18 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyNow that you understand that I understand that part, are there any other parts needing clarification?
good, you understand that part 🙂 Wasn't sure if you did.
"...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)."
18 Jun 13
5 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeThat last statement indicates you don't understand after all:
Now that you understand that I understand that part, are there any other parts needing clarification?
"...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)."
There is no 'point' of origin were the singularity once was in space that the whole universe could be accelerating away from or accelerating toward or having any kind of relative motion or lack of relative motion from it and nobody who understand cosmology is claiming otherwise.
If you claim that there is such a 'point' of origin were the singularity once was in space then where is it in our universe? how many light years is it away from us? in which direction from us?
and, more importantly, what makes that point of space so special that it is specifically THAT point in space that is defined as where the singularity once was and not some other arbitrary point? If all of the space in out universe came from an expanded singularity then ALL points of our space was once where the singularity once was! and no particular point of space is somehow special so you can say THAT was the point it was once and not any other point and therefore it is not a meaningful 'point' of origin.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou want to re-argue the "point" point?
That last statement indicates you don't understand after all:
There is no 'point' of origin were the singularity once was in space that the whole universe could be accelerating away from or accelerating toward or having any kind of relative motion or lack of relative motion from it and nobody who understand cosmology is claiming otherwise.
If you claim that was once and not any other point and therefore it is not a meaningful 'point' of origin.
You agreed the word rapid is a relative term. So I proceeded to my next point and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'. Now you want to step back and re-argue the 'point of origin' point?
You can only keep an old fart busy for just so long... after a while the old fart gets tired of repeating himself.
"...it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time."
18 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
You want to re-argue the "point" point?
You agreed the word rapid is a relative term. So I proceeded to my next point and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'. Now you want to step back and re-argue the 'point of origin' point?
You can only keep an old fart busy for just so long... after a while the old fart gets tired of repeati ...[text shortened]... .
"...it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time."
You agreed the word rapid is a relative term.
Yes, I implied this very briefly in one post.
So I proceeded to my next point
which was there being no outside that singularity, yes.
and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'.
No. Where did you get that from? Which post? I double-checked all the posts I made to you since that one where you said there was no outside that singularity and, unless I am missing something, I don't see anything I said or implied that would have lead you to think that I knew exactly what you meant by that.
Now you want to step back and re-argue the 'point of origin' point?
re-argue it? I think your getting your posts confused.
"...it's not an origin in relation to space, it's an origin in relation to time."
That is not what you said to me in any of your posts to me. I noticed after reading through the many posts again that you said that just once to twhitehead and I missed it because I only read all your posts to me and don't read all your posts to him. Still, thanks for the clarification now, but you would have to admit that I couldn't have guessed that is what you meant because that is a misuse of the term “point of origin” which in English means a point in SPACE and NOT time:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_point_of_origin_mean
“the starting PLACE, WHERE it begins, the first PLACE (my emphases)”
If you meant the beginning of time by “point of origin' then why not call it simply the “beginning of time” (or perhaps "the beginning of the universe"?) thus avoid misunderstanding? -just a friendly suggestion.
18 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseNo you are confusing the heavens or the sky and air with space. Space is made of nothing. Space only represents the location where something is placed. That is, unless you are using it as in the slang term "outer space" which is made of something, like you say.
It 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, lik ...[text shortened]... ce. Just my analogy which of course is probably way off but just as an illustration of the idea.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyAre you telling me you don't understand how a "point of origin" can be a point on a timeline? I'm being as careful as I can with words, and by "can" I don't mean a container for soup, I mean I'm being as careful as I am able, and by "I am able" I don't mean I am Cains brother.You agreed the word rapid is a relative term.
Yes, I implied this very briefly in one post.So I proceeded to my next point
which was there being no outside that singularity, yes.and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'.
No. Where did you get that from? Which post? I doubl ...[text shortened]... nning of the universe"?) thus avoid misunderstanding? -just a friendly suggestion.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYes, I was talking to both you and twhitehead. Sometimes I will repeat the same message directed to one person to another person on the same topic but I think you can understand how ridiculously constipating that can be when talking to more than 2 people. It's cumbersome enough doing that with just two people. And it's likely someone would ask me why I'm bothering to do that seeing as how a message to one person is just as visible to one other person. I generally but not always take into account other people talking on the same topic but once I understand the concept being communicated I generally don't ask for an explanation of that concept because it's an unnecessary waste of time and digital ink such as being spilled on this post right now as I sit here typing this message. I could keep going with this but now I'm bored and want to go outside to chase butterflies... and by butterflies I don't mean dairy products that can fly.You agreed the word rapid is a relative term.
Yes, I implied this very briefly in one post.So I proceeded to my next point
which was there being no outside that singularity, yes.and you finally understood what I meant by 'point of origin'.
No. Where did you get that from? Which post? I doubl ...[text shortened]... nning of the universe"?) thus avoid misunderstanding? -just a friendly suggestion.
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you telling me you don't understand how a "point of origin" can be a point on a timeline? I'm being as careful as I can with words, and by "can" I don't mean a container for soup, I mean I'm being as careful as I am able, and by "I am able" I don't mean I am Cains brother.
Are you telling me you don't understand how a "point of origin" can be a point on a timeline?
No, I understand it. But, as I just demonstrated, the accepted everyday meaning of the term “"point of origin"in English is never a point in time but rather space. So this is misuse of the term. That is all I was saying.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limefair enough.
Yes, I was talking to both you and twhitehead. Sometimes I will repeat the same message directed to one person to another person on the same topic but I think you can understand how ridiculously constipating that can be when talking to more than 2 people. It's cumbersome enough doing that with just two people. And it's likely someone would ask me why I'm ...[text shortened]... side to chase butterflies... and by butterflies I don't mean dairy products that can fly.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyIssac Newton said space was infinite, so how are you going to plot a point in infinite space?Are you telling me you don't understand how a "point of origin" can be a point on a timeline?
No, I understand it. But, as I just demonstrated, the accepted everyday meaning of the term “"point of origin"in English is never a point in time but rather space. So this is misuse of the term. That is all I was saying.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm confusing nothing. You on the other hand seem to be stuck way in the past where space WAS thought of as nothingness. So explain how that nothingness of space can alter the way a beam of light travels? If you actually remember any physics, you perhaps remember the Eddington experiment?
No you are confusing the heavens or the sky and air with space. Space is made of nothing. Space only represents the location where something is placed. That is, unless you are using it as in the slang term "outer space" which is made of something, like you say.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsfirstly, science has move on since Newton and we know that space might not be infinite.
Issac Newton said space was infinite, so how are you going to plot a point in infinite space?
The Instructor
secondly, why would defining a point in infinite space be any more difficult than in finite space?
thirdly, I said nor implied nothing in that post about having to “plot” a point in space so I have absolutely no idea of the relevance of my ability/inability to do that has with the current subject of discussion. Are you trying to make a point about something here?
Fourthly, what is so hard about defining a point in space (regardless of whether it is infinite)? I can define the centre of gravity of the Earth as being a point in space, no problem.
19 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseGod created the heavens in the nothingness of space. Then God stretched out the heavens in the nothingness of space.
I'm confusing nothing. You on the other hand seem to be stuck way in the past where space WAS thought of as nothingness. So explain how that nothingness of space can alter the way a beam of light travels? If you actually remember any physics, you perhaps remember the Eddington experiment?
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou must have something in the nothingness of space to use as a reference in order to define a point in space. Without something in space there is no reference to use in defining your point. Therefore, you can not define a center to space unless something is put in the nothingness of space by God. So it is only the Creator that can determines the center of the nothingness of space by creating something in it.
firstly, science has move on since Newton and we know that space might not be infinite.
secondly, why would defining a point in infinite space be any more difficult than in finite space?
thirdly, I said nor implied nothing in that post about having to “plot” a point in space so I have absolutely no idea of the relevance of my ability/inability to do that ...[text shortened]... nfinite)? I can define the centre of gravity of the Earth as being a point in space, no problem.
The Instructor