Summations Only

The point of this thread is for posters to post science to which the OP can respond with his particular brand of abuse without being suspended. That abuse is the entire point of the thread. The standard for who makes a point here is whatever Alfred says constitutes making a point. If Alfred wants to base his critique on whether some word that describes a person, place, or thing, is or isn't a noun, well so be it. If the standard for review is to misrepresent whatever science is posted, well so be that too. If the standard for review is full of inconsistencies, well if that's what Alfred wants, that's the way it is.Further, the holes in Alfred's own preferred scenarios really aren't on topic, which is whether under Alfred's standards, conventional cosmology is less worthy of Alfred's respect than creationism. This thread is the ghetto in which Mr. Maddenstein is allowed to post his tangentially scientific ideas on EvC. Real science can now be discussed, without at least one source of distraction, in the science fora. This thread is for other stuff entirely.Of course, most of you all knew all of that already.

This is Maddenstein's playpen. The rules are posted at the door.

Space between the two is not expanding at the speed of light. The Hubble parameter is about 70 km/s per Megaparsec. The Andromeda galaxy is 0.8 Mpc away from the Milkway so space between the two galaxies is expanding at about 60 Km/s. On the other hand the radial velocity of the Andromeda is about 300 km/s towards us. Hence we see a blue shift.No, gravity is not stopping the expansion of space between Milky Way Andromeda galaxy. No one has made such a claim. If things worked as you suggest no astronomical objects could ever approach each other.

I checked several sources. The best value I can find for the radial velocity towards earth is 300 km/s. Where do you find 300km/hr?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The difference between blowing up a balloon (outside the bottle) and expanding the universe is that the universe does not expand by stretching the fabric of space, but instead by making more space. And why would space tear anyway? What would that even mean?When you argue that the baloon will burst and therfore that expansion as per BBT is impossible it is your analogy that is stretched past the breaking point. The universe is not literally a baloon. A baloon is used to help picture how expansion increases separation between points in space. The univese is not made from latex.

No it does not mean that. Imagine that dark energy were uniformly distributed in the universe. Dark energy would then affect the expansion of the universe as a whole, but no affect on attraction between objects due to gravity.

What color is an orange?"Orange", you say? I think not.First of all physics is about objects. An orange is an object, but color is not an object therefore it is non physical, and thus the question of what color something might be is nonsense.Secondly orange is a noun. Color is "a vivid or distinctive quality, as of a literary work: Melville's description of a whaling voyage is full of color." But work is a form of energy which is a length (a non-object). Yet you are attempting to use color as a noun describing some object. Clearly, grammatical nonsense.This inconsistent is rejected by the ultimate arbiter of good sense, namely the Moog Synthesizer. The question makes no sense. Your case is dismissed.This post was brought to you by the letters "L" and "R" and the number 4.

Before you dive into the sty with your wrestling togs on, remember that the pig likes it.

So a collection of quarks, photons, and gluons without any protons, neutrons, and electrons would not be a universe, right?

Perhaps it does. Perhaps not.You, ICANT are the one who described the universe as being made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm pointing out that the BBT includes an epoch were there were no nucleons.If my question is absurd, it is because the following statement is absurd:

These types of arguments are pure sophistry. Length, height, and width of objects are simply the difference between coordinates of parts of an object measured at a the same time. We also apply those coordinates to events. For example to know if an object at coordinates 0,0,0 is involved with a collision with another object at similar coordinates, we cannot answer the question without involving a time coordinate. A 'duration' is not enough. We need the time coordinate. In fact varying any of the spatial coordinates or the time coordinate is enough to avoid a collision.Answering the question of whether ICANT was on time for Bible study last week cannot be answered by knowing only spatial coordinates. But it can be answered if we know ICANTs exact latitude, longitude, and elevation at the time Wednesday at 7:30.Pretending that only objects matter in reality is inane. We can describe the absence of objects or conditions of objects at a point in space-time just as easily as the presence of an object. The abstractions are useless and meaningless position is no hiding place for the ignorant. I can see why simpletons and fools find it attractive though. Dismissing concepts is a lot easier than judging them on their worth.Yes we might say that 'something' has always existed at position x, y, z. But if we care what that something actually was, we need to be talking about temporal coordinates.

ThI'm going to address your point as if you wrote "spatial" coordinate.
No. That is not correct. It's easy to ask questions in which knowing the time is more important. If I wanted to know whether there were planets orbiting our sun, or what the geology of our planet was or whether there were any pterodactyls about, I have a shot at answering the question based solely on the temporal coordinate.Besides that to give proper answers to questions about events, we need four coordinates. It does not really matter which ones are easiest to obtain.A collision does require some parts of objects to be at the same coordinates simultaneously, yes. I know that I'm not answering the question you asked, but I am answering the proper question. Time is equally important as space when describing physical events. You seem to be making my point rather than your own, but yes I did pick a hypothetical time for Bible study.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is silly ICANT. Did I say that spatial coordinates were not important or did I instead rebut your position that temporal coordinates were of lesser importance. They don't. But they must occupy the same coordinates simultaneously. If train A is moving North along tracks on Tuesday while train B is moving South along the same tracks on Friday, there won't be a collision.It does no good to try to invent situations where the time coordinate is of minimal use. If your position is that time is unimportant or of lesser importance, then that must be the case for all situations. In your zeal to be right about something you have forgotten that the premise is that I know exactly where you were at the time Bible study was to start. I proposed that the starting time was 7:30. You said that I got the time wrong.Of course you have elected to apply the correction to only one part of the problem so you can pretend that there is still an oprn issue. But by insisting on getting the time coordinates correct, you are advancing my argument. Thanks.I am not quite as patient as Son and cavediver. I won't fight through too many attempts like this one.

I am done with your question.

Nonsense. Nothing in the problem statement requires this. The object was headed to 0,0,0 at some time, but that is not a statement that it will be headed there forever. Once the object gets there is it still 'headed there?' No. So stopping or continuing in the same direction each fail to meet your description. So simply giving a heading does not imply stopping at any point any more than it implies continuing to move. If you want the object to stop say so. After all we expect objects to continue in motion unless some force is applied. The more natural assumption is continued motion.Further we don't know whether the second object will reach and pass 0,0,0 before the first object ever gets there. If the second object is moving north or south, then continuing that direction does not insure a collision.But let's use your interpretation.You are attempting to create some state of affairs in which you don't have to specify time explicitly. But so what? Even if you manage it for some artificial problem, we both know that you are not describing a general case. So what's the point of your exercise?