Summations Only

I propose in this thread that I am the one and only non-creationist in this forum. That is simple. I cannot conceive a single atom to be created out of nothing or being turned into nothing.

Taq, those m or peabrain propositions are all crypto-dtching of the big bunk nonsense. For to collide is a verb describing an event resulting from a motion of well-existing objects relative to each other. That contradicts the idea of the space-time creating bang as all motion implies space to be well there already and could be well measured in time. The branes must travel some distances before colliding, you know. That excludes any creations, expansion of the universe as a whole, etc.
Turns the bunk into a non-event. That the mpeabrains themselves are purely imaginary and impossible entities is another matter.

You've got a grave problem with definitions.

Otherwise what is exactly the contribution of bigbangism to progress and science that you are hinting at?

Redshift of the signal explained with stretching intergalactic distances is strictly for birds.

Space, time and light speed signal are three sides of a triangle.

No, what I am saying is that expansion of space is a ludicrous concept not explaining in any way the observation of the redshift of the signal.

Space is an abstraction and not an expandable fabric . . .

Of course, mathematically the relation could be easily reduced to the relation of sides in a triangle.

Whereas the Universe is not such an object surrounded with an outside and therefore it is not capable of the kind of uniform outward motion of its surface that is called an expansion.

The physics of it cannot change.

Remember, it is you lot who are making all the positive tall claims.

He is asking the cat to support the observation that some available room is needed to move in each and every case where a motion of physical objects has occurred.

The process of expansion is a two entities relation. One entity expands and another is being expanded into. No exceptions.

The BBT requires the Universe have a beginning to exist. Thus it had to be created from non existence, which is an impossibility.

The distance between points is kept as vague, the actual borderline where gravity ends and the putative anti-gravity the clowns call the devil's energy begins its sphere of influence is equally left darkly undefined so the quacks can get away with any murder on large scales.

In science we don't deal with dubious evidence to persuade the jury and the crowd. In science we conceptualise and explain.

The expanding entity always has a physical border.

Expansion in this case is claimed to signify an increase in the physical volume of the Universe. The volume must necessarily be gained from another already existing volume.

The Universe is surrounded by nothing by definition.

It's up to you to show the judge how this clear meaning of the physical term could be violated . . .

That is my point it was. There had to be existence for the Uiverse to begin to exist.

Lightning happens when specific conditions occur in the atmosphere.

Take the balloon you guys are always talking about and put your dots on it. Get you a 1 qt. syrup bottle that has the very small neck. Stuff the balloon into the bottle. Once you have all the baloon in the bottle you will notice that there is a lot of space between the balloon and the glass of the bottle. Now begin to blow air into the balloon and it will began to fill the space inside the bottle until the bottle is full. You will notice then that the balloon will try to escape out of the bottle at the point you are introducing air. But try as you may you will not get the balloon to expand any further inside the bottle, as it has reached the limit it can expand.Now take another balloon and do not put it in anyting and begin to blow it up. It will burst before it fills the space around it.Therefore if the Universe is expanding it is expanding into existence.

As the cat says for something to expand it has to have something to expand into.

Does that mean that there is no dark energy between the Milky Way and Andromeda?

You need some evidence to the contrary?