Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

It didn't exist before the big bang

Wrong

finite time.

What is time?

 

[Bradskii]

Well if it's in a book it must be true.

Did I say it was true? Let me check...

No, I didn't. But I didn't say it was false either. It's one person's view. A person who is a world leader in his field.

You know yourself better than I do; but you are no an expert on my qualifications.

You've already exhibited your lack of basic knowledge of this subject.

 

[HARK!]

'The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself. The name Big Bang conveys the idea of a firecracker exploding at a time and a place - with a center. The universe doesn't have a center. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time. We know this because 1) we see galaxies rushing away from each other, not from a central point and 2) we see the heat that was left over from early times, and that heat uniformly fills the universe.

...And of course you can prove this bare assertion.

I'll be waiting.

 

[HARK!]

Did I say it was true? Let me check...

No, I didn't. But I didn't say it was false either. It's one person's view. A person who is a world leader in his field.

Left field?

I'm not interested in wacko opinions.

I have a great imagination of my own.

How about some facts?

 

[Bradskii]

It is what the universe occupies. It is what is between all of the tiny pieces that compose the universe; and it what surrounds the universe.

It's what 'surrounds the universe'? Are you saying the universe in inside something? That's as crazy as saying it's turtles all the way down.

 

[BCP1928]

How delightfully Newtonian.

 

[Bradskii]

Wrong

Do you know what the observable universe is? That statement makes me think that you don't. If the observable universe (the amount of the universe we can actually see) didn't start to exist at the big bang then what do you think it is and when did it start?

What is time?

A measure of change. In this case the change from the big bang to what we can see now.

 

[Bradskii]

Wrong

Definition of AXIOM

a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate; an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth; a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The definition says it's a self evident truth. Which by definitionis undeniable. 'The universe is infinite' or 'the universe is finite' are not self evident truths.

 

[HARK!]

It's what 'surrounds the universe'? Are you saying the universe in inside something? That's as crazy as saying it's turtles all the way down.

Are you suggesting that an object can exist without occupying space? That's crazier than turtles all the way down.

Are you suggesting that when an object is traveling through space; that the space that it occupies didn't exist until it was occupied by the object? How much space does a 10L vacuum chamber occupy before and after it is vacuumed down?

 

[Bradskii]

...And of course you can prove this bare assertion.

I'll be waiting.

Type 'does the universe have a center' into Google. Every single answer you get will tell you that the answer is no. Every single one. The very first link you'll get says this (their emphasis):

'There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere.'

And you won't find anything at all that says otherwise.

This is cosmology 101. You should stop now.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you suggesting that an object can exist without occupying space? That's crazier than turtles all the way down.

Are you suggesting that when an object is traveling through space; that the space that it occupies didn't exist until it was occupied by the object?

No to both. And I don't know what relevance the questions have.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you suggesting that an object can exist without occupying space?

A photon has energy and momentum but no mass. This is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
It thus has no volume.

 

[HARK!]

Do you know what the observable universe is? That statement makes me think that you don't. If the observable universe (the amount of the universe we can actually see) didn't start to exist at the big bang then what do you think it is and when did it start?

I'm not sure why you are trying to link the observable universe to the big bang, as I have seen no evidence that anyone observed the big bang. So much for empirical evidence... I have however personally witnessed cause and effect.

Would it stand to reason, by a reasonable person, that the big bang is the expansion of a singularity?

If the big bang is the expansion of a singularity; wouldn't it stand to reason that the singularity preceded the expansion?

 

[HARK!]

A photon has energy and momentum but no mass. This is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
It thus has no volume.

I belive that you misunderstod that experiment; and if you are talking about the experiment that I think you are; it was not proven. The photon never achieved zero mass; it only approached it.

Can you then explain why photons behave as particles?

QM says that there is no such thing as energy nor matter; that these are theoretical ideals; that all is plasma of varying degrees of the qualities of both matter and energy.

How does any of this relate to either the topic or the post you responded to?

 

[SelfSim]

Can you then explain why photons behave as particles?

It works .. under specific contexts.

QM says that there is no such thing as energy nor matter; that these are theoretical ideals; that all is plasma of varying degrees of the qualities of both matter and energy.

Nope.

 

[HARK!]

You've already exhibited your lack of basic knowledge of this subject.

You said that you weren't qualified to make the argument; yet here you are.

Are you trolling me?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure why you are trying to link the observable universe to the big bang, as I have seen no evidence that anyone observed the big bang.

The observable universe is the size of the universe that is theoretically observable from any one point at any one time. You obviously don't need to have an actual observer.

The size of our observable universe is now a lot larger then when you started reading this post. Because the universe is expanding. And the outer reaches of what we could see is now expanding away from us faster than light. Hence the limit. Which is a finite distance. Yesterday it was a lot smaller. Last year it was smaller still. Just after the BB is was very small indeed. At the BB it didn't exist. So it had a finite start.

If the big bang is the expansion of a singularity; wouldn't it stand to reason that the singularity preceded the expansion?

Yes.

 

[HARK!]

It works .. under specific contexts.

Before I ask you to explain this answer; would you care to answer my second question?

How does any of this relate to either the topic or the post you responded to?

 

[Bradskii]

You said that you weren't qualified to make the argument; yet here you are.

Are you trolling me?

I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out that your obvious lack of knowledge on the matter (that you think the expansion happened in a specific location for example) is preventing any reasonable discussion. Until you understand the basics all I can do is try to correct your misunderstanding.

Did you check the links re the 'centre of the universe'?

 

[HARK!]

faster than light.

That's an interesting thought.

At the BB it didn't exist.

Do you have any evidence of this; or is this pure speculation?

This seems to contradict your answer to my question below.

If the big bang is the expansion of a singularity; wouldn't it stand to reason that the singularity preceded the expansion?

Yes.

Well at lest we can agree on this. Now we have an axiom.