|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The one and only non-creationist in this forum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Does that mean that there is no dark energy between the Milky Way and Andromeda. 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.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
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:
I am totally puzzled by this, I have no clue and my poor brain goes in a twist pondering the question. I even have some trouble formulating it let alone solving my trouble. Anyway, I'll try to be as simple as possible and if anybody can enlighten me from a purely scientific perspective, I would love them to be doing it in equally simple terms as if explaining the matter to a child (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 Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
That is my point it was. There had to be existence for the Uiverse to begin to exist. Then the problem is solved.
Lightning happens when specific conditions occur in the atmosphere. Why can't universes be produced in a similar manner?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Take the balloon you guys are always talking about and put your dots on it. Get you a 1 qt. syrup bottle that has the very small neck. Stuff the balloon into the bottle. Once you have all the baloon in the bottle you will notice that there is a lot of space between the balloon and the glass of the bottle. Now begin to blow air into the balloon and it will began to fill the space inside the bottle until the bottle is full. You will notice then that the balloon will try to escape out of the bottle at the point you are introducing air. But try as you may you will not get the balloon to expand any further inside the bottle, as it has reached the limit it can expand. Now take another balloon and do not put it in anyting and begin to blow it up. It will burst before it fills the space around it. Therefore if the Universe is expanding it is expanding into existence.
You need to learn your logical fallacies. That is an argument from analogy, a well known fallacy.
As the cat says for something to expand it has to have something to expand into. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Does that mean that there is no dark energy between the Milky Way and Andromeda?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
You need some evidence to the contrary? I need some evidence for your claims. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can bedismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens All of the evidence demonstrates that the universe is expanding. Your position is worse than being unsupported. It is contradicted by the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, that is the only meaning of the term to expand, Vatican. 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.
The cat can read the parts of Friedmann where he does not use words at all. But you cannot understand it, as evidence by what you said in Message 36:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3998 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you're still droning on?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024