Absolute beginning

"BURT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 8:07 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 7:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:





"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 3:39 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not
believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of
energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded
from
a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Space inflated before the creation of matter.

Mitch Raemsch

Inflated as in a baloon?
Don't you need a source of inflating material on the other side of the
Big Bang for that?

Try to be exact in what you think.

Why not a tiny dot, containing all matter, that exploded?
It sure would explain a lot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Particles cannot start piled up on each other. If they did they would
have an infinite gravity. Such gravity would prevent the Big Bang
expansion.

Even as evolution proves, everything has to have a point of origin.
Just because such a point seems supernatural to you, does not
mean it does not exist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

it does exist but it is empty. Space expands then matter is created in
less gravity.

**Alright, I see what perspective you are coming from now.
I agree.

But wouldn't you think, that in today's thoughts, creativity itself
is supernatural?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His
thoughts. All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein

Examine life in a water drop from a pond through a microscope and you will
see creation in action.

On Nov 16, 3:58*pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On Nov 16, 10:30 am, ah wrote:
Starman wrote:
Or read this article:
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...se_and_the_big....

Or watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw

Now THAT was a "Big Bang"! *Nothing unusual for NASA though.

Surprising things even work on a regular basis.
--
ah


49 times out of 50 the crew of the Shuttle comes back alive, ah.
Would you fly an airline with such a record?

Double-A

On Nov 17, 2:47*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 8:07 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:





"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 7:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

....
On Nov 16, 3:39 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 9:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not
believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of
energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded
from
a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Space inflated before the creation of matter.

Mitch Raemsch

Inflated as in a baloon?
Don't you need a source of inflating material on the other side of the
Big Bang for that?

Try to be exact in what you think.

Why not a tiny dot, containing all matter, that exploded?
It sure would explain a lot.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Particles cannot start piled up on each other. If they did they would
have an infinite gravity. Such gravity would prevent the Big Bang
expansion.

Even as evolution proves, everything has to have a point of origin.
Just because such a point seems supernatural to you, does not
mean it does not exist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

it does exist but it is empty. Space expands then matter is created in
less gravity.

**Alright, I see what perspective you are coming from now.
I agree.

But wouldn't you think, that in today's thoughts, creativity itself
is supernatural?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His
thoughts. All the rest are just details." Albert Einstein

Examine life in a water drop from a pond through a microscope and you will
see creation in action.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is the relative beginning of life.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:53:31 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
wrote:


"BURT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded from a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.

An old meter stick is still one meter long, even if one measures it
with an optical system and expresses the length in wave length of
light figures. Doppler red shift measurements show that the distant
stars are moving away from the observer. That isn't because of "space
expansion."

On Nov 17, 4:29*pm, Antares 531 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:53:31 -0600, "Mark Earnest"





wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message
....
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

....
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded from a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.

An old meter stick is still one meter long, even if one measures it
with an optical system and expresses the length in wave length of
light figures. Doppler red shift measurements show that the distant
stars are moving away from the observer. That isn't because of "space
expansion."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is because of space expansion. They are not moving apart at all.
This is the cosmological red shift to light.

Mitch Raemsch

Double-A wrote:

On Nov 16, 3:58 pm, ah wrote:

Double-A wrote:

On Nov 16, 10:30 am, ah wrote:

Starman wrote:

Or read this article:
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...se_and_the_big....

Or watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw

Now THAT was a "Big Bang"! Nothing unusual for NASA though.

Surprising things even work on a regular basis.
--
ah



49 times out of 50 the crew of the Shuttle comes back alive, ah.
Would you fly an airline with such a record?

To look down on the earth from space, you betcha!

"Antares 531" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:53:31 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
wrote:


"BURT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded from
a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.

An old meter stick is still one meter long, even if one measures it
with an optical system and expresses the length in wave length of
light figures. Doppler red shift measurements show that the distant
stars are moving away from the observer. That isn't because of "space
expansion."


Remember that there was no such thing as size then, since there was nothing
to compare to.

Antares 531 wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:53:31 -0600, "Mark Earnest"
wrote:


"BURT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:32 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:

"BURT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 15, 8:40 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:


"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

That is space "expansion" not an explosion you ninny.

I've never seen any parallels in reality that just slowly expanded from a
point.
It always tends to explode.

Space-time expanded.

**Now it seems to, sure, since everything is far apart.
But then, it was all together at a single point.


An old meter stick is still one meter long, even if one measures it
with an optical system and expresses the length in wave length of
light figures. Doppler red shift measurements show that the distant
stars are moving away from the observer. That isn't because of "space
expansion."

Either real motion or ununderstood "old light" or
yet some other mechanism we haven't even begun to
think about.

Consider the typical "beautiful woman" when
thinking about how things appear to be.

On Nov 17, 5:04*pm, Sanforized wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:58 pm, ah wrote:

Double-A wrote:

On Nov 16, 10:30 am, ah wrote:

Starman wrote:

Or read this article:
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...se_and_the_big....

Or watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw

Now THAT was a "Big Bang"! *Nothing unusual for NASA though.

Surprising things even work on a regular basis.
--
ah

49 times out of 50 the crew of the Shuttle comes back alive, ah.
Would you fly an airline with such a record?

To look down on the earth from space, you betcha!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well you seem suicidal. Why not try an airplane. The probability is
you would survive.

On Nov 15, 8:40*pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"BURT" wrote in message

...

I call it zero or another name for the Big Bang. I do not believe
creation was an explosion rather an instantaneous buildup of energy.

Mitch Raemsch

Creation and the explosion are two different things.
Creation set off the explosion.
And it was an explosion.
Since everything is moving away from everything else.
Only an explosion can cause that.

So when I blow up a balloon, it's an explosion because all points on
the balloon are moving away from all other points?