Creation

I suppose that's one lesson. I suspect that most of us also:1. Had those particular math secrets (addition/subtraction/multiplication) down well before sixth grade.
2. Learned some more math beyond that level.Maybe that would help us to be more understanding when reading the ridiculous stuff ICANT writes. He does not know any better.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you are admitting to the lack of detail about the motion in the Bible. I simply don't understand your response to the points that have been raised. It is clear that you are satisfied with what is a huge lack of detail. Is there anything in the Bible that would even suggest the existence of galaxies other than our own? Why then pretend that the Bible is a science text unless you are talking about a scope that would not satisfy even a high school science student?If I were to assume that your arguments were in good faith, I would be utterly baffled by what your point is.

I am going to accuse you of politely holding back on stating the exact level of ridicule we should have for this idea ICANT espouses. While the nature of the planets and their orbits may not have been known exactly, the details available in the Bible are easily visible using a naked eye viewing of the sky over a period of no longer than a week or so. The claim that the description in the Bible is a prediction predating earthly knowledge is beyond silly. Almost certainly, human beings noticed the fact that a few of those lights, namely, the planets, moved across the background of the larger set of stars tens of thousands of years ago if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We might just as well say that the idea that water is wet is a Biblical prediction.So, as you say, not a prediction, but an observation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think your approach is okay. I would note another way to look at things. Expansion is not about things moving through space at all. So it does not involve special relativity. As your calculation shows, expansion is about minute increases of separation at any one point. There is no local motion at light speed.

Good question. The milky way is not expanding because gravity within the galaxy is sufficient to hold it together despite the expansion. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It may be hard to extend this analogy if you take into account that walkway stretching. I am not sure that doing so is helpful, but I am willing to be convinced.

You are making an unwarranted assumption that the momentum is supplied by the stretching rather than being input by Tom when he tries to advance. What is the nature of the stretching of the walkway?

duplicate.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The mass/energy was there before the stars formed. Both energy and mass generated gravity according to general relativity. But even without that, the amount of expanding within an atom is negligible. The rate of expansion is, as someone else explained, about 70 km/sec per megaparsec, where a parsec is about 4.3 light years. And of course, the strong nuclear force keeps quarks together.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Then it would not model the universe, would it?Make up your mind. Are we having a discussion about the supposed faults of the big bang model, or are we discussing how to walk around the airport?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, that was the original plan. It was not you who suggested the stretching road. If they are not relevant to the topic, just what is the point of even talking about airports? Space was not expanding at the speed of light. That point has been explained several times. If you care to understand, I would recommend looking back on the posts that discuss this. I'd also suggest dropping your non-stretching roads that don't match what any is saying. They seem to be confusing you.I'll try it one more time.The rate of expansion is about 70 km/hour per megaparsec. That means that when we are looking at huge distances, we can see separations from us that are increasing at light speed.One megaparsec is about 3 * 10^22 meters.
On the other hand, an atom is about 10^-10 meters.
According to Hubble's law, the expansion of things within an atomic distance would be about 10^-30 meters per second. That means in 10^20 seconds, a time great than the age of the universe, quarks near enough to each other to be in the same nucleus would separate about the width of an atom. That tiny rate of expansion means that quarks that are near each other are not being stretched apart at any appreciable speed due to expansion. AND the strong nuclear force would pull those quarks together anyway. There is absolutely no problem with quarks separating due to the expansion of the universe.I am sure that this math and logic is an utter waste of your time, but maybe someone else will benefit.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. The energy existed from the time the universe was tiny. That means that gravity was present. So there was no obstacle to gravity holding quarks within some vicinity. But in addition to gravity there were three other forces present including the strong nuclear force. So there was no obstacle to quarks finding each other. As soon as the amount of energy was small enough, the quarks that happened to be nearby could join together.Let's talk some more about the picture of the universe prior to 300,000 years after T=0. The universe was opaque to light, so not even light could travel very far. It was only after the electrons cooled down to a certain temperature that the light could escape and the universe became transparent. So quarks and stuff were not flying away at light speed prior to that point.Beyond that, your idea that the expansion was faster than the speed of light is completely flawed. Try reading some of the posts by Modulus, Stile, and myself on this topic. You are not tasked with accepting the picture as the truth. Just with understanding the position you disagree with.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's be clear about what you are saying. What is "it" that won't work if the rubber road is not anchored at the point where Tom is standing. The universe is not anchored in that way. I cannot make sense out of what you said, so I am asking for you to explain what you mean.

The road is stretching at every point which kinda moots this if you are providing. But my question is about the "anchor" you claimed was required. I do not see a single thing in your response related to my question. Is it because that idea of an anchor is just a mistake on your part? The expansion is believed to be extremely isotropic, but this does not explain the ideas that you derive from it.

I may be wrong, but I think the issue here is trying to communicate abstract ideas using analogies to someone who simply does not want to make sense out of the idea. It seems to me that we are not just fighting misunderstanding, but are instead trying to fight willful resistance.Good luck with that.