Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 6:19 AM
205 online now:
AZPaul3, Pressie, Son of Man (3 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,039 Year: 16,862/29,783 Month: 850/1,956 Week: 353/331 Day: 12/69 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6061
62
6364
...
82NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 916 of 1225 (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.

Mod writes:

No.

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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 919 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2018 2:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 917 of 1225 (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. http://www.bbc.co.uk/...viour/behaviour_of_matter/revision/2

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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by NoNukes, posted 06-14-2018 1:53 PM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 918 of 1225 (834887)
06-14-2018 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 917 by ICANT
06-14-2018 10:59 AM


ICANT being ICANT
I don't believe it was a universe at the time we are referencing.

ICANT writes:

According to the standard theory did the universe begin as a very small, very hot, very dense pin point sized object ?

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.

Why were they called radiation in the earliest so-called universe if they were not energy?

Radiation can refer to either electromagnetic radiation, such as gamma races or to streams of particles such as alpha particles (helium nucleus), neutrons, and beta particles. Beta particles are electrons. Apparently, just calling something radiation does not make it energy,

Electrons are particles with mass and not energy.

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.

Wrong. It is you who won't get it. Matter continually forms from energy and does until this day. Regardless of what expansion occurs, newly formed particles need not be separated because they can form close to each other, or with sufficient velocity so that they travel towards each other. Additionally, particles which were bound together by forces such as the strong nuclear force or electrostatic forces, would not be separated by expansion. Even today we can see galaxies moving towards the milky way despite the fact that the universe is expanding.

And as has been explained, the expansion is not uniformly at that speed between adjacent parts as you claim anyway. Your mathematics is not even close to being right.

Now, if you have some reason to say that the above is impossible, then please do. However, to date, you have simply repeated your old argument without addressing the rebuttal which totally destroys that argument. You have yet to address Modulous arguments along the same lines. What we are seeing is the same, constant and ridiculous avoidance of the issue tactic you always use. At this point, I am going to conclude that you simply do not have an answer, because surely by now you would have given one. Fortunately, if you somehow manage to come up with one, I am not the only person here who sees through your crap, so that my absence will not be missed.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2018 10:59 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 922 by ICANT, posted 10-02-2018 10:57 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 919 of 1225 (834893)
06-14-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by ICANT
06-14-2018 9:50 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
I thought we were talking about some fraction of a second up to a second after T=0. Not yesterday.

We were talking about how the observable universe is presently 92 billion light years in diameter - but that we don't know the size of the entire universe.

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 wasn't forgotten and we both agree inflation proposes a rapid expansion of the universe.

Where is that non visible universe located at today?

It's everything we can see all the way up to where we can't see anymore - the CMBR. And there's probably more that we can't see because it is expanding away from us at a rate greater than the speed of light so the light can never reach us.

Wouldn't it have to be located at the center of the visible universe?

Only if you are right. But it isn't, it's all around us. The first pieces of light after that is the CMBR which surrounds us in a sphere that denotes the observable universe. Again, I have given this answer previously

quote:
Problem is - is that there is no pin point. It expanded. Where I am sat right now is as much a part of that pin point as where you are sat, as Mars is as Alpha Centauri is etc. You can point to the left, point to the right, point up and point down and you will be pointing at what you call the pin point.

That's why in whatever direction you look at - you see the CMBR. It is the earliest moments of the big bang and it isn't 'in the middle', or it would only exist in one direction - it's around us. Because there is no centre.


Message 698

Space can only exist between things. If that space expands all those things are further apart. What part of that do you not understand?

Sure - but the things that created the atoms coalesced very very close together because the universe was much much denser than it is today. I said it before - there are multiple atoms per square metre on average today. Rewind the clock and that number goes up so there are many billions of atoms per square metre. The expansion rate over a distance of one metre is negligible and fundamental particles can travel at significant fractions of the speed of light so the expansion is irrelevant to them.

What part of that do you not understand?

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.

I'm not proposing that has ever happened. I'm proposing the observable universe expanded to its current size of 92 billion light years.

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 see the why that's a problem.

But you have no facts from the early universe.

All you have are assumptions.

We know it was denser and thus hotter.

Who measured the temperature of the universe when it began to expand?

Lots of people have calculated the temperature.

Those were produce in what Sir Roger Penrose says is a fantasy.

No he didn't.

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.

We have the universe, that's the evidence that the big bang left behind. There's quite a lot of it when you think about it.

But you don't have a history of the first 380,000 years.

Yes, we do. I gave it to you, you've quoted it so you certainly read it.

How do you know? You have never given a thought as to how God might have done it.

How do you know what thought I have given it? You don't.

However, I have asked you numerous times in this thread - and you promised we'd get to that part. I've been answering your questions waiting patiently for you to get to that part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2018 9:50 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 920 of 1225 (840574)
10-02-2018 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 912 by Modulous
06-13-2018 1:13 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Modulus..
quote:
...And there definitely was a prior point in time for today. Yesterday is an example.

On earth, yes. In the area around the earth and sun..yes. Can you show there was time as we know it out where stars are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 912 by Modulous, posted 06-13-2018 1:13 PM Modulous has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 921 of 1225 (840663)
10-02-2018 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 430 by ICANT
01-30-2018 10:56 PM


Re: Creation
quote:
Now if you think time is a dimension like some, I will ask you as I have asked others to tell me how to measure time. You can not measure it with a watch as they only measures the duration between events.

Time is the duration of existence between events in eternity that we measure by various means based on the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.


That is one definition of time. I don't think we could define eternity. Part of your time definition includes eternity.

I think man also uses the decay of atoms to measure time, and other things, not just the rotation of earth.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2018 10:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 923 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 12:49 AM creation has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 922 of 1225 (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 yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 923 of 1225 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 924 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 2:13 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 925 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 11:54 AM ICANT has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 924 of 1225 (840675)
10-03-2018 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 923 by ICANT
10-03-2018 12:49 AM


Re: Creation
quote:
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.


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?

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.

quote:
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.


Interesting.

But I am not sure that radioactive decay really has much to do with the earth moving round the sun. If people need to adjust clocks that is something that has to do with people. Nt decay, and not really the orbits of planets.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 12:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 5:02 PM creation has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 925 of 1225 (840699)
10-03-2018 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 923 by ICANT
10-03-2018 12:49 AM


Re: Creation
ICANT writes:

We define it as infinite or unending.


You don't see the irony in defining someting that is inherently indefinite?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 12:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 12:27 PM ringo has responded
 Message 929 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 5:39 PM ringo has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 926 of 1225 (840709)
10-03-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 925 by ringo
10-03-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Creation
Being indefinite to poor little man does not mean something is indefinite.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 925 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 11:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 12:32 PM creation has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15577
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 927 of 1225 (840710)
10-03-2018 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by creation
10-03-2018 12:27 PM


Re: Creation
creation writes:

Being indefinite to poor little man does not mean something is indefinite.


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?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 12:27 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by ICANT, posted 10-03-2018 5:45 PM ringo has responded
 Message 938 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 3:12 PM ringo has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 928 of 1225 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by creation, posted 10-04-2018 3:09 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 942 by Taq, posted 10-04-2018 4:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 929 of 1225 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 931 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 5:59 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 930 of 1225 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 932 by ringo, posted 10-03-2018 6:08 PM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
6061
62
6364
...
82NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018