Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 0/3


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 787 of 1482 (833588)
05-24-2018 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by ringo
05-23-2018 8:59 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
You almost have an inkling. The balloon is a good analogy because it's surface has no boundaries, just like the universe has no boundaries.
If you don't think the balloon has boundaries just keep putting air into it. You will find it's boundary.
ringo writes:
Wrong again. The picture is a 2D representation of a 3D object.
But the picture has width, height, and depth. That is not a 2d object.
ringo writes:
There's no such thing as a human lamb.
That is actually true because it was God that came to earth and was sacrificed on the cross at Calvary to restore mankind to a right relationship with God. In the old testament a for legged sacrifice was used for the same purpose.
ringo writes:
Use the "Find" function on your browser.
Why should I have to look up other peoples source? That is against site policy.
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 785 by ringo, posted 05-23-2018 8:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2018 7:27 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 792 by Phat, posted 05-24-2018 9:37 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 793 by ringo, posted 05-24-2018 11:41 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 788 of 1482 (833590)
05-24-2018 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by NoNukes
05-23-2018 5:58 PM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
I imagine that there are portions of the lurkers who will accept that the universe acted just like raisins,
I would hope that no one would believe the universe acts like raisins.
NoNukes writes:
and will ignore the fact that your claims and assumptions do not match anything that scientists are actually saying about the universe.
Questions:
1. Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?
2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?
3. Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?
4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB?
NoNukes writes:
Anyone who has actually gotten past the sixth-grade "substraction"
My 6th grade math was a little more involved than what you are talking about. I never mentioned what my studies were but I can't let
it pass any longer. I went to 6th and 7th grade in Niagara Falls NY in 51 and 52. The school was on an accelerated program. That was the only 2 years of school I did not make straight A's.
In the 6th grade our math covered algebra and geometry. In the 7th grade our math cover trigonometry and calculus. In English class we studied speed reading which has served me well because I love to read. I made a lot of A's those two years but everytime I started getting A's the work got harder.
NoNukes writes:
I appreciate your motives a bit better.
Glad you at least appreciate my motives.
So how about coddling an old man and answer the questions I asked in this post.
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 779 by NoNukes, posted 05-23-2018 5:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2018 7:06 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 789 of 1482 (833594)
05-24-2018 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 775 by Modulous
05-23-2018 2:10 PM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
Hi Mod
Mod writes:
No, it's location has not changed in the reference frame of the cake - which given the analogy is all that matters.
What cake are you talking about?
Mod writes:
It does if we're comparing them to fundamental particles,
When did fundamental paricles begin to exist?
Mod writes:
yes. The density of raisins and their stickiness are vital in understanding how they interact in an expanding cake.
Again what cake are you talking about?
Mod writes:
Maybe in your example, but in the universe that didn't happen. There were certainly some fundamental particles that were far enough away from one another that the space was increasing between them faster than light could overcome
I am not the one claiming that the space expanded at the speed of light. Everywhere I read anything about the early universe that is the speed given and some claim the space expanded faster than the speed of light.
Mod writes:
Yeah - but your cake thought experiment has several important flaws that result in your conclusions being invalid.
You keep referring to a cake. I am not baking a cake. I have a 3"ball of raisins that the space between each raisin begins to expand at the speed of light. That is what is said to happened at Planck Time, in the universe.
Mod writes:
I gave you that information already.
Can you give me any evidence of anything that happened prior to 380,000 years after the BB.
Mod writes:
but there were also those that were close enough together such that the expansion was much lower.
Again it is not my claim that the space everywhere was expanding at the speed of light.
So whatever was there the space between each sub-atomic particle would be expanding at the seed of light.
Mod writes:
Yeah - but your cake thought experiment has several important flaws that result in your conclusions being invalid.
I don't have a cake thought experiment.
I have a 3" ball of raisins. with enough raisins packed inside to spread out in every possible direction from a single point 1,000 raisins with space between each raisin to expand.
Mod writes:
1) Fundamental particles don't act like raisins
Nothing but a raisin acts like a raisin.
Mod writes:
2) The density of particles and the energy involved show nucleus formation is almost certain to happen. The probability that it would not happen is so low that it can be discounted.
An assumption that might be true or not be true.
Mod writes:
3) Space doesn't expand at the speed of light in the way you describe.
It is not my description.
quote:
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.
Mod writes:
4) Raisins don't form until after the inflation in inflationary theories, and when they do, there will be regions of density sufficient to allow for the formation of nuclei and later stars etc.
Raisins are dried grapes that grow on a vine.
Mod writes:
5) The speed of expansion after the raisins appear is closer to 70km/s per megaparsec rather than a uniform 'light speed everywhere'. Slow enough that particles can reach other for interactions, and still high enough energy for nuclear synthesis to occur.
There was something at Planck Time and this something is what the space between the sub-atomic particles expanded. My ball of raisins simply represent that existing material and what would happen to it if space expanded between the smallest division of the lump.
Mod writes:
You have to move past the cake if you want to tackle the reality. Or at least use more realistic numbers. Say 7cm a second per 100 miles of cake or something like that.
There is no cake. There is only the universe which is represent by my 3" ball of raisins.
All that I am trying to say is:
If the space which would be between the smallest units of what existed at Planck Time began to expand at the speed of light in 1 millionth of a second the space between each unit would expand by 982.08 feet. There would be 186,000 miles between each unit in 1 second.
What would be a mechanism that could cause the expansion to slow down?
If my math is correct there is no way expansion took place as it is put forth in all the information I can find.
Mod writes:
Being stuck inside doesn't mean there are boundaries in the sense that the cake has boundaries. If the universe is infinite in size - then you can't get out, there is no edge. If it is finite in size but it curves back on itself like the surface of a sphere - travelling in a straight line long enough could result in your arriving back where you left (assuming you could travel fast enough for long enough) - just like walking east on the planet's surface will not result in you reaching an edge, a boundary. You can keep going east forever. The surface of the planet is edgeless, it has no boundary. The cake has those boundaries, which is where you have tripped up a few times.
Mod get your head out of the sand.
The universe is a sphere and we are inside of it.
If you had a space craft that could travel at ten times the speed of light and you flew in a straight line and you were 10 years old when you started your journey you would not live long enough to reach the fabric of the universe if expansion is taking place as proposed. Because the space past our horizon would be expanding faster than you were flying. And it would not make any difference which direction you went in you would never reach the fabric of the universe.
What I want to know is why you could fly in a circle like you can in an airplane around the world. Do you actually believe that the universe is like your balloon? Do you believe we live on the surface of the universe?
Mod writes:
Good luck with that. I'd hope the lurkers can recognize the cake is a lie
It is a lie that you made up as I have not been talking about a cake.
I simply start with a 3" ball of raisins that has enough raisins for 1,000 raisins in a row where the space can expand for 1 second between them at the speed of light.
I proposed those raisins represent the sub atomic particles or whatever units they might have been at Planck Time.
Space begins to expand at the speed of light for 1 second.
At the end of 1 second there is 1,000 raisins with 186,000 miles of space between them.
Mod writes:
and that you have a lot more work if you want to prove the problem you describe actually exists.
Show me where my math is wrong.
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 775 by Modulous, posted 05-23-2018 2:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 3:13 PM ICANT has replied

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


(1)
Message 794 of 1482 (833631)
05-24-2018 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by NoNukes
05-24-2018 7:06 AM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
Hi NoNuked,
NoNukes writes:
Not playing your game. You can argue with Modulus and AZPaul3 if you are up to it.
What is your purpose here? Is it just to use up bandwidth?
I am not playing a game when I ask questions.
I learned a long time ago that you can not learn anything unless you ask questions. You can accept everything you are told by someone or you question what everyone says. Questioning what they say is a much better learning tool.
I ask 4 simple questions that require a scientific answer and to you it is a game.
quote:
1. Is the claim made that the space is what is expanding in the universe with objects not flying through space?
2. Is the claim made that when expansion and inflation began it was at the speed of light?
3. Is the claim made that no knowledge of the early universe can be seen until 380,000 years after the BB?
4. Is it a fact the first atom was formed 380,000 years after the BB?
I thought those 4 questions were simple enough to answer. All that is required is four words, one for each question. But if someone wanted to expand on why each individual answer they gave was the correct one, that would be fine.
But to you It is just a game, that I am playing.
There are millions of people out there that could not answer those questions. Many would like to know the correct answer.
Since you have belittled my education to the point I am an idiot, it would do no good for me to answer them. But you refuse to answer them. Why?
So instead of sharing information you had rather blame me for playing a game.
If you don't have any knowledge to share why do you hang around being an obstructionist? Seems like you are the one playing a game.
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 790 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2018 7:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 10:43 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 795 of 1482 (833633)
05-24-2018 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by ringo
05-24-2018 11:41 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
A picture does not have depth.
I told you the exact location of the center of the picture. It depends on the dimensions of the paper used. If the paper is 11 x 8.5 x .004 the center is located at 5.5 x 4.25 x .002 So yes the picture does have depth just not much.
ringo writes:
So you understand that when we use a lamb to represent Jesus, we're not talking about wool. Now try to understand that when we use a balloon to represent the universe, we're not talking about air.
The air and the inside surface of the balloon is all about the balloon that resembles the universe. Now you can tell me we can not see what is in the balloon. I think the inside of the balloon does have air that is similar to the inside of the universe. But in the meanwhile I will tell you that you can not tell me what is outside of the universe. You have never been there nor will you ever be there.
ringo writes:
The site policy is to cite a reference, which I did. I am not required to spoon-feed the material to you.
Where is the material you referenced. You cited a bare link.
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 793 by ringo, posted 05-24-2018 11:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by DrJones*, posted 05-24-2018 1:41 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 821 by ringo, posted 05-25-2018 5:58 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 798 of 1482 (833645)
05-24-2018 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 792 by Phat
05-24-2018 9:37 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
Where was the speed of light before the distance 186,000 miles even existed?
The speed of light has never changed it has been the same for eternity.
The distance of 186,000 miles is a concept of mankind devised to measure distance in duration. It makes no difference whether you are talking about 1 mile or 10 miles the concept is the same. It is based on a mile being 5,280 feet.
Phat writes:
How did the maths break down in the early singularity?
If I understand it the math gets to the point you only have zeros. I could be totally wrong.
Phat writes:
Were laws discovered by humanity through testing or were they invented by humanity?
They were discovered and then we began to test them.
Phat writes:
Does the concept of a singularity actually represent the origin of creation?
No.
The singularity represents zero data about anything.
The BBT is suppose to explain what happened from Planck Time to present.
Phat writes:
In other words, without humanity, would math actually mean anything? would distance? would matter? would words themselves and definitions themselves?
No to all of these. All of those are concepts of mankind that mankind has invented to explain their observations to themselves.
Phat writes:
If the answer is yes does this not mean that laws can exist without our need to define them?
The speed of light is the same it has always been. Before man existed it was the same. Our concept of the measurement of duration can change but the duration in existence will never change it stays the same.
The laws of thermodynamics are laws that were observed taking place in the universe.
All of those take place without the input of mankind.
There are many such laws that exist with out mankinds help
Phat writes:
And if so, why is it considered silly to believe in God without evidence?
Phat that started in the garden when the man chose to freely without any coercion of any kind choose to eat the fruit and die with his wife.
Eve wanted to be like God and that is what the devil used.
People today want to be in control of their life and there can be no room for any outside control which God represents in their life.
Now as to why it seems foolish to mankind.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
It is supposed to be foolishness to them
Can they overcome there problem. Probability not.
On the other hand have you seen 1 iota of evidence for the universe beginning to exist according to their theories.
Oh I forgot they don't know how the universe began to exist.
They just know it did, and you better not try to confuse them with the facts.
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 792 by Phat, posted 05-24-2018 9:37 AM Phat has not replied

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


Message 811 of 1482 (833691)
05-25-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 796 by DrJones*
05-24-2018 1:41 PM


Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi Dr
Dr writes:
do you understand the difference between a 2D object and a 3D object?
Sometimes I wonder.
If you came to me and wanted me to build you a house. My first question would be, "do you have a design" If you said yes I would ask to see it. If you said no I would ask did you want me to design one. If you said yes I would ask a lot of questions about what your vision of your home would be. Single or Two story, how large, how many baths, bed rooms, cars in garage and a lot of other questions.
If I did my normal thing I would be drawing a blue print all the time we were talking. After a couple of hours I would print out a floor plan for you on a piece of paper for you to look over for a few days and make changes you would like. You would then return and we would make the changes you wanted to make. I would make recommendation due to my experience and what the local code laws require. I would print out another blueprint for you to take and go over with your wife (if you have one and she is not in the conversation).
When you came back in a few days I would ask for any new changes that would be desired. I would make those changes and add those changes to the plans.
I would then take you on a tour around the outside of the house explaining the exterior of the home to you. I would have added different things in the yard we had not talked about but were there just for discussion.
I would take you a tour of the inside of you house and it would be just like you walking through a completed projects. All the while I would be asking for slight changes or things you might want to add to your home. We would enter the front door and enter the formal living room then going through the formal dinning room and then into the kitchen area exiting into the great room with its vaulted ceiling From there we could enter the alcove between the garage and master bedroom. We could go into the garage and view it and the laundry room just inside the garage to the left. We could then enter the alcove and enter the master bedroom and on the left of the master bedroom would be a private office and den.
Going through the master bedroom there would be an alcove with entrance to the 16' x 24' master bathroom and an entrance to the 24' x24' walk in closet. From there we would go back to the great room and on the right would be the entrance to Grannys room and private bath. To the left in the great room would be the entrance to th hallway to the 3 bedrooms and their private baths. We would come back into the great room and enter the foyer and on the right would be an Office and library where meeting could take place. We would then exit the tour.
If you desired I could print you a blueprint Or I could burn the tour on a cd for you to take with you provided we had already sign contracts for me to build the house for you.
BTW if you wanted me to I could take any of the cabinets I had put in the drawing open it and spin it around letting you look at it just as you could look at the real thing in a showroom.
The blue prints I printed out is classified as a 2D object as we do not consider that the paper which they are printed on has a thickness which is depth. The paper would be 17" x 27" and have a thickness of .066". If you ask me where the center of that object was I would tell you it was located at 8.5" x 13.5" x .033"
The blueprint is classified as a 2D picture.
The tour is considered a 3D presentation.
I realize this is a lengthy answer to the question asked but I wanted to make sure you understood that I have worked with 3D presentations since 1989 and I hope that satisfies you question.
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 796 by DrJones*, posted 05-24-2018 1:41 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 812 by DrJones*, posted 05-25-2018 12:58 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 818 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 3:16 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 816 of 1482 (833704)
05-25-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by DrJones*
05-25-2018 12:58 PM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi Dr.
Dr writes:
great so the next time someone is talking about the 2D surface of a balloon you won't drag the topic off with bullshit about the 3D balloon as a whole?
I believe a balloon that is laying on a table is a 2D object.
When you put air in the balloon it becomes a 3D object.
When I am looking at a car I believe I am looking at a 3D object.
When you are anyone says the air filled balloons exterior surface is a good analogy to represent the universe you are pushing a bad analogy.
I live inside the universe, do you?
I find the raisin cake on a lot of scientific websites but no balloon analogies.
But in the future I will refrain from commenting on the balloon.
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 812 by DrJones*, posted 05-25-2018 12:58 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by DrJones*, posted 05-25-2018 3:01 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 820 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2018 5:02 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 835 of 1482 (833735)
05-25-2018 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
05-25-2018 6:37 PM


Re: Your misrepresentations
Hi Faith,
Calm down before you have a heart attack.
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 823 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 837 of 1482 (833737)
05-26-2018 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 821 by ringo
05-25-2018 5:58 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
In Message 737 you made a claim that an unnamed astronomer doesn't like the balloon analogy.
I said Ask an Astronomer which is a program of cornell.edu. Where people can ask a question and an Astronomer will answer it for them.
But here is the entire question and the answer given.
quote:
QUESTION: I've heard that the universe is expanding similar to a balloon being blown up with all reference points growing further apart. If this is true, then all movement is perpendicular to the point of origin (the "center of the balloon").
An observer on the balloon (Earth) would see lateral movement of all stars in all directions except ahead and behind. The quantity of material moving laterally could be evaluated to determine our target direction.
1. Do we see lateral movement of the stars in all but the two 180 degree opposed directions?
2. Where is the line of the two non-lateral shifts relative to our solar system?
ANSWER:
Your question is the result of a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding isn't your fault; rather, it's the fault of the famous (or more accurately, infamous) "balloon analogy" for the universe's expansion, which, in my humble opinion, should be banished forever into the dustbin of history because it's the source of so much confusion!
The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional situation. The way you're supposed to think about the balloon analogy is that everything which happens in two dimensions on the balloon's surface actually happens in three dimensions in the universe. For example, the balloon's surface "stretches" proportionally in TWO directions as the balloon gets blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in THREE directions. The third dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the balloon's surface and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the equivalent of the FOURTH dimension in our universe.
Naturally, of course, no normal-thinking human being is going to pick up on this subtle aspect of the analogy without having it pounded into their head when the analogy is first told to them. So I typically hear all sorts of questions like whether or not we can measure the motion of galaxies or the thickness of the universe in the direction perpendicular to the balloon's surface, when in reality these questions make no sense because they actually refer to the "fourth dimension," which we have no way to observe (if it exists at all).
I suppose the reason the balloon analogy got started in the first place was that people used to believe the universe had a significant amount of "curvature" (and by that I mean curvature in a hypothetical FOURTH dimension, i.e. something which we can't see directly but whose geometrical effects on our three-dimensional world might theoretically be detectable). The balloon analogy does sort of give us a way to picture that curvature, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Furthermore, recent observational evidence strongly suggests that the universe's curvature is extremely small, if it exists at all, thereby making the balloon analogy even more needlessly complex.
The analogy for the universe's expansion which I prefer is the "dough and raisins" analogy (which has been around at least since Martin Gardner's 1962 book Relativity for the Million, if not earlier). In this analogy, we picture the universe as a gigantic blob of dough which is placed in an oven and begins to expand. Embedded throughout the dough are a bunch of raisins, each of which represents a galaxy (including one for our galaxy, the Milky Way). As the dough expands, the distances within it all stretch proportionally, and the raisins move away from each other IN ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.
It turns out that this analogy corresponds to what we see when we observe the motion of faraway galaxies in our universe. They appear to be moving away from us in all directions equally, with no preferred direction for the expansion.
Is the universe really like an expanding balloon? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
This is my last post on the balloon analogy to anyone period.
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 821 by ringo, posted 05-25-2018 5:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 847 by ringo, posted 05-26-2018 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 839 of 1482 (833740)
05-26-2018 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 818 by Faith
05-25-2018 3:16 PM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi Faith,
Faith writes:
At first I thought you were talking about an imaginative verbal tour of something that doesn't yet exist, asking the buyer to visualize it, but then it seems you must be talking about something like a video tour you put together?
The particular house I was describing was one I built in the Cayman Islands just outside of Georgetown.
I have a computer program the company I was working for in the Caymans that cost over $5,000 with a little over $4,000 add on bundles. It is the best of the best. I can draw a blue print and it will give me the cost to build what is on the print to the penny.
Once the blue print is completed I can click 3D walk through and after about 30 seconds you can enter the house (or walk around in the yard and look at the pool, exterior of the house, roof, a garden area with plants growing in the garden, trees, shrubs, etc) and walk around inside just as if you were in the finished product. Furniture, fixtures, TV, computer desk with computer on it. In other words it is just like the real thing with whatever you put in the blueprint. You can choose from many types and brands. If it is available on the marker you can choose it as is all in the libraries.
I have a picture I drew of the ark to the dimensions in the Bible. I have over 15 acres of storage in the ark. It does not look anything like the ark encounter ark.
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 818 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2018 1:02 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 846 by Faith, posted 05-26-2018 11:35 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 865 by ringo, posted 05-28-2018 12:26 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 842 of 1482 (833743)
05-26-2018 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 797 by Modulous
05-24-2018 3:13 PM


Re: complexities don't always translate into analogies
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
This period was between a millionth of a second and several minutes in.
What is the available evidence that took place when there was nothing but a hot mass of Plasma.
Mod writes:
The inflationary period was rapid expansion, but there was just a pretty uniform sea of energy at this point
But a sea of energy? Then why did you say in answer to a question say that fundamental particles already existed. Since I had misspelled particles you got it mixed up.
Mod writes:
1 second to several minutes is about halfway into that diagram - as you can see the expansion is much slower here than at the left most area representing time before 10-32 seconds. In that very early state - there were no raisins.
yea the earth did not exist so there was no place for grape vines to grow. Thus no grapes to dry and make raisins. But I was using the raisins to represent the smallest whatever was there.
Beautiful drawing too bad the white circle is the only part that represents what was happening.
The part that says Inflation should be a circle around the white big bang circle. The part that says protons formed should be a circle around the Inflation circle. The part that says Nuclear fusion begins should be a circle around the protons formed circle. The part that says nuclear fusion ends should be a circle around the nuclear fusion begins circle. The part that says cosmic microwave background should be a circle around the nuclear fusion ends circle . This circle would represent 380,000 years. No atoms has formed at this time.
I would like to see the empirically derived evidence to support any of the claims prior to the 380,000 years after big bang.
Mod writes:
Naturally it may or not be true - but it's not an assumption, its an empirically derived fact. It is much closer to reality than your raisin notion.
This declaration is in response to the following statement that you had made.
quote:
2) The density of particles and the energy involved show nucleus formation is almost certain to happen. The probability that it would not happen is so low that it can be discounted.
But all information I can find says nucleus formed after the 380,000 year mark. Where the visible universe begins.
Mod writes:
Exactly. There are no raisins, or particles at this time. It goes on to say:
Yes, no raisins as there was no earth with grape vines to grow grapes to dry making raisins.
Mod writes:
quote:
According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.
What mechanism caused the inflation/expansion to slow down.
Sir Roger Penrose says cosmic inflation is a fantasy. Roger Penrose: Cosmic Inflation Is 'Fantasy' - Science Friday
Where is any empirical evidence to support NASA'S assertion about neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos?
Mod writes:
See that? A slower rate.
Yes I think Hubble discovered that back in the 1920's. But what slowed it down and when did it slow down?
I know what NASA claims. But my claim God did it has just as much empirical evidence.
Mod writes:
Not sub-atomic particles. There were none at that time. You have to look at the time there were some.
But NASA had neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos already existing. Which if they existed the space between them would expand over 900 feet every 1 millionth of a second.
Mod writes:
Yes, we know. But that has nothing to do with whether atoms could form during the period after this. In order to understand this - we have to understand what the density of 'raisins' was at this time, what the energies involved were and the rate of expansion etc.
But I think it would affect whether atoms could form.
Atoms are formed from the sub-atomic particles I was talking about the space expanding between that you said did not exist yet. Atoms are formed by positive charged protons, no charge neutrons, and negatively charged electrons. The protons and neutrons form the nucleus.
These have to get together to form a atom. If there is 900 feet between each of them, what mechanism would get them together to be able to form an atom?
All the expansion required to put 900 feet between them would only take 1 millionth of a second.
ModIf you want to use the raisin analogy, think of it like this. At first there are no individual raisins. Just a uniform raisinesque goop. It rapidly expands and then slows down its expansion. Then individual raisins start to break away from the goop. They are still very densely packed. The space between them is not expanding faster than they are able to move.
But the raisins don't move anywhere. The space expands between them. What would cause the expansion to slow down?
Mod writes:
A phase transition of dark energy.
How would dark energy if it exists slow down expansion?
No body knows anything about dark energy, or if it even exists.
Mod writes:
That's the universe as you imagine it - but that's not what the evidence actually tells us. It might be true, but it seems increasingly likely that it is not.
How would you get any other configuration?
Maybe you need to explain how expansion works.
Does it expand in every direction equally?
If not what causes it to do anything else?
Mod writes:
Well, if you want to criticize the model, you have to use the model. Not your model. The model cosmologists use very strongly points towards the notion that there is no edge.
I thought the universe had a fabric around it?
What does having no edge have to do with the shape of the universe.
The earth does not have an edge, neither does our sun or moon
There are 3 pictures and one of them is supposed to be the shape of the universe.
One is a rectangular sheet which would have 4 edges.
One is a rectangular sheet which is curved like a saddle and has 4 edges.
The other is a sphere which has no edges.
The one I talk about is the sphere which has no edges.
I have never figured out how we could get inside either of the other two. As there is no depth to them like a sheet of paper.
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 797 by Modulous, posted 05-24-2018 3:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 845 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2018 9:32 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 843 of 1482 (833744)
05-26-2018 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by NoNukes
05-26-2018 1:02 AM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
The program estimates the cost and gives numbers to the precision of one penny (or less). No program can give a cost that is actually accurate to the nearest penny for a project of anything other than the simplest complexity.
The cost of all materials were always updated before asking the program for a cost analysis.
The only thing that would change the cost would be changes to the plan or some idiot sawing up a bunch of material wrong. But since everything was done on a contract basis if they did it was there responsibility for the added cost.
But I do understand that if you input the wrong information into a program you will get bad results from the program. But that is not the programs fault.
So no it did not give me estimates.
When I got tired of fighting the government I started building cabinets I set the program up to the point it would tell me exactly how many pieces of wood I needed and the size of each one to build the set of cabinets being priced out.
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 840 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2018 1:02 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2018 12:20 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 852 of 1482 (833798)
05-26-2018 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 846 by Faith
05-26-2018 11:35 AM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi Faith,
It is a fun piece of software especially since I retired. Just trying out ways to build new things is fascinating.
Faith writes:
Why is your ark design so different from others?
I designed my ark according to the dimensions given in the Bible.
Using the long first cubic Moses talked about which would have been 24 inches. Noah was told to build an ark not a boat. Ham's ark is built like an ocean going vessel losing over 30% to curvature of the hull. Mine looks like a modern day ocean going barge except no bow or stern just a rectangular box like Moses was put in the river in.
It has lower 3rd 2nd, and first floors and also a bottom. The fourth floor where the door would be is 50 feet from the bottom of the ark.
That would mean you have 4 floors below that one. That is 5 floors with 60,000 sq feet each which equals 6.88 acres. the four floors below would have rooms built in them. You could divide the available volume into a further 6.88 acres. Then when you build smaller areas in height for smaller critters you could add another 3 acres. That is almost 17 acres. In one of my drawings I got a total of 18 acres.
I am going to take that drawing one day and sit down and see if I can come up with more floorspace by utilizing the unused cubic feet on the main floor.
Now watch some of these guys tell me the 300' long trees used in the flooring of the bottom of the boat with the cross braces of full length 100' trees and all the cross walls be too weak to withstand the massive waves. With the ark having a 44'draft. Well no one knows how wild the water was nor how hard the wind blew. Although if it was a bad as Mrs White said in her flood story it probably would have been toast. Hers is the same one used by YEC.
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 846 by Faith, posted 05-26-2018 11:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:51 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 853 of 1482 (833799)
05-26-2018 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by NoNukes
05-26-2018 12:20 PM


Re: Difference in 2D &3D objects
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Are material costs the only expenditures in a large project?
No. But they can fluctuate the most during a project.
That is the reason for such a program that can figure with precision.
It gives you a list of everything needed in advance. You purchase the material and you do not have to worry about the price going up during the project. It cost me some profit on one project I could have made as the prices had almost a 10% drop in price during one project. But the profit was the same as it would have been had the prices gone up instead. or stayed the same.
The labor is one of the major costs of any project but the easiest to control. Everything was done by sub-contractors so the price is fixed up front. The government is the worst problem you have to deal with.
Depending on where the project was located land could be a major cost as well as the infrastructure.
But when I started doing cabinets only, the bottom line was easier to control. Everybody even the office help was paid a percentage of the cost of the cabinets. So when I got through drawing the set of cabinets I knew exactly what that set of cabinets would cost me installed and punch out. They all made more than they would make working by the hour.
NoNukes writes:
But then nobody would buy a multi-thousand dollar piece of software for that
Well you could draw fido's house with it as well as a scale model house for your daughter and her miniature dolls.
But it was used in the beginning for the biggest construction company in the Cayman Islands doing multimillion dollar condo projects. Also several 5 and 6 million dollar homes. One 14 million dollar home. One 15 unit condo project where the cheapest unit was 4.5 million.
I had the privilege doing the cabinets in those units. That was the reason I had a copy of the software and still do.
Anyway enough of that.
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 849 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2018 12:20 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024