16 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have had just as many decades of brain decay. In fact, more, since I will not be 70 until next year.
Your so-called god never revealed ANYTHING to you personally. You take the word of other people deeply deluded just as you. It's just a club invented by men.
There is in fact original thought and there is no way you can EVER prove some god knows all our thoughts or would even give a shyte about what we think or don't think.
It is in your inane patho ...[text shortened]... r brain, that is, what is left of it after many decades of decay of your own thinking ability.
The Instructor
16 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it shows you just refuse to use your own brain, deciding on self lobotomization and to rely on the works of other people. You have been brain dead for decades, having nothing to do with your actual age.
YOUR STATEMENT JUST SHOWS YOUR STUPIDITY!
The Instructor
17 Jun 13
1 edit
[ I'm bringing this back from the Male/Female thread ]
If we can agree that the initial expansion of the universe (the big bang) started as a rapid expansion, then I would point out that the word "rapid" is a relative term. In other words, rapid compared to what? Compared to now?
If the initial expansion was not rapid, but began slowly and picked up speed, then my point is moot and I've been wasting intellectual capital reflecting on this...
Maybe I'll go join that wino in his place of residence near the railroad tracks.
By the way, if galaxies appear to be accelerating away from where we sit (our point of reference), it doesn't necessarily mean the entire universe is accelerating away from the original point of origin (the singularity). I'm not ready to join that wino until I've heard all possible objections... which means I'll probably never get a chance to join that wino in his place of residence near the railroad tracks.
[ Including a correction of that post ]
"If the initial expansion was not rapid, but began slowly and picked up speed, then my point is moot and I've been wasting intellectual capital reflecting on this..."
That wasn't right. If the universe started off slowly and has been picking up speed then the universe is older than it appears to be.
My point is moot if expansion has always been uniform, from the singularity until today. If so, then our clock today would represent a true age of the universe, because all clocks along the way would be moving at the same constant speed relative to one another.
17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
[ I'm bringing this back from the Male/Female thread ]
If we can agree that the initial expansion of the universe (the big bang) started as a rapid expansion, then I would point out that the word "rapid" is a relative term. In other words, rapid compared to what? Compared to now?
If the initial expansion was not rapid, but began slowly and picked up s along the way would be moving at the same constant speed relative to one another.
In other words, rapid compared to what? Compared to now?
yes
By the way, if galaxies appear to be accelerating away from where we sit (our point of reference), it doesn't necessarily mean the entire universe is accelerating away from the original point of origin (the singularity).
No it doesn't mean that because there is no definable 'point' in space where the singularity was within our universe that the universe is “expanding away from” and there never was!
If the whole universe came from an expanding singularity then that would mean that where the 'point' 'was' in our present universe is literally everywhere i.e. at ALL points of space in our universe! The universe would have developed entirely WITHIN that singularity.
If the universe started off slowly and has been picking up speed then the universe is older than it appears to be.
not necessarily because, providing we correctly know how the rate of expansion of universe is changing and has changed in the past (which we do know because we have been measuring this by observing very distant objects and events), if it was picking up speed then we could simply take that into account in the mathematical calculations of its age and estimate the right age.
17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyDefining the entire universe as something that developed within the singularity makes sense... the universe is an expanded singularity.By the way, if galaxies appear to be accelerating away from where we sit (our point of reference), it doesn't necessarily mean the entire universe is accelerating away from the original point of origin (the singularity).
No it doesn't mean that because there is no definable 'point' in space where the singularity was within our universe that f space in our universe! The universe would have developed entirely WITHIN that singularity.
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a balloon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin. You could also say the balloon is an expanded lump, with the air representing space. My point has to do with the movement of material on the surface of that "balloon" vs rate of expansion from the point of origin (the initial lump that became the balloon). There is evidence of accelerated movement on the surface, but no discernible evidence showing acceleration away from an initial starting point.
17 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
Defining the entire universe as something that developed within the singularity makes sense... the universe is an expanded singularity.
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a ballon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin. You could also say the ballon is an expanded lump, with the air representing space. My point has to surface, but no discernible evidence showing acceleration away from an initial starting point.
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a ballon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin.
not if you are talking about the whole universe being that small lump because there would be no definable space outside it and that would mean the so called 'point' of origin is literally the whole of the universe and that makes it meaningless as a 'point of origin'.
There is evidence of accelerated movement on the surface, but no discernible evidence showing acceleration away from an initial starting point.
That's because the initial starting point is literally everywhere in the whole universe because, just as you said yourself, according to the theory, the universe is an expanded singularity.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYes, there was no definable space outside the singularity, just as there is no point of spatial reference outside of our universe. But we don't need to be looking 'outside' for a point of reference.
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a ballon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin.
not if you are talking about the whole universe being that small lump because there would be no definable space outside it and that would mean the so called 'point' of origin is literally the whole of the universe and th ...[text shortened]... ust as you said yourself, according to the theory, the universe is an expanded singularity.
The singularity IS that point of reference, when we reverse engineer the universe back to that point. The singularity is not a point of reference in nothingness because that's impossible. But it can be seen as a point of reference when we imagine the universe expanding from it.
To say the initial starting point is literally everywhere ignores the fact that it started as something small and then expanded. We can't say the universe expanded if the exact same definition for the singularity applies to the universe as it exists today. I was agreeing with your statement that we live in an expanded singularity for the same reason the balloon is an expanded lump. The lump expanded and became a balloon, but it makes no sense to say the balloon is the lump. It became a balloon because it expanded.
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThat's because the initial starting point is literally everywhere...
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a ballon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin.
not if you are talking about the whole universe being that small lump because there would be no definable space outside it and that would mean the so called 'point' of origin is literally the whole of the universe and th ...[text shortened]... ust as you said yourself, according to the theory, the universe is an expanded singularity.
WHAT ?????
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeIt is not just matter moving away from itself, but space itself that is expanding.
To say the initial starting point is literally everywhere ignores the fact that it started as something small and then expanded.
In addition, there is no evidence that space is discontinuous, so it is likely that there is no 'centre' to space.
In addition, to mark a location in space is only possible relative to things in that space, so to say some point is 'the origin' is to say it is a point relative to everything else, but if everything else is expanding, how does one keep track of the so called 'origin'?
In your balloon analogy, I suspect you will place the origin in the centre of the balloon, not on the surface. So is the origin of the universe not in the universe? Or is you analogy not just the surface of the balloon? And if I drop the balloon, does the origin move?
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon lime"You could also say the balloon is an expanded lump, with the air representing space."
Defining the entire universe as something that developed within the singularity makes sense... the universe is an expanded singularity.
But if you start with a small lump and blow it up like a balloon, that small lump can be defined as a point of origin. You could also say the balloon is an expanded lump, with the air representing space. My point has t ...[text shortened]... surface, but no discernible evidence showing acceleration away from an initial starting point.
I goofed again. The air in the balloon doesn't represent space. Space and matter would be resting on the surface of the balloon. The area within the balloon represents a timeline from the surface back (in time) to the point of origin, which would be somewhere in the approximate center of the balloon... in other words, the timeline is the radius of a more or less spherical "balloon".
You can only find the point of origin by following the timeline back until it reaches a single point singularity. We don't need to know exactly where it was to know it had to exist as a point of origin. Most of the diagrams illustrating this expansion would make no sense if there was no starting point.