't just Genesis that explains origins.  To cover what we are discussing, I just showed you a verse in Job which discusses expansion of the universe and gravity and how it affects the tides.  Plenty of origins besides Genesis.



ding said:


> Im pretty certain the Bible doesn’t address expansion as the account of Creation in Genesis is allegorical.



It explains in Job.  You are wrong on both.

ETA:  Isaiah, too.

"he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
– Isaiah 40:22

"“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

Source of light moving to the right

Many people look into the past to explain what has happened.  The believers who are right look to the Bible to explain what has happened in the past, as well as what is ongoing, and what will happen in the future.  The verses in Isaiah, Job, Zechariah, and Psalm are ongoing.

What we are told in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Samuel, and Joshua are in the past.

Revelation and Daniel are what is to come.


----------



## ding (Oct 24, 2019)

I’m not a creationist.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

ding said:


> I’m not a creationist.



Then you are wrong.

All of the above was done 3000 years ago.  No other book that I know of tells us so much.  Our faith in God is justified and validated by the Bible.  That is what the Bible instructs us to do.  Verify things for yourself.  Too many people ignore the Bible because it isn't simple, but there are plenty of guides to help one understand.

For centuries, people did not understand what all of this meant.  We had the secular scientists state the universe was eternal and the discovery of the CMB and the big bang theory changed all of that in the 60s.  Suddenly, more verses in the Bible became more relevant.  Thus, I separated the past, what is ongoing, and the future from today. 

People in the past had a different light they were looking at.  We will probably not know about the revelations to come, but we can see some of it coming to fruition.

However, to not understand the past and what is ongoing will lead to mistakes.  You do not want to be misled after you die and end up in the wrong part of Hades.  If you follow the basic instructions before leaving Earth, then you will fine.  Continuing to discover new truths to you in the Bible means that you are headed down the right path. 

If you use other books, then they may mislead you away from the Bible, then it should not be for you.  I'm not saying do not listen nor read what they say and write.  You should listen and read what they have to say.  Then, you have to compare what is written in the Bible versus what you see in the material world written by secular/atheist scientists and people.  Then you should deepen your faith.  If there are contradictions, then that is what science is all about.  It's about contradictions and arguments and who has the best theory.  Since I started reading the Bible in 2012, I have found plenty to contradict it, but it turns out the other was wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> Source of light moving to the right
> 
> Many people look into the past to explain what has happened.  The believers who are right look to the Bible to explain what has happened in the past, as well as what is ongoing, and what will happen in the future.  The verses in Isaiah, Job, Zechariah, and Psalm are ongoing.
> 
> ...


Bond:

Your religious dogma does not belong in this section. This is the science section. Please confine your religious dogma to the religion section.

Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Oct 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Source of light moving to the right
> ...



You are wrong, too.  It's not dogma, but creation science.  What you subscribe to is atheist science which the big bang is part of.  It has the wrong Hubble constant -- 67 km/sec per mpc.

When we look at how fast the recession is, we get via the Cepheid variables (70 stars of varying brightness), an estimate of 73-74 km/sec per mpc.  These are new direct measurements from the Hubble telescope earlier in 2019.

Thus, the big bang interpretation of the CMB radiation and Hubble _constant_ is wrong.

We add this to the mountain of evidence against the big bang.

It violates the *first law of thermodynamics*, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy.  How can anything come out of nothing?  Like I said no scientist or company is looking for singularity.

The formation of stars and galaxies propose by big bang violates the law of *entropy*.  Entropy suggests systems change and become less organized over time.  If one views the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Riffing off the Hubble "variable", astrophysicists and cosmologists critical of big bang argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation.  They cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The cosmic inflation period microseconds violates FTL max speed in the universe.  It also violates gravity as stating gravity wasn't there.  Oh, gravity just popped up when it was convenient.

The temperature throughout the universe is constant at 2.73 degrees Kelvin.  This is via measuring the CMB radiation.  A big bang would've varying temperatures with it being estimated as approximately one second after the *big* *bang*, the universe was about 400,000 times as dense as water, and the *temperature* was 10 billion kelvins.  Matter consisted mainly of protons and neutrons.  After 13.8 seconds, the *temperature* had dropped to 3 billion kelvins, and three minutes and 45 seconds later, it had dropped to 1 billion kelvins.  Thus, it should be hotter earlier and the temperature dropping as we go further out into space.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> You are wrong, too. It's not dogma, but creation science.


False. Please keep your religious nonsense in the religion section. This is the science section.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong, too. It's not dogma, but creation science.
> ...



You are an IDIOT.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

We have creation astronomy that is real science that backs up the heavens, planets, moon, stars, and dwarf planets (some large asteroids) were created by God.  This includes astrophysics and cosmology. 

The Bible speaks of three heavens: the first heaven is the atmosphere, the third heaven is the place of the direct presence of God and is possibly non-physical or at least outside the bounds of the physical universe, and the second heaven is the physical universe beyond the earth's atmosphere, the realm of astronomy.

There is scientific foreknowlege of:
*The shape of the earth*
Isaiah 40:22a reads, _"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..."_ and, as any astronomy student knows, the earth appears as a circle in space because of its spherical shape. The creation of the horizon to separate light and darkness, as mentioned in Job 26:10 (NAS version), also states that God _"has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters..."_; because the earth is round, the boundary must be a circle.[1]

*The suspension of earth in space*
_"[H]e suspends the earth over nothing"_ (Job 26:7). Despite this verse's poeticism, it does indicate that the earth does in fact float in space. Pictures taken in space have confirmed that the earth literally hangs upon nothing in the cosmos. The biblical truth of this fact is particularly interesting when one considers the beliefs of other peoples and religions as to how the earth was supported in space. For example, the Tartars believed that a giant bull supported the earth, while Vedic priests taught that twelve mighty pillars held up the planet; modern astronomy has since proven such beliefs inaccurate.[1]

*The expansion of the heavens*
Referring back to Isaiah 40:22, the second half of the verse tells that _"He [God] stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."_ This verse directly implies that the universe is expanding and has increased in size since its creation. Astronomers discovered in the 1920's that nearly all the galaxy clusters were moving away from one another, indicating that the entire cosmos is being stretched. Before this discovery, secular scientists, and perhaps even some Christian scientists as well, purported that the universe was infinite and completely unchanged. The accuracy of the Bible in presenting this idea in ancient times is truly remarkable![1]

*The age of the cosmos
Scripture teaches that God created the entire cosmos in six days (see Exodus 20:11), and the extensive genealogies and historical events documented in the Bible place this creation around 6,000 years ago. The majority of secular scientists however, adhere to the big bang theory which dates the age of the universe as billions and billions of years old. Although this theory is often taught as undeniable truth, numerous astronomical evidences point to a much younger age of the solar system and the universe.[1]* 

Biblical astronomy - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Secular science does not explain how their big bang occurred and are wrong about the age of the Earth and universe.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Secular science does not explain how their big bang occurred and are wrong about the age of the Earth and universe.


Actually it does.  Through a quantum tunneling event.  

As for the age of the earth and universe, you either must believe there is some grand conspiracy or that God made it look like the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4 billion years old.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Sometimes he behaves that way and sometimes he doesn’t. But he’s not wrong that the discussion you want to have here doesn’t belong in this thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2019)

And another religious nutball spams a science thread....


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And another religious nutball spams a science thread....


I don’t believe you are spamming this thread.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Secular science does not explain how their big bang occurred and are wrong about the age of the Earth and universe.
> ...



That's not an explanation.  You don't have any spacetime.  Anything quantum needs that.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And another religious nutball spams a science thread....



Atheism is a religion.  Its science is evolution.  Christianity is a religion.  Its science is creation science.  It's been like this since the start of time, but your feeble brain cannot figure this out.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Here’s the evidence and the explanation. 

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium, we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> As for the age of the earth and universe, you either must believe there is some grand conspiracy or that God made it look like the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4 billion years old.



You got your radiometric dating.  I've got my radiocarbon dating.  Mine is better.  More accurate.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > And another religious nutball spams a science thread....
> ...


Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

In fact, even the bible tells you to study creation so as to be able to understand God’s invisible attributes so that you are without excuse.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > As for the age of the earth and universe, you either must believe there is some grand conspiracy or that God made it look like the universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4 billion years old.
> ...


I have much much more than that. I have the evidence for the evolution of space and time from it’s beginning until the present.  From subatomic particles up to and including the evolution of consciousness.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




I went over your second part already which goes AGAINST the big bang.  We have one of three shapes to the universe and likely it isn't closed.  You have to demonstrate how your "closed" universe came to be.  This is cosmology and I have Kalam cosmological argument and the video to explain.  We start with cosmology and it leads to astrophysics.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.



That's one definition based on empiricism.  With creation science, we also have rationalism or facts, _reasoning, and historical truths_.  We have the same facts.  We also have that which goes beyond our universe and that is the supernatural from rationalism.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.
> ...


What is your definition of science then?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.









I said we have to start with cosmology and your cosmology is based on a closed universe.  Instead, it is likely we have an open universe that it's shape is flat and open.  It could be flat and curved and open, too..  What you are proposing is that it is spherical and closed which the modern evidence does not support.

What is the shape of the universe?



ding said:


> You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.



The rest of your arguments become specious if you cannot start your universe.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method.  Yours has no real science such as things pop into existence from nothing.  The video debunked that concept.

ETA:  Your science is similar to your religion in that it does not have a _source_.  You make a statement which we have to accept, but it does not mean we have to accept it as it is only coming from you.  It's very trying to argue scientific knowledge or even religious knowledge with someone who doesn't provide a source for their arguments.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are ignoring the rest of my evidence though. It can’t be viewed in a vacuum. It’s the evidence in its entirety which makes the case.
> ...


Let’s start simply. 

Do you believe the universe had a beginning?


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I believe the question was what is your definition of science, not tell me what you believe is wrong with your perception of my perception of science. 

So let me ask you again, what is your definition of science?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Give it up, nutball. Nobody is impressed.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> Let’s start simply.
> 
> Do you believe the universe had a beginning?



We already went over this.  You didn't even watch the video.  I have a source.

OTOH, you claim you are Catholic, believe in God, but he didn't create anything.  What kind of religious nutballer are you?



ding said:


> So let me ask you again, what is your definition of science?



I already gave it.  Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.

Instead of covering ground already covered, let's put it to use.

Basically, your argument for big bang fails because the evidence does not back it up.  You do not believe in FTL speeds and that's what happened with cosmic expansion.

You believe something comes from nothing based on quantum _________ (fill in the blank).  Even Stephen Hawking admitted a quantum particle needed space.  Along with that, it needs time to take action.  Do you not agree with this?

I presented Kalam Cosmological Argument in that the universe had a beginning.  It showed the existence of God.  God had Jesus create the universe and everything in it.

Now, do you want me cover the astrophysics, too?

We can't even get a start with your arguments.  What is your cosmology?  What are your sources?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Give it up, nutball. Nobody is impressed.



That's what I said about your telescope and camera.  Nobody is impressed.  You are an idiot and religious atheist nutballer.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.


No. You didn’t  

The definition of science is.....


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> We already went over this. You didn't even watch the video. I have a source.
> 
> OTOH, you claim you are Catholic, believe in God, but he didn't create anything. What kind of religious nutballer are you?



You didn’t answer the question.  Did the universe begin?  It’s a simple yes or no.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I already gave it. Not only do you not have sources, you do not read my answers.
> ...



Now, you are lying.  See post #262.



ding said:


> You didn’t answer the question. Did the universe begin? It’s a simple yes or no.



See post # 257.

Now, will you answer my questions in post #266 or are you incapable?


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I guess we are done then.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

Incongruity revealed.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> Incongruity revealed.



No incongruity unless it's on your part.  You do not have sources and I've demonstrated you are a science _hypocrite_ when we discussed the universe expanding FTL.  We both concluded that nothing can travel FTL in the universe.  

Yet, big bang hypothesis has cosmic expansion which have objects traveling FTL in a universe that was just created microseconds before.

That's not all.  Your:

"Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium, we know that the universe did have a beginning."

has no foundation.  Where is your source for space and time beginning?  How do _you_ explain the items you mentioned?

OTOH, I had a _cosmology_ for the beginning.  It debunked whatever convoluted cosmology the above is describing.  I was ready to start discussing the _astrophysics_, some of which you mentioned, but you can't get past questions that I've already answered.  Besides, you do not answer questions that I asked you.  You are incapable.  What else am I suppose to conclude.  I provided the cosmology that debunked your argument above and explained how spacetime came into being.  I can't help it if you can't read or watch someone else's arguments.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> I’m not a creationist.



If I get the last word, the let me repeat.  This was hilarious .  ding believes in God, but he didn't create anything.  He didn't have people write his autobigraphy.  The Bible is analogy that people made up.

Whatever started spacetime can be explained by atheist science and it evolved.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2019)

Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...

The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:

The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not a creationist.
> ...


Ummm... God loves science.  He created it.

Your definition of science, "Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method" doesn't describe what science is.  It describes what science does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> doesn't describe what science is


Science is a method. Describing this method describes science.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...
> 
> The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:
> 
> The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate


The belief that the universe is accelerating is based upon the assumption that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe and that the instruments and methods they use to estimate the rate of expansion are correct and accurate.  The results of which have led them to conclude that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.  But whether one believes it is accelerating at a constant rate of expansion or accelerating, the one thing that no one can deny is that they all objects are moving farther apart from all other objects.  That the universe is expanding.


----------



## ding (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > doesn't describe what science is
> ...


Science is the study of nature so as to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions about nature.

I bet this definition, even though correct and precise, disturbs you.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...
> 
> The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:
> 
> The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate



If you understand how the media takes an evolution idea or an idea based on evolutionary thinking, and accepts it without really with no scientific method, and then uses it via repetition to drum it into the heads of rubes, then you know how it works.  What bothered me about evolution at first was them continuing to say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.  I mean if it is a fact and we know it, then why repeat it over and over again?  This happened with dinosaurs to birds thesis and then birds are dinosaurs thesis.  The idea of dark energy and dark matter and its description is an intriguing one, but not one founded upon any science.  It's atheist "faith-based" science.  It is from theoretical physics and repeated so often that dark energy and dark matter _exists_ today, even if they don't.  This is why atheism and its science of evolution is a religion.  That should be a fact drummed into the puny brains of the internet atheists.

Now, what did you get out of the article Fort Fun Indiana?  What makes it great to you?


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

ding said:


> Ummm... God loves science. He created it.



Wrong.  Humans created science.  Where is your source for saying God created science?

I bet I won't get an answer.



ding said:


> Your definition of science, "Science has always been about knowledge and scientific argument based on best theory and the scientific method" doesn't describe what science is. It describes what science does.



Why didn't you just say that instead of asking me the same question I just answered?  I bet I won't get an answer to this, too.

TBH, you're not the most credible person to me because you provide no sources.  Thus, when you say something is based on:

"..."

I have no way of knowing what you are talking about.  Thus, it's fair to ask for your sources.

We have Fort Fun Indiana and his explanations (he doesn't provide much of his sources either while explaining), and its based on some form of knowledge, but if you listen to him carefully, there are errors interspersed in-between.  Any person who argues with him picks it up, but if you disagree, then he ends up calling you an "idiot".  Thus, the smarter people just end up recognizing he's an idiot.  You end up arguing with him over it, so it isn't that you are always wrong, but he's not always wrong either.  Yet, his arguments "are" based on some source.

Well, what is your DEFINITION of science and also give a source where you are getting this from (!).

Science is about knowledge.  Look it up under Merriam-Webster.  It is also an argument based on this scientific knowledge.  That is what was taught to me. and which  argument is best, i.e. become theories, and are judged by other scientists or by one's peers in a review.  One takes facts from what they observe and formulates a thesis for how it happened.

Thus, the knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be true; it is best one that one can come up under the circumstances and is accepted by others.  A definition of real science is based on the scientific method.  What isn't fair is creation science has been systematically eliminated from science.  Creationists cannot participate in peer reviews nor present papers to Nature and Science anymore.  They were able to before.


----------



## james bond (Oct 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, now that the voodoo ritual has run its course...
> 
> The accelerated expansion of space is due to an unknown reason. One idea is dark energy. Here is a great article about it:
> 
> The Counterintuitive Reason Why Dark Energy Makes The Universe Accelerate



First, I told ya so.  The Hubble variable.  It's not a constant.  And with the new model, does it fit that the universe is flat in one area and then curves towards the edges "like a scroll.?"  Dark energy = God?

What about where it is a closed universe (partial due to local effects)?  Is that what happens towards a black hole?  Siegal doesn't mention it.  Are black holes, your specialty, accelerating away with our galaxy?

There is more to this gravitational pull, too.  I read that some of the galaxies are close to each other, so they are affected by gravity to be pulled towards each other while they expand.  Thus, they end up colliding.  You were right about that.  The Milky Way and Andromeda will collide in billions of years.  We are doomed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> The Hubble variable. It's not a constant.


Neat, but you're a dumbass, because that is not what is meant by the term,  "constant", really. Variables become constants, when certain things are fixed. Such as, a constraint on time. Such as, gravity becoming a constant, when constrained to the surface of the Earth. Sure, gravity varies, depending on the environment. Yet we will call earth gravity a "constant", for physics problems. Even though it, too, varies with your distance from its center of gravity, or depending on the density of mass between you and its center of gravity. 

No, you are not going to puzzle out your idiotic biblical myth from your semantic parlor trick. Everything you say about the age of everything is demonstrably wrong, and nobody with any credibility takes any of that shit seriously.  So stop spamming the science section with your magical hirseshit. It's annoying, childish, and trollish. Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The Hubble variable. It's not a constant.
> ...



Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing, but in an erroneous manner such as saying, "Variable become constants, when certain things are fixed.  Such as, a constraint on time."  That is just stupid.  Now, I would agree that the gravitational "constant" can change.

What about the black hole?  That uses a gravitational constant to calculate its force.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Where is your source for saying God created science?


Humans didn’t create science, mathematics or music. 

Humans discovered science, mathematics and music.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing


Nonsense. Ylur claim, without evidence or merit, is that the hu blecontant has changed so much that it fools us into thinking the universe is not 6000 years old. Which is demomstrably false. Stop with your pathetic lies, bond. Congrats, you spammed another science thread to death with your idiotic, iron aged myths.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, you just parroted what I said about the Hubble "constant" changing
> ...








Oh, you're still hung up about what I posted about the Hubble constant.  We have Hubble and then Freedman [sic] of Friedmann equation fame.  Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light have over the past 240 years.

I assume you know astronomers use the Hubble constant to calculate the distance to the farthest stars and they use the distance to determine the age of the universe and that's why you're accusing me of something I didn't say.  At least, I don't think I would have said something like that when I don't fully understand the calculations involved.

Creation science states the universe is not expanding like secular/atheist scientists think, i.e. big bang theorists, but I don't know how to explain it so I do not use it.  I have no idea how they tie it to a 6000 yr-old universe.

Instead, I use radiocarbon dating of remaining C-14 to come up with a young Earth and how assumptions are wrong with radiometric dating of space rocks.

Here's one by icr -- Hubble's Law - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science.

Another by creation.com -- Is there evidence for expanding universe - creation.com.

The Bible states it is expanding and I've posted a few of the verses.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Where is your source for saying God created science?
> ...



And what do you base this on?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



It’s nonsensical to link to fundie ID’iot creationist websites for science data. Their position is not derived from data. Their position requires an answer consistent with prescribed religious dogma. 

About Us - creation.com

Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Never mind.  I think I found the links .

Weird stuff in China
10 Bizarre Aspects of Chinese Culture - Listverse

10 Facts That Prove China Can Get Shockingly Weird!


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



False.  Both side use the same facts.  Different conclusions based on faith in no God existing or faith in the Biblical God existing.  Unless one uses the scientific method, then it's still theory.  You should have gotten that from Judaism website I pointed you to.  The Jews are a culture that prizes and understands science as well as religion.

Why don't you go bother @dingbat?  He just said science, math, and music were all discovered and created by God.  I think the Chinese mostly use science in order to make money.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Charlatans at your creation ministries do not use facts. They use predefined conclusions. 

*What we believe*
*DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS 
(See also “Good News”)*
*(A) PRIORITIES*

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



As you know, the above is from creation.com

There’s lots more of their nonsense but everyone gets the point, well, everyone but you.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Because those things exist as realities unto themselves which are incorporeal.  Man didn’t invent those things like he would invent a widget.

“The Prussian mathematician and logician, Leopold Kronecker, famously declared “God made the integers; all else is the work of man.” He believed that *math* is a language and a tool but it's one that we *discovered*. We did not *invent* arithmetic; adding two and two will always give you four, say realists.”

https://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1038&context=cas-lehighreview-vol-24

Transcript of "Is math discovered or invented?"


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2019)

Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2

Boyle discovered it.


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2019)

Einstein didn’t invent E=MC^2

Einstein discovered it.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You posted this many times and it's why people think you're a ranting and raving maniac.  And I keep telling you I use creation.com to needle FFI.  He's the one who claimed I used it, so I'm using it now against him.  It's not a bad US site for creation science.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Basic math and geometry started with the Egyptians and made its way to the Greeks.  Formal geometry was created by Euclid who also developed the math.  While I suspect the Egyptians also found math in nature, but the credit for creation of geometry and subsequent discovery in nature goes to Euclid.  The development was continued by Pythagoras and Archimedes.  Other cultures added to the study of mathematics.  What you mention is also true, but mathematics is knowledge created by humans.  It was soon discovered in nature after it caught on and through its application.

I would think similar things happened with science and music.

Euclid | Biography, Contributions, & Facts

History of mathematics - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Gotcha. You believe man created math, science and music.


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What you should be thinking is hm.. a lot of this stuff originated in the Middle East and then spread from there.  Remember we were a supercontinent then, and according to the Bible, people were more physically and mentally developed than we are now.  They lived much longer that we do now.  Our generations are far removed from these ancient peoples.  The cave people from prehistoric times came _after_ the flood, but you don't believe any of the good Bible stuff and think its allegory..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 26, 2019)

Aaaaand....back to ignore for the voodoo priest, Bond. I.E., the same place the global scientific community keeps him and the blog he plagiarizes.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Actually, I think you’re getting rather frantic with your “ranting and raving maniac”, claim. 

When you “religiously” cut and paste from a religious extremist site, it suggests you share the biases and extremism. 

The charlatans at creation.com actually are “that bad” because “creation science” is a fraud. 

Why are you a willing accomplice to fraud?


----------



## james bond (Oct 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Aaaaand....back to ignore for the voodoo priest, Bond. I.E., the same place the global scientific community keeps him and the blog he plagiarizes.



So you think humans _discovered_ math, science, and music like your bud ding ?


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Why are you a willing accomplice to fraud?



You're just looney tunes because you cannot prove fraud.  Instead, we have the Bible theory.  Unless it has been demonstrated by the scientific method, then rest is theory.  We have evolution theory vs the Bible theory.  There are no religious parts except for God as creator = creation science..


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2019)

ding said:


> Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2
> 
> Boyle discovered it.





ding said:


> Einstein didn’t invent E=MC^2
> 
> Einstein discovered it.



You're just arguing semantics which is boring af and you are _wrong_ about what was created.  Here is the lowdown:

"*creation (n.)*
late 14c., creacioun, "action of creating or causing to exist," also "a created thing, that which is created," from Old French creacion "creation, a coming into being" (14c., Modern French création), from Latin creationem (nominative creatio) "a creating, a producing," in classical use "an electing, appointment, choice," noun of action from past-participle stem of creare "to make, bring forth, produce, beget," from PIE root *ker- (2) "to grow."

Meaning "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is from 1610s. The native word in the Biblical sense was Old English frum-sceaft. Of fashion costumes, desserts, etc., "that which has been produced by human art or skill," by 1870s, from French."

creation | Origin and meaning of creation by Online Etymology Dictionary.

*The part about "that which God has created, the universe, the world and all in it" is the main point.  No need to post the chart again.  Evolutionists are usually wrong.*

As for the rest, instead of looking at the equations, look at their entire subject matter like chemistry or cosmology and astrophysics.  Under the subjects, one became a law and the other is theory and we are able to use it as such.

"discover (v.)

c. 1300, discoveren, "divulge, reveal, disclose, expose, lay open to view, betray (someone's secrets)," senses now obsolete, from stem of Old French descovrir "uncover, unroof, unveil, reveal, betray," from Medieval Latin discooperire, from Latin dis- "opposite of" (see dis-) + cooperire "to cover up, cover over, overwhelm, bury" (see cover (v.)).

At first with a sense of betrayal or malicious exposure (discoverer originally meant "informant"). Also in Middle English used in lteral senses, such as "to remove" (one's hat, the roof from a building). The meaning "to obtain the first knowledge or sight of what was before not known," the main modern sense, is by 1550s.

Discover, Invent, agree in signifying to find out; but we discover what already exists, though to us unknown; we invent what did not before exist: as, to discover the applicability of steam to the purposes of locomotion, and to invent the machinery necessary to use steam for these ends. ... Some things are of so mixed a character that either word may be applied to them. [Century Dictionary]
Sense of "make famous or fashionable" is by 1908. Related: Discovered; discovering.

That man is not the discoverer of any art who first says the thing; but he who says it so long, and so loud, and so clearly, that he compels mankind to hear him--the man who is so deeply impressed with the importance of the discovery that he will take no denial, but at the risk of fortune and fame, pushes through all opposition, and is determined that what he thinks he has discovered shall not perish for want of a fair trial. [Sydney Smith, in Edinburgh Review, 1826]"

discover | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

No one but a_ pinhead_ makes a big deal and argues about what you end up arguing.  You seem to be an argumentative person and this appears to be your point.  What you end up doing is monopolize a forum and hijack it.  How else can you explain multiple posts for the same thought?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 27, 2019)

Navigating the voodoo priest's attempt to destroy the thread....

Our working hypothesis is that dark matter slowed the expansion, then dark energy sped it back up.

We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN.


----------



## ding (Oct 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Boyle didn’t invent P1V1=P2V2
> ...


I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music. 

I believe man discovered math, science and music. 

We good?


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN.



This is what makes you an idiot.  There's always going to be dark matter on the part of the universe we are not going to see.  Some of it is baryonic and others non-baryonic, but doubt CERN or any other group cares about it at this point.

Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.  These galaxies should've been torn apart due to their high speeds of rotation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.


... and trying to detect candidates for dark matter.  this is a fact. What you did there was trip over yourself to disagree with factual information that you don't understand. And this is because you are a thin skinned, YEC moron who is on the wrong side of all the facts.  So, you have your little fits and try to destroy science threads with your voodoo chanting.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2019)

ding said:


> I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music.
> 
> I believe man discovered math, science and music.
> 
> We good?



Not really.  You said you are not a creationist.  What do you think God created?  Do you not believe he created that which is stated in the Bible?  

Whether math, science, and music was invented or discovered isn't of much use compared to the subjects.


----------



## james bond (Oct 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, CERN is focusing on galaxies, dark matter, and gravitational effect.
> ...



That's not what you said.  You're only now saying it because I just told you.

You said, "We are currently still trying to detect dark matter at CERN."  First, I doubt you work at CERN.  Second, what you should have mentioned was non-baryonic and baryonic dark matter.  The baryonic dark matter is important, too, but they are more easily detected and scientists understand what matter baryons make up.  They may find the answer as a black hole.  The more exotic non-baryonic dark matter I mentioned are gravitons and showed a gif of it.  There are other hypothesis on this type of dark matter.


----------



## Frannie (Oct 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



DNA is not the so called building blocks of life that formed in a pond.  DNA is a molecular code that was written from the molecules it contains.  Science has proved this and now physicist are claiming that the universe is a computer program because they see the clear programming in DNA.  So a religious nut may be nuts, but science has proved them right


----------



## Frannie (Oct 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


LOL he does that all the time


----------



## ding (Oct 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’m perfectly happy with you believing man created science, math and music.
> ...


I believe God created existence. 

Math, music and science were discovered by man but the author is the creator of existence.


----------



## james bond (Oct 29, 2019)

ding said:


> I believe God created existence.



And by existence, do you mean "life spirit," or that which keeps us alive in this world?  And that we are saved because of Jesus?  Jesus is the creator of heaven and Earth.

This life is mentioned in Genesis as God's breath.  That helps to live in this fallen life.  Jesus' sacrifice and payment for our ransom keeps us spiritually alive in the next one.

As for the rest, people will believe what they want to believe.


----------



## ding (Oct 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I believe God created existence.
> ...


By existence I mean the beginning of space and time.


----------



## james bond (Oct 29, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



We got that with Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God.  Just what do you think God's breath is?


----------



## ding (Oct 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I have all of creation as evidence of God. 

God willed existence into being. That’s what I believe God’s breath is. 

Why are you arguing with me?


----------



## Frannie (Oct 29, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


There is no evidence that space and time have a beginning or end.

In fact no one knows anything in this reguard

Sad but true, fools will not accept this


----------



## Frannie (Oct 29, 2019)

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



No one should ever argue with a schizzo


----------



## Mac1958 (Oct 29, 2019)

One of the many wonderful things about science is that we know there is so much more to learn.

I can't imagine the amount of ego it must to think that you have all the answers.


----------



## james bond (Oct 29, 2019)

ding said:


> I have all of creation as evidence of God.
> 
> God willed existence into being. That’s what I believe God’s breath is.
> 
> Why are you arguing with me?



I have to ask because you have no source, but yourself.  You already admitted that you aren't a creationist.  Thus, you could be going against the Bible.







Did God will everything as what I posted in the chart into existence?

God's breath was for Adam and humans.  Did God create Adam and Eve or did humans come from apes?

Already, I don't think you believe in Kalam Cosmological Argument except there was a beginning.  God created spacetime and then it sounds like big bang.  Big bang leads to evolution and not creation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I have all of creation as evidence of God.
> ...


HEY NUTBALLS

Take it over to the religion section. Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Oct 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Take it over to the religion section. Thanks.



Absolutely, you do not understand science.  You whiffed badly on dark matter a couple of posts ago.


----------



## ding (Oct 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I have all of creation as evidence of God.
> ...


I’ve explained this enough times that by now you should know that I believe God created space and time and then everything unfolded according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.


----------



## ding (Oct 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The nutball would be the gay man grinding his ax and ignoring reality.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I have all of creation as evidence of God.
> ...


Humans did not evolve from apes, although, I wouldn't think less of you if that was your heritage.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> The nutball would be the gay man grinding his ax and ignoring reality.


Neat! When we want to talk homosexuality, we know you're the guy to go to.

But this tread is not about your sky daddy fetish or your gay fetish.

We are trying to figure out how quickly the universe is expanding, or if it is even expanding at all!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> I’ve explained this enough times that by now you should know that I believe God created space and time


Which is fine, but that idea explains nothing and grants no insight.

So, back to trying to figure put how it happened...or, how Zeus did it, if that pleases you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 3, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The sound of settled science strikes again.
> 
> We’re getting something wrong about the universe.
> 
> ...



That final leap is a doozy, with utterly nothing to support it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The sound of settled science strikes again.
> ...



Fucking Nazi - why do you so fear questions?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> why do you so fear questions?


I don't. I answer questions in the religious section all the time. Settle down, son.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > why do you so fear questions?
> ...



Nazis like you seek to silence dissent.

There is FAR more we DON'T know about our universe than we do know. We can't even explain why gravity doesn't work on the Planck Scale.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nazis like you seek to silence dissent.


Nonsense. I said it should be in the religious section, as the OP is , essentially, a claim about Genesis. You are overreacting. Probably drunk.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is FAR more we DON'T know about our universe than we do know. We can't even explain why gravity doesn't work on the Planck Scale.


Well no shit. It's an exciting time in science. The more we learn, the more we don't know, lately.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Nazis like you seek to silence dissent.
> ...



His conclusion is absurd, and I pointed that out. Up to that point though, he has a valid argument.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Up to that point though


I.E., the entire point of his post.  And that's all. Proceed further into the thread... it got better... the magical hoo-ha did get set aside, for a while...


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The nutball would be the gay man grinding his ax and ignoring reality.
> ...


I’d say the motivation for why you behave like an asshole is always going to be relevant when you are acting like an asshole.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Swell! 

So ding...how did matter cause the inflationary period, when it didnt exist until after the inflationary period? Still trying to figure that one out.


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I’ve explained this enough times that by now you should know that I believe God created space and time
> ...


It explains everything. What is it that you think it doesn’t explain?

You need to see God as a fairytale to validate your choices.  You can’t debate like an adult.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> It explains



uh, that's not an explanation, dithering ding. Thats justvreplacing one mystery with another. We are tryong to figure out how it h happened.

How did matter cause the inflationary period, when it did not exist until after the inflationary period?


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The universe began through a quantum tunneling event with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter in a very tiny space. This matter and antimatter were in their subatomic states.  The matter and antimatter annihilated  each other and huge amounts of energy were released. The matter that remained is the matter that created time and space. So what created the inflation were the matter / antimatter annihilations. It is also the force which caused every object to move away from every other object and the expansion of space and time. 

I’m getting pretty tired of your arrogance. I suggest you dial it back.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 3, 2019)

westwall said:


> I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me.  I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole.  If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide?  How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?



Everything we know from a physics perspective tells us the universe is naurally bi-directional.

Big Bounce > Big Bang


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It explains
> ...


I’m getting ready to break my foot off in your ass if you don’t dial it back. Your call.


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me.  I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole.  If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide?  How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
> ...


Except entropy and common sense. Cyclical universe models are dead. Even they need a beginning.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Except entropy and common sense. Cyclical universe models are dead. Even they need a beginning.



The bidirectional nature of physics and particles, both atomic and subatomic > the human experience.

Whatever, though. I'm logging out, I was just passing through. Still trying to break the habit of being on here so much. Ha.


----------



## ding (Nov 3, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Except entropy and common sense. Cyclical universe models are dead. Even they need a beginning.
> ...


Sure. I guess I misunderstood you. I’m sorry.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 3, 2019)

ding said:


> Sure. I guess I misunderstood you. I’m sorry.



Technically, you likely disagree with me. I just don't feel like debating. Ha. 

I'm checking in tomorrow for right side heart surgery on Wednesday. Though, he might decide to do it Tuesday. I'll have all sorts of down-time after that. If they let me have my laptop in there, I'll shoot the breeze with you afterward on it while I'm in there. It's gonna be boring as heck in there, gare awn teed. Last time I was in there they let me have it, so. I'm assuming they will.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

ding said:


> The universe began through a quantum tunneling event with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter in a very tiny space. This matter and antimatter were in their subatomic states. The matter and antimatter annihilated each other and huge amounts of energy were released. The matter that remained is the matter that created time and space. So what created the inflation were the matter / antimatter annihilations. It is also the force which caused every object to move away from every other object and the expansion of space and time.



Wut ?

I'd go with the Big Crunch, if you had such a rapid expansion after the BB.  What would be needed is gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion or else you would get an equal but opposite reaction.  I just witnessed it on Halloween in my backyard.  We had strong winds blowing Northeast in the morning.  It cause my liquid amber trees to first blow that way and then back towards the house in an equal but opposite reaction.  Furthermore, life would not be able to survive any such cosmic inflation.  You basic problem is violation of the laws of physics with the cosmic inflation and singularity of infinite temperature and density..


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The universe began through a quantum tunneling event with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter in a very tiny space. This matter and antimatter were in their subatomic states. The matter and antimatter annihilated each other and huge amounts of energy were released. The matter that remained is the matter that created time and space. So what created the inflation were the matter / antimatter annihilations. It is also the force which caused every object to move away from every other object and the expansion of space and time.
> ...


Why did it expand?


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. I guess I misunderstood you. I’m sorry.
> ...


I don’t know that I will or I won’t. 

I’m still trying to understand your point. 

If your point is that the universe did not begin, then yes, I will likely disagree.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2019)

So, let's review:

1) The OP says the fact that we don't know stuff proves Genesis.

2) Bond, the YEC plagiarizer, says all the stuff we do know is bunk, because the universe is 6,000 years old

3) Ding the pseudo-intellectual charlatan claims he knows what caused the inflationary period, despite the fact that scientists who dedicate their lives to this field don't know.  And the best part?  he says it was caused by matter, even though matter did not exist until after the inflationary period.  And what explains this nonsense?  God created the universe.  Yep, fully explained, in true ding glory.

Another thread spammed to an early death by religious fuknuts...


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 3) Ding the pseudo-intellectual charlatan claims he knows what caused the inflationary period, despite the fact that scientists who dedicate their lives to this field don't know. And the best part? he says it was caused by matter, even though matter did not exist until after the inflationary period. And what explains this nonsense? God created the universe. Yep, fully explained, in true ding glory.


I make no claims to be an intellectual. There’s nothing special about me. I know more than you about this subject which is why I don’t have to act like you. 

I’m not sure where you are getting your belief that scientists don’t believe that the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.  Because I got that belief from them.  

I’m also not sure why you don’t believe that scientists believe that the energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations is what provided the energy for the expansion of the universe. 

For some odd reason you seem to believe they don’t have a clue why the universe expanded. That just isn't true.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2019)

In fact, it is because of me that FortFun knows anything at all about inflation theory.

I just didn’t teach him everything I know. 

When I first started these discussions he believed the universe had existed forever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2019)

And now we are starting to wonder if the universe's geometry might be closed. Not a lot of scientists are jumping on this yet, but it has confused them all:

Cosmological crisis: We don't know if the universe is round or flat | New Scientist


----------



## Frannie (Nov 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > 3) Ding the pseudo-intellectual charlatan claims he knows what caused the inflationary period, despite the fact that scientists who dedicate their lives to this field don't know. And the best part? he says it was caused by matter, even though matter did not exist until after the inflationary period. And what explains this nonsense? God created the universe. Yep, fully explained, in true ding glory.
> ...


Actually kid the scientific understanding about matter and antimatter is that they annihilate each other so what you propose s not scientifically possible


----------



## Frannie (Nov 17, 2019)

ding said:


> In fact, it is because of me that FortFun knows anything at all about inflation theory.
> 
> I just didn’t teach him everything I know.
> 
> When I first started these discussions he believed the universe had existed forever.


The universe has existed forever, not in it's present form but it has existed forever until someone proves how it came to be


----------



## ding (Nov 17, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


And yet that is exactly what the scientists will tell you that they believed happened.

Do you need a link, kid?


----------



## ding (Nov 17, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, it is because of me that FortFun knows anything at all about inflation theory.
> ...


That’s silly talk. Why do you believe the universe has existed forever?


----------



## Frannie (Nov 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You have no link to the beginning of the universe, just to morons claiming they know.

Now kid, do tell us how Einstein was right when entire galaxies are traveling at least 5 times the speed of light.

Scientist say, you are pond scum

Are they right?


----------



## Frannie (Nov 17, 2019)

ding said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Do you believe that God created the universe, or that it just created itself one day

Neither has any basis in fact


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 17, 2019)

We have two main sources to explain the beginning of the universe.

*Religion*: Based on beliefs

*Science*: Based on conjectures.

I don't know why such a deep discussion about. Do you really believe in conjectures or make conjectures about those beliefs?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> *Science*: Based on conjectures.


*based on evidence

fixed


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> We have two main sources to explain the beginning of the universe.
> 
> *Religion*: Based on beliefs
> 
> ...


Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....

If there was a big bang 14 billion years ago there would be a vast empty area where this happened, but no one seems to mind that this area does not exist


----------



## ding (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


There is zero doubt that the universe began. So it was created from nothing one way or another. 

So you can believe all of this has no purpose if you want to but I see it otherwise.


----------



## ding (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


I don’t believe they are exceeding the speed of light.

You claim to know the universe wasn’t created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Right?


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

ding said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You can not say you believe the scientist then say you do not.  Well in truth you can but it demonstrates how confused you are.

NASA disagrees with you


----------



## ding (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


I don’t believe you understood what they were saying. 

They never said objects were moving faster than the speed of light.  They were saying that space was warped and they appeared to be moving faster than the speed of light.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

ding said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Wrong they measured galaxies farthest away moving 5 times the speed of light.  Your world is crumbling and you are clearly in denial.  Einstein was too stupid to know what a comb was.  Now Tyson says the entire universe is a simulation on a hard drive

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa

How Are Galaxies Moving Away Faster Than Light? - Universe Today


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....


Shameless lie. There is copious evidence for abiogenesis.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....
> ...


There is zero evidence for abiogenesis.  You can prove me wrong by providing your evidence

Which does not exist


----------



## hadit (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.
> ...


Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place.  At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Yep! Something...


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Energy comes from matter always.  Energy can also flux back into matter, as such the mass of the universe never changes

The only thing physics determines can come from nothing, is nothing


----------



## hadit (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Unless the expansion is taking place in a fourth dimension, undetectable by us.  Put black dots all over an empty balloon.  Then blow up it up.  The black dots will all separate from each other, and if you were a two dimensional being on the surface of the balloon, you would be unable to find a "center" from which the balloon is expanding, because the "center" is in the third dimension that you could not detect.  That's one theory.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Total lack of substance as usual


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Not really. While the balloon surface is a decent way to narrowly illustrate expansion, the idea that there is a "center" in a higher spatial dimension is not accurate. To help, imagine the universe geometry is flat. No "curve" to the surface. There would be no "center of the balloon" in that case to give rise to this misconception.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > 007 said:
> ...


Wrong because if the big bang were real every bit of mass that was ejected would have a mathematically determinable reverse trajectory which would pinpoint the zero space, and as said there would be a 14 billion year wide void


----------



## hadit (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


True, but given the third law of thermodynamics, in a closed system (the universe in this case), entropy must increase.  Thus, something greater than the laws of thermodynamics had to start everything with a very low entropy (the singularity in the beginning), because natural processes (unguided by intelligence) increase entropy.


----------



## hadit (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Yes, the center in another dimension requires the universe to have a curved geometry, something that to date has not been proven.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Entropy may well increase but the total mass of matter and energy combined can never change.  True creation is impossible unless everything known is wrong


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Yes, the center in another dimension requires the universe to have a curved geometry, something that to date has not been proven


But even with a curved geometry, that "center" does not really exist.


----------



## hadit (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Which is why I said that you have to arrive at a point where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply.  Tell me, did the laws of physics begin when the universe began, or were they in effect before?


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

hadit said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


To even consider a rational hypothesis to that question one must first know what the universe is, and no one does.  Sadly from our position and view of spacetime even a plausible hypothesis is logically all but completely impossible, just as you can not say for certain what is in my right pants pocket even though we are connected to the same celestial body


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the center in another dimension requires the universe to have a curved geometry, something that to date has not been proven
> ...


If the big bang is real it happened at the center of where mass has expanded to.  You are arguing against yourself like a dizzy dean


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> If the big bang is real it happened at the center of where mass has expanded to.


This sentence makes no sense on any level. And if it means what I think it means, it's wrong.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > If the big bang is real it happened at the center of where mass has expanded to.
> ...


So the big bang happened at the outskirts of the universe or at it's center?

Still waiting for the proof of abiogenesis that you claimed you had

LOL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

Frannie said:


> So the big bang happened at the outskirts of the universe or at it's center?


Neither. You don't understand this material.


----------

