Creation

It would be compatible. My comment was off base.

You are nitpicking. What the heck is a thing? Would you really refer, for example, to the Atlantic ocean as an entity? Is it helpful to refer to the universe as an entity? All I said that the definition was problematic. I did not say that you could not use it. And I also explained exactly why I rejected the word object and what connotations of the word entity that I thought we should avoid.Not all things, or entities, or objects are the same. What I wanted to avoid was you generalizing improperly about the properties of objects and entities to conclude things that were either untrue or not known to be true. How is that term helpful, ICANT? As long as you keep the term distinct from the electromagnetic radiation, which is different, feel free. Electrons cannot expand. They are not believed to have any dimensions at all. Protons, being formed of sub-particles might be expanding, although I would expect such expansion to be negligible. Are you just making up stuff and waiting for me to correct it? Why not just ask questions. Aren't you ignoring 1) the strong nuclear force and 2) the fact that these particles formed from energy at some point? Your claims in this regard have been rebutted many times, and you have yet to tell anyone why the rebuttals are wrong. I have to conclude that you are not really interested in further debate. Perhaps you are just not able to comprehend what is being said. Either way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So does the universe ICANT. Yet you called it an entity. No. Electrons are matter. They have mass. No. Where do you get that idea? 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. Your assumptions do not reflect what we know about the strong nuclear force, and they also ignore the fact that particles form from energy and that that process is observed to occur even now.So yes, some particles are separated, but not all, and the conclusion that such is the case is based on what we know about particles and science well after To when the laws of physics are well known. Electrons and positron pairs from electromagnetic radiation on a frequent basis. All that is required is the presence of a mass in so that momentum and energy can be conserved.Against that, we have you just making stuff up and not feeling any need to justify what you make up.Do you have a relevant response? Can you justify your assumptions?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's what we are all saying. Nicely put.

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. 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. 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.