If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 93

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Muaaahhahahaha !! 😆

Coming to the Universe's expanding nature I would like to say that it has a very simple meaning ...All that it means is The Galaxies are constantly moving away from each other ...The universe as in the space part of it which holds all matter can't expand ..cause if it can its not infinite ..😛

You call Titin as Methionyl threonylthreonyl glutaminylarginyl...isoleucine..in a tetchy way just to make it sound too abstruse and baffling to the innocent audience you naughty physics geeks ... .😆

Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

That's exactly why we test mathematical models. I said this before, you can come up with many models which will be sound mathematically, but there is no use if they are not consistent with reality. That's why we are trying to explain what we see, not fit our universe in what we can create on paper.

About articulating, I know many people who can understand things quickly but suck at explaining. That's why intelligent ones don't always make a good teacher.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

look buddy some people know more of this stuff than you ever will reading up wikipedia, yet have the humility to say they dont know for sure. That's a different perspective than you might ever have had, but you still need to learn to respect it.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

Nope that will be a very wrong explanation. Because for some galaxy, speed of moving apart crosses c which is not possible for matter. Which sows that the galaxies are not moving away from each other, rather the space between them is expanding.

And I said this to you before, whether space is infinite or not is still and open question. We know that it is really big and it has no boundary and it is expanding.

Freethinka ..


@ Bold 1: If you are sober ( Unlike me 😛 ) and can re read what you have just written ..you ll know that both those things mean the same .. 😆 ..I mean WTH 😆 ..This is nothing short of insane ...Space between the two points increasing / expanding is the same as those two points moving away from each other ... 😆

@ Bold 2: Objection My Lord ..😆 these are contradictory statements ..If it has NO boundary it is infinite ... 😆 We should rather put it this way ... " WE NO NOTHING" <<<<<< Hahahaha 😆 Yay ! That's the right way ...We don't know if it has a boundary ..If you think it hasn't on the basis of assumptions ..I would say it has on the basis of my cranky assumptions ...

Universe is like a HUGE RANCH ..with a fencing that the GOD has put around that ..Inside which we the Physics Wad Cattle are grazing and gobbling the fake moreish science feast ...😆 ..I expect the God to intervene and goad us back to our barns ...To the reality that we fail to understand I mean ... 😆


Vintu 😛

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

OK, so now you have to resort to personal attacks? No more arguments? First of all, I am not only reading Wikipedia, but it is actually a good source of info. I have read books and other things too. And I never said I know things for "sure". We can never actually be sure that we got everything. The best we can do is to expand our knowledge which his limited. So, I actually got that perspective and I do respect other perspectives than this too. Actually I have been the one shouting since the start of the thread, when people claimed they knew that God exists for sure, that we DO NOT KNOW many things. And now you are asking me to have that perspective. 😆

cause and effect buddy.😆 It's the tone, buddy, and the dismissive "blind speculations". Work on it and then perhaps you can have people respond civilly to you.

while we are clearing the air😆, here's another thing. You ignore questions people ask, dismissing them on hand. Not done when you cant even get the answer correct later on.

Yeah? Actually you are the one asking meaningless questions and nitpicking where there is no need ( I won't stoop down to your level and term questions as nonsense like you are some know-it-all).

meaningless is as meaningless perceives.😆 You built grand notions about all the science you were reading and i just wanted to point out how so much of it is as blind as your "blind speculations" can be. The questions i asked were to nudge you in that direction.

Yeah, time sin't represented by ct? Please tell me how is the time dimension denoted? And I have repeated that dividing ct by t will result in velocity dimension but yo don't want to listen.

Yeah, don't assume what I will ask and not ask. I have been replying to your questions, but you now seem to think they are "nonsense" while repeating the same stuff. And if you can't have reasonable discussion when people answer your question and point out flaws, maybe you should not reply.

sure, let me help there.😆 Time dimension should be in units of time.Why, are you proposing something else?

To plot something like a rate of change in the time dimension, you'd need time on both Y-axis and X-axis. And that's exactly where it starts becoming self-referential, which is a nice way of saying nonsensical.

^^ Birdie, your line of questioning is violating the basic principles of Physics. How can motion happen in space alone or time alone? Why would time exist on both x-axis and y-axis? We don't just live in 3D space nor do we live in just 1D time. It's a continuum remember? You are setting up your own definitions for self-reference and shooting them down gleefully. None of the time travel methods, backed by Math, talk about traveling in 1 dimension as far as I know. Otherwise, please bring up one method that a renowned scientist proposed as a means to do time travel and weigh in with your current argument against that.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

^^ Birdie, your line of questioning is violating the basic principles of Physics. How can motion happen in space alone or time alone? Why would time exist on both x-axis and y-axis? We don't just live in 3D space nor do we live in just 1D time. It's a continuum remember? You are setting up your own definitions for self-reference and shooting them down gleefully. None of the time travel methods, backed by Math, talk about traveling in 1 dimension as far as I know. Otherwise, please bring up one method that a renowned scientist proposed as a means to do time travel and weigh in with your current argument against that.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

cause and effect buddy.😆 It's the tone, buddy, and the dismissive "blind speculations". Work on it and then perhaps you can have people respond civilly to you.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

sorry i dont agree. Look at it as vector projections and then we should have components, whether zero or otherwise on the various dimensions. ie. Velocity along any plane/ surface/ cube/ multicube can be projected onto a dimension. If one is going at a 45 degree angle, the vector has projections on both x and y axis ie mathemetically there is movement along both the axis. Similarly if we were to conceptualize movement in space-time, there should be a velocity projection on the time dimension. But based on the arguments i raised, that should be self-referential. So much of the math in physics is built using vectors and tensors that my use of vectors should not be a stretch.

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

@ Bold 1: If you are sober ( Unlike me 😛 ) and can re read what you have just written ..you ll know that both those things mean the same .. 😆 ..I mean WTH 😆 ..This is nothing short of insane ...Space between the two points increasing / expanding is the same as those two points moving away from each other ... 😆