If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[ding]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.

But it does as that is a consequence of space and time having a beginning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.

But it does as that is a consequence of space and time having a beginning.

Unfortunately, it clearly fails to hold, in its own scenario, in early in the life of the universe. That is literally the main, fundamental problem that today's cosmologists are wrestling with, regardimg the history of our observable universe. This is a basic fact of the topic that anyone who claims to know anything about the topic should possess.

So you are either being intentionally dishonest in your omissions, or unintentionally ignorant in your authoritative declarations.

 

[ding]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.

But it does as that is a consequence of space and time having a beginning.

Unfortunately, it clearly fails to hold, in its own scenario, in early in the life of the universe. That is literally the main, fundamental problem that today's cosmologists are wrestling with, regardimg the history of our observable universe. This is a basic fact of the topic that anyone who claims to know anything about the topic should possess.

So you are either being intentionally dishonest in your omissions, or unintentionally ignorant in your authoritative declarations.

I think you are playing word games. That or you don't understand what I mean when I say boundary. The boundary is space time itself and it is curved. You can't reach it. There is no edge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.

But it does as that is a consequence of space and time having a beginning.

Unfortunately, it clearly fails to hold, in its own scenario, in early in the life of the universe. That is literally the main, fundamental problem that today's cosmologists are wrestling with, regardimg the history of our observable universe. This is a basic fact of the topic that anyone who claims to know anything about the topic should possess.

So you are either being intentionally dishonest in your omissions, or unintentionally ignorant in your authoritative declarations.

I think you are playing word games. That or you don't understand what I mean when I say boundary. The boundary is space time itself and it is curved. You can't reach it. There is no edge.

That describes the boundless nature of all space in our universe. That does not, however, have any bearing on the idea that there exists space and time beyond what we can currently observe.

 

[ding]

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe.

It does not mean that. You are making things up, now.

But it does as that is a consequence of space and time having a beginning.

Unfortunately, it clearly fails to hold, in its own scenario, in early in the life of the universe. That is literally the main, fundamental problem that today's cosmologists are wrestling with, regardimg the history of our observable universe. This is a basic fact of the topic that anyone who claims to know anything about the topic should possess.

So you are either being intentionally dishonest in your omissions, or unintentionally ignorant in your authoritative declarations.

I think you are playing word games. That or you don't understand what I mean when I say boundary. The boundary is space time itself and it is curved. You can't reach it. There is no edge.

That describes the boundless nature of all space in our universe. That does not, however, have any bearing on the idea that there exists space and time beyond what we can currently observe.

You are describing the effective boundary. The boundary of the observable universe which is defined by the age of the universe. We cannot observe parts of the universe that are too far away for light to have reached us given the finite age of the universe.

But try thinking of the "boundary" this way... ~14 billion years ago all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom. This is a really small space right? Surely we could see and travel that far, but we couldn't see or travel to that "boundary" either because of the curvature of space time.

Of course, I'm not sure why any of this matters because we know from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that the age of the universe is not infinite. It is finite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Surely we could see and travel that far

You would not be able to see, as soace would have been too dense for light to reflect to your eye. You would not have been able to travel either, as the pressure of the denisty would have prevented movement of even the constituent of basic particles. Again...the fundamental problem of cosmology, which appears to be quite new material for you.

And you are still wrong about the second law, as 1) it only certainly holds in our observable universe, and 2) we have mathematical constructs that show it doesn't have to hold in infinite universes. Even Hawking had to admit that his posits regarding the 2nd law had to ignore this possibility.

 

[ding]

Surely we could see and travel that far

You would not be able to see, as soace would have been too dense for light to reflect to your eye. You would not have been able to travel either, as the pressure of the denisty would have prevented movement of even the constituent of basic particles. Again...the fundamental problem of cosmology, which appears to be quite new material for you.

And you are still wrong about the second law, as 1) it only certainly holds in our observable universe, and 2) we have mathematical constructs that show it doesn't have to hold in infinite universes. Even Hawking had to admit that his posits regarding the 2nd law had to ignore this possibility.

Of course you couldn't see or even exist as anything other than a subatomic particle in that state. My point was at that time there was no great distance for light to travel yet the boundary could not be reached because of the curvature of space time yet the "concept" of a space time boundary is easy to visualize because it is so small.

There is no such thing as infinite universes. Go back to the beginning. The equations work equally well in reverse and cosmic background radiation confirms that ~14 billion years ago the size of the universe was less than 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.

You can't stand that the universe had a beginning because you understand the implications for God.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Another one with no clue as to what General Relativity states about the nature of the universe.

But I'm sure you can tell us, right?

No. You and ding have grifted all of your talking points from YEC websites.

What's a YEC website Mr CNN?

*****CHUCKLE*****

It's what you areoomong at in your other tab right now: "young earth creationist". Next time, open a third tab and use Google to find the answerr yourself to your basic questions.

Wrong again. Would you like to try Potpourri for $100?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

According to Einstein space-time is curved...

Gravity as Curved Space: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity

...Which means if you can go fast enough you'll meet your tail end as you go forward...

*****CHUCKLE*****

What does that have to do with a boundary for the universe?

It means the universe has limits which at this time reach out fifteen billion light years and no more. That means nothing exists, not even vacuum or space-time exist, outside that bubble that comprises the universe. The universe all curves in upon itself. So if you leave point A looking to get as far away from it as you can it's very possible that you'll end up back at point A.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Where does a scientist say that? Or did you make that up yourself?

 

[Taz]

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

 

[ding]

So now there's something outside the fifteen billion light year diameter bubble we call a universe?

Did the flying spaghetti monster create that also?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

 

[james bond]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he observes to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

Real scientists can’t find a boundary and have evidence that the universe is expanding. It’s not what anyone believes, it’s facts.

Ha ha. You just used the appeal to authority fallacy argument. How thick are you as a brick?

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

 

[ding]

CERN does.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

That would be the guy in the video who was giving his talk to all the other real scientists in the room who were listening to his talk.

 

[Taz]

The universe we see is just how far the furthest light has been able to reach us in 14 billion years. No real scientist suggests that that's where the boundary of the universe is. We simply can't see further than that right now.

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he observes to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

Real scientists can’t find a boundary and have evidence that the universe is expanding. It’s not what anyone believes, it’s facts.

Ha ha. You just used the appeal to authority fallacy argument. How thick are you as a brick?

Then link to a real scientist who thinks there's a boundary, I'd be interested to read that.

 

[ding]

^^^^^

Has no clue about what General Relativity says about the nature of the universe.

*****CHUCKLE*****

The you'll be able to quote a real scientist (and a link) who explains why the universe has a boundary. It's ok, I'll wait.

Hahahaha. It doesn't matter since you won't get it anyway. Can you explain why evo thinkers do not think there is a boundary? No.

Thus, you won't be able to understand something that is equally complex.

One evidence of a bounded universe is excess redshift in quasars (farthest away from earth). One example is Galaxy NGC 4319 and the nearby quasar Markarian 205 which have very different redshifts (cz = 1,700 km/s and 21,000 km/s respectively). However, looking at photos from Hubble, we can see that they are connected. If the universe was expanding infinitely as evos hypothesize, then their redshifts would be the same. Creation scientists think that it has to do with curved spacetime since this is observational science. You can read "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp (Not a creationist afaik, but a scientist who uses observational science and uses what he observes to formulate a hypothesis. He doesn't find existence of dark matter and doesn't believe the universe is expanding.).

Real scientists can’t find a boundary and have evidence that the universe is expanding. It’s not what anyone believes, it’s facts.

Ha ha. You just used the appeal to authority fallacy argument. How thick are you as a brick?

Then link to a real scientist who thinks there's a boundary, I'd be interested to read that.

I did, you never watched the video.

 

[Taz]

I know what CERN is, but please quote a relevant passage where they say that our universe has a boundary.

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

That would be the guy in the video who was giving his talk to all the other real scientists in the room who were listening to his talk.

First of all, I'm not watching a 40 minute video, link to a science site with real scientists that describe the boundaries of the universe. Secondly, that video is about the universe having a beginning. I never said that it didn't. I said that you don't know what was before that.

 

[ding]

So you don't understand that space time has a curvature?

Or that boundaries are implicit in the big bang model?

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

That would be the guy in the video who was giving his talk to all the other real scientists in the room who were listening to his talk.

First of all, I'm not watching a 40 minute video, link to a science site with real scientists that describe the boundaries of the universe. Secondly, that video is about the universe having a beginning. I never said that it didn't. I said that you don't know what was before that.

Since you didn't watch the video you don't know that he didn't.

You pick the stupidest things to show your ignorance.

 

[Taz]

Link to a real scientist if you can. I bet you won’t.

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

That would be the guy in the video who was giving his talk to all the other real scientists in the room who were listening to his talk.

First of all, I'm not watching a 40 minute video, link to a science site with real scientists that describe the boundaries of the universe. Secondly, that video is about the universe having a beginning. I never said that it didn't. I said that you don't know what was before that.

Since you didn't watch the video you don't know that he didn't.

You pick the stupidest things to show your ignorance.

You can't expect me to watch a 40 minute video. If that's all you have, then you have nothing. If it was real science, then there would be sites with real scientists explaining the boundary and what was before the BB. Now instead of posting a real site, you'll argue about how you've shown it to me already, because really, you have nothing. Same old, same old.

 

[ding]

A 40 minute video isn't a real scientist. Please try again.

That would be the guy in the video who was giving his talk to all the other real scientists in the room who were listening to his talk.

First of all, I'm not watching a 40 minute video, link to a science site with real scientists that describe the boundaries of the universe. Secondly, that video is about the universe having a beginning. I never said that it didn't. I said that you don't know what was before that.

Since you didn't watch the video you don't know that he didn't.

You pick the stupidest things to show your ignorance.

You can't expect me to watch a 40 minute video. If that's all you have, then you have nothing. If it was real science, then there would be sites with real scientists explaining the boundary and what was before the BB. Now instead of posting a real site, you'll argue about how you've shown it to me already, because really, you have nothing. Same old, same old.

Sure I can. I've watched it several times. It's not like I am asking you to do something I haven't done. Stop being so lazy.