|
Author
|
Topic: Creation
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
Message 890 of 1482 (834433)
06-05-2018 10:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 887 by Modulous
06-05-2018 7:23 PM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: Standard theory says the universe could be infinite in size. Indeed the evidence we have points to this conclusion, but not definitively. So standard theory has no built in limits to the number of dots. Are you saying the universe is not 13.6 billion years old? If it is not 13.6 billion years old, how old is it? The age of the universe limits it's size.
Mod writes: Well in the 2D balloon analogy there is no 'outside the balloon' there is only the surface of the balloon. The balloon has two surfaces one inside and one outside. Have you never turned a balloon inside out?
Mod writes: though the third dimension isn't a real thing in the example. If the third dimension isn't a real thing how does it represent one?
Mod writes: With one dimension you can only go backwards and forwards. As an analogy to the universe there are three basic possible shapes: Why do you go from directions of movement to shapes? The universe can only be one shape.
quote:
The universe is expanding and it is doing so at the same rate in all directions, according to new measurements that appear to confirm the standard model of cosmology.
Universe Expanding Symmetrically, Real-Time Analysis Shows | Space How isotropic is the Universe? Daniela Saadeh,1,* Stephen M. Feeney,2 Andrew Pontzen,1 Hiranya V. Peiris,1 and Jason D. McEwen3 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, U.K. 2Astrophysics Group, Imperial College London, Blackett Laboratory, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2AZ, U.K. 3Mullard Space Science Laboratory (MSSL), University College London, Surrey RH5 6NT, U.K. Conclusions: In this work, we put the assumption that the Universe expands isotropically to its most stringent test to-date. For the first time, we searched for signatures of the most general departure from isotropy that preserves homogeneity in an open or flat universe, without restricting to specific degrees of freedom. We have remodeled existing frameworks to analyze CMB polarization data in addition to temperature, allowing us to place the tightest constraints possible with the current CMB data. We find overwhelming evidence against deviations from isotropy, placing simultaneous upper limits on all modes for the first time, and improving Planck constraints on vorticity by an order of magnitude. The universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. That creates a sphere and nothing else.
Mod writes: 2) A circle. The line wraps around itself to form a circle. The line still has only one dimension, but it can be mathematically described as a circle embedded in a 2D environment. In this 1D universe you can keep walking forwards on the line forever, but sooner or later you'd end up where you started (assuming the line didn't inconveniently expand on you too quickly A 2d circle is not a sphere. Where do you get such a foolish idea? You don't exist on the outside of the universe. You are inside the universe. It can collapse on you but that would take a long time and I don't think you would live long enough for it to affect you.
Mod writes: 2) 3sphere. This is a 3 dimensional space that curves back on itself How can a sphere curve back on itself? A sphere that is expanding in every direction at the same time can never do anything but expand unless it stops expanding and collapses and implodes back to the singularity. I think they call that the big crunch.
Mod writes: There are other possible shapes that meet the various criteria, but to avoid complicating the matter any further I have omitted their discussion. You are confused enough without discussing any other possibilities. Important question please answer if you do not address anything else in this post. Is the universe expanding in every direction equally? 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 887 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 7:23 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 892 of 1482 (834436)
06-06-2018 12:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 891 by Modulous
06-05-2018 11:04 PM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: Is the universe expanding in every direction equally? Yes. Great we can agree on something. Next question: According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense pin point sized object ? 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 891 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 11:04 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 894 of 1482 (834451)
06-06-2018 1:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 893 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 12:29 PM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Define "object." Is a bunch of energy an object? I would assume that the word entity would be a better description. The entity that existed was electrons in the form of plasma. If that is wrong I am sure you will correct me. 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 893 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 12:29 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 895 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 1:34 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 898 of 1482 (834459)
06-06-2018 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 889 by Modulous
06-05-2018 9:28 PM
|
|
Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: So it stands to reason there might be galaxies that are not visible to us today. Yes there are probably galaxies we see today that we are seeing the last light from them now as no more light will be able to reach us. As long as we can determine the rate of expansion and the duration of that period of expansion we should be able to give the diameter of the universe including what we cannot see.
Mod writes: What we observe when we look out there today was a maximum of 19 light years away from each other after 1 second. What each other? The universe had expanded from the pin point entity to a universe that had a diameter of over 19 light years.
Mod writes: The speed of light is 300,000 km/s. There has only been one second for light to travel. But there was no light until 380,000 years after expansion began.
Mod writes: As pointed out -it started out very dense. By the time it got to 19 light years wide it was still very dense. There would be space between every electron. If that space expanded at 186,000 miles per second that would put 186,000 miles between each electron. You need to figure out a way to slow down the rate of expansion the space was expanding.
Mod writes: Planck epoch: 0 - 10-43 seconds ???? Grand unification epoch: 10-43 - 10-36 seconds. The four fundamental forces are united as a single force. Gravity has separated to operate independently. As such mass, charge, flavour and colour charge are all meaningless concepts at this time. However, a small number of fundamental particles form. Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds. Rapid expansion of space. As a rough guide a nanometre's worth of space expanded to about 10 light years. The energy density in that nanometre of space was so huge, that it was still significant once it had expanded out 10 light years (this is the bit that kills your objection). This sudden drop in volume also means a drop in temperature. And this results in the sudden appearance of a very dense collection of fundamental particles such as quarks and gluons. Electroweak epoch: 10-32 - 10−12 seconds. The strong and electroweak force seperate from the unified forces. This is the era of the quark-gluon plasma. Other exotic particles such as Higgs Bosons, W and Z bosons make an appearance. We're entering the realms of 'strongly empirically verified' physics. Quark epoch: 10−12 - 10−6 seconds. The fundamental forces have separated into their distinct forces we see today. Quarks, electrons, neutrinos form as the temperature continues to drop allowing them to exist in large (and dense) numbers. Hadron epoch: 10—6 seconds to 1 second. Things start cooling down even more allowing quarks to team up to form protons and other Hadrons. Electrons collide with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. It's party time! But alas - Hadrons are getting annihilated by anti-hadrons. Eventually the mass of the universe is no longer dominated by hadrons but... Lepton Epoch: 1 second to 3 minutes - Leptons! The electrons, the muons the neutrinos, the positrons - they dominate the mass of the universe. But oh no! more annihilations and the leptons no longer dominate the mass of the universe its time for Photon Epoch: 3 minutes to 240,000 years. The first 20 minutes is the time of nuclear fusion - where protons and neutrons are colliding to form nuclei the temperature is about a billion degrees and falling. This time is where the energy of the universe is dominated by photons. Recombination/Decoupling: 240,000 to 300,000 years. Temperature has dropped to a mere 3,000 K (surface of the sun temperatures) - this allows the nuclei formed during the photon epoch to capture electrons to form atoms. The drop in free electrons means photons are no longer interacting so much with them which renders the universe transparent. This is the 'barrier' we spoke of. This is what is thought to have happened and you seem to have assumed it is fact. If you got any hard evidence please present it.
quote:
The following is the current "theory" of the very early universe. Inflation, while not conclusively confirmed, is generally believed to be essentially correct in its overall implications if not in exact detail. Cosmologists believe that Inflation may be tweaked in the future but the essentials of it will survive. Several signs of Inflation have been observed, but not enough to "confirm" it.
Cosmologists believe, and believe = faith. The Planck Era.
quote:
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows.
no way of knowing...it is "assumed" = faith.
quote:
Note that Inflationary theory does not say anything about the "whole" universe, only the observable universe.
Then why is it applied to the earliest moments of the universe's existence? Since the first 380,000 years are not part of the visible universe I guess inflation has nothing to do with that period.
quote:
Inflation was a period of super cooled expansion and the temperature dropped by a factor of 100,000 or so and continued to be cool during this phase. When Inflation ended the temperature returned to the pre-Inflationary temperature, back up by a factor of 100,000. This period is called "Reheating".
What was the medium that the heat was transferred to in order for the universe to cool. Then what produced the heat to reheat the universe?
quote:
After Inflation, the universe slowed down to the normal "Hubble Rate" expansion and was filled with radiation and elementary particles, sometimes called "quark soup".
What was the mechanism that slowed down the expansion of the universe?
quote:
Recombination (380,000 Years) For the next 310,000 years the universe continued to expand and cool, but was still fiery hot and dark. Any visible light was immediately scattered by collisions with the ubiquitous electrons and protons. It contained only the simplest elements, mostly hydrogen and helium ions. As the universe cooled further, the electrons (with a negative charge) begin to get captured by the ions (with a positive charge) forming atoms (electrically neutral). This process happened relatively fast and is known as "recombination". The first bits of structure began to form. These small clumps of matter grew in size as their gravity attracted other nearby matter. At about 380,000 years of cooling, light (photons) began to travel through the spaces between the atoms which now "bond" the electrons in their orbits. The universe had become transparent.
Finally the universe is transparent.
quote:
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The first early radiation that could freely travel was the CMB, the remnants of which we can detect in the current universe 13.75 billion years later. 380,000 years is the earliest point in time we can ever look back and "see" because everything before that was part of the dark ages.
The Very Early Universe 380,000 years is the earliest point in time we can ever look back and "see" It is hard for you to tell me what happened when nobody actually knows what happened, because we can see it nor can we recreate it. My God did it is just as plausible as the present assumptions. 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 889 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2018 9:28 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 907 of 1482 (834601)
06-08-2018 5:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 895 by NoNukes
06-06-2018 1:34 PM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Even the term entity is problematic. There may have been a bunch of electrons. entity, definition: a thing with distinct and independent existence. Could you explain why whatever existed at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 was not a thing that had independent existence and was distinct? Actually the electrons at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 was called radiation.
NoNukes writes: I have no idea where your certainty about what existed comes from. We don't know the physics at time T=0, so we cannot state a really specific answer based on science and certainly, your speculation about electrons and plasma does not have a Biblical source. I don't remember mentioning T=0 that is your insertion. At 1 billionth of a second after T=0 when the temperature was trillions of degrees and even hotter a plasma existed. The electron was what cosmologists consider radiation. Why does electrons and plasma need a Biblical source. Science is what describes how God created the universe.
NoNukes writes: The reason for nit-picking the word "entity" or "object" is to avoid follow up questions based on assumptions about raisins. During the expansion, the energy would have thinned out, producing cooling, but it does not make sense to say that the energy became separated, particularly because during, that first 300,000 years, the universe was opaque to light. Expansion=space expanding. Electrons, Protons, or any other particle is not expanding. Only the space which would be between each and everyone of the electrons, quarks, or gluons and anything else at 1 billionth of a second after T=0 would be expanding. If that happened the space between them would be expanded to 19 light years in diameter at 1 second after T=0. Now if expansion theory is wrong that would not happen. 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 895 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2018 1:34 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 908 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2018 3:14 AM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 909 of 1482 (834812)
06-12-2018 5:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 901 by caffeine
06-06-2018 3:59 PM
|
|
Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi caffeine,
caffeine writes: Firstly, the idea that inflation happened 'at the speed of light' is yours. Where would I get such an idea. The Bible says no such thing as the speed the universe is expanding at. It only says God stretched it out. Here is one place I get the idea from.
quote:
Some of the misunderstandings surrounding this topic might come from confusion over what is meant by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light!
Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer Here is another one you have to click page down 5 times to reach the information which is located in a black circle. Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic) | Space
Caffeine writes: More importantly, expansion of space can't happen at one 'speed'. Why not? Especially when the total volume of everything is no larger than a pin point.
quote:
The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously. The work that goes into understanding the expanding universe comes from a combination of theoretical physics and direct observations by astronomers. However, in some cases astronomers have not been able to see direct evidence such as the case of gravitational waves associated with the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. A preliminary announcement about finding these waves in 2014 was quickly retracted, after astronomers found the signal detected could be explained by dust in the Milky Way.
What slowed the speed of that expansion down to the Hubble speed? I reckon a better question would be is, what started that expansion from zero to the speed of light? Actually I can't find any scientific evidence prior to 380,000 years after the BB.
caffeine writes: As space expands, more space is created, How is more space created? All the space that is in the universe existed at 10 -34s. As I understand it that existing space is what expanded. Nothing was created as it was a self contained universe at that time.
caffeine writes: This means that, as space expands between two objects, the rate at which the distance between them increases will also increase. How can the rate increase? In Message 884 You presented a couple of pictures. Dave the Alien is on one edge of your picture I am in the middle and Fred the Alien on the other edge of the picture. If the space between Dave and I expands and the space between Fred and I expands the distance between Fred and Dave is twice what it is between Dave and I or Fred and I. Dave sees the space expand between himself and I and also he sees the space expand between myself and Fred so the space has doubled between Dave and Fred.
caffeine writes: But that's not the important misunderstanding. You're imagining what would happen after a second of inflation; but this means you're not looking carefully at the numbers Mod gave in his account of inflationary cosmology: I am not imagining anything. I am doing the same thing that Mod is doing. I am presenting somebody else's imagination.
caffeine writes: You're a big fan of quoting Roger Penrose, so to clarify what he's saying - it's the infinitesimally tiny fraction of a second referred to above that he has major doubts about. Roger had doubts about string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmology. He came up with his twistor theory.
quote:
Arguing that string theory has veered away from physical reality by positing six extra hidden dimensions, Penrose cautions that the fashionable nature of a theory can cloud our judgment of its plausibility. In the case of quantum mechanics, its stunning success in explaining the atomic universe has led to an uncritical faith that it must also apply to reasonably massive objects, and Penrose responds by suggesting possible changes in quantum theory. Turning to cosmology, he argues that most of the current fantastical ideas about the origins of the universe cannot be true, but that an even wilder reality may lie behind them. Finally, Penrose describes how fashion, faith, and fantasy have ironically also shaped his own work, from twistor theory, a possible alternative to string theory that is beginning to acquire a fashionable status, to "conformal cyclic cosmology," an idea so fantastic that it could be called "conformal crazy cosmology."
The older he gets the smarter he gets. He is even leaning to the soul (spirit) living beyond death.
caffeine writes: Does the concept of inflation lasting only 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds clarify why things would still be pretty close together when it ended? You know inflation lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds because _______________________________________________________________ Fill in the blank present any scientific facts you have. But Roger said Cosmic Inflation Is ‘Fantasy’. I think he means it was fantasized in somebody's mind not in scientific fact. I could be wrong and someone could present scientific facts that support such a fantasy. 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 901 by caffeine, posted 06-06-2018 3:59 PM | | caffeine has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 914 by caffeine, posted 06-13-2018 2:24 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 910 of 1482 (834817)
06-12-2018 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 908 by NoNukes
06-09-2018 3:14 AM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Would you really refer, for example, to the Atlantic ocean as an entity? Why would I do that? It has a name, so you call it by it's name.
NoNukes writes: Not all things, or entities, or objects are the same. No, but most things, entities, or objects have names.
NoNukes writes: Electrons cannot expand. They are not believed to have any dimensions at all. Aren't electrons actually energy?
NoNukes writes: Protons, being formed of sub-particles might be expanding, although I would expect such expansion to be negligible. Wouldn't they have to have space inside them to expand? If they did they what would keep them from expanding eternally. But yes they can attach other particles and build galaxies.
NoNukes writes: Aren't you ignoring 1) the strong nuclear force and 2) the fact that these particles formed from energy at some point? I don't have any problem with them existing at some point. Do you have any verifiable evidence to tell us when they began to exist?
NoNukes writes: Your claims in this regard have been rebutted many times, and you have yet to tell anyone why the rebuttals are wrong. I have been told several times my claims are wrong. But no one has rebutted them with verifiable evidence. My main claim is that if expansion is correct and the space in the pin point sized universe expanded at the speed of light every quark, gluon, electrons or anything else that existed in the universe would be separated in 1 second by 186,000 miles of space. One cosmologist puts the diameter of the universe at that time as 19.7 light years. Now are you going to tell me that inflation only lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. If so what caused it to accelerate from zero to 186,000 miles per second then brake and slow down to Hubble's rate of expansion. How long would it take to go from zero to 186,000 miles per second? How long would it take to slow down from 186,000 miles per second to Hubble's rate of expansion?
NoNukes writes: Perhaps you are just not able to comprehend what is being said. Either way. Do you understand there is no verifiable evidence until after 380,000 years after the Big Bang. You say but there is evidence. Then present it. Sir Roger Penrose says Cosmic Inflation Is ‘Fantasy’. 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 908 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2018 3:14 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 913 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2018 2:03 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 911 of 1482 (834818)
06-13-2018 12:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 903 by Modulous
06-06-2018 4:14 PM
|
|
Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: To do that, we'd also need to know its size at a given prior point of time. Which we don't. So we can't. There was no prior point in time unless time exists outside of the universe. But according to you time is a dimension in the universe.
Mod writes: The universe we observe today had grown to that size. Which would have happened in 1 second. The universe is said to be 19.7 light years in diameter. Page down to page 22.
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.
How big was the Universe at the moment of its creation? | by Ethan Siegel | Starts With A Bang! | Medium
Mod writes: I'm pretty sure I said that the universe was opaque - meaning photons couldn't freely travel. Meaning that technically the observable universe was 0m in diameter at that time. But what we call the observable universe today - that which we can observe had a particular diameter. Are you saying that for 380,000 years the universe was not expanding? Since it was unobservable for 380,000 years why did you write the following?
Mod writes:
Planck epoch: 0 - 10-43 seconds ???? Grand unification epoch: 10-43 - 10-36 seconds. The four fundamental forces are united as a single force. Gravity has separated to operate independently. As such mass, charge, flavour and colour charge are all meaningless concepts at this time. However, a small number of fundamental particles form. Inflationary epoch: 10−36 - 10-32 seconds. Rapid expansion of space. As a rough guide a nanometre's worth of space expanded to about 10 light years. The energy density in that nanometre of space was so huge, that it was still significant once it had expanded out 10 light years (this is the bit that kills your objection). This sudden drop in volume also means a drop in temperature. And this results in the sudden appearance of a very dense collection of fundamental particles such as quarks and gluons. Electroweak epoch: 10-32 - 10−12 seconds. The strong and electroweak force seperate from the unified forces. This is the era of the quark-gluon plasma. Other exotic particles such as Higgs Bosons, W and Z bosons make an appearance. We're entering the realms of 'strongly empirically verified' physics. Quark epoch: 10−12 - 10−6 seconds. The fundamental forces have separated into their distinct forces we see today. Quarks, electrons, neutrinos form as the temperature continues to drop allowing them to exist in large (and dense) numbers. Hadron epoch: 10—6 seconds to 1 second. Things start cooling down even more allowing quarks to team up to form protons and other Hadrons. Electrons collide with protons to form neutrons and neutrinos. It's party time! But alas - Hadrons are getting annihilated by anti-hadrons. Eventually the mass of the universe is no longer dominated by hadrons but... Lepton Epoch: 1 second to 3 minutes - Leptons! The electrons, the muons the neutrinos, the positrons - they dominate the mass of the universe. But oh no! more annihilations and the leptons no longer dominate the mass of the universe its time for Photon Epoch: 3 minutes to 240,000 years. The first 20 minutes is the time of nuclear fusion - where protons and neutrons are colliding to form nuclei the temperature is about a billion degrees and falling. This time is where the energy of the universe is dominated by photons. Recombination/Decoupling: 240,000 to 300,000 years. Temperature has dropped to a mere 3,000 K (surface of the sun temperatures) - this allows the nuclei formed during the photon epoch to capture electrons to form atoms. The drop in free electrons means photons are no longer interacting so much with them which renders the universe transparent. This is the 'barrier' we spoke of. If it was unobservable where did all that information come from?
Mod writes: I've already proven this false since there aren't enough miles in the universe to space out all the particles this way. All that remains is for you to concede this. Actually all you can prove is that the expansion theory is wrong.
Mod writes: Your objections rely on assuming the model is true in order prove a contradiction that renders it impossible. Unfortunately, you are misunderstanding the model and the problem you raise does not impact it. I've explained why. The universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form...not hundreds of thousands miles between them. Granted - any particles that formed pre-inflation or during inflation are scattered huge distances if they survived that long - but the density of the quark-gluon plasma after inflation is still dense enough that your core objection fails. How do you know the universe started off so dense that by the time particles start coalescing, the energy density was still great enough that the particles coalesce in a dense form? Electrons existed pre-inflation and was called radiation by cosmologist. Some say quarks, and gluons existed but the temperature is the trillions of degrees K so there would have been a plasma. You say inflation lasted 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. Where does that number come from? How did it go from zero mps to 186,000 mps in that short of a time span and then how did it slow to the Hubble rate of expansion? What was the cause of that acceleration?
Mod writes: Better to trust empirical science than the word of some anonymous author, I feel. What is the empirical scientific evidence concerning anything from the BB to 380,000 years?
Mod writes: It refers to the observable universe as it is today, not then. So inflation did not take place at Planck time 10 -43 seconds, is that what you are saying?
Mod writes: A phase transition of the thing that causes the expansion. You haven't explained yet what caused expansion to begin, what was it?
Mod writes: You talk as if science doesn't use observations of experiments to determine what happens in places we can't see. If you can't see what is there, how big it is, or what it is made of how can you design an experiment to test what happened?
Mod writes: "God did it" is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing. The Fantasy you believe in is meaningless, explains nothing and predicts nothing. 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 903 by Modulous, posted 06-06-2018 4:14 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 916 of 1482 (834877)
06-14-2018 9:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 912 by Modulous
06-13-2018 1:13 PM
|
|
Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: We're talking about the size of the universe today. And there definitely was a prior point in time for today. Yesterday is an example. I thought we were talking about some fraction of a second up to a second after T=0. Not yesterday.
Mod writes: Which is what I said. Did you forget what your point was or something? I was just reminding you it had reached that 19.7 light years in diameter in 1 second. I gave the volume of a sphere that had a diameter of 19.7 light years. If the space expanding was the result of a universe 19.7 light years in diameter in 1 second, that was pretty fast. It had to expand at 5.88 trillion miles per second. That sounds impossible to me. But again it is not my assumptions.
So the unseen universe was expanding for 380.000 years. When we get to the visible universe what was the diameter of the unseen universe? Where is that non visible universe located at today? Wouldn't it have to be located at the center of the visible universe?
Mod writes: Understanding how the fundamental particles and forces work. That is to say: physics. I have answered this several times now. You use the word physics like I use the word Bible.
Mod writes: I'll take that as a concession that your objection regarding particles being too far apart to form atoms is faulty. No concession just a statement of observation. I still find the theory of expansion discussed so you haven't proved it wrong yet. Space can only exist between things. If that space expands all those things are further apart. What part of that do you not understand?
Mod writes: I already showed you. You estimate what the density of the observable universe is, then you calculate how dense it would be if you reduced the amount of volume to the size it was when this was happening and the answer is staring you in the face. If you want me to understand that you will have to explain the mechanism that could cause everything in the current universe including all the 24% of dark matter, the 71.4% of Dark energy plus all the 4.6% of atoms (normal matter), to reduce its current size to the size of a pin point. There is no such known mechanism.
Mod writes: I'm sure you have a point, but you forgot to make it. I was just making a statement of what is said to have existed and in what form it was in before space began to expand.
Mod writes: Physics. You've not demonstrated any ability to understand advanced physics so it seems like a fool's errand to put it in front of you. There you go referring to your bible again.
Mod writes: In simple terms: a scalar field through all of space with a high potential energy which drops as the universe expands - this results in a phase change resulting in a slowing of the expansion rate. But you only have 0.00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 of a second for speed up, expansion, and slow down. I don't know the name for a number with 32 spaces but 30 spaces would be 1 nonillionth of a second. That is a very short time. Sounds like a miracle to me.
Mod writes: We apply that knowledge to the conditions of the early universe (temperature, density etc). But you have no facts from the early universe. All you have are assumptions.
Mod writes: I put something that was at least -10C in a glass and locked in a safe that only I have the key for. 24 hours later I open the safe and it has water in it. The current temperature of the safe is 25C. Without being able to see this happen but knowing some information about the early conditions and the final outcome you can guess that the glass contained some ice. Who measured the temperature of the universe when it began to expand? Who measured the universe when it was supposed to be the size of a pin point? Those were produce in what Sir Roger Penrose says is a fantasy.
Mod writes: That's science. You can work out what happened in an accident, a murder or whatever other phenomena you are interested in by building experiments based on educated guesswork and seeing the consequences and figuring out what the experiment results tell you about the phenomena in question. The degree of certainty can vary depending on a number of factors. You can examine the evidence accumulated from the scene of the accident or murder. You can't examine anything as you have nothing from the scene of the beginning of the universe. In fact the first thing you have is the cmbr 380,000 years after the so called BB.
Mod writes: Nothing except the history of the last 13.7 billion years But you don't have a history of the first 380,000 years.
Mod writes: but it's still a heck of a lot more than 'god did it'. How do you know? You have never given a thought as to how God might have done it. 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 912 by Modulous, posted 06-13-2018 1:13 PM | | Modulous has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 919 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2018 2:30 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 917 of 1482 (834879)
06-14-2018 10:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 913 by NoNukes
06-13-2018 2:03 PM
|
|
Re: shapes
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: So does the universe ICANT. Yet you called it an entity. I don't believe it was a universe at the time we are referencing.
NoNukes writes: No. Electrons are matter. They have mass. Why were they called radiation in the earliest so called universe if they were not energy?
NoNukes writes: No. Where do you get that idea? quote:
When substances expand or contract, their particles stay the same size. It is the space between the particles that changes:
Page down 6 times. Page not found - BBC Bitesize
NoNukes writes: You did not address the question. Your assumption that particles were too widely separated to form atoms makes assumptions about how and when those particles formed, and other assumptions about the effect of forces between particles when they were close. Sure I did you just didn't get it. A plasma is said to exist at the time of expansion. If all the space in that plasma, and it had to be there as it exists today, expanded. It would have been between anything and everything that existed in that plasma and after 1 second scattered over a universe that had a radius of 5.88 trillion miles. Atoms were not formed until the universe was 380,000 years old as it was too hot for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei forming the first atoms. Those were mainly helium and hydrogen. 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 913 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2018 2:03 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 918 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2018 1:53 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 922 of 1482 (840666)
10-02-2018 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 918 by NoNukes
06-14-2018 1:53 PM
|
|
Re: ICANT being ICANT
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: It was the beginning of the universe ICANT. What game are you playing here? When would it start or stop being an entity? And what is the significance of such a thing. Actually you or anyone else does not know if or when the universe began to exist. According to the standard Big Bang Theory the universe existed at the earliest knowledge of its existence known to mankind. cavediver an Son Goku made it plain to me that it was very small but whatever size it was it was the entire universe. No one knows where it came from or why it was there. I think you would agree with that. To me my Bible answers that question. So now we have a universe according to the BBT. This universe for no known reason began to expand. But the BBT has a lot of problems that need fixing. So inflation was proposed to fix all the problems with the BBT. This inflation caused the universe to expand at super speeds. Expansion is explained as a loaf of bread with raisins in it. The raisins are separated as the bread expands. Then it is explained that the expansion of the universe is the space expands between the objects in the universe. If this is the case whatever existed we call a universe had something that space began to expand between. Is this the correct view? If not what is the correct explanation of expansion? I need to get this straight before I can go any further. So can we agree that the universe existed when we first knew anything about it? Can we also agree that universe began to expand for no known reason? 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 918 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2018 1:53 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 923 of 1482 (840672)
10-03-2018 12:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 921 by creation
10-02-2018 10:21 PM
|
|
Re: Creation
Hi creation
creation writes: That is one definition of time. I don't think we could define eternity. Why can't we define eternity? We define it as infinite or unending. God defined it when He said I exist that I exist. Without existence there can be no events with duration between them to measure.
creation writes: I think man also uses the decay of atoms to measure time, and other things, not just the rotation of earth..... The atomic clock uses the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom to equal a second. But it is still based on the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. Every so often the atomic clock has to be adjusted to match the rotation of the earth. That is the reason we have leap seconds. 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 921 by creation, posted 10-02-2018 10:21 PM | | creation has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 928 of 1482 (840733)
10-03-2018 5:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 924 by creation
10-03-2018 2:13 AM
|
|
Re: Creation
Hi creation,
creation writes: How about existence where the duration does not involve the same amount of time? If you existed near a star, how would we know what sort of time you would experience there? There is no such thing as time. Time is a concept of mankind to measure the duration between events in eternity. It is based on the duration of the earth making 1 complete revolution in relation to the sun. Mankind divided the duration of that revolution into 24 hours, each hour, divided into 60 minutes and each minute into 60 seconds etc..
creation writes: Our concept of unending may not really encompass what eternity is. For example we imagine an arrow of time moving in a certain way in a certain direction. What if time was something else? I see time more as a feature of this temporary present world. But that arrow of time has a beginning. Eternity does not have a beginning, or an end.
creation writes: If people need to adjust clocks that is something that has to do with people. Nt decay, and not really the orbits of planets. Duration is the same everywhere in the universe it just exists. I did not say anything about decay. The periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 does not keep in perfect sync with the rotation of the earth. It is close but not perfect and that is the reason for leap seconds. 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 924 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 2:13 AM | | creation has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 929 of 1482 (840737)
10-03-2018 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 925 by ringo
10-03-2018 11:54 AM
|
|
Re: Creation
Hi ringo
ringo writes: You don't see the irony in defining someting that is inherently indefinite? I did not define anything, I gave the dictionary definition. 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 925 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 11:54 AM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 931 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 5:59 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.5
|
|
|
Message 930 of 1482 (840739)
10-03-2018 5:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 927 by ringo
10-03-2018 12:32 PM
|
|
Re: Creation
Hi ringo,
ringo writes: That's exactly what it means. We define our words for our purposes. Is your God so puny that He needs to use our definitions? Actually God used the Hebrew words that said I exist that I exist. 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 927 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 12:32 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 932 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 6:08 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2