Area_boy:

So I'm going mad now abi? Don't deny your theistic faith my friend!

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.

Deep Sight:

Theism and Religion are not the same words for a reason.




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

By the way, the bold contradicts the underlined.

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

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

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.

Deep Sight:

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.

Exactly what I'm not saying. The bigb@ng created the space we know now. how big that space time fabric could possibly be after the b@ng is what we don't know. hence we have the term "observable universe".

So the expanding galaxies we notice today still expand in that space time fabric created. Since matter is contained within space and time. We cant quantify what exists outside that as "nothing" because "nothing" cannot exist indeed (as you rightly pointed out). Problem is, You cannot fill up the gap of what science doesn't know with only logic and no experiment.

Deep Sight:
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.

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

The bolded is the reason why this discussions are futile. You've decided that time exists separately. Can you say how you would measure time if the earth stopped moving?

Deep Sight:
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.
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.
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.
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.

You say I'm repeating the "mainstream" position as if it's not from the same "mainstream" that you learned about singularities.
Anyway, the universe(everything that exists) was in a different state we call the singularity(everything that exists). When this singularity expanded, spacetime(time) came into existence. The galaxies are not moving "into space", it's the expansion of spacetime that increases the distance between them.
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. Everything we are talking about came from calculations, not because someone feels "it must exist in a timeline". They became mainstream because they happen to be valid.
You say scientists are wrong about spacetime, but it's those calculations "they are wrong" about that enables them to send unmanned crafts into the solar system and beyond.

Ihedinobi:

Didn't you know?

You make me laugh.
It is good that we have someone who can make us laugh to douse the tension in the thread.
It seems that Deepsight has hit the liquour cupboard again tonight. He is waxing in a higher frequency right now.
lol.

Is this still about a unicorn or the FSM? If they were intended to be trolls, they seem rather efficient.

Martian:

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



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.



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

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 bang never happened.

Claiming that you don't know will not help you this time.

Martian: You say scientists are wrong about spacetime, but it's those calculations "they are wrong" about that enables them to send unmanned crafts into the solar system and beyond.

At a point in history, the earth was believed to be flat. They were wrong. Yet it didn't stop them from building houses and vehicles based on the calculations of a flat earth.
At another point in history, scientists believed that gravity was a force. They were wrong. Yet it didn't stop them from accurately calculating the speed of falling bodies.

I need you to think man, think!

It is not about winning an argument, it is about learning. Besides, sitting back and claiming ignorance while resorting to mockery what you admit you don't know only paints you in poor light.

plaetton:

What ?
You mean you are incapable of an original thought of your own without Mr Annony?
Are you siemese twins?

Yes we are Siamese twins. We have the same Spirit

. . . . .and point of correction; neither he nor I have any original thought other than that which the Spirit teaches.

Mr Anony,

If i may come in here, these ideas are sound and sensible, i must admit, but they are your own conjectures. They are not found in the scriptures neither in mainstream christian ideologies, correct me if im wrong.

Can you pls show how these ideas correspond to scriptural teachings

Mr_Anony:
At a point in history, the earth was believed to be flat. They were wrong. Yet it didn't stop them from building houses and vehicles based on the calculations of a flat earth.

What are the calculations of a flat earth, where are the equations of a flat earth that buildings and vehicles were based up on. . .Provide pls lets see. . .

At another point in history, scientists believed that gravity was a force. They were wrong. Yet it didn't stop them from accurately calculating the speed of falling bodies.

When was that?. . .The speed of falling bodies were only accurately calculated after gravity was discovered. . .Try another lie. . .

I need you to think man, think!

It is not about winning an argument, it is about learning. Besides, sitting back and claiming ignorance while resorting to mockery what you admit you don't know only paints you in poor light.

You need to think and stop telling lies. . .

mazaje:

What are the calculations of a flat earth, where are the equations of a flat earth that buildings and vehicles were based up on. . .Provide pls lets see. . .

Lol, you my friend are one funny dude. My point is simple, to calculate linear motion and speed, we assume a flat surface.
However, knowing you and how unreasonable you can be, you'll probably ask me for a specific flat-earth equation. to which I'll equally ask you to provide a specific spherical-earth equation

When was that?. . .The speed of falling bodies were only accurately calculated after gravity was discovered. . .Try another lie. . .

Read my statement again, I said that gravity was thought to be a force. I am not talking about a time before gravity was discovered, I am talking about what gravity was believed to be.
We have moved from understanding gravity as merely f=mg to f=Gm₁m₂/r²

You need to think and stop telling lies. . .

Lol, you need to think before blindly accusing people of lying


By the way, have you provided us with evidence that you are capable of thought yet?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you my friend are one funny dude. My point is simple, to calculate linear motion and speed, we assume a flat surface.
However, knowing you and how unreasonable you can be, you'll probably ask me for a specific flat-earth equation. to which I'll equally ask you to provide a specific spherical earth equati

Here we go again. . .This is what you said. . .

Mr_Anony:
At a point in history, the earth was believed to be flat. They were wrong. Yet it didn't stop them from building houses and vehicles based on the calculations of a flat earth.

Where did the vehicle makers ever told you that they used the calculations of a flat earth in building their vehicles?. . .Which builder ever told you that he used a flat earth calculation to build his house?. . .You made those claims to deal with it. . .

Read my statement again, I said that gravity was thought to be a force. I am not talking about a time before gravity was discovered, I am talking about what gravity was believed to be.
We have moved from understanding gravity as merely f=mg to f=Gm₁m₂/r²

Speed of falling bodies were never accurately calculated without taking into account accerlaration due to gravity so you fail. . .

Lol, you need to think before blindly accusing people of lying

Again you lied and i pointed it out to you. . .

mazaje:

Here we go again. . .This is what you said. . .



Where did the vehicle makers ever told you that they used the calculations of a flat earth in building their vehicles?. . .Which builder ever told you that he used a flat earth calculation to build his house?. . .You made those claims to deal with it. . .




Speed of falling bodies were never accurately calculated without taking into account accerlaration due to gravity so you fail. . .




Again you lied and i pointed it out to you. . .

Ok my bad, I should have said "assuming a flat earth" instead of "calculations of a flat earth" and also should have said "accurately enough" instead of "accurately". My apologies for my 'imperfect' wording.

The point I was making to martian still holds all the same.

....and yeah, I never lied

cyrexx: Mr Anony,

If i may come in here, these ideas are sound and sensible, i must admit, but they are your own conjectures. They are not found in the scriptures neither in mainstream christian ideologies, correct me if im wrong.

Can you pls show how these ideas correspond to scriptural teachings

Lol, what does not correspond to scriptural teachings?

Which of these contradicts scripture?

1. There is a supernatural realm that transcends space and time.
2. God is the ultimate being and is supernatural
3. God created the universe.

mazaje:

Here we go again. . .This is what you said. . .



Where did the vehicle makers ever told you that they used the calculations of a flat earth in building their vehicles?. . .Which builder ever told you that he used a flat earth calculation to build his house?. . .You made those claims to deal with it. . .

Nonsense. You're just hungry for cheap points. You don't sound like you know engineering at all. Any true engineering project, vehicles or edifices, runs
on calculations based on assumptions that a current scientific theory holds true. I'll grant you that the involvements of building structures on the magnitude of the WTC that was destroyed years ago would take into account the true shape of the earth's surface. If calculations were provided to prove this, none of them might be termed flat- or spherical-earth equations, but they would evince assumptions concerning the shape of the earth.

Speed of falling bodies were never accurately calculated without taking into account accerlaration due to gravity so you fail. . .

Do you know of any era that speeds of falling bodies were calculated without taking gravity into consideration?

Again you lied and i pointed it out to you. . .

Lemme tell you wha you did, buddy: you trolled lol

mkmyers45: Aww how sweet..What is not between me and you? Anony's Analogy is extremely flawed..Velocity and Time are just relative [there are several equations relating in diffrent forms] while Mass and Energy are constituents of each other.. If you feel im wrong then why dont come forward correct and debunk einstein?

Ok. I really wanna see where this can get. So, I'll give you my previous answer in another way.

I asked in response to your question, what is energy? I'll answer that. Energy is the ability to do work or the quality of doing work. Either word, ability or quality, presupposes the existence of a possessor. If this is so, then energy is only as durable as the thing which possesses it. Do you disagree? If you do, then you'll need to show me how energy is something other than my definition.

Mr_Anony:
Ok my bad, I should have said "assuming a flat earth" instead of "calculations of a flat earth" and also should have said "accurately enough" instead of "accurately". My apologies for my 'imperfect' wording.

The point I was making to martian still holds all the same.

....and yeah, I never lied

Your point doesnt hold. Houses were built on the solid logic that gravity wont allow houses to fly and that a good foundation will hold a house intact. They were not built on the fact that the earth was flat.


Same with other ancient engineering works. They were built on a basic or crude understanding of gravity. The pyramids were not built based on a flat earth idea

MacDaddy01:

Your point doesnt hold. Houses were built on the solid logic that gravity wont allow houses to fly and that a good foundation will hold a house intact. They were not built on the fact that the earth was flat.


Same with other ancient engineering works. They were built on a basic or crude understanding of gravity. The pyramids were not built based on a flat earth idea

Lol, do you even have any idea what I am talking about or what the point I was making to martian is?

By the way, you haven't yet shown us proof that you are capable of thought. We are still waiting

Ihedinobi:

Ok. I really wanna see where this can get. So, I'll give you my previous answer in another way.

I asked in response to your question, what is energy? I'll answer that. Energy is the ability to do work or the quality of doing work. Either word, ability or quality, presupposes the existence of a possessor. If this is so, then energy is only as durable as the thing which possesses it. Do you disagree? If you do, then you'll need to show me how energy is something other than my definition.

Energy: A fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical/metaphysical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing
work. Energy is not possessed but is a fundamental entity that ALL things must posses..Energy flows and manifest in ALL things.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, what does not correspond to scriptural teachings?

Which of these contradicts scripture?

1. There is a supernatural realm that transcends space and time.
2. God is the ultimate being and is supernatural
3. God created the universe.

We are now back to square one again!

The same reason we don't believe in your god are the reasons you use to support his existence.
I doubt simply logic can be twisted any worse than you have

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 bang never happened.

Claiming that you don't know will not help you this time.

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.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, do you even have any idea what I am talking about or what the point I was making to martian is?

By the way, you haven't yet shown us proof that you are capable of thought. We are still waiting

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!

mkmyers45: Energy: A fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system in the production of physical/metaphysical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity for doing
work. Energy is not possessed but is a fundamental entity that ALL things must posses..Energy flows and manifest in ALL things.

If it is a fundamental entity, should it not be capable of isolation from the things that possess it? Can energy exist in isolation from "all things"?

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.

Deep Sight:

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!

Blah blah b;lah


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

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.

Area_boy:

We are now back to square one again!

The same reason we don't believe in your god are the reasons you use to support his existence.
I doubt simply logic can be twisted any worse than you have

...and what are you talking about exactly?

Deep Sight:

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 that 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.

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.

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.