Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

lol You're not very good at words, are you? You appear to be saying that creating pressures and temperatures (i.e. manipulating energy and matter) is comparable to creating energy and matter.

Did you know that petitio principii is a form of circulus in probando? It adds to the levity, considering that you define a word by the same word.

I have yet to see any creation, by neither anyone, nor anything, which compares to the creation of matter.

Now please, run along, and go read a dictionary, while we adults attempt to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Speedwell]

What is the Universe expanding into? For that matter what is between an electron and a proton?


The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.

The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

And that proves there is "empty space" outside (whatever that means) the universe exactly how?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Did you know that petitio principii is a form of circulus in probando? It adds to the levity, considering that you define a word by the same word.

Pfft. It's not me mixing up his definitions, it's you. Your assertion is that the universe was created i.e energy and matter were created. You then claim that manipulating energy and matter uses the same definition of create. I know you're struggling with this because it's the fourth or fifth time it's been pointed out and you still don't grasp the difference.

I have yet to see any creation, by neither anyone, nor anything, which compares to the creation of matter.

So? And FYI the grammatically correct pairing for this sentence is either/or, not neither/nor

Now please, run along, and go read a dictionary, while we adults attempt to have an intelligent conversation.

Perhaps you should join me in reading the dictionary and then move on to a book on grammar.

 

[HARK!]

And that proves there is "empty space" outside (whatever that means) the universe exactly how?

If there is no space outside to expand into; how could it expand? Think about it for just one moment. It's pretty basic stuff.

space
/spās/
noun

• 1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied: "a table took up much of the space" synonyms: room, capacity, area, volume, expanse, ... more
• 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move:

It's a fact that there is more space, than there is anything to occupy that space. Space is infinite. That which occupies space is finite.

 

[Gene2memE]

If there is no space outside to expand into; how could it expand? Think about it for just one moment. It's pretty basic stuff.

Nonsense question - as this article explains.

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-universe.html

space
/spās/
noun

• 1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied: "a table took up much of the space" synonyms: room, capacity, area, volume, expanse, ... more
• 2. the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move:

Space exists within the universe. Outside of the universe is nothing. Not even space.

It's a fact that there is more space, than there is anything to occupy that space.

Is it? If it is, then it should be trivial to demonstrate. So, go ahead and demonstrate.

Space is infinite.

Is it? If it is, then it should be trivial to demonstrate. So, go ahead and demonstrate. Because, the consensus among cosmologists seems to be that the universe is non-infinite.

 

[HARK!]

Nonsense question - as this article explains.

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-universe.html

Seriously? My mind is not limited to two dimensions. Cain's didn't offer any proof of his assertion; but it can be easily refuted. If motion was limited to the analogy of traveling on the skin of a balloon; then we wouldn't see light through the origin, from the other side of the universe, through all of that space in between.

 

[HARK!]

Space exists within the universe. Outside of the universe is nothing. Not even space.

For any unit of measure; one can measure in any direction. If you can measure from a point inward from the surface of a sphere; you can measure from a point outward from the surface of a sphere. The fact that nothing tangible exists outside that sphere will not negate the relationship between what is measurable of the sphere. Therefore, those measurable relationships can be applied to what surrounds those measurable relationships, even if it is empty space.

 

[HARK!]

Is it? If it is, then it should be trivial to demonstrate. So, go ahead and demonstrate.

Again:

The mass of an atom is determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The lightest element in existence is hydrogen, which has only one proton. The combined number of protons and neutrons possessed by an element is knows as its atomic mass. The average atomic mass of the elements on Earth can be found displayed in the periodic table. Unlike a proton, a neutron has no charge, but its mass is about the same as that of a proton. The mass of the proton or neutron is 1836 times bigger than that of the electron.

The size of the atoms is about 1~2 Å. Compared to the overall size of the atom, the nucleus is about the size of a raindrop in a playground. A nucleus’ volume is only 10^14 that of the atom. Empty space takes up most of the space occupied by an atom.

 

[Ophiolite]

Seriously? My mind is not limited to two dimensions. Cain's didn't offer any proof of his assertion; but it can be easily refuted. If motion was limited to the analogy of traveling on the skin of a balloon; then we wouldn't see light through the origin, from the other side of the universe, through all of that space in between.

Fraser Cain is the publisher of Universe Today, one of the most popular space and astronomy websites on the internet, with more than 3 million monthly readers. Fraser has been working in the software/Internet industry for the more than 15 years, and was a partner in two software companies that are now traded publicly. He studied engineering at the University of British Columbia, and has a degree in computer science. Visit Fraser’s site at Universe Today

Your second paragraph is an unattributed quote from the website Astronomy cast, on this specific page. Posting unattributed quotes is:

• Discourteous
• Against forum rules
• Potentially subject to legal action

I recommend you edit your post accordingly.

 

[HARK!]

Because, the consensus among cosmologists seems to be that the universe is non-infinite.

Didn't read, non sequitur.

I claimed in the original post of this thread, that the Universe is finite. I claimed that space is infinite.

 

[HARK!]

Your second paragraph is an unattributed quote from the website Astronomy cast, on this specific page. Posting unattributed quotes is:

• Discourteous
• Against forum rules
• Potentially subject to legal action

I recommend you edit your post accordingly.

Done.

I'll look into this. Thanks for the "heads up."

 

[HARK!]

Your second paragraph is an unattributed quote from the website Astronomy cast, on this specific page. Posting unattributed quotes is:

• Discourteous
• Against forum rules
• Potentially subject to legal action

I recommend you edit your post accordingly.

I looked into it. According to that site, Cain is the Co-host of that site. Are you saying that it lies?

 

[Shemjaza]

Didn't read, non sequitur.

I claimed in the original post of this thread, that the Universe is finite. I claimed that space is infinite.

Space is a part of the universe, not external to it.

And you never responded to my comments about how space and time can be altered within the modern universe so it is illogical to make assumptions about the quantity and behaviour of space.

 

[HARK!]

Space is a part of the universe, not external to it.

By one definition. Here's another:

universe noun [ U ]
us /ˈju·nəˌvɜrs/


everything that exists, esp. all physical matter, including all the stars and planets in space

universe Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[HARK!]

The effect was that you casually declared that infinite space as one of your axioms when in the universe today it can be warped and twisted and even created.

If space can be created (I doubt it. It's like saying infinity + 1, when + 1 was already next in line of the sequence) ; then that only further supports that space is infinite.

 

[Speedwell]

For any unit of measure; one can measure in any direction. If you can measure from a point inward from the surface of a sphere; you can measure from a point outward from the surface of a sphere. The fact that nothing tangible exists outside that sphere will not negate the relationship between what is measurable of the sphere. Therefore, those measurable relationships can be applied to what surrounds those measurable relationships, even if it is empty space.

What sphere?

 

[HARK!]

I don't know the properties of of infinite mass or energy, and I don't know how they interact with some other greater expanse of potential of new space generated by some other process.

I don't know these things, and neither do you.

The properties of near infinite density and mass around black holes are mysterious, why on Earth do you feel confident to make declarations about the properties of unknown and possibly unknowable substances of the early universe.

Do not the laws of physics apply to the physical universe?

Why do you suppose that gravitational compression wouldn't apply to an early universe?

 

[HARK!]

Time itself may be generated by the process of expansion

Time is a relationship between moving objects. Time = distance/speed.

The relationship exists within a windup clock, between the gears. The clock as a whole doesn't have to be moving, nor expanding, for the time relationship between the gears to exist.

 

[HARK!]

What sphere?

Any sphere.

 

[Ophiolite]

I looked into it. According to that site, Cain is the Co-host of that site. Are you saying that it lies?

I am saying that you quoted the words verbatim, without acknowledging the source. This is called plagiarism. As noted, this is discourteous, against forum rules and potentially open to legal action.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, you may find this wikipedia article helps you understand your misunderstandings concerning finite/infinite.