Science Proves Creation

[Shemjaza]

You still haven't demonstrated this assertion.

Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Relativity is a pretty well established part of physics...

 

[Bradskii]

You could try reading the OP.

The op that starts with two incorrect axioms? That wasn't evidence of anything. It was a poorly laid out argument based on faulty premises.

 

[Bradskii]

Let's start with a couple of axioms.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Now for the science:

Wow. Hang on. Now I've read this I think we should investigate the axioms first.

Let's look at 2 first. And the jury is out. You could certainly start an argument with 'If the universe is infinite...'. But not with 'As the universe is infinite...' See here for arguments pro and con: Is space infinite? We asked 5 experts

Number 1? Well, Penrose's cyclical universe discounts finite matter and energy. So there's another 'If...' And your axioms contradict each other. If the universe is infinite then matter and energy are...infinite. You can't have a finite amount of something in an infinite universe. Bear in mind that the big bang wasn't an explosion of anything. It was an expansion which did not occur at a specific location. It happened everywhere. It wasn't X amount of something expanding out into nothing.

 

[HARK!]

Relativity is a pretty well established part of physics...

How is that relevant?

 

[HARK!]

The op that starts with two incorrect axioms? That wasn't evidence of anything. It was a poorly laid out argument based on faulty premises.

There are no such things as incorrect axioms. Axioms are self evident truths that are the basis for rational conversation.

If I begin to make a logical argument that is built on the premise that water is wet; and I'm interrupted by a skeptic who says "water isn't wet;" then there is no point in continuing to make a case with the skeptic; when we are experiencing two different realities.

 

[HARK!]

Let's look at 2 first. And the jury is out. You could certainly start an argument with 'If the universe is infinite...'. But not with 'As the universe is infinite...' S

I didn't claim that the universe is infinite. Your misunderstanding of the facts doesn't change the self evident truth.

 

[HARK!]

Is space infinite? We asked 5 experts

Your ex-spurts seem to have difficulty differentiating between the universe and empty space.

As I was glancing over their comments; I did find this little gem though:

"The observable universe is finite in that it hasn’t existed forever."

 

[HARK!]

Well, Penrose's cyclical universe discounts finite matter and energy.

Does he have any undefined evidence to support this daydream?

 

[HARK!]

Bear in mind that the big bang wasn't an explosion of anything. It was an expansion

I'll try to remember the subtle nuances of your semantics, if Putin drops a nuke on our conversation.

an expansion which did not occur at a specific location. It happened everywhere

Nonsense

It wasn't X amount of something expanding out into nothing.

Exactly. Space is something.

 

[Bradskii]

Nonsense

Exactly. Space is something.

I'll skip the earlier replies. This is the only one I need address. So let's clear up two points:

Do you think that the big bang happened at a specific location?

Do you think that the expansion was expanding into something. You seemed to use 'space' as that 'something.' Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[Bradskii]

There are no such things as incorrect axioms. Axioms are self evident truths that are the basis for rational conversation.

If I begin to make a logical argument that is built on the premise that water is wet; and I'm interrupted by a skeptic who says "water isn't wet;" then there is no point in continuing to make a case with the skeptic; when we are experiencing two different realities.

Actually, while I finish my coffee, I'll address the other posts as well.

An axiom is an undeniable truth. Neither of your points are undeniable. For example, the universe may be finite or infinite. We don't yet know. So you can't assume one is correct and then say it's an axiom.

 

[Bradskii]

Your ex-spurts seem to have difficulty differentiating between the universe and empty space.

As I was glancing over their comments; I did find this little gem though:

"The observable universe is finite in that it hasn’t existed forever."

That's correct. It didn't exist before the big bang and it has a finite size (which is increasing) which is a result of expansion over a finite time. So it has a finite age.

And what is the difference you think exists between space and the universe?

 

[Bradskii]

Does he have any undefined evidence to support this daydream?

Yes. He presents it in his book: https://www.amazon.com.au/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0307278468

I'm not expert enough to discuss the nuances. I've read it but it's not a subject I'm anywhere near expert enough to argue for or against. Neither are you. So I'm not saying he's right (and you'll be able to find experts who say he's not - but we won't understand the details of their argument either). But he's one of the smartest guys in this area of science. So the point I'm making is that people who know a hell of a lot about this subject have differing opinions. We're a couple of yokels on the sidelines and the best we can do, if you want to make a stance on this (and heaven knows why anyone who can barely understand the basics would want to) is count up the experts for and against.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly. Space is something.

What do you think it is? As compared to 'the universe'?

 

[HARK!]

Do you think that the big bang happened at a specific location?

Yes; but I don't have any evidence that would meet your standards, that the big bang ever took place.

Evidence which we can verify.

Do you think that the expansion was expanding into something. You seemed to use 'space' as that 'something.' Perhaps you could clarify.

I think that it expanded into the space surrounding the singularity.

 

[HARK!]

Yes. He presents it in his book

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

I'm anywhere near expert enough to argue for or against. Neither are you.

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

If you can't put together a logical argument to refute my argument; you might consider pondering the scientific evidence that I presented.

 

[HARK!]

You were talking about evidence and millions of witnesses. Leading to miracles. I gave you the opportunity to use the evidence of millions. Evidence which we can verify. You said you'd look into it.

Guess you changed your mind.

As I explained earlier, my point was to get back on topic. Maybe we should try it.

 

[HARK!]

What do you think it is? As compared to 'the universe'?

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.

 

[HARK!]

An axiom is an undeniable truth.

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

 

[Bradskii]

Yes; but I don't have any evidence that would meet your standards, that the big bang ever took place.

I think that it expanded into the space surrounding the singularity.

Oh dear. If you haven't understood the absolute basics then this is going to be a tortuous discussion.

From here: Webb and the Big Bang - Webb/NASA

'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.