Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,232 Year: 5,489/9,624 Month: 514/323 Week: 11/143 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 121 of 410 (457336)
02-22-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
02-22-2008 4:54 PM


Re: Expanding Pea
That is one lousy analogy. The globe is round and nothing moves.
You are lousy at understanding analogies (Or may be you are just being intentionally dificult?).
Let me help. The north-south direction in the globe is an analogy for the time direction in the four-dimensional universe. Moving from the north southward is an analogy for time going by. As you move southward things change (there is the movement you asked about). One of the things that change as you move southward is the radius of the other dimension(s) (the ones orthogonal to the north-south (time) direction). That's the analogy for the expansion of the universe. There. I hope that helped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 4:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 6:11 PM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 132 of 410 (457363)
02-22-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ICANT
02-22-2008 6:11 PM


Re: Expanding Pea
Everything was lifeless nothing was moving.
There was no time, no space. Just something not even the size of a pea. This something all by itself started to expand at some point and is still expanding.
I want you to go get in your car put the key in the ignition. Do not turn the key. Do not press a remote start button. I want you to sit in that car until it starts by itself.
This is exactly what you and everyone else is telling me happened with that smaller than a pea thingamajig the universe came from.
God Bless,
No, that's what you've been telling us. That's your understanding of the Big Bang. we've been telling you that this is not the right way to look at it. We've been telling you that many of your questions are ill posed. for instance, you said
This something all by itself started to expand at some point and is still expanding.
These words seem to imply that you believe that the Big Bang theory assumes that there was a period of no expanssion preciding the expansion, and that all of a suden, for no reason, the thing started expanding by it self. That's the wrong way to look at it.
You keep asking what happened before the expansion, but there was no before the expansion for anything to happen there. that's where the Earth's northpole analogy comes handy. There is no place northward from the northpole for anything to happen there. The question "what causes the expansion of the Big Bang" makes as much sense as the question "how do I go northward from the northpole".
The north pole is simply the starting point of our system of coordinates. Note that that does not mean that the northpole is the begining of the Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 6:11 PM ICANT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 133 of 410 (457364)
02-22-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
02-22-2008 8:02 PM


Re: God Analogy
Either there is an answer to those questions or there is no answer.
or the question makes no sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 8:02 PM ICANT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 135 of 410 (457366)
02-22-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
02-22-2008 8:58 PM


Re: TIMEOUT
is it safe to say this less than the size of a pea thing that contained the entire universe was not expanding?
No, it is not safe to say that. Exactly the oposite. It was expanding
Edited by fallacycop, : got to fix them boxes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2008 8:58 PM ICANT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 141 of 410 (457390)
02-23-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by McCartlennstarrison
02-23-2008 2:45 AM


The singularity at t=0 is simply an statement of our ignorance. A gap in our scientific knowlege, if you will. Knowlege gaps are not safe places for us to stick our little gods, because that gap might get filled some day, and then 'poof', there goes your little god (its known to happen before to many little gods). A great GOD though, doesn't need any gaps in scientific knowlege. in order to exist.
You see, that's the thing. Nobody is saying that people should stop believing in gods because of the Big Bang theory. Both things may turn out to be true, since they are not intrinsically contradictory.
But don't go looking for reasons to believe in god inside cosmological theories. You won't find those reasons there.
And please don't say things like
If this is so, it sounds kind of ridiculous without a creator.
It is not ridiculous to believe in a universe without a creator. It is not ridiculous to believe in a creator either. The answer to the is-there-a-creator question is not an obvious one, and nobody should be ridiculed for choosing to believe in either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by McCartlennstarrison, posted 02-23-2008 2:45 AM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 153 of 410 (457565)
02-24-2008 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ICANT
02-23-2008 10:21 PM


Re: Re-T=O
So what brought on the change.
There was no change. The expanssion was the initial state of the universe (Within the Big Bang model).
ICANT, you need to understand that the Big Bang (or any other scientific model for that matter) does not rule out the possibility of a creator. But it cannot be used as evidence for a creator either. The Is-There-A-Creator question cannot be answered through science. It is a theological question.
Science can be used to rule out some creation stories (For instance, we know there was no such thing as Adam or Eve or a global flood), but it cannot be used to rule out a creator all together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2008 10:21 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by johnfolton, posted 02-24-2008 12:20 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 196 of 410 (458089)
02-27-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by ICANT
02-26-2008 11:12 PM


Re: Re-I Don't Know
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light as it would be going back in time.
Unless you invoke a special exception and call it inflation.
Thats a neat fudge factor.
Nothing tavels fater then the speed of light within the Big Bang theory (with or without inflation). Space itself is expanding. There is no need for fudge factors or special exceptions. If you don't understand how that can be, may it's because (as you have amplely demonstrated in that thread) you are not qualified to understand it. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2008 11:12 PM ICANT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 214 of 410 (458233)
02-27-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
02-27-2008 5:26 PM


Re: I Don't Know -- sometimes a good answer.
Quote from your article.
Seems real and being real are two different things.
I can not find anything present to change the above statement.
Does that mean that you refuse to entertain the possibility that dark matter may be real after all?
I can only assume that you must have an alternate explanation for what is seen in those pictures. Humor us...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2008 5:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2008 9:56 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 224 of 410 (458341)
02-28-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by ICANT
02-28-2008 8:45 AM


Inject inflation problem solved.
Good for inflation then.
That IS how science is supposed to work. We have a model that explains a lot of things -- good. But it has problems too. Someone comes up with an improvement for the model that fixes some of the problems and still explains a lot of things -- even better.
Science doesn't get stuck with the old model just because someone said so 20 or 30 years ago. It progresses. getting stuck with old ideas that don't work anymore is more ike how religions work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ICANT, posted 02-28-2008 8:45 AM ICANT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 227 of 410 (458399)
02-28-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by tesla
02-28-2008 6:56 PM


Re: No truth
the end of it is we dont know? thats like saying "Goddidit"
How so???
If I don't know and I say I don't know, I'm making a truthfull statement.
If I don't know and I say Goddidit, I'm just making things up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by tesla, posted 02-28-2008 6:56 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by tesla, posted 02-28-2008 8:36 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 259 of 410 (458613)
03-01-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by tesla
03-01-2008 8:11 AM


Re: cavediver
Is that supposed to mean anything?
the math is for the singularity.
no outside interactions, and a singular timeless energy. evolves.
by chance "math here" variables: chaotic, ordered
environment: none
chance of evolution of a timeless singular energy no other variables (by chance): (odds here)
same energy: timeless, no outside interactions, variables: chaotic or ordered, no environment, evolution with direction(intelligence):
odds: 100%
To me it sounds like "yadda-yadda-yadda". -- A sure sign that you have no idea what you're talking about...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by tesla, posted 03-01-2008 8:11 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by tesla, posted 03-01-2008 8:49 AM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 270 of 410 (459036)
03-03-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by tesla
03-03-2008 11:40 AM


Re: fabric within perspective
Oh! So when you say "do the math" you actually mean "don't do it".
That's "Interesting"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 11:40 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 12:36 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 288 of 410 (459443)
03-07-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by teen4christ
03-07-2008 12:05 PM


Re: Re-Inflation
the angular speeds of the stars toward the center of the galaxy are very close to the angular speeds of the stars toward the outside.
Not entirely correct. A better description would be that the star speed are almost the same, as can be seen here, which means that galaxies don't spin like solid bodies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by teen4christ, posted 03-07-2008 12:05 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Taz, posted 03-07-2008 5:42 PM fallacycop has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 314 of 410 (459518)
03-08-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by tesla
03-08-2008 7:52 AM


Re: Pea size
with all data, doesn't this have just as much possibility, as the current theory?
I'm glad you asked. The answer is no.
Now that we cleared that up may be we can star talking about the actual BBT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:52 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 10:09 AM fallacycop has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5636 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 323 of 410 (459601)
03-08-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by tesla
03-08-2008 10:09 AM


Re: Pea size
Just a taste.
Your model is based on the idea of an explosion expanding into an pre-existing flat static space.
That explosion would have to have a center and, unless we happened to be at the center of the explosion, we ought to see different things depending on the direction of the space we chose to look at. There's no reason we should expect to be at the center of the universe.
Your model cannot explain the cosmic microwave background.
Your model is not consistent with General Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 10:09 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:41 PM fallacycop has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024