Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

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'?

I can present books to the contrary; but I'm not going to cop out and tell you to go read a book. If you understand what you read; you should have no difficulty presenting a logical argument to support your claim.

 

[Bradskii]

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

Planck length. Look it up. The universe was smaller than it very early on. So no observable universe could exist.

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

Well, off you go to the op and take out the first two incorrect ones, add that one and start again.

 

[Bradskii]

I can present books to the contrary; but I'm not going to cop out and tell you to go read a book. If you understand what you read; you should have no difficulty presenting a logical argument to support your claim.

Name the books. I want to know who made such monstrously incorrect claims. And the evidence I have presented is the whole of the knowledge regarding this matter that you could possible access. Oh, except for a couple of books apparently, the name of which you are going to present shortly.

 

[HARK!]

Planck length. Look it up. The universe was smaller than it very early on. So no observable universe could exist.

Are you saying that the singularity would not be observable? If not; why?

Well, off you go to the op and take out the first two incorrect ones, add that one and start again.

This was already covered. Just because you can't agree that these are axioms; does not diminish them as axioms for those who can.

Again; if you can't accept the premise as an axiom; then you will not understand the logical argument. That's OK.

Not all of us can see everything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How delightfully Newtonian.

Thanks, that made me chuckle.

Worker: The hole we're in keeps getting deeper, Boss.
Boss: Keep digging!

 

[Bradskii]

Are you saying that the singularity would not be observable? If not; why?

What? No! I specifically said that there'd be no observable universe. If something is too small to measure you can't get information about one point from another. So you can't observe anything. Hence the concept of an observable universe is nonsensical when the universe is too small to observe.

This was already covered. Just because you can't agree that these are axioms; does not diminish them as axioms for those who can.

You don't get to vote on an axiom. If it's true it's an axiom. Whether the universe is finite or not is an unknown. So it's not an axiom. You can use the proposal that it's finite as a premise...'If the universe is finite, then...But that's it.

 

[HARK!]

Name the books. I want to know who made such monstrously incorrect claims.

I read those books so long ago that I don't remember the Titles. let alone the authors; but a quick web search gave me this. It cites a source, a book.

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[4]

 

[HARK!]

What? No! I specifically said that there'd be no observable universe. If something is too small to measure you can't get information about one point from another. So you can't observe anything. Hence the concept of an observable universe is nonsensical when the universe is too small to observe.

Is this pure speculation; or do you have anything to back it up?

Please don't tell me "I read it in a book that I really don't understand; so you'll have to go read some books."

 

[Bradskii]

I read those books so long ago that I don't remember the Titles. let alone the authors; but a quick web search gave me this. It cites a source, a book.

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[4]

So apart from some long ago forgotten books about something by somebody, the source you have presented is a set of videos from Discovery. And I guarantee that nowhere in it will it say anything about where the centre of the universe is.

At this point the only reasonable thing for you to do is accept that you were wrong and move on from there.

 

[HARK!]

You don't get to vote on an axiom. If it's true it's an axiom.

Yes I do. It seems that after explaining it ad nauseam, and even giving you some dictionary definitions, that you still don't understand axioms as they pertain to logical arguments.

If I present a logical argument, built on the premise that the sky is blue; and the one receiving the the argument says, "the sky isn't blue; the sky is above;" it becomes difficult for him to comprehend the argument without agreement on the axiom.

 

[Bradskii]

Is this pure speculation; or do you have anything to back it up?

From here: Planck Length

'The Planck length is expected to be the shortest measurable distance...'

So if you can't measure anything smaller, then if the universe was smaller than a Planck length then it's size can't be measured. Hence no observable universe.

Please don't tell me "I read it in a book that I really don't understand; so you'll have to go read some books."

You can cut that out right now if you please. I'm doing my best to answer everything you ask and I will link to the best information I can find. If I don't know the answer then I will say 'I don't know the answer'.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes I do. It seems that after explaining it ad nauseam, and even giving you some dictionary definitions, that you still don't understand axioms as they pertain to logical arguments.

Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

That is not relevant to whether the universe is finite or not. It hasn't been established. It is not accepted by all. And it is not self-evidently true.

Three strikes.

 

[HARK!]

So apart from some long ago forgotten books about something by somebody, the source you have presented is a set of videos from Discovery. And I guarantee that nowhere in it will it say anything about where the centre of the universe is.

At this point the only reasonable thing for you to do is accept that you were wrong and move on from there.

Presenting a strawman argument is an interesting way to move the goal posts.

I suppose that it's more comfortable that conceding that your source is but one speculative assertion.

 

[HARK!]

Axiom: a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

That's a fair definition.

Let's take this step by step.

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't.

Which part of that isn't self evident to you?

 

[HARK!]

So if you can't measure anything smaller, then if the universe was smaller than a Planck length then it's size can't be measured. Hence no observable universe.

That's a big if.

 

[Bradskii]

Presenting a strawman argument is an interesting way to move the goal posts.

Strawman? You said there maybe a couple of books that you might have read at some time by someone that said something about the centre of the universe. I wondered if you could be a touch more specific. And you gave a link to what you thought was a book but was a series of videos. So you have presented...nothing.

I suppose that it's more comfortable that conceding that your source is but one speculative assertion.

My source is every scientific link you could possibly find on that matter. It's every paper on it. It's every article. It's every discussion. It's literally any and all scientific information that you'll be able to find.

So my source is all current scientific knowledge. And your counter is some unknown book you read once.

Really?

 

[HARK!]

You said there maybe a couple of books that you might have read at some time by someone that said something about the centre of the universe.

Can you quote me on that?

 

[HARK!]

My source is every scientific link you could possibly find on that matter. It's every paper on it. It's every article. It's every discussion. It's literally any and all scientific information that you'll be able to find.

So my source is all current scientific knowledge. And your counter is some unknown book you read once.

It doesn't matter which books I've read. I linked a source to support my claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So apart from some long ago forgotten books about something by somebody, the source you have presented is a set of videos from Discovery. And I guarantee that nowhere in it will it say anything about where the centre of the universe is.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.”

At this point the only reasonable thing for you to do is accept that you were wrong and move on from there.

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!

 

[Bradskii]

Which part of that isn't self evident to you?

It's self evidently nonsense.

Let's say the universe is finite and is represented by a cube of finite size. In the middle of the cube is an object, let's say 10% of the size of the cube. That's the mass. Now consider the universe is actually infinite. We have an infinite number of cubes and an infinite number of objects. But the density of mass to space is still the same - 10%

Having an infinite number of each doesn't mean that the cube is then filled with mass. That's...just crazy.

So no, that's a fail.