Summations Only

I checked several sources. The best value I can find for the radial velocity towards earth is 300 km/s. Where do you find 300km/hr?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, that is the only meaning of the term to expand, Vatican. There is no scope left for it to mean the opposite. The cat can read the parts of Friedmann where he does not use words at all. The math has got no physical backing whatsoever as the increase of volume is not justified. It comes from nothing. Impossible creationism from start to finish. The same problem with Lemaitre, Gamow and Guth. They all get some values from zero. Schoolboy's arithmetic mistakes masquerading as advanced maths.
Nothing to do with science.

The difference between blowing up a balloon (outside the bottle) and expanding the universe is that the universe does not expand by stretching the fabric of space, but instead by making more space. And why would space tear anyway? What would that even mean?When you argue that the baloon will burst and therfore that expansion as per BBT is impossible it is your analogy that is stretched past the breaking point. The universe is not literally a baloon. A baloon is used to help picture how expansion increases separation between points in space. The univese is not made from latex.

No it does not mean that. Imagine that dark energy were uniformly distributed in the universe. Dark energy would then affect the expansion of the universe as a whole, but no affect on attraction between objects due to gravity.

Tacky, you can continue vomiting that one can eat a cake and still have it. You are free to call it science. You need the moggy to support something here? You need some evidence to the contrary? Well, the feline may take you mouse by the nape of your neck and rub your nose into the irrational vomit. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Sorry, mouse. The Universe surrounded by something else that exists is not what the term means for that else would be included. All that exists is the definition. It's a conceptual issue. Not an issue of evidence. This seems to be beyond you lot's mental grasp.

Just for giggles, I thought I'd post an extract from one of our friend's threads on MySpace from just under 2 years ago: (The topic of the thread is "Time - Relatively relative or absolutely absolute").It's terribly sad when someone's proper humility dies.Of course, there are two other possibilities - in between that thread and now, our friend had a series of incredible (albeit unevidenced) revelations about the true nature of physics, and no longer feels the need for humility; or alternatively, he just trailed the thread on MySpace to entice a few posters to troll with.Either way, I prefer the earlier language

Then the problem is solved. Why can't universes be produced in a similar manner?

You need to learn your logical fallacies. That is an argument from analogy, a well known fallacy. Whether that is true or not, the fact is that the universe is expanding. That is what all of the evidence demonstrates. For whatever reason, the cat wants to ignore the facts because they don't fit into his fantasies of what the universe should look like according to Cat. That is the epitome of hubris.

It means that there is more dark energy between us and the Milky Way than there is between us and the Sun. Dark energy is evenly distributed through the universe, so the amount of expansion caused by dark energy is a function of distance. The more distance there is between two objects the more expansion there in the space between the objects. Gravity goes the other way. The further away two objects are the weaker the attraction. This means that over shorter distances gravity is the dominant force. However, over larger distances dark energy is the dominant force.

I need some evidence for your claims."That which can be asserted without evidence, can be
dismissed without evidence."--Christopher HitchensAll of the evidence demonstrates that the universe is expanding. Your position is worse than being unsupported. It is contradicted by the facts.

I hadn't said otherwise. The point you missed was that the limitations of the english words that are used to analogize the scientific explanation are not limitations on the science or math, themselves. A semantic argument that the word "expand" only means one particular things has no bearing on the science behind what that word is being used to describe. But you cannot understand it, as evidence by what you said in Message 36:

quote:

---

I am sorry, Blue, but what is exactly that singularity you are claiming to be something and in what way it is different from pure nothing? In the quackademic descriptions this is a putative entity of zero dimensions and size. An entity of zero size occupies no volume and it does not take any time to occupy no volume.

---

Nobody who understands the math behind the Big Bang Theory would describe the singularity as an enitity.You've again plainly exposed your ignorance and misunderstanding, like I pointed out in Message 72 (to which you didn't respond):

quote:

---

Exist had to be stressed three times since you keep insinuating the verb describes what the nothing does. Nothing does nothing, Vatican.

Wrong again. The Big Bang Theory never has nothingness existing and doesn't rely on nothingness for anything. Its not even mentioned.

---

So you think that the Big Bang Theory says that the singularity is an entity and that it relies on nothingness doing something. That's entirely wrong.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Sorry your claim is a logical contradiction. It is dismissed as such. Remove the contradictions first and then you can start gathering evidence for or against your hypothesis. A hypothesis founded on contradictions such as big bunk cosmogony is dead in the water from the start.
Your chutzpah is only thing that is expanding here. What you have the nerve to call a fact in another post is but a very weak inference asserted to support an oxymoron.
Only morons defend oxymorons with "evidence", silly.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Sorry, Vatican. The math is no secret you hint it is and no language failure follows an attempt to translate it into English or any other tongue the cat is familiar with. It is easily read as follows: an increase in one variable which is three-dimensional volume as a function of another variable which is a linear time. Exponent and a linear function. Simple. To expand is a fair translation of what the mathematics imply. Other synonyms fit as well.
The only problem with that is that unlike in all other known and verified by ample experience cases of that process described with a similar maths, here the mathemagician does not provide any physical justification of the alleged universal increase of volume. All the fantasist quack got to one side of the equation is a zero as the possible source of the volume allegedly gained. Nothing at all as it is usual with the bigbangist mathemythics. Sorry to inform you of that. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

So you're still droning on?