Evolution Proven!

[Doveaman]

Expansion states that the 'space' between given points is expanding.

<http //physicsforums com/showthread php?t=261161>

Think of it like this, if space is represented as the surface of a balloon, and the galaxies are represented as stickers stuck to said balloon, then as the balloon expands, different stickers are moving away from each other at different rates depending on their existing distance from each other, all measured along the balloon surface.

In this way, nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light, but the distance between two objects can go from 0 to 156billion light years in 13.7 billion years due to space itself expanding. Nothing's moving faster than c, space itself is expanding.

Is the 'space' a part of the universe?

If space itself has expanded from 0 to 156 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, then space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light. And if galaxies are "stuck" to it, then they too are traveling at the same speed as they are carried along by the expanding space.

In any case, I've seen space filled, and I've seen space occupied, and I've even seen space used up, but I've never seen space expand, not even in the science lab.

It sounds like it's all a made up story.

 

[Cabal]

but we can't have a constructive conversation if you're going to dismiss something out of hand because you don't like it or don't know enough about it to make a reasonable criticism.

*sigh*

And you're on this board why exactly?

The best thing you can do is point out exactly why their tactics are wrong so that any passing innocents don't believe a bunch of rubbish.

Hey, one or two creationists might occasionally swap sides (and it's happened before, definitely hasn't happened in the other direction here), but that's not really the short-term goal.

 

[Cabal]

I happen to have a PhD in Physics --- from the acclaimed Boxtop University.

I sent in two boxtops from Cap'n Crunch and one proof (yes, "proof") of purchase seal, along with $25.00 and a stamped, self-addressed envelope and got my very own degree in the subject of my choice.

Now I'm the envy of the neighborhood --- thank you very much ---

*struggles not to respond as I'm doing an ACTUAL phd*

sheesh, talk about a diploma mill

 

[Doveaman]

The best thing you can do is point out exactly why their tactics are wrong so that any passing innocents don't believe a bunch of rubbish.

If you are going to point out rubbish, you are not going to do it with rubbish. You will need something different.

 

[Nostromo]

If space itself has expanded from 0 to 156 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, then space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Yeah. Objects cannot move through space (relative to each other) faster than the speed of light, but space itself is not subject to that rule and can expand faster than the speed of light, taking its contents with it.

It sounds like it's all a made up story.

I would say that it's definitely not intuitive, but then there are a great many things which seem too weird to be real, things that have been observed and experimentally proven. The fact that objects traveling at high speeds experience time passing at a different rate to stationary ones sounds nuts but it's been shown to be true.

I happen to have a PhD in Physics --- from the acclaimed Boxtop University.

Thanks for the mini bio, but I was talking to Doveaman

6016 years ago is a 404 term --- there is no such a thing.

Then I don't see why you object to my use of the term 'appearance of age'. If 4.x billion years never passed, then the Earth isn't actually that old. There is no difference between what you're proposing and Omphalos, particularly when we consider that your 'age without history' only seems to apply to a very small group of objects, like the first people. Most things in the universe have an apparent history spanning billions of years.

And you're on this board why exactly?

I'm an optimist

I suppose I'd like for people to think more about why they believe what they do. It seems like a lot of folk have one set of rules for everyday occurrences and one for religious observance.

 

[Cabal]

If you are going to point out rubbish, you are not going to do it with rubbish. You will need something different.

Thanks for admitting you are talking rubbish, saved us the job.

 

[AV1611VET]

If 4.x billion years never passed, then the Earth isn't actually that old.

Try looking at it this way.

Suppose I materialized a gift in front of you ex nihilo.

It's your favorite after-shave and cologne, wrapped in a nice gift box.

Now you go tell someone you got it this way, and they don't believe you, claiming that it would have taken time to wrap the gift.

Despite the fact that it came into existence wrapped up, no one will believe your claim, and in fact, will go so far as to tell you that I attempted to deceive you by presenting you a gift made with the appearance of having been around long enough to have been wrapped up.

 

[Doveaman]

Thanks for admitting you are talking rubbish, saved us the job.

I'm admitting your double standard.

 

[Doveaman]

I suppose I'd like for people to think more about why they believe what they do. It seems like a lot of folk have one set of rules for everyday occurrences and one for religious observance.

Ya know, I was thinking the same thing about Consensus Cosmology - one set of rules for everyday occurrences and one for cosmic observance.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Is the 'space' a part of the universe?

If space itself has expanded from 0 to 156 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, then space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light. And if galaxies are "stuck" to it, then they too are traveling at the same speed as they are carried along by the expanding space.

In any case, I've seen space filled, and I've seen space occupied, and I've even seen space used up, but I've never seen space expand, not even in the science lab.

It sounds like it's all a made up story.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Whether or not it sounds made up to you or not, we can see galaxies moving apart, and the further away we look, the faster they are moving.

Can you explain that WITHOUT citing an expanding universe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you explain that WITHOUT citing an expanding universe?

Picture a jar of smoke, then suddenly, in a moment of time, that jar is ballooned to 100,000 times its size.

The contents of the jar are now expanding, and will expand over a period of time until it reaches maximum dispersion, but the jar itself is no longer moving.

We don't know if the edge of the universe is moving anymore, we just observe its contents expanding.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Picture a jar of smoke, then suddenly, in a moment of time, that jar is ballooned to 100,000 times its size.

The contents of the jar are now expanding, and will expand over a period of time until it reaches maximum dispersion, but the jar itself is no longer moving.

We don't know if the edge of the universe is moving anymore, we just observe its contents expanding.

Nice try. Seriously.

Except for one small problem...no wait, two...

First of all, the jar had to expand in the past, so that still means the jar is capable of expanding, even if its not doing so now... but second, and the more important one... your thesis is built on a model of a universe with an "edge", and an edge implies there being something else beyond it, which frankly, raises more questions than it answers.

 

[kharisym]

Is the 'space' a part of the universe?

Good question! I'm not sufficiently versed in my cosmology to properly answer that. I don't know what the current thinking is as to what the 'fabric' of the universe is made of.

If space itself has expanded from 0 to 156 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, then space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light. And if galaxies are "stuck" to it, then they too are traveling at the same speed as they are carried along by the expanding space.

Since space itself is not an object, can we really say it's moving? Relativity requires that we have a definable point to measure from, and since we have no method of telling one point in space from another point in space, we cannot truly measure it's speed. Further, the expansion of space doesn't appear to confer momentum or energy to the objects expanding with it, therefore we cannot say that the objects are traveling faster than the speed of light either.

In any case, I've seen space filled, and I've seen space occupied, and I've even seen space used up, but I've never seen space expand, not even in the science lab.

I doubt you've looked. Cosmic background radiation, hubble deepfield images, galactic redshift to start with. Next time you proclaim something unproven because you've seen no proof, do us all a favor and actually *look* for proof.

Science is empirical and rational, creationism is neither. Science has higher standards for proof than creationism, don't assume science is as wishy washy as the anti-intellectualism of your peers.

 

[Nostromo]

Suppose I materialized a gift in front of you ex nihilo.

Now you go tell someone you got it this way, and they don't believe you, claiming that it would have taken time to wrap the gift.

Despite the fact that it came into existence wrapped up, no one will believe your claim, and in fact, will go so far as to tell you that I attempted to deceive you by presenting you a gift made with the appearance of having been around long enough to have been wrapped up.

Of course no one will believe me, because that sort of thing doesn't happen and there's no reason to think that it could happen.

The only experience we have with things and what causes them to appear old is that they are old, actually aged by the passage of time.

You haven't given any reason for us to believe that such a thing is plausible and even say that such a thing is undetectable, as everything would look exactly as it should had it occurred without special creation. So how exactly do you determine that it happened when everything except your favourite book points to an old universe?

In your analogy the only reason I believe in something which is at odds with the totality of human knowledge is because it happened right in front of my eyes.

 

[Doveaman]

Truth is stranger than fiction.

I don't believe that.

Whether or not it sounds made up to you or not, we can see galaxies moving apart, and the further away we look, the faster they are moving.

Can you explain that WITHOUT citing an expanding universe?

Yes.

God did it --- Case Closed.

 

[Doveaman]

Picture a jar of smoke, then suddenly, in a moment of time, that jar is ballooned to 100,000 times its size.

The contents of the jar are now expanding, and will expand over a period of time until it reaches maximum dispersion, but the jar itself is no longer moving.

We don't know if the edge of the universe is moving anymore, we just observe its contents expanding.

I like that explanation.

We can even empirically demonstrate that smoke can fit in jars, in case there are any doubters.

 

[Cabal]

I'm admitting your double standard.

No, you just asserted.

Yet again.

 

[Nostromo]

We can even empirically demonstrate that smoke can fit in jars, in case there are any doubters.

That just leaves you with showing that the edges of the universe are analogous to a glass jar and explaining how the galaxies defy known relativistic principles, they are now moving faster than the speed of light as you're not using the expansion of space to account for it.

 

[kharisym]

I like that explanation.

We can even empirically demonstrate that smoke can fit in jars, in case there are any doubters.

So why isn't the distribution of galaxies similar to that of the expanding smoke? It seems to me that if you're hypothesizing that the universe is smoke coming from a jar, then we should see similar matter distribution patterns.

 

[Doveaman]

Is the 'space' a part of the universe?

Good question! I'm not sufficiently versed in my cosmology to properly answer that.

Here, let me help you - It is.

I don't know what the current thinking is as to what the 'fabric' of the universe is made of.

I don't think Consensus Cosmology does either, so don't feel bad.

Since space itself is not an object, can we really say it's moving?

So it is expanding but not necessarily moving. Got It.

Relativity requires that we have a definable point to measure from, and since we have no method of telling one point in space from another point in space, we cannot truly measure it's speed.

Consensus Cosmology seem to believe the earth is a definable "point" from which the universe is measured, so you can start there.

Further, the expansion of space doesn't appear to confer momentum or energy to the objects expanding with it, therefore we cannot say that the objects are traveling faster than the speed of light either.

The objects are "stuck" to the the faster than light expansion of space, but the objects themselves are not moving??

You are making a lot of sense here. Keep going.

I doubt you've looked. Cosmic background radiation, hubble deepfield images, galactic redshift to start with.

And these cause space to expand, how?

Next time you proclaim something unproven because you've seen no proof, do us all a favor and actually *look* for proof.

" Proof "??

Science is empirical and rational, creationism is neither.

They look the same to me.

Science has higher standards for proof than creationism,

" Proof "???

don't assume science is as wishy washy as the anti-intellectualism of your peers.

I don't. To me, the science is just wishy washy and a poor attempt to logically explain the wishy washy.