Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:33:54 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> When you talk about "the Big Bang Model," you should say what you really
>>> mean: "The Big Bang MATHEMATICAL Model."
>> No, it is THE Big Bang model.
>>
>> You have a tendency to add words that don’t belong, for the sake of
>> disparaging that which you find difficult to understand. Your favorite word
>> for that purpose is “mathematical”, as though mathematics is some kind of
>> poison that taints all it touches. It’s a language you are illiterate in,
>> that’s all.
>
> I'm not "illiterate" in mathematics. I'm just using LOGIC instead of mathematics,
> because LOGIC is the basis for understanding. If it is not logical it is not
> understood, whether the math works or not.

Nope. Mathematics is a language that COMMUNICATES the logic. You do not
understand that language (you are illiterate in mathematics — you literally
do not understand what an equation means when it is shown), and so you miss
the logic that the mathematics has expressed.

>
>>>
>>> In that IDIOTIC model you have an expanding universe that reaches only as
>>> far as the farthest visible star.
>> No, the Big Bang model says no such thing.
>
> How far does it reach?

It could well be infinite. No edge.

The other possibility is that it is finite with no edge. The *surface* of a
sphere (not the sphere itself) has no edge. Remember the old maps of the
world that imagined there was an edge to the world and that ships would
fall off the edge. There is no edge in reality to the earth’s surface, and
yet it is not infinite.

>
>>> And you see that as the end of the universe,
>>> even though that star is moving away from us. What is that star moving INTO?
>>> That is a forbidden question. How can the universe be expanding if there is
>>> nothing to expand into? That is a forbidden question. What is outside of your
>>> expanding universe? That is a forbidden question.
>> None of these are forbidden questions. They are all questions that have
>> simple answers, but you haven’t found them easily and so you MISTAKENLY
>> think the questions must be forbidden if you can’t find simple answers.
>> Again, I will remind you that your main resource pool is a cesspool of
>> information sewage, and your frustrations with it are due purely to your
>> poor choices of the materials you consume.
>
> I provide sources. You do not like those sources, so you claim they are from
> a "cesspool." Meanwhile, you provide NO SOURCES, you just state your BELIEFS.

I’m happy to provide non-internet sources. You up for that?

>
>>>
>>> LOGICALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY you cannot have something that is expanding
>>> unless there is something to expand into.
>> No, this is not correct. Your mind is limiting your consideration to finite
>> volumes with a boundary edge. Then expansion means the outward movement of
>> that edge. It is with FINITE things that you can ask, “What is that edge
>> moving into?”
>>
>> But you have NOT asked yourself the question, “But what about an INFINITE
>> space, a space that has no limit, no edge? Can an infinite anything be also
>> characterized as expanding? After all, if infinity grows, it’s still
>> infinite. Does expansion mean anything?”
>
> Infinite is defined as: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size;
> impossible to measure or calculate."

Yes.

>
> To say that something that is infinite is also expanding is IDIOTIC.
> It is a claim that cannot be proven or measured, and it is ILLOGICAL.

Not true. Even the Greeks knew this two thousand years ago. That’s what I’m
trying to explain below.

>
>>
>> The answer, which has no occurred to you, is YES, even infinite things can
>> be said to be expanding. And it just takes an eensy bit of thinking to
>> imagine this.
>
> It doesn't require "thinking." It requires believing in some kind of DOGMA.

Nope, it’s really straightforward to understand. If the Greeks can
understand it, surely you can too. Try harder.

>
>>
>> Suppose you were able to draw an infinitely long line — or even to point to
>> one you can imagine. For example, imagine a line that passes through the
>> period of this sentence and goes upwards infinitely and also goes downward,
>> through the earth and beyond infinitely. This is not an unreal thing — it’s
>> a line that lives in the real world. Notice that there is no center to this
>> line, because there are no ends to the line to find the midpoint between.
>> Repeat: no center. Now, suppose today you managed to attach little marks
>> every foot along this line, as far as you can see, regularly spaced. Now
>> also suppose that you come back tomorrow and you notice that the marks are
>> all still there, regularly spaced, but they’re all 13 inches apart instead
>> of 12 inches apart. This is evidence that the whole line is expanding. Note
>> that the whole line is expanding even though there are no ends to the line,
>> and the line is infinite. This is a new concept to you, how an infinite
>> thing can be thought of as expanding.
>
> It is nonsense. There is nothing to verify it, and it is ILLOGICAL. In science,
> if something can not be proved or disproved, it is a waste of time. It is just
> an unverifiable BELIEF.

No it is not illogical. I just gave you something that coheres logically.
It may not be familiar to you. You may only be familiar with the expansion
of FINITE things, but that doesn’t means that the expansion of infinite
things is self-contradictory, as I showed above. As I said, the Greeks
understood this 2000 years ago, and I’m hard pressed to understand why you
say that it’s all impossible.

>
>>>
>>> Your Big Bang Mathematical model is MORONIC. It conflicts with everything
>>> that we know about science.
>> No it doesn’t. What I just described to you was even understood by the
>> Greeks. It just conflicts with what YOU think the world is like, where the
>> only things that can be thought of as expanding are finite things with ends
>> and boundaries. Well, now you know what the Greeks knew a couple thousand
>> years ago.
>>>
>>> And just to show that I am not the only one who disagrees with you:
>>>
>>> "The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
>> Exactly. And still expanding, because that is not a contradiction.
>>
>> And note that there IS NO REFERENCE in that article about any center to the
>> universe or where it might lie. That whole stuff about the center of the
>> universe lying outside the observable universe was something you made up.
>> There is no center, there is no edge.
>
> WE are at the center of our "observable universe."

Which doesn’t correlate to any center of the universe beyond our
observation limit. There is no center in the Big Bang. None.

> We can see 13.8 billion
> light years in all directions. We cannot see beyond that. Why? Because
> 13.8 billion years ago is when stars started to form. That's when the lights
> came on, allowing us to see things in our "observable universe."
>
> WE KNOW that the universe did not form around us, because that is
> ILLOGICAL. No science supports such an idea. Therefore it MUST have
> begun somewhere else.

No. There does not need to be a center. See the example I gave above, which
the Greeks understood.

> We see no POINT in our "observable universe"
> which everything else is moving away from. Therefore the universe MUST
> have begun outside of our "observable universe."
>
> It's basic UNDENIABLE LOGIC. And there are probably textbooks and
> science books which support it.

There are certainly a WHOLE LOT of textbooks that say that there IS NO
CENTER of the Big Bang.

It’s clear you cannot make sense of what those textbooks say. You’re
knee-jerk response, then, is to say that all those books are wrong and you
are right. That’s not the best response. The better response is to notice
that there is something you’re probably not understanding.

>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables