You claim that God does not exist, part 3

And, as expected, you deny what you are and do.

 

RE: RE: You claim that God does not exist,
※→ The Wyrd of Gawd, et al,

This is a little off-topic. BUT ... ... ...

(COMMENT)

Do me a favor. Take a deflated Birthday Party Balloon, and with a Magic Marker, mark two "X"s and inch apart. THEN inflate the balloon. You will notice that the "X"s are now much farther apart. But you did not move the "X"s. The fabric of the balloon expanded. It works the same way for the Fabric of Space as it expands.

If you take the deflated balloon and mark 10 "X"s on it, and then blow it up, it will look like all the "X"s are moving away from each other; even though the coordinate is stationary for every "X" and no single "X" was in the center. Some of these things are not intuitively obvious (at least for me). That's why I had to good to school.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

I will let you know once you have admitted that you were 100% wrong about your allegations about me.

 

No, we are not the "center of the universe". That is an optical illusion and you could be anywhere in the universe and the expansion would appear the same as it does here on earth. The entire universe is expanding everywhere.

As far as colliding galaxies goes that is a different set of forces at work. The Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are both part of the Local Cluster which in turn is part of the Virgo Super Cluster. It is the gravitational forces of these galaxies that is responsible for the collisions.

 

This is not very informative, why don't you just point out the instance and explain exactly how it does what you say it does?

 

lol i don't grovel, especially to the insecure

 

I don't respect those that are dishonest about other members and are unwilling to admit when they are wrong because that impedes civil discourse.

Have a nice day!

 

At least you are finally coming close to admitting that which you constantly deny.

You admit that you "misconstrue", intentionally in my view, things that make you uncomfortable.

There may be some hope for you since you seem to "misconstrued" you own statements in this thread.

 

Seems a valid beef to me. Stating "The entire universe is expanding everywhere." is a description or observance of motion, not a force or "set of forces at work." Galaxies known to be "colliding" and absorbing one another don't fit the "expanding" balloon notion "everywhere", gravity or no. The model is far from perfect.

 

Agreed that the means by which one is trying to explain these concepts are far from perfect. Scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson do a far better job of it that I can. Expansion does not negate gravity although it sounds as if it should.

Let me try this instead. If a vehicle that is travelling at 50 mph hits an immovable stationary object and comes to a dead stop then everything in the vehicle continues to move forward until they encounter something that stops them. The airbag, and it's contents were also moving at 50 mph when the vehicle stopped but it is triggered and it still expands away from the direction in which it is traveling. Technically the airbag and it's contents should not work because it is part of the vehicle and part of the impact and all parts of it were stopped. However the force inside the airbag that triggered it to expand and intercept any object still worked in the opposite direction to the direction of travel.

This is a far from perfect analogy but it does demonstrate that just because one set of forces are acting that does not preclude another set of forces from acting. Yes, the universe is expanding but the Earth is still captured by the Sun's gravity and is not moving away from it.

http://sciencequestionswithsurprisi...-causes-our-earth-to-drift-away-from-the-sun/

 

Oh, I admit I was wrong. I'm just not one to beg for forgiveness to appease a condescending attitude.

 

This is nothing about discomfort. I am not unaware of the real intention, I'm just looking for people to provide more information. Nonetheless, I don't think I have done so in this case, but then, you don't seem to dare discussing the issue. You say I want myself to be the issue, but you're the only one who seem to bring me up all the time.

 

Only to bring you some realization of how arrogant you appear to be. If you don't like it, and the truth about you, stop posting to me.

 

If this is the only point you're trying to make, no need. It's been a given far as I'm concerned.

Same. Much appreciate the Martin Rees quote though:

No problem other than, again, your airbag being conveniently not considered part of "everything." Also the stark contradiction between what I've highlighted from Rees above and below(↕). Also note that the only "set of forces" specified are "gravity" and "cosmological expansion", as if the latter were some well recognized "force" or "set of forces" rather than simply observed behavior.

I don't think it's a language problem. For example, he could have been content to say "We've only observed distant galaxies receding from each other. Gravity appears sufficient to hold them together locally." But he wasn't. Can the difference be credited to ego alone?

Again, one could simply say "I" or "We believe gravity warps space locally, making entire clusters of galaxies appear to resist expansion and hold together, whereas distant galaxies only appear to recede from other galaxies. I think that's a "more accurate picture". A clear and honest one as well. If "space itself" is "expanding", what is it supposedly expanding into? Gibberish methinks, lol.

 

Have you ever seen a creek with the water travelling downstream? Have you noticed there are eddies where some of the water travels upstream?



Even in images of the early universe there is more "clumping" in some areas than in others.

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/121238/index.html

IMAGES > CMB IMAGES > NINE YEAR MICROWAVE SKY





Nine Year Microwave Sky

The detailed, all-sky picture of the infant universe created from nine years of WMAP data. The image reveals 13.77 billion year old temperature fluctuations (shown as color differences) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. The signal from the our Galaxy was subtracted using the multi-frequency data. This image shows a temperature range of ± 200 microKelvin.

Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team​

 

@ecco: Yes, I believe I've seen that before. (?)

 

That's a fake picture. If you think about it you will realize why it's a fake. But you must think.

 

Okay, you got me. Why is it "fake"?

 

Its NASA and a representation of what they found, clearly religion softens the brain, if you can't understand that. They are working on an image of a black hole and it will be a representation of all the gathered images into one image not a photo of the event horizon of a black hole it doesn't mean its not true

 

I think I have been nothing but polite. I have been saying please, I have repeatedly acknowledged my fallibility (despite your statements to the contrary), my statements about others are phrased in terms of "it seems to me", rather than asserting knowledge about the other. When I talk about ways in which you may have misunderstood me, I phrase it in terms of how it seems to me (thereby acknowledging that I don't know exactly how you think) and I have invited you to suggest ways that might bring the discussion back to the issue at hand. When Grumblenuts who arguably didn't know the meat of the matter read our posts, he described mine as patient. Maybe the arrogance you see is just Britishisms.

Either way, why is this important? If you have a good argument, then it shouldn't matter how arrogant I am. This is not a thread about how arrogant I am, if you've got examples of statements you have a problem with, cough 'em up and I will rectify or defend them.

 

Look at the deep space photo, in a very, very small fraction of the night sky we can see galaxies too numerous to count. We are but one planet among billions of planets. If we are alone, it may be the single most improbable event in the history of the universe. Sorry but I see nothing special here, we are just life forms trying our best to grasp whatever truths we can find while we are still around to find them.

 

I don't think so, not given the data available to us. At the very least, it seems unlikely that any intelligent life has made use of electromagnetic waves long enough ago for the waves to have reached us. Or maybe it just gets lost in the noise, but I think our scientists would be able to separate noise from signs.

The reason I'm not convinced by the "there are so many planets..." argument is because all life on Earth is related. That's a crucial point. Biogenesis has occurred only once. Why? The only possible explanation is that, even given the perfect circumstances, it's a vanishingly rare event.

 

Look at the picture. It's like you're looking at a wall. It's an elliptical with well-defined edges. We are supposed to be in space. Imagine you are inside of a sphere looking out into the void. What you would see will not resemble that picture.

The picture is a fake.

 

The picture is a misleading representation of reality. It's not a true image of space. It's pure BS. Use your mind and you will see that.

Look at this world map. https://www.chameleonwebservices.co.uk/maps-of-the-world/ Is Greenland larger than South America and Africa?

Is Mexico smaller than Alaska?

 

Okay, a map doesn't have to be a perfect replica of the real object. In fact, that defeats the point of a map. What matters about a map is that represents the key information for given purposes.

And that picture of the universe? It suits the posters purposes.