Creation

No, you made up something. The Bible says that the ark had three stories (Genesis 6:16), i.e. no "bottom" or "main deck".And "rooms" are not 2' high. It's true that you can stack cages but then you should be talking about cubic feet, not square feet. You could have thousands of "acres" if you count the cages small enough for an ant - but the figure would be meaningless.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.

Hi ringo, 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? 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. 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,

You can't count the roof as storage space. Anything up there would get wet. There's no reason why the bottom can't be the bottom deck.When somebody says three stories they don't mean five. 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. 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. 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.

Hi ringo 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. Duh, isn't that what I called it? 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. I am just telling you what the Bible says no embellishment at all. 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. 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 AcresI could get more acres if necessary.God Bless,

Duh, didn't you count it as a separate level? It says it was three stories.It rained for forty days, not forty-two. There were ten commandments, not twelve. Jesus had twelve disciples, not fourteen. He fed five thousand people, not seven thousand, with five loaves and two fishes, not seven loaves and four fishes. Nobody's uimposing a "limit' on any of those numbers but those are the numbers. You can't just change them arbitrarily. I'm not an expert on boatbuilding but I'd recommend putting it above the water line. other than that. it doesn't make much difference where you put it. Non sequitur. In Message 866 you said:

quote:

---

This gives you a bottom, a first story, a second story, a 3rd story and a main deck.

---

Separating the bottom and the main deck from the three stories is an embellishment. That's a fantasy. I'm not requesting. I'm challenging you or any other creationist to build the thing if you think it can be built.

Watching the twisting and turning about the flood is interesting. But isn't the topic Creation? There are lots of flood threads.Just sayin...

Hi Mod Maybe to your satisfaction, but not mine. 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! | MediumIs 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? If we can't see anything what observations are you talking about? Facts that support the conclusions you are talking about.God Bless,

This may be a situation where a lack of communication creates the illusion of bad faith.You ask a question and get an answer. You are not satisfied with the answer. A great way to handle such a situation is to ask a different question. If instead you simply repeat the question as if there had been no response, it looks like a silly game rather than an attempt to communicate.Let me cite an example. You asked several times about raisins and refused to accept the answer that the stickiness of the raisins mattered. Instead of pretending that you had won the debate, wouldn't it have been better to pursue that issue?Quite frankly though, my own impression is that you don't want to resolve the issue. You are trying to win rather than to understand.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

They were basically yes/no questions. What else do you want? All objects fly through all space. They don't need propulsion - it's space. Gravity does a lot of heavy lifting here. Yes. From the point of view of any observer. If the volume of the observable universe is 380,000,000,000,000 light years³... The volume when it was 20 light years in radius was in region of 38,000 light years³So the density, was about 10,000,000,000 times greater than it is today. Today the density of the observable universe is somewhere in the region of 5 atoms per cubic metre. So after one second the density would come out to 50,000,000,000 atoms per cubic metre. I understand there were no atoms - but that's the kind of density we're talking about here on the back of an envelope for you.To answer your question: pretty darned close. Our observations of particles. I hope I've helped you out. Any further questions?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This video explains the vast distances better:

Hi Mod, 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? 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? 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 Yes and they raised other questions listed above.God Bless,

Well we can see objects that are about 13 billion light years away. But the light from that object has taken 13 billion years to get to us, by definition. In that 13 billion years, space has expanded. So the object right at this moment is actually further away and older than it appears to be. 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. 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. 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. There is no edge. When protons formed from the energy, the expansion would be about 70km/s per megaparsec. Over a distance of 1 metre, this is negligible. Questions, I should point out, that have already been answered.

Hi Mod, 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. Not yet.God Bless,

I am risking a post in this thread well outside my subject area, at the chance of being shot down by those more knowledgable.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: Fair enough. Now lets consider things from Fred's perspective. He still sees you 46 billion light years away. 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.So what's going on here? Well, one thing to consider is that there is no reason the observable universe has to be everything. Sure, there's a limit to how far light could have travelled since the Big Bang, but why should we assume there's nothing beyond that limit? 93 billion light years represents the diameter of what can be observed. We have no idea how much else there is.Of course, it always possible that the diameter of the universe is less than 93 billion light years - even though that's that size of the obsevable universe. How can that be? Well, this is covered by the idea the balloon analogy was trying to get across, which you refused to understand.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).

Making the diameter of the observable universe 92 billion light years. Right, and the diameter of my observable universe would also be 92 billion light years. But why stop there? Go another 46 billion light years and its the same story. Another, and that observer sees the same size of observable universe.The observable universe is just how much we can see. What we see when we turn on our expensive telescopes is light from an object about 13 billion years ago. The source of that light is now 46 billion years away. We can't see any further than that. That's the observable universe.Is it everything? Maybe, maybe not. We cant' know. The observable universe is limited to a few hundred thousand years from big bang - beyond this point the universe is opaque so we can't see anything. That boundary isn't the edge of the universe. It's just the early stages of it. Even if we could see beyond that, it'd only get us a little further. That's why there is a limit. But it isn't where the universe ends, it's where it begins. OK, that profundity is basically wordplay but still that's what we're dealing with here. The further we look, the older it gets until it doesn't get older because its brand new. Yeah OK that's more confusion Basically the observable universe is limited because of the speed of light. That's the same for any observer in the universe. Whether they are 46billion light years away or 4600 billion light years away. The actual universe either doesn't have a diameter because it is infinite or it does have a diameter - or something like it - but as a mathematical concept in a fourth spatial dimension which may or may not actually exist.You know, I'm still convinced thinking about this in 2 dimensions is easier, but whatever floats your boat. No - everything we can observe today took up a space with a radius of 19 light years then. 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.Interesting corollary: much of our observable universe is giving off light right now that we'll never see. Yes, as I've said multiple times now. Energy. They were answered, you just didn't pay attention or did not understand. If you have any follow ups, please be my guest.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.