Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,579 Year: 4,836/9,624 Month: 184/427 Week: 97/85 Day: 2/2 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 305 (666356)
06-26-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 12:36 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Objects that are on that list can have various attributes the list itself cannot exhibit being not an object.
Who says the Universe ain't an object? Why can't it be the object that is all objects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 12:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 305 (666368)
06-26-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:08 PM


Abstraction only furthers the objectification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 305 (666370)
06-26-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
06-26-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
So things that aren't objects are not part of the universe?
Nope. Doesn't follow.
ABE: I mean, your conclusion doesn't follow. Non-objects are a part of the universe too, even tho the universe contains all objects.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : reduced ambiguity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 305 (666482)
06-27-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 5:29 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
The Redshift doesn't tell you what the Universe is expanding into. And that's a nonsense question anyways because the Universe is everything so there can't be anything "else" for it to expand into.
What the Redshift shows is that the Universe is expanding. It takes inference to get to the singularty. But ya know what, it works with the math of the physics behind it so it does seem to be a correct inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 5:29 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 8:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 305 (666515)
06-28-2012 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-27-2012 8:11 PM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
In what way that question is nonsensical?
The Universe contains all things. Any thing that it would be expanding into would also be some thing that is a part of the Universe, and thus subject to that expansion. There cannot be anything outside of the Universe for which it to expand into.
Your answer seems to be a non-sequitor but the question is a most natural reaction to an unsupported and impossible claim made.
Well hang on, I'm not saying that the model is most definately the truth. I'm just explaining to you what the model says. Even if the model is wrong, we can still talk about what the model does and does not say.
To expand is a verb that has a certain meaning. A balloon can expand exactly because it can have a possible room it can be expanding into. The Universe is not a balloon nor is it a raisin muffin. It's lacking an oven needed to make a claim it does indeed perform the action alleged a plausible one.
That's fine, but all that really means is that the word "expand" is not totally sufficient for describing the behavior of the Universe in this model. All points in the Universe have the distance between them getting larger. That doesn't require something outside of the universe to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-27-2012 8:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 305 (666520)
06-28-2012 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 10:07 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances.
I think you accidentally a word.
That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim.
Well, that's what the most current and best model shows. Pardon me for not just taking your word that our smartest scientists are dumbasses.
Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?
The math works, and the observations are consistent with the model. That's all we can really expect at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 10:07 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 300 of 305 (666536)
06-28-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-28-2012 11:22 AM


Re: Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
The Universe is nether closed nor open. Only what can be opened can be closed. You confuse the Universe with a window. That's a fallacy.
Dude. Please. This is embarassing. An open system is not open in the sense that windows are opened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-28-2012 11:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024