Science Proves Creation

[Bradskii]

That's a big if.

I told you to look up Planck length. Science breaks down at smaller sizes. It's a scientific fact. The 'if' wasn't there to imply that it might happen or it might not. It was part of a conditional statement. IF this AND this THEN that. So...

IF you can't measure anything smaller than a Planck length (you can't) AND the universe was smaller than a Planck length (It was) THEN you can't measure the size of it. Hence...no observable universe. Until it became larger than a Planck length. Which is when it came into existence. At a finite time.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn't matter which books I've read. I linked a source to support my claim.

No you didn't. You linked to a set of videos. Do you want to tell me that the Discovery channel has something in those videos that contradicts every scientific position on this? I mean literally every one? No, you haven't watched them. So you have given nothing.

And I find it beyond astonishing that you have made a cosmological claim that cannot be backed up by any scientific source whatsoever. So I am at a loss to understand where you got this nonsensical claim from. The only conclusion is that you thought the BB was some sort of explosion and must have thought 'Well, it must have exploded at some place. That's just common sense'. And off you went without even a cursory check on what you thought happened.

Well, it's time you started checking.

 

[Bradskii]

Can you quote me on that?

What nonsense is this...it was barely a few posts back.

'I can present books to the contrary...'

'I read those books so long ago that I don't remember the Titles. let alone the authors; '

 

[HARK!]

Let's say the universe is finite and is represented by a cube of finite size. In the middle of the cube is an object, let's say 10% of the size of the cube. That's the mass. Now consider the universe is actually infinite. We have an infinite number of cubes and an infinite number of objects. But the density of mass to space is still the same - 10%

Having an infinite number of each doesn't mean that the cube is then filled with mass.

This reminds me of a turtle analogy.

In your imaginary universe, your cubes extend infinitely. Please explain what those cubes are expanding into.

 

[HARK!]

What nonsense is this...it was barely a few posts back.

'I can present books to the contrary...'

'I read those books so long ago that I don't remember the Titles. let alone the authors; '

So in other words you can't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misunderstood what I said.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said; but I reject the notion that the universe popped up all over the place at once.

This might give you some insight as to what I have read repeatedly in the past:

The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

Did the unvierse begin with the Big Bang, or has it been expanding and contracting infinitely? A new study argues for the latter.

www.space.com

However, I don't buy into the infinite density and gravity speculation.

Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between science and pure conjecture, sometimes not.

 

[Shemjaza]

How is that relevant?

The theory of relativity is relevant because that's how we explain the distortions of space and time by gravity and relative velocity.

Those links I put into the post you responded to are actual observations of the process of time and space being distorted by this effect.

The distortion of space and time needs to be accounted for when we build precise satellites like for GPS or when we use probes to explore the solar system beyond the orbit of the moon.

Space is not static and consistent, and it may not even be infinite.

 

[Shemjaza]

This reminds me of a turtle analogy.

In your imaginary universe, your cubes extend infinitely. Please explain what those cubes are expanding into.

Why does there need to be anything?

You don't seem to be acknowledging degrees of infinite numbers.

 

[HARK!]

the universe was smaller than a Planck length (It was)

Proof?

 

[HARK!]

Why does there need to be anything?

Because that which is greater, is greater than that which is lesser.

You don't seem to be acknowledging degrees of infinite numbers.

Are you talking about limits? Once limits are placed on the infinite, it is defined.

 

[Shemjaza]

Because that which is greater, is greater than that which is lesser.

True, but it doesn't require there to be greater.

The Universe could be the totality of existence (or at least the totality that can every interact) and yet still be increasing in size.

Another explanation is that distortions in space are distortions in dimensions. (That's one of the explanations for why gravity is weaker than the other forces).

Are you talking about limits? Once limits are places on the infinite, it is defined.

Being defined doesn't necessarily make something less infinite.

 

[HARK!]

The theory of relativity is relevant because that's how we explain the distortions of space and time by gravity and relative velocity.

Those links I put into the post you responded to are actual observations of the process of time and space being distorted by this effect.

The distortion of space and time needs to be accounted for when we build precise satellites like for GPS or when we use probes to explore the solar system beyond the orbit of the moon.

Space is not static and consistent, and it may not even be infinite.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your assertion that started us down this bunny hole.

 

[HARK!]

The Universe could be the totality of existence (or at least the totality that can every interact) and yet still be increasing in size.

Objects that have increased in size occupy more space.

Being defined doesn't necessarily make something less infinite.

Placing limits defines what is less than infinite.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your assertion that started us down this bunny hole.

We can specifically observe the distortion of space to the point of needing to account for it when we launch probes... this means your idea about space being static is fundamentally false.

Relativity is the scientific explanation for the observed physical effects... it also has a number of other predictions that are observable in the real world. The behavior of the Sun and atomic explosions are the most exciting nearby.

 

[HARK!]

We can specifically observe the distortion of space to the point of needing to account for it when we launch probes... this means your idea about space being static is fundamentally false.

Relativity is the scientific explanation for the observed physical effects... it also has a number of other predictions that are observable in the real world. The behavior of the Sun and atomic explosions are the most exciting nearby.

Where did I say that space is static in my initial assertion; and what is the distortion of space outside of gravitational fields?

 

[Shemjaza]

Where did I say that space is static in my initial assertion; and what is the distortion of space outside of gravitational fields?

Relativity... it's the relative velocity, it's the same effect as gravity. It's why the speed of light is the limit for the universe and why we can measure the radiation effects from nuclear reactions.

As for space, you claimed it has to be infinite and considered it to be separate to the Universe.

 

[HARK!]

Relativity... it's the relative velocity, it's the same effect as gravity. It's why the speed of light is the limit for the universe and why we can measure the radiation effects from nuclear reactions.

I'm not sure which question you are attempting to answer; but I didn't mention relativity in my initial assertion; and again, I asked what is the distortion of space outside of gravitational fields.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not sure which question you are attempting to answer; but I didn't mention relativity in my initial assertion; and again, I asked what is the distortion of space outside of gravitational fields.

Relative velocity... it's what I said, it distorts space and time. We can test it by observing the universe.

It's why you can't travel to the speed light when you have mass.

 

[HARK!]

Relative velocity... it's what I said, it distorts space and time. We can test it by observing the universe.

It's why you can't travel to the speed light when you have mass.

In the absence of mass, relative to what?

You still havent answered my initial question to your assertion regarding my initial statement.

 

[Shemjaza]

In the absence of mass, relative to what?

Relevant to whatever you like.

I suspect our relative velocity is almost zero in that we are both likely sitting still on the surface of the same planet.

The effects of relative velocity on our mass and time break down to more or less Newtons laws at the speed are likely to directly experience, but that doesn't mean there aren't harder to detect effects.

You still havent answered my initial question to your assertion regarding my initial statement.

Here, right at the start of the first post:

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Also your statement:

Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.


Clear claims that ignore the alteration of space and time by other conditions of the universe.

 

[HARK!]

Clear claims that ignore the alteration of space and time by other conditions of the universe.

The alteration of the period is virtually insignificant after it is divided by infinity.