18 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't look at your post until after I corrected mine. I think I may have already answered some of your objections, but I'll have to go back and look at your message again to make sure I understand everything you said.
It is not just matter moving away from itself, but space itself that is expanding.
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 rel ...[text shortened]... logy not just the surface of the balloon? And if I drop the balloon, does the origin move?
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou suspected right, I'm placing the origin in the center of the balloon. But it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time. I made the mistake of saying the air represented space, when in fact the area within the balloon represents all radius lines moving in time out toward the surface of the balloon... those radius lines are the timeline.
It is not just matter moving away from itself, but space itself that is expanding.
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 rel logy not just the surface of the balloon? And if I drop the balloon, does the origin move?
If you have ever seen a roughly cone shaped diagram of the expansion starting from a single point singularity, that "cone" shows a very rapid start and continual expansion until today. If you draw a straight line down through the center of the cone, that line is the timeline.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, you are wrong about space expanding, because it is the heavens that God spreads out. God created the heavens in space, then the earth was created in the heavens, then the Sun, moon, and stars were also created in the heavens as God spread out the heavens in the space. God could not have spread out the heavens if there were no space to spread the heavens.
It is not just matter moving away from itself, but space itself that is expanding.
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 rel logy not just the surface of the balloon? And if I drop the balloon, does the origin move?
So it seems correct to say there is no center to space, but anything that is placed in space could have a center depending on its shape. For example, we know that the Earth has a center, the Sun has a center, and our moon has a center. The current accepted scientific theory is that the universe has no center, but that has not been proved, so it could also have a center.
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo when you talk about a centre, you don't mean a point in space at all?
You suspected right, I'm placing the origin in the center of the balloon. But it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time. I made the mistake of saying the air represented space, when in fact the area within the balloon represents all radius lines moving in time out toward the surface of the balloon... those radius lines ar ...[text shortened]... If you draw a straight line down through the center of the cone, that line is the timeline.
18 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, 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.
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 nothin it makes no sense to say the balloon is the lump. It became a balloon because it expanded.
The singularity is not a point of reference in nothingness because that's impossible.
Why cannot that singularity have been solely “in” its OWN space and exactly the same spaces that has now expanded to form all the space in this universe today?
Rightly or wrongly, I am getting the impression here that you seem to think that it also had to be in some kind of other space other that that contained within it.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyBefore that single point singularity expanded there was no space. Space came into existence when the singularity began its expansion. It's the same with time, that also did not exist until the expansion began. There was no time or space 'outside' the singularity. Literally nothing existed outside of that point, not even empty space.The singularity is not a point of reference in nothingness because that's impossible.
Why cannot that singularity have been solely “in” its OWN space and exactly the same spaces that has now expanded to form all the space in this universe today?
Rightly or wrongly, I am getting the impression here that you seem to think that it also had to be in some kind of other space other that that contained within it.
The single point singularity wasn't in any kind of space, and before the expansion there was no space within it. It wasn't contained within anything because there was nothing for it be contained within. By definition there is nothing to be found in nothingness, so to say it was "contained" would mean it is contained within nothing.
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy would it have to be a point in space? I was talking about expansion from a point of origin. The single point singularity was that point of origin. What did you think I was talking about?
So when you talk about a centre, you don't mean a point in space at all?
18 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by lemon limegood, you understand that part 🙂 Wasn't sure if you did.
Before that single point singularity expanded there was no space. Space came into existence when the singularity began its expansion. It's the same with time, that also did not exist until the expansion began. There was no time or space 'outside' the singularity. Literally nothing existed outside of that point, not even empty space.
The single point si d in nothingness, so to say it was "contained" would mean it is contained within nothing.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humySpace can not expanded, unless you define space as some material substance. However space is not a material substance, it is only the location in which material substance can be placed.The singularity is not a point of reference in nothingness because that's impossible.
Why cannot that singularity have been solely “in” its OWN space and exactly the same spaces that has now expanded to form all the space in this universe today?
Rightly or wrongly, I am getting the impression here that you seem to think that it also had to be in some kind of other space other that that contained within it.
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyThe balloon and cone diagrams represent the same thing. They both represent the 3 dimensions of space plus the dimension of time. But in order to construct these pictures you necessarily need to drop one dimension of space. If you slice the cone diagram into thin wafers, each one of those wafers represent two dimensions of space resting at one point on the time line. Confusion often arises if the diagrams are mistaken for a 3-D picture of the universe.
good, you understand that part 🙂 Wasn't sure if you did.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Space can not expanded, unless you define space as some material substance. However space is not a material substance, it is only the location in which material substance can be placed.
The Instructor
Space can not expanded,
how do you know this? Science and the people that know a lot more about physics than you do say it can expand.
unless you define space as some material substance.
I suppose it could be correct to say space is a non-solid “material substance” depending on what you mean by “material”.
How do you logically go to space not being a “material substance” (whatever you mean by that) to “ Space can not expanded”?
However space is not a material substance, it is ONLY the location in which material substance can be placed. (my emphasis)
How do know this? You should also bare in mind that not even empty space is 'nothing' but is 'something' and is never truly 'empty' because it is seething with virtual photons.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humySpace can be either occupied or unoccupied. I think you are talking about the heavens which is like an expandable fabric in space. I know because the Holy Bible tells me so.Space can not expanded,
how do you know this? Science and the people that know a lot more about physics than you do say it can expand.unless you define space as some material substance.
I suppose it could be correct to say space is a non-solid “material substance” depending on what you mean by “material”.
How do but is 'something' and is never truly 'empty' because it is seething with virtual photons.
The Instructor
18 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIt can only be considered a fabric in very general terms. Space might in fact be quantized, that is space may be made up of bits WAY smaller than atoms, quarks and such. If that theory holds, the expansion of space may in some way be related to blowing up a balloon with a straw, little bits being injected into the fabric of space but everywhere at once, like a balloon with a million straws all aiming at different physical places inside the balloon at once. Just my analogy which of course is probably way off but just as an illustration of the idea.
Space can be either occupied or unoccupied. I think you are talking about the heavens which is like an expandable fabric in space. I know because the Holy Bible tells me so.
The Instructor