The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Genghis Khan II writes:Reply to point 1) I thought that gravity pulls things together. My old science teacher has said that if you had an empty universe and put two pencils on oposite sides of the universe they would move twords one another, not away. And all that proves is that there is a core to the universe, not that there was some explosion or rapid expansion of very hot gasses.

Genghis Khan II writes:Something can't come out of nothing. It is a law of science.

Percy writes:Buz, we've done this before. I could never hope to match Sylas, and even he gave up on discussing this topic with you. See thread What's the Fabric of space made out of? to refresh your memory.

space fabric thread writes:100 Sylas we just don?t know whether space is finite or infinite.184 buzAccording to the definition of geometry, Sylas, geometry is not a property of space, so your answer to my question is wrong. In an unbounded total space vacuum, there would be no binding properties, no gravity or other forces, and nothing to measure geometrically. Thus, my ongoing contention that there are no properties to space/vacuum to measure or cause expansion. Only when something is introduced into unbounded space/vacuum can anything be observed. Therefore it is only matter, particles and forces, et al which occupy space that can be observed or perceived as expanding, curving or any other activity.Geometry is an examiner or calculator of space/vacuum relative to that which has been introduced into space so as to occupy space.187: Percy Space *does* have a geometry. This is from http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm:Like time and matter-energy, it is not possible to define space in terms of simpler physical entities. Space simply exists. It can be defined only in terms of its properties. Those properties are what we call geometry. Two of these properties are the concept of point and the shortest distance between two points.191: buz This, from your link:
Those properties are what we call geometry. Two of these properties are the concept of point and the shortest distance between two points.
In order to specify points and distances, it is necessary to use material objects.(italics mine)
There are no points in space until something is introduced into space. Therefore the points, imo, should not be regarded as properties, i.e. consistency/makeup of space itself, but a means of geometric measurement of things in space.193 Sylas: There are not even points in space then. A "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about space. All our natural laws and mathematics and so on are abstractions, used to help give a description of how the world works.A "point" is an abstraction, not a thing, used for convenience to talk about space. All our natural laws and mathematics and so on are abstractions, used to help give a description of how the world works.197 buz: Logically, points are not something that exists apart from matter, energy, et al. They are not properties of space, but math mechanisms existing in the minds of people (people existing in space) so as to calculate geometric problems/measurements pertaining to things which exist in space.Points are geometric mechanisms in men's minds. What expands is geometric measurements of that which is observed, existing in space. These geometric measurements exist only in the minds of men. The geometric calculations existing in the minds of men pertain to that which exists in space/area and is not a property of space.

cavediver writes:Yeah, I lost interest at the word "scan"

buzsaw writes:Hi Tanzanos...I assume you were responding to me.