₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Wow, your ability to comprehend is very little.[/quote]This instance is just amazing. Frankly amazing.

I can't beleive anyone would be that obtuse.

Martian: Time is a measurement of motion.

As mis-defined by scientists.

The motion of the expansion caused spacetime and our movement through spacetime is what we call "time".

If this was the case, an expansion would not be possible.

If the earth stopped moving, gravity(the curvature of spacetime) will make it fall out of it's orbit,and all other kinds of fun stuff would happen........But let' assume the earth stops rotating on its axis and stops its revolution around the sun. How would you tell time?

We know there would be terrible consequences if so any hypothetical reason the earth stopped moving, but glad you understand its an analogy. If the earth stopped moving and you and I remain alive here for any period on it, it would still take you five minutes to sit still and meditate on your day, and when you have finished you would know that that meditation is in the past. Indeed whatever else happes, you would recognize events as receding into teh past. Time would still exist.

And this would apply even if we hypothetically lived in a stationary universe where the planets, stars and galaxies were not moving: there would still be a precept of past, present and future: If all galaxies stopped moving right now, would time cease to exist? Now let me ask you another question: if the universe starts collapsing - that is, galaxies start moving back closer to one another - would time "move backward?" - Will we time travel to our past? If the earth starts rotating backwards around the sun, would that bring back the events of yesterday and yester years?

What this shows is that times exists regardless of whether cosmic bodies move or not. Thus we cannot say that time is created by movement of cosmic bodies: rather time is a perfect intangible.

MacDaddy01: Lol......That was not Anony's point.

If you think that was not his point, then indeed logical constructs and analogies are a problem for you.

Addressing the point you made in bold;

Believing in a flat earthtime being created by the big bang will not stop you from building houses spacecraft but it will stop you from getting an accurate model of the solar system and the big bang.commencement of the universe


Simple.

See my edit of your post and hopefully you will get the point.

MacDaddy01: 1) That was not Anony's point. He said that structures were based using calculations of a flat earth. When challenged, he shifted to saying "assumptions"

2) If even that was the point, you would still be wrong. Being wrong about certain scientific facts and not accepting when one is wrong has stopped the priogress of mankind. Christianity held more knowledge back than it could give. Dark ages.

You are desperately picking at straws. The point was that in their wrong estimation, the earth was flat. Yet they used that wrong estimation in making vehicles to move from point A to Point B.

Anony's example on the flat earth is slam on point. Mazaje was just pedantically picking at straws. The substance of the argument is that man did not know the overall nature of the earth as spherical at some point in time. He thought the earth flat. But this wrong notion of the earth's nature did not stop him from making carts and chariots to move about from place to place. THEREFORE man being wrong about the overall structure of the universe would not necessarily stop him from being able to move in the universe! Better knowledge would simply mean that he moves about better.

Most importantly, contrary to martian's suggestion, moving around successfully in chariots did not prove that early men were right and the earth was flat. As such moving about successfully from one planet to another does not prove that current scientists are right about the overall nature of the universe or the commencement of spacetime.

MacDaddy01: Blah blah b;lah

The zenith of your intelligence, no?

Do numbers exist in reality? Why are you running away from your statements?

Run where and when? I gave you something to read up, you only commented on the equator and nothing else.

MacDaddy01: dodging again?


Were you not saying that people believed the flat earth and certain systems and structures were put in place based or with an assumption of a flat earth idea?



Anony-houdini; it rhymes and it's true!

Gosh. Your reasoning powers are actually far lower than previously thought.

To simplify it for you: the point is that being wrong about more advanced precepts has never stopped mankind from successfully building machines based on the precepts that he does know. Gravity has been used for thousands of years in thousands of mankind's technologies, such as water systems. Did they need to be right about the exact and more advanced pre suppositions on gravity before they could do such? What this simply means is that contrary to what martian said, the mere fact that I say that current science is wrong in its concepts of somethings is not rebutted by saying that current science does succeed in developing other things based on precepts that it does know.

Flying to Mars or wherever does not show that time commeneced at the big bang.

Anony's example on the flat earth is bang on point. Mazaje was just pedantically picking at straws. The substance of the argument is that man did not know the overall nature of the earth as spherical at some point in time. He thought the earth flat. But this wrong notion of the earth's nature did not stop him from making carts and chariots to move about from place to place. THEREFORE man being wring about the overall structure of teh universe would not stop him from being able to move in the universe! Most importantly, contrary to martian's suggestion, moving around successfully in chariots did not prove that early men were right and the earth was flat. As such moving about successfully from one planet to another does not prove that current scientists are right about the overall nature of the universe or the commencement of spacetime.

Martian: The galaxies are not moving "into space", it's the expansion of spacetime that increases the distance between them.

Stop being lazy. We know that this is what is said. This does nothing to change the point or the question. Have a look at this -

X Y Z

Now lets say that X, Y and Z above are galaxies. Let us also say that they are stationary, but that the space between them is expanding and increasing. If this happens, then X is going to keep moving further to the left and Z further to the right. That would mean that our hypothetical three galaxy universe above has moved into previously unnocupied space on the left and the right.

Such space could not be said to be a function of the universe because our universe is just consisting of these three galaxies and the space between them. As such the spaces to the right and left where our galaxies "move" into, are not made by our universe or its commencement.

It is already existing space.

There is no model that you can present which will resolve this conundrum. Jayriginal fetched a bunch of clueless andc hoplessly confused extracts last night: and they just fell apart in a hail of contradictions. In one breath they say that the question makes no sense. In another breath they say the expansion is occurring into nothing - forgetting that nothingness does not exist, much less can nothingness be residable cosmic space. They then say that the expansion ius occuring into previously unoccupied space. Which is of course the right thing to say, but contradicts the wild nonsense in most of the extracts and makes my point sink home!

I can't go further than this, but if you think you know more about singularitities and "space and time", then you just have to show the observations and calculations that convinced you.

I am convinced by the commonsensical observations that expansions do not and cannot occur into nothingness: they can only rather occur if there is space to expand into.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Interesting, so the singularity existed in something that is not spacetime and still expands into this spaceless and timeless thing?
So you accept that there is some realm that goes beyond time and space, Would you agree then that whatever caused the universe has to be timeless and spaceless and consequently not consisting of matter?

As it stands now, you only have two options:
You either accept that there is a realm that is spaceless and timeless in which the universe lies or you agree with deepsight and accept that space and time exist beyond the universe.

If you reject both, then you must deny that the universe is expanding at all and consequently, that the big ba[color=#000000]n[/color]g never happened.

Claiming that you don't know will not help you this time.[/quote]Gbam. Locked jailcell. No wriggle-room.

Martian - surely you see the clear reasoning set forth for you on this matter here?

This is exactly what I meant when I said that "i don't know" won't help in this instance. It's clad-iron, inescapable logic.

Now, on the other excellent point made by Anony, to the effect that scientists of every age do make inventions even whilst they may be wrong on some precepts is true and it is a binding fact of history. I see Mazaje has only been able to quibble about the wording used, but the point remains the same. You cannot deny this.

Neverthelss I still need to add a hammer to that point: namely that the idea that space and time commenced with the singularity has NOTHING to do with whether man can fly to the moon or not: It either did, or did not: and in either event, there remain observables about the space we dwell in which make such scientifc feats possible. That in no way means anybody is right about the issue of the very origin of the universe, for God's sake. Your statement reads like saying that I should not question or disagree with any scientific notions, simply because I am using a computer, which is a product of science. . . .

Really, after Anony's posts, particularly the above, I see nothing more to add: the point is certainly, clearly and inescapably hammered home.

[quote author=Area_boy]you can end up fooling others about theism and religion but not me. Call a bar of chocolate what it is and not an energy bar.


"I actually entirely agree with you" but the bold contradicts the underlined. In a sense what you believe in is bulldung then? since we agree on the same thing that contradicts itself
make up ur bloody mind and stop confusing yourself and others[/quote]I don't think you have any idea what was being discussed. Issue was if space was created by the big bang. Your words indicate that you agree with me that there must have been pre existing space for the expansion to occur. That's where I mean you agree with me, and not on your obvious contradiction.

[quote author=Area_boy]So I'm going mad now abi? Don't deny your theistic faith my friend![/quote]Theism and Religion are not the same words for a reason.

anyway
here is where you're making a mistake

- We all agree the big b@ng created space, time and matter, before then there was a singularity (at least that's what they say). Now after the b@ng, the expanding matter had to go where?. Space time fabric was created at that instance along with everything else in it. The limits of this fabric is still unknown. Beyond our observable universe, we have no idea what exists there. It is then safe to assume that the expanding galaxies indeed have somewhere to expand to.

Really funny. You actually entirely agree with me, so what are you on about? Abeg shift.

By the way, the bold contradicts the underlined.

Ihedinobi: Hmmmmmm......... How shall I answer this, I wonder?

May I ask what you think? Are there degrees of finiteness? That is, among things of finite nature, are some things more finite than others? What say you?

In reality everything is imbued with some sort of infinity. What I meant to put across is that that absolute INFINITE of all existence, which is what God is, cannot be encapsulated as a man. Seems logical to me.

[quote author=Area_boy]stop with this half baked arguments and line of ideology! It gets irritating after a while!

Your Abraham god was made up by man period! if a "god" does indeed exist, he isn't what we think him to be.

Why you stay here and argue about singularities and the expanding universe (which by the way, you have all muddled up), you fail to realise that science accounts for everything up to milli milli milli seconds after the big bang. what happen at t = 0 remains a mystery. Taking all they have discovered with years and in fact centuries of research as support for you god is downright silly, cheap, and childish to say the least.

Come up with your own theories oh religious ones! Stop using what science gave us to defend big daddy boss! (he is even too proud to tell you his name)

The earlier you accept that your religion is one of faith and nothing else, the better for you! Science and religion are incompatible! Quote me anywhere, area_boy said it [/quote]I am not religious. I subscribe to no religion and so I have no idea what you are on about.

On the universe, if you have issues with my statements, point them out.

None of the above changes the simple original answer you gave. It's gibberish, and this is why I say you bring nothing to the table. All that up there, I have read before. And this little line -

The edge of the loaf pushes out into previously unoccupied space

- - - kills off the discussion in my favour: yep: previously unoccupied space.

Thus, already existing.

Period.

I bid you good night too.

Ihedinobi: He did too.

What is illogical about it?

It is illogical to encapsulate the infinite in the finite. As such God cannot be encapsulated as a man.

Deep Sight: Same thing. Neither balloon, Dough, or whatever else may be raised can escape the fact that no expansion can occur if there is not existing space in which to expand. That's the point: and thus such space was already existing: and NOT created by or at the moment of the expansion.

Ya gatta admit it Jay.

jayriginal: I actually got banned whilst trying to post a link to help you.

Let me re-iterate.





So there you have it, plus any other views you may want to look up.

If you disagree, take it up with whatever theoretical physicist you may come across online.

This says nothing to debunk your first answer [which was in line with my position].

Please you are not helping me. I have read all this elementary things before.

FACT: The growth of the space between galaxies refers to the balloon model. No balloon would be inflated without space outside of it into which its expanded size would project.

So back to square one: the fact remains that you can logically see why I say that space is NOT created by or at the moment of the big bang.

Ihedinobi: Not much. Just that He's God too.

He did not make any such claim.

It is illogical to believe such.

mkmyers45: Who knows?

So what do you want to know? Let's make it an experiment. You never can tell.

sightdeep@gmail.com

Ihedinobi: Now that was a very interesting read. What did you say again is your problem with Christ, Deep Sight? For a smart guy such as you, it's very curious that you should have problems comprehending, or at least, allowing comprehension of Jesus Christ.

I believe that Jesus was a simple Jewish man trying to teach simple things such as love and human brotherhood. That's all. What more is there?

I see the clueless atheistic cavalry have taken off. Lol. Predicted.

MacDaddy01: The earth's equator is an imaginary line. It does not exist in time and space.

Lol, is this all that you can say to the many examples Prizm gave? SMH. Poor!

That's teh funny thing about nairaland. Some people have been shocked to discover who they have been interacting with on this forum.

jayriginal: Deep Sight, get real.

You are lazy (one of your favorite words, if you wont acquaint yourself with the various theories.

Keep turning cartwheels if that makes you happy.

Space is not expanding into anything observable.

Make of it what you will or look it up. Not my headache.

Now the contradictions are being introduced. Please stop asking me to go read anything because I have read them and I know exactly what I am talking about and exactly why I formulated my questions.

CONTRADICTION

First YOU SAID that the expansion is occurring into already existing space - which concedes to my position.

Then when that is pointed out, now you do a spin about and say that space is not expanding into anything observable!

Na wah! Which is it now, my friend, eh?

You see, sincerely, this is why I say all that I say regarding you guys. Let us be sincere: these are clear contradictions that I point out and yet all you do is scoff. Your attempt at answers now runs into disastrous contradictions.

So what's the issue now?

I hope you can now see clearly where I am coming from, and the minimum you can do is to admit that there are valid queries raised.

Thanks.

As always, please do not take my yabbis seriously. Its sport.

Martian: Dude, everyone's knowledge is limited when it comes to the universe. You feel you know but all you do is take the knowledge we have and twist it to fit your imaginations. Then you huff , puff and act like what you feel is verifiable fact.
You're not the only one with ideas. Plaetton also has his but he doesn't act like they are absolute facts.

O, so your only issue is that I assert confidently? If the logic is good, anything can and should be asserted confidently. I don't know why you guys are hung up on me issuing a special statement that what I say is just my opinion. Everything everybody says is their opinion, so why the fuss.

You simply accept or reject, and do so with counter arguments otherwise you are being exactly like the faith guided religious lot.

jayriginal: May the Great Leprechaun keep all your carbonated drinks cold, world without end. Amen !

It comical that you are still cracking jokes seeking to mock theists when your very first attempt to address a question showed u up so disastrously.

jayriginal: You wish to cherry pick. When it suits you, you shout hurray !

When it doesnt, you dismiss it as illogic, illiteracy and what not.

You cant have my view because I am not in the field.

Here look at what you wrote



In your own words, GBAM !

Precisely the reason I tell you science does not inform my position.

Its by no means a knockout as a simple google search will acquaint you with the different theories out there.

Thats why I am bemused at you. You have no clue.

Lol, after the very first answer to the very first question showed you up.

Be man enough to face it: this is logic here:

YOU stated that movement is occurring to ALREADY existing space.

That simply means you concede that the space already existed and thus could not have been created by expansion.

Simple logic.

I mean, this is so simple that you really need to get my personality out of teh way and just see it as simple as it is. Its iron cast logic. Don't be upset just because its Deep Sight pointing it out to you.

Martian: It's not expanding into anything

You cannot seriously say this, Martian. Come now, let us reason together. Do you believe that such a thing as nothingness exists? Is that not a contradiction? How can you assert that matter, energy, galaxies, and all they contain, move at great speeds expansively away from one another and that the space they move into, is not "anything"? Like seriously?

This is seriously contradictory, be honest.

and if there is something else that it's expanding into, I don't know what it is.

Normally, saying that you do not know what it is, should be fair enough but it is not tenable in this instance. The reason it is not tenable is because the question arose from your contention that space is created by the big ba.ng. You cannot assert that, when it is obvious that galaxies are moving away into what space? Evidently they could only move into already existing space. As such, saying that you do not know is only a weak cop out aimed at maintaining your mainstream view that space was created by the big ba.ng. It makes no sense to claim such, when teh ba.ng itself evidently requires space into which the object move.

The singularity itself is everything that we know exists.The expanding singularity is what gives rise to spacetime,galaxies, stars, etc. There is no spacetime if there is no expansion.What we call time now is just the motion of matter through spacetime. The motion of the bigbang was the beginning of spacetime. The singularity didn't exist in space and time; spacetime is a part of it.

Your "i dont know" is unhelpful because it side-steps the question. The question asked was simple. Let me break it down -

1. Is the singularity physical? Yes it is.

2. Do physical things exist outside of or without space and time? No they do not.

3. As such, if the singularity is physical, then it either existed in space and time of did not exist at all. This again leads to thE conclusion that it cannot be claimed that space or time only came into existence at the moment of the expansion. If that was the case, there would have been no singularity to expand, ab initio.

The universe is the singularity. The singularity existed. How? I don't know.

You have not answered the question: you are just repeating the mainstream viewpoint without addressing my question.

Let me break it down.

1. If the singularity expanded, then it had to exist in order to expand, no? Yes.

2. In that case it already existed and then there was an expansion, no? Yes.

3. This means it pre existed teh expansion, no? Yes.

4. This means thatconceptually it must exist in a timeline otherwise we could not say that it existed prior to expanding, no? Yes.

5. This means that time existed already - and as such, is not created by or at the moment of the expansion.

Also your comments affirm that which I have always said: What is referred to as time by the scientist is actually simply motion. That is not time. Motion is not time. Motion is motion. If the earth for some reason stopped moving today, time would still pass. You would grow old. You would experience time still. As such you have not answered the question, you have rather affirmed my position on the matter.

Thanks boss.

Now let's settle down.

jayriginal: I have given you an answer before. Im quite certain of it.

If I answer you, I will not be answering you from what I have experienced personally, but from the body of knowledge established by people in the field.

That is the reason I ask you to google it.

It is by no means a resolved question: and there are several different view points even within the scientific academia.

Thus google is useless. I wanted YOUR TAKE.

Succinctly, space is not expanding into anything observable. Space is not expanding in the way you would expand your house, rather, galaxies are moving away from each other into space that is already there.

Now I will give you a one line knock-out:

Since you say that galaxies are moving apart from one another INTO SPACE THAT IS ALREADY THERE, then evidently such space was already there for the expansion to occur into.

Thus space was not created by the big b.ang.

Case closed. I hope you see now.

This is why I am bemused at you guys. You have no clue. And yet you rev high and mighty. LAWD.

jayriginal: Humility ke ?

Now I'm sure you've never seen a mirror

What nonsense! Will you sharrap ther and face the wall? How dare you question me, after I have declared I am humble. My humility is great, profound, and larger than the sun and all the stars. I AM THE MOST HUMBLE MAN IN EXISTENCE.

Don't dare ask me questions again. I am humble. That is final.

jayriginal: This question exposes you.

When you are answered, you will dismiss it as "illiterate" and "illogical".

I have provided an answer for you previously (I believe).

If you were literate at all, you would google it and if you disagree, you would give us your reasons.

Why ask when you will dismiss an answer you dont agree with as illiterate ?

You see what I mean?

I know you would not answer. You norr get shame? Asking me to google the issue? Chai, this is so rich.

You see, my point is proved. If na to abuse, una full ground. If na to answer simple kwesun, you start referring me to google.

Please attempt the kweshun.

'Preciate it boss.

jayriginal: Lay what exactly ?

I can spread your arguments on a mat even better than you.

Remove the dogma, humble yourself then try again.

Humility is my most shining virtue. I AM GREATLY HUMBLE. How dare you suggest that I am not humble. Will you kneel down joor! I am humble.

I have provided the questions conscisely again in my post at martian.

I am happy if you guys can conscisely address them.

Simple.

Martian: Already answered. Thats when you posted the threads of you spewing the same old.

No, you did not answer teh questions o. What you did was simply to repeat the mainstream current scientific viewpoint on spacetime. That was useless. What I request is that you give me specific answers to my specific questions. In case the posts were long, let me conscise the questions.

1. If space was created by or at the moment of the big b.ang, then into WHAT is the expansion occuring?

2. If all physical things exist in time and space, then how could the singularity, being physical, exist without time and space?

3. If the universe expanded from a singularity, then that singularity must have been in existence already. How is that possible since there was no concept of time, in order to permit the use of the concept "before"?

These are very specific questions.

Don't run. Answer.