- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,465
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Relativity is a pretty well established part of physics...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You still haven't demonstrated this assertion.
The op that starts with two incorrect axioms? That wasn't evidence of anything. It was a poorly laid out argument based on faulty premises.You could try reading the OP.
Wow. Hang on. Now I've read this I think we should investigate the axioms first.Let's start with a couple of axioms.
1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid 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.
Now for the science:
How is that relevant?Relativity is a pretty well established part of physics...
There are no such things as incorrect axioms. Axioms are self evident truths that are the basis for rational conversation.The op that starts with two incorrect axioms? That wasn't evidence of anything. It was a poorly laid out argument based on faulty premises.
I didn't claim that the universe is infinite. Your misunderstanding of the facts doesn't change the self evident truth.Let's look at 2 first. And the jury is out. You could certainly start an argument with 'If the universe is infinite...'. But not with 'As the universe is infinite...' S
Your ex-spurts seem to have difficulty differentiating between the universe and empty space.
Does he have any undefined evidence to support this daydream?Well, Penrose's cyclical universe discounts finite matter and energy.
I'll try to remember the subtle nuances of your semantics, if Putin drops a nuke on our conversation.Bear in mind that the big bang wasn't an explosion of anything. It was an expansion
Nonsensean expansion which did not occur at a specific location. It happened everywhere
Exactly. Space is something.It wasn't X amount of something expanding out into nothing.
I'll skip the earlier replies. This is the only one I need address. So let's clear up two points:Nonsense
Exactly. Space is something.
Actually, while I finish my coffee, I'll address the other posts as well.There are no such things as incorrect axioms. Axioms are self evident truths that are the basis for rational conversation.
If I begin to make a logical argument that is built on the premise that water is wet; and I'm interrupted by a skeptic who says "water isn't wet;" then there is no point in continuing to make a case with the skeptic; when we are experiencing two different realities.
That's correct. It didn't exist before the big bang and it has a finite size (which is increasing) which is a result of expansion over a finite time. So it has a finite age.Your ex-spurts seem to have difficulty differentiating between the universe and empty space.
As I was glancing over their comments; I did find this little gem though:
"The observable universe is finite in that it hasn’t existed forever."
Yes. He presents it in his book: https://www.amazon.com.au/Cycles-Time-Extraordinary-View-Universe/dp/0307278468Does he have any undefined evidence to support this daydream?
Yes; but I don't have any evidence that would meet your standards, that the big bang ever took place.Do you think that the big bang happened at a specific location?
Evidence which we can verify.
I think that it expanded into the space surrounding the singularity.Do you think that the expansion was expanding into something. You seemed to use 'space' as that 'something.' Perhaps you could clarify.
Well if it's in a book it must be true.Yes. He presents it in his book
You know yourself better than I do; but you are no an expert on my qualifications.I'm anywhere near expert enough to argue for or against. Neither are you.
As I explained earlier, my point was to get back on topic. Maybe we should try it.You were talking about evidence and millions of witnesses. Leading to miracles. I gave you the opportunity to use the evidence of millions. Evidence which we can verify. You said you'd look into it.
Guess you changed your mind.
It is what the universe occupies. It is what is between all of the tiny pieces that compose the universe; and it what surrounds the universe.What do you think it is? As compared to 'the universe'?
WrongAn axiom is an undeniable truth.
Oh dear. If you haven't understood the absolute basics then this is going to be a tortuous discussion.Yes; but I don't have any evidence that would meet your standards, that the big bang ever took place.
I think that it expanded into the space surrounding the singularity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?