Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs

WTF?
Are you a troll?

Well, rude one, if you claim it is 'laziness' to claim God exists because no scientific evidence exists then where is the evidence for where the singularity that the big bang started from? How about the first lifeform, show the evidence where it was and what it was?At least for the bible and God we have a long history of proofs and evidences.

How about staying on topic. If you want to present such evidence propose the topic.

I was addressing your comment. Try to comment on topic then.

Sure.In what is known as my country we find undeniably bacteria-like prokaryotes in the Theespruit formation of the Barberton Sequence. Around 3700 million years old. Same in some rocks in what is known as Australia today; just a little bit older forms of bacteria-like prokaryotes (around 3800 million years old). In rocks preserved in and around what is known as Greenland today, we find the fossils of older complex molecules having kids.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The singularity is not a thing that does stuff.Think of it like an asymptote.Consider the plot of 1/X as X approaches zero. The closer you get to the Y-axis, the more the value of X approaches infinity.What you're asking is like asking how the Y-axis burps out the plot of 1/X. It just doesn't make sense.

You didn't quote what you were responding to in Theodoric's Message 4 - was it this: If so, that's part of Theodoric's signature - it appears at the bottom of all his posts. It's not meant to be interpreted as a comment on the topic.--Percy

No need, the evidences for the spiritual and God are known. The issue is whether we deny and reject and ignore or not.

ok

Nice story. I liked the imaginary years bit especially. Now, when you show some of those little critters producing man, heck, even a bug or something...get back to us.

If the little hot soup did nothing, then in your mind no expansion would have happened, that is supposed to be something. Or do you admit it is really nothing!?Why consider math that has no application or bearing on reality? If there was a teeny weeny hot soup, and soon after, the universe appeared, that seems to have to mean something happened. Not sure how mentioning y or x or some imaginary plot or line changes that?

The singularity is not a thing. It is not a thing that can do something.This is your first misconception to get over. I think the expansion happened, it just didn't occur from the singularity. There has never been nothing.There has been some thing at every point in time.There are no points in time where no things exist.The catch is that time extends into the past direction by a finite amount. (think about how you can only go north for a finite distance) Analogizing concepts can make it easier to understand them. There is not a point in time where the universe does not exist, so there is no "after" that non-existent point from where the universe appeared. The Universe exists at all points in time. At what point does the plot of 1/X reach the Y-axis?Hint: it never does. The y-axis is an asymptote.Similarly, the Universe never reaches the singularity. The singularity is not a point in time where the Universe exists. It is not a thing, nor a state of the Universe, from where/when the Universe expanded.

Hi, Starlite.Welcome to EvC! That's an interesting way of phrasing the question. See, the point Cat Sci was making is that the math works perfectly fine for explaining most things in the universe, but something in the formula goes to infinity when you try to apply it to the moments immediately after the Big Bang.That's what is meant by the word 'singularity': it just describes the math returning an answer of 'undefined' in a specific situation. It isn't an event that happened or a thing that made something else happen: it's just a mathematical asymptote. And that's exactly what the Big Bang Theory predicts the math will do if you try to input time = 0.

If if if. Bottom line is that your line and math is imaginary and a what if. No reality to it. Now if a hot little soup that was too small at one point to see with the naked eye popped out the universe, that is doing something!

quote:

---

The singularity is not a thing. It is not a thing that can do something.

---

Let's not quibble over terms here. If all that is the universe came sailing out of that little sweet nothing I think we can refer to it as a thing. If we refer to the universe as a thing, why not!?

quote:

---

I think the expansion happened, it just didn't occur from the singularity.

---

More quibbling. If there was no singularity what would have expanded!!?

quote:

---

There has never been nothing.

---

Like you would know.

quote:

---

There are no points in time where no things exist.

---

You should get a fine each time you even use the word time. Define it?

quote:

---

The catch is that time extends into the past direction by a finite amount. (think about how you can only go north for a finite distance)

---

Obviously there was no time in the created universe before the universe existed!

quote:

---

Analogizing concepts can make it easier to understand them.

---

Easier to storytell.

quote:

---

There is not a point in time where the universe does not exist,

---

Says you who couldn't possibly know. Why even talk?

quote:

---

At what point does the plot of 1/X reach the Y-axis?

​

Hint: it never does. The y-axis is an asymptote.

---

Never never land then. OK. Fantasy. Speculation. Modeling based on earth time and space and etc.

quote:

---

Similarly, the Universe never reaches the singularity.

---

I'll say!!

quote:

---

The singularity is not a point in time where the Universe exists.

---

Well put!

quote:

---

It is not a thing, nor a state of the Universe, from where/when the Universe expanded.

---

So if there was no magic singularity, what could have expanded or done anything? Pretty fuzzy and funny stuff.Edited by starlite, : No reason given.