Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 854 of 1482 (833800)
05-26-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by ringo
05-26-2018 11:40 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
So you're not here to try to understand?
I am here to try to understand but until some that know the subject well enough to explain it where a 5 grader can understand it there is no need in me wasting my time asking questions that nobody answers.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by ringo, posted 05-26-2018 11:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by caffeine, posted 05-26-2018 4:00 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 861 by ringo, posted 05-27-2018 2:34 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 858 of 1482 (833852)
05-27-2018 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 855 by caffeine
05-26-2018 4:00 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi caffeine
catteine writes:
We are discussing topics that I, as an intelligent person in their mid-thirties, find extraordinarily difficult to understand. Why would you expect that anyone would ever be able to explain this to a child?
I was just going along with a man with more knowledge than me.
Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' " Page 418 of Einstein: His Life and Times (1972) by Ronald W. Clark.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by caffeine, posted 05-26-2018 4:00 PM caffeine has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 859 of 1482 (833860)
05-27-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 856 by NoNukes
05-27-2018 12:40 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
I think I could explain a lot of this stuff to a child if his questions were honest and not an attempt not to avoid the point. In ICANT's case, more effort has been spent unteaching wrong stuff than in teaching things.
I like to think of myself as having an open mind. But there are some things where my mind is closed on some things. But those things can be changed if there is evidence to refute what I base my belief on.
In Message 794 I asked you four questions which you did not answer and accused me of playing a game.
The questions were as follows.
1. Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?
This question is simply asking you to confirm expansion or to explain it if what I said was wrong.
2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?
If that is correct a simple yes would answer the question. If no you could explain exactly what was taking place and at what speed.
3. Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?
I read that so the claim has been made. If you disagree you could tell us when empirical data was available. You could even explain what it was.
4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB?
If that is correct a simple yes would be fine. If no you could explain when the first atom was formed. If you desired you could explain exactly how that atom was formed and what it was composed of.
I am sure there are lurkers out there that would like to know.
NoNukes I am 78 years old and I am trying to write a book. I would like to have scientific facts that are correct for any information I put in the book.
This is not a game to me and if you have the answers to those question I would appreciate it if you are others could answer them. Trying to find factual information is very hard. And trying to get anything other than insults out of you is like trying to pull chickens teeth.
Everybody likes to talk about empirical evidence but nobody wants to present any.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 12:40 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 860 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2018 2:29 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 863 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:14 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 862 of 1482 (833873)
05-27-2018 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 857 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:51 AM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi Faith
Faith writes:
That's an attractive idea of course since it gives us a much bigger ark, but you don't say exactly where in the Bible you get the 24-inch cubit. And I have to ask if this is your own personal observation or there is anyone else who shares it?
You don't find the sizes in the Bible only in history.
The cubit is said to be the measurement between the tip of the elbow and the tip of the middle finger.
I have found mentions of the cubit being anywhere from 15" to 45" and anywhere in between. There are charts giving different lengths for a man relative to his height. It they were correct I would be over 7 feet tall as from the tip of my elbow to the tip of my middle finger is 22.5". Noah lived to be 950 years old so he must have been a pretty healthy fellow. We don't know his size but I would think he was much bigger in stature than I am. At present I am only 5'7.5" tall, and measure a cubit as 22.5". An old Babylonian cubit of that era was 25". And a common cubit was 24". I have also read where a Noach cubit was 25". But I just took the common 24" Babylonian cubit. If the ark is too long it would make it hard to build the bottom where the timbers could hold the weight. But with 300' trees it would be no problem to lap them and have sufficient support. Especially since you would have cross support from side to side.
The ark was to be something that could hold cargo while the water rose and fell. It was not designed to go anywhere just up with the water and down when the water receded. It had no rudder, no keel, no motor, no sail nor any oars. Now the kind of flood you talk about it would not survive everything that would be thrown at it. Most of the sites where I have talked with die hard YEC's the water would have boiled and everything would have perished. And there would have been no tree to put forth a twig for the dove to carry back to the ark. But there were a lot of things God did not tell Noah to do that He would have to have taken care of, thus involving what some would call a miracle. I personally don't believe in miracles. The only miracle I believe in is God being able to save such a sinner as I am.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 9:46 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 866 of 1482 (833977)
05-28-2018 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 865 by ringo
05-28-2018 12:26 PM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi ringo
To have a lower second and third story would means you were standing on the main deck. But to have a second story you would need a first story. To have a first story the ark would need a bottom as it has a top.
If you used 12' for the bottom you could build the bottom 4 feet thick and have 8 feet for storage space.
You could use 12' for the first story and have a 2' thick floor in it and still have 10' for storage.
You could use 12' for the second story and have a 2' thick floor in it and still have 10' for storage.
You could use 12' for the third story and have a 2' thick floor in it and still have 10' for storage.
That would leave you 12' for the main deck. You could use 2' thick floor and still have 10' for storage and roof. If the roof was 1' thick you would still have 9' for storage.
There is 46' of space available for storage on the bottom, first, second, third story and main deck.
Rooms are to be built in this area. A 2' high room would be sufficient for many of the critters. Some even less but just by adding rooms 2' high on one deck you could add the equivalent of 4 decks divide up any of the remaining areas into 6 more decks for medium sized and even smaller critters.
This gives you a bottom, a first story, a second story, a 3rd story
and a main deck. 600' long x 100' wide = 60,000 sq ft per floor space.
The equivalent of 15 decks would equal 900,000 sq feet. That would equal 20.66 acres. More is available.
This ark is only 600' by 100' by 60'.
A ark the size of what you propose divided into the 5 divisions plus building the 2' high rooms on 1 deck would equal 15 decks.
1143' long by 190.5' wide and 114.3' high would equal 217,741.5 sq feet per deck x 15 decks would equal 3,266,122.5 sq feet which equals 74.97 acres.
You missed something somewhere.
ringo writes:
So... are you looking at a fourteen-foot-tall Noah?
No I was just using the old Babylonian an old Egyptian cubit.
I am only 5' 7.5" and my forearm is 22.5".
I am going to locate my old drawing one day but that will take a lot of searching to find the hard drive it is on. It is very detailed.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 865 by ringo, posted 05-28-2018 12:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 869 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2018 7:34 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 871 by ringo, posted 05-29-2018 12:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 867 of 1482 (833978)
05-28-2018 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 864 by Faith
05-27-2018 9:46 PM


Re: Ark measurements
Hi Faith
Faith writes:
The length of a cubit I've usually heard of is 18 inches.
That is a modern cubit. There is one shorter 17.5"
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 864 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 868 of 1482 (833979)
05-28-2018 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 863 by NoNukes
05-27-2018 4:14 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
I don't want to change your mind. That is not possible
I did not say it was easy to change my mind. But it is possible.
But you need hard facts that are verifiable.
NoNukes writes:
If you'd like me to provide a list of your arguments that reveal poor faith, just ask.
Lay the list on me.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:14 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 870 of 1482 (833996)
05-28-2018 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by Modulous
05-28-2018 7:34 PM


Re: arms
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
That seems....huge.
It is just the way I am built. And yes that is the measurement from the tip of the elbow and the tip of the middle finger that is the way a cubit was measured and that is what I was talking about.
Normal for my height is 18".
My wing span from tip of middle finger to the tip of other middle finger is 6'2". Normal for my height would be 70".
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Modulous, posted 05-28-2018 7:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 872 of 1482 (834035)
05-29-2018 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by ringo
05-29-2018 12:12 PM


Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
The Bible says that the ark had three stories (Genesis 6:16), i.e. no "bottom" or "main deck".
It says:Gen 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
Finish it above. Roof.
With lower---equals first story.
Second---story
Third story.
That is 3 decks.
The ark had to have a bottom or it would not float.
What were the lower floors below if not a main deck?
But what difference would it make if I had 5 or 3? With 5 I would have less room to build rooms. So with 3 I would just have more space to build rooms.
Use the bottom for 1 floor and 20' above that put a second floor, and 20' above that put another floor. I could then build all the other rooms to match out to what I had in the 5 floors of my ark. So what is your point?
ringo writes:
Of course the biggest problem is that a wooden boat built to even the smallest cubit would probably break up. Feel free to build one and prove me wrong.
You furnish the 300' Cyprus trees and I will be glad to build one.
If you are serious let me know and I will tell you how many of the trees I need and the lengths I will need them to be, and the location to deliver them.
ringo writes:
you should be talking about cubic feet,
Regardless of the number of decks or cages you are dealing with cubic feet as you only have three million six hundred thousand cubic ft. to work with.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by ringo, posted 05-29-2018 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 873 by ringo, posted 05-30-2018 3:17 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 874 of 1482 (834137)
05-31-2018 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 873 by ringo
05-30-2018 3:17 PM


Hi ringo
ringo writes:
You can't count the roof as storage space. Anything up there would get wet.
I don't see where I said anything about storage on the roof. I did give the thickness I would build it. 1' That reduces my cubit feet.
ringo writes:
There's no reason why the bottom can't be the bottom deck.
Duh, isn't that what I called it?
ringo writes:
When somebody says three stories they don't mean five.
Where does it say it is limited to 3 stories?
quote:
Genesis 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
Which deck was the door set on?
The lower, second and third stories had to be below the deck the door was on. The bottom had to be below the second and third stories. And there could not have been a second story with out a first story.
ringo writes:
The difference is between what it doesn't say and what it does say. If you claim to believe the Bible, you shouldn't be embellishing.
I am just telling you what the Bible says no embellishment at all.
ringo writes:
Sorry, you don't get to use fantasy wood, only real wood - relatively short lengths. And you don't get to pass the buck either. Get the creationists to fund it.
What are you calling fantasy wood? There are trees today over 300 feet tall, that is no fantasy. Trees back in Noah's days were even taller.
You were the one requesting it be built. I offered to do so if you furnished the wood.
ringo writes:
That's what I'm saying. When you say a house is two thousand square feet, you're not counting the area of every shelf.
The ark was not a house. It was an ark being build to carry cargo. Every cubic foot counts as storage space.
OK since you want to limit me to 3 floors or decks I will use the bottom of the ark as #1. I will then place 2 decks between there and the roof.
The bottom is to be 4 feet thick. the other 2 will be 2 feet thick, and the roof 1 foot thick. That leaves me 51 feet to put between the decks.
From the bottom 20 feet to the bottom of the 2nd story. 2' floor and 20' to the third story plus 2' for the floor leaving 11 feet to the bottom of the joists.
Bottom floor 20 columns of rooms of various sizes.
Second story 5 columns of rooms of various sizes.
Third story 5 columns of rooms of various sizes.
This leaves 26 feet by 96 feet for living space for Noah and family.
The bottom unit would contain 572,160 sq. ft.
The second story would contain 286,080 sq. ft.
The third story would contain 208,600 sq. ft.
TOTAL OF 1,066,840 sq. ft. of storage = 24.5 Acres
I could get more acres if necessary.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 873 by ringo, posted 05-30-2018 3:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by ringo, posted 05-31-2018 12:00 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 877 of 1482 (834334)
06-03-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 860 by Modulous
05-27-2018 2:29 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod
Mod writes:
They have been answered.
Maybe to your satisfaction, but not mine.
Mod writes:
Both space is expanding and objects fly through space.
What objects fly through what space? What propels them?
quote:
By time you get to today, the observable Universe, at 13.8 billion years old, extends for 46.1 billion light years in all directions from us.
How big was the Universe at the moment of its creation? | by Ethan Siegel | Starts With A Bang! | Medium
Is this statement true?
quote:
When the Universe was one second old, it was too hot to form stable nuclei; protons and neutrons were in a sea of hot plasma. Also, the entire observable Universe would have a radius that, if we drew it around the Sun today, would enclose just the seven nearest star systems, with the farthest being Ross 154.
That would mean the diameter of the universe at one second old would be 19.178 light years in any direction. From what?
If space between each protron and neutron or anything else in the sea of hot plasma was what expanded how far apart would each of those things be?
Mod writes:
We cannot observe light from before this time. But we can use empirical observations to understand what was happening before this time. These empirical observations draw conclusions with a very high level of certainty back to about 1 second after the big bang. The certainty drops off but we have confidence about some things going back from there.
If we can't see anything what observations are you talking about?
Mod writes:
What are you looking for?
Facts that support the conclusions you are talking about.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 860 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2018 2:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by NoNukes, posted 06-03-2018 5:10 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 879 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2018 5:26 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 881 of 1482 (834367)
06-04-2018 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 879 by Modulous
06-03-2018 5:26 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
quote:
By time you get to today, the observable Universe, at 13.8 billion years old, extends for 46.1 billion light years in all directions from us.
Is this statement true?
Yes.
How could that statement be true?
Maybe that is possible.
But if there was a galaxy 46 billion light years from us in one direction and there was a galaxy 46 billion light years in the opposite direction. Would the diameter of the universe be 184 billion light years?
Mod writes:
That would mean the diameter of the universe at one second old would be 19.178 light years in any direction. From what?
From the point of view of any observer.
Where would the observer need to be located to see the entire diameter of the of the universe?
If the observer was located on the line of the diameter of the universe at 4.7945 light years from one side of the universe what would he see?
Let me rephrase my original question.
The diameter of the universe at 1 second old is 19.178 light years.
The radius of the universe at 1 second old is 9.589 light years in any direction.
Where would a observer have to be to be 9.589 light years from the edge of the universe in any direction?
Mod writes:
To answer your question: pretty darned close.
So you are saying the space between each protron and neutron or anything else in the sea of hot plasma did not expand exponentially in every direction
Mod writes:
Our observations of particles. I hope I've helped you out. Any further questions?
Yes and they raised other questions listed above.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 879 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2018 5:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 882 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2018 9:05 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 883 of 1482 (834385)
06-04-2018 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 882 by Modulous
06-04-2018 9:05 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
ICANT writes:
But if there was a galaxy 46 billion light years from us in one direction and there was a galaxy 46 billion light years in the opposite direction. Would the diameter of the universe be 184 billion light years?
No, it would 46 x 2 billion light years or about 92 billion light years. You've multiplied the radius by 4 for some reason.
ICANT added by me.
If my galaxy I was in was 46 billion light years from each of the galaxies located in opposite directions from each other with my galaxy located in the middle why wouldn't the diameter of the universe be 184 billion light years?
It is 46 billion light years from each of the galaxies to me making a total of 92 billion light years between those two galaxies.
If you were in one of those galaxies wouldn't the universe extend 46 billion light years from your galaxy in the opposite direction that I was in?
Maybe I am just not understanding the math.
Mod writes:
No observer can do this. An observer can only see the visible universe, with the time delay given to us by a finite speed of light.
Actually the only way an observer could observe the diameter of the universe is if it was one universe in a multiverse and the observer was in a different universe with a very powerful telescope. Then he could observe both ends of the diameter universe.
Mod writes:
There are no sides of the universe. An observer 40 billion light years away from us would see galaxies spread around him pretty much just like we do.
If the universe has a diameter, that diameter has a stopping point at each end of the diameter. Although it is growing pretty rapid. But yes an observer 40 billion light years away from us would see galaxies spread around him.
Mod writes:
Where would a observer have to be to be 9.589 light years from the edge of the universe in any direction?
There is no edge.
I know you keep telling me that.
But the 1 second old universe I am talking about is only 19.178 light years in diameter. Which means the radius is 9.589 light years.
My question is for an observer to be able to observe the universe existing 9.589 light years in any direction from the observers location where would the observer have to be located?
Mod writes:
When protons formed from the energy, the expansion would be about 70km/s per megaparsec. Over a distance of 1 metre, this is negligible.
Are you saying no protons existed during the inflation period?
If they did not exist what did?
But maybe electrons was the plasma that cosmologist call radiation today. Then again I could be wrong.
Mod writes:
Questions, I should point out, that have already been answered.
Not yet.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 882 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2018 9:05 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 884 by caffeine, posted 06-04-2018 4:25 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 885 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2018 6:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 886 of 1482 (834415)
06-05-2018 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by caffeine
06-04-2018 4:25 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi caffeine,
caffeine writes:
Consider you in the universe, 46 billion light years in one direction you see Fred the alien. 46 billion light years in the other you see Dave the Alien:
Neat work with the pictures.
My position in the center of the visible universe makes it possible for me to see Fred and Dave. And each of them can see me.
But Fred and Dave can not see each other as there is 92 billion light years between them.
caffeine writes:
Nonetheless, his observable universe is clearly the same size, since he can see 46 billion light years in the other direction as well. If we looked at Petunia, we would find that she can see46 billion light years in every direction as well.
I can't see Petunia but Fred can. Now if you had put yourself 46 billion light years away in a straight line from Petunia she could see you and you could see her. Then if you put Mod 46 billion light years from you in a straight line he would be visible to you and you to him but Petunia would not be able to see Mod.
I don't have any limit as to how many dots you could place and put names on in any direction from my dot in the first picture.
But science does not have that liberty according to standard theory.
caffeine writes:
Well, this is covered by the idea the balloon analogy was trying to get across, which you refused to understand.
I understand the balloon analogy I just don't accept that it is a good analogy to explain the universe.
You can only look at the outside of the balloon. You can not look at the outside of the universe as you can in your 2 pictures. We are inside the universe.
caffeine writes:
If space has no boundaries, but is curved on itself, then if you could see to an infinite extent in any one direction you would eventually be seeing the point at which you're looking from (but, of course, at an earlier time). The same as if you could somehow cast your sight all the way around the surface of the earth you would see the back of your own head (I'm aware that the geometry of the earth makes this impossible - if that's bothering you then you missed the point of the analogy).
"IF" is a very big 2 letter word.
According to the standard theory space is expanding in every direction at the same time and we are inside of whatever it is that is expanding.
How can space be curved? If it is expanding in every direction at the same time?
But you are not on the outside of the universe. You do live on the surface of the earth.
Inside the universe there is no horizon like there is on the earth. It is flat as far as the telescope can see, in any direction it is pointed.
You can start on a journey on the earth and if you go in a straight line you would return to the starting point.
But you start on a journey in the universe and go in a straight line you would never return to the starting point. In fact you would only get further away from it, as long as you went in a straight line.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by caffeine, posted 06-04-2018 4:25 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 887 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 7:23 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 888 of 1482 (834425)
06-05-2018 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 885 by Modulous
06-04-2018 6:12 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
Is it everything? Maybe, maybe not. We cant' know.
Why can't we know?
We can see to 380,000 years after pin point sized universe which is right after seeing nothing.
So why isn't that all there is? Science can give us nothing past that point but man's imagination of what might have been.
I have information that tells me the universe existed prior to the singularity it just was not in the form it is today. It had to be transformed from what it was into what it is today.
Mod writes:
The further we look, the older it gets until it doesn't get older because its brand new. Yeah OK that's more confusion
That sounds like you actually believe the universe had a beginning to exist.
Mod writes:
But the 1 second old universe I am talking about is only 19.178 light years in diameter. Which means the radius is 9.589 light years.
No - everything we can observe today took up a space with a radius of 19 light years then.
No what?
The entire universe at 1 second old had a diameter of 19.178 light years.
It was no smaller or larger than 19.178 light years in diameter.
Alpha Centauri is 4.367 light years from earth or about 25.6 trillion miles. The radius of the 1 second old universe was 9.589 light years.
If we divide 25.6 x 4.367 we get 5.86+trillion miles for each light year. You then multiply 5.86 x 9.589 which equals 56.19+ trillion miles.
That means the 1 second old universe went from pin point size to a universe with a radius of 56.19 trillion miles and a diameter of 112.38 trillion miles.
If space is expanding in every direction as the theory says that 1 second old universe would have 743,131.55 trillion cubic miles in it.
I think my math is correct but if it is not I am sure someone will correct it for me.
Mod writes:
OK so you can actually only see 300,000km since it has only been a second and light has a finite speed. Just to clear that up. To answer the question: the observable universe is the same size wherever you are. So the answer is: anywhere.
Why would I be able to see 300,000 km?
It is 56.19 trillion miles to where the space has expanded too, since expansion began and we can't see anything until 380,000 years have passed from that 1 second.
My concern is if space is what has expanded between each electron of the plasma there has to be miles between each electron. So how do they get back together to form anything?
Mod writes:
Energy.
Actually it was called plasma. That plasma was made of electrons which is energy.
Mod writes:
They were answered, you just didn't pay attention or did not understand. If you have any follow ups, please be my guest.
If you think so. That's alright I got a lot more.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 885 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2018 6:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 889 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 9:28 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024