You're previous messages could be loosely interpreted as on-topic, but this one isn't even close and so I won't address its content.
If you'd like to discuss how we know how big the universe is then your participation here is very welcome, but if you continue in this way then I'm pretty sure you'll lose your permissions in this forum, too, the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. As a participant I can't moderate this thread myself, but I'm not the only moderator.
The main point is that all matter, all the heavens and the earth and everything in it appeared in a single event just as Genesis says so clearly, right?
No, not even close. But you should start a new topic, as this is in the Science Forum. Just throw one into the Coffee House and I'll reply there when I see it.
1) You're just choosing arbitrary divisions for your mythical "days." You could just as easily divide the evolution of the Universe into 2, 3, or 10 different "days" by choosing different arbitrary divisions. In this respect, your Bible is no more or less correct than any random guess. 2) The Bible presents Creation as occurring in six days, not seven. On the 7th, "he rested," remember? You should cut down your arbitrary divisions by a day.
3) The Biblical Genesis myth compresses the origin of at minimum the solar system into the first day. The rest is used to create various forms of life, which obviously precludes using the 7th day for the "formation of galaxies."
Someone said you refuted the Theistic Evolution observation that the seven "days" of creation were analogous to and might be considered scientifically supported by Geology.
If they were referring to what you say here, you are wrong.
Catastrophic geological events are what makes the divisions between these seven geological markers for a History of the Earth. It i.s not arbitrary at all.
Just read the conditions and environments which separate the old earthly state to the next new heavens and earth to follow.
2) You are wrong. The Bible says that the Big Bang ENDED with the "Chaotian Era" evening of the first day and the Hadean Era morning.
Everything in Genesis is consistent with the geology.
3) The first "day" described in Genesis tells us that the Earyh was void of a spherical shaped and that the spinning rocks of the accertion ring around the Sun had darkness upon the face of its disk.
(I hope this information is on topic in regard to the size of the Universe up to the formation of the Earth as a sphere on day two.)
Nope. What you are doing is making disproven assertions that there are 6 eras, when there are not.
Nope. What I am doing is forcing non-Bible believers to cloud the issue with references to eras and eons.
These terms are immaterial to what I am saying. An eon merely means that the "day" lasted foor around a billion earth years, while the suffix era means the duration was in the millions of years.
Within each the seven geological division there are sub-layers. Some of these subdivisions within the seven major rock divisin are millions of year old, too.
But we are unconcerned with the matter of how old a rock layer might be. We are only concerned with how we can use geology to tell us the HISTORY of the Earth.
That means what changed over time historicaly as marked and punctuated by major geological divisions such as meteoric impacts that involved mass wipe outs and fundamental changes in the environment.
The main point is that all matter, all the heavens and the earth and everything in it appeared in a single event just as Genesis says so clearly, right?
No, not even close. But you should start a new topic, as this is in the Science Forum. Just throw one into the Coffee House and I'll reply there when I see it.
Though I disagree with your above post, it seems I am not within the bounds of the forum rules somehow here.
Please tell what I am doing wrong in that regard.
Somehow I am getting into trouble simply by responding to what people post. Then they post back with accusation that my information is wrong. I try to politely explain my information is correct, and defend what i posted.
But this is getting me in dutch with the administrators.
Would you please give me the first post in this thread where I broke the rules? Help.
You're previous messages could be loosely interpreted as on-topic, but this one isn't even close and so I won't address its content.
If you'd like to discuss how we know how big the universe is then your participation here is very welcome, but if you continue in this way then I'm pretty sure you'll lose your permissions in this forum, too, the Big Bang and Cosmology forum. As a participant I can't moderate this thread myself, but I'm not the only moderator.
We are off topic for sure as it regards the size of the universe.
I think everyone talking to me is also off topic too. What seems to have happened as far as i can tell is that these other people failed to ignore something in my posts which they just had to bring to our attention in the form of contradicting me.
Contradicting me seems to be the turning point.
Such contradiction is more than an invitation and just short of disparaging my post and any point I may have made. But these people redirect the question specifically to me, then I get in trouble for answering them.
Is that not what is happening here?
I am going to go back over this thread and find the place where you people went off topic and focused on arguing a point you did not understand in my post or took opposition with.
My post 205 was on Topic but everyone (including Percy) responded thereafter about what I said in that post.
I merely displayed scientific charts and images of the seven stage Big Bang expansion up to the formation of the Earth, followed by the six historical divisions of the Earth's existence thereafter.
Every post thereafter was in direct response to a comment OFF TOPIC about something criticized in the diagrams and charts.
Here wss post 306, immediately following my own. It was off topic because he did not understand the charts and the commentary in 205:
Rahvin Message 206 of 232 (678660) 11-09-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by kofh2u 11-09-2012 6:05 PM
Re: lost in space --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) You're just choosing arbitrary divisions for your mythical "days." You could just as easily divide the evolution of the Universe into 2, 3, or 10 different "days" by choosing different arbitrary divisions. In this respect, your Bible is no more or less correct than any random guess. 2) The Bible presents Creation as occurring in six days, not seven. On the 7th, "he rested," remember? You should cut down your arbitrary divisions by a day.
3) The Biblical Genesis myth compresses the origin of at minimum the solar system into the first day. The rest is used to create various forms of life, which obviously precludes using the 7th day for the "formation of galaxies."
Could you direct me to your last post about the size of the Universe so I can respond to you on whatever point you may have made on that issue?
I will do the work of searching back if you are angry with me. But I am just trying to get a feel for what the point if this thread is.
I mean the size of the Universe MUST be 13.5 billion light years X 13.5 BLY X13.5 BLY unless there isevidence that light bends around some closed boundary containingthe Cosmos. (IMHO).
Where is your statement in regard to this or shall I sarch back?
"The 93 billion light year figure you cited is the diameter"...
/////
It makes sense that the cubic Cartesan Graph of the Universe would be 13.5 billion light years in every direction since that is the Age of the Universe. Of course the actual light itself would emanate in a spherically shaped ball centered at the point of the Big Bang.
I did not read the link refered to yet, but the idea of 92 billion light years seems wrong, intuitively. How could Electromagnetic radiation, (not visible light), which came flooding out of the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago be any further away than 13.5 BLY?
There *are* some actual points of agreement between astronomy and Biblical literalists. For example, the Bible says the Earth has a sun and a moon, and astronomers agree. The Bible notes that there are stars, and astronomers agree.
What about the first verse Gen 1:1?
How was the "In the beginning" any different in principle that the present discovery of a Big Bang beginning to a previously non-existent universe?
It seems to me that Genesis was out on a limb until Hubble found suppport for the claim that the cosmos was NOT always there. That would be a biggie, wouldn't it?
Message 81 of 237 It turns out that space/time is not fixed, that space is expanding over time at a rate known as the Hubble constant, which is approximately 74 km/sec/Mpc (Mpc is a mega-parsec, a million parsecs, or about 3.2 million light years). Space itself (along with the matter and energy contained within it) that is a mega-parsec away is receding away from us at a rate of 74 km/sec. Space that is 2 mega-parsecs away is receding away from us at twice that rate, 148 km/sec. This recession velocity is due to the creation of new space in the intervening space.
Hmm... That makes sense.
But I thought Dark Energy was deduced because this expansion of Space itself demonstrated that the galaxies were accelerating.
1) Is your position that any breakdown of events into 7 stages lends support to the accounts in Genesis?
2) Don't you need 6 stages of events followed by a static 7th stage?
3) And doesn't your position mean that any breakdown of events into other numbers of stages argues against the accounts in Genesis?
4) Or more to the point, isn't the number of stages in anything irrelevant?
5) Shouldn't you be looking for actual correspondences between scientifically verified events and events in the Genesis?
For example, in your first diagram the 3rd stage still has no atoms, but on the 3rd day in Genesis there were already plants and trees "of every kind." Seems to me like there's no correspondence at all.
--Percy
Hi Mr Percy,...
I don't think I can respond to this under the present dictates of the administration.
However, it is confusingthat science refers to the edge of the visible universe as being @ 13 billion light years away, while the Hubble Constant is used to explain that Space measures 93 Billion LY in diameter.
"But, as Law's team reports online today in Nature, subsequent observations confirmed the galaxy's great distance. Residing in the constellation Pegasus and named Q2343-BX442, the surprise spiral has a redshift of 2.18, which means it is 10.7 billion light-years from Earth and therefore existed just 3 billion years after the big bang. "
So what my question amounts to is a definition of Size of the Universe. It seems that science is saying Space is way larger than the separation of the pieces of matter inside it. But even that concept suggests that something is confusing when we "see" the most distant galaxies on 12 billion LY away, but talk about a unverse 8X that size.
How sure are we about these theories in regard to the size of the Space/time dimensions when astronomers talk about 12 BLY for the most distant galaxies?
Are we to asume that Space has expanded withput matter or energy present in the most distant volumes of Space? And is it really the same thing to ask how large isthe Universe when we might ask how much space (empty and otherwise) now exists?
How could Electromagnetic radiation (not visible light), which came flooding out of the Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago, be any further away than 13.5 BLY?
Because in the 13.5 billion years that that light has been traveling toward us, that region of the universe has continued to recede from us. The light we see today from the most distant reaches of the visible universe is from 13.5 billion years ago when it was much closer. Today it is much further away and in fact has passed over a horizon and is now receding from us faster than the speed of light - we'll never see the most distant parts of the universe as they appear today, no matter how long we wait for the light to arrive.
By the way, about this:
How could Electromagnetic radiation (not visible light)...
I don't think you meant to say this. Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In other words, it *is* electromagnetic radiation.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
