Until proven I will consider extra dimensions speculation worth considering and to imagine them would be very helpful. My math skills suck. But I do have an imaginative mind..... I guess.
I didn't bother replying. But if I had, I would have pointed out that you have to give the benefit of the doubt. Which he wasn't doing.
"Cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos "world" and -λογία, -logia "study of") is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future. It is the scientific study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scientific study of the universe's origin, its large-scale structures and dynamics, and its ultimate fate, as well as the laws of science that govern these areas." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/#Unde
I like to say I am the most overeducated Homer Simpson on the planet. He had the misfortune to cross paths with someone that actually studied philosophy of science.
No you have not. The big bang is eminently available to science for falsification. There are multiple efforts to falsify the big bang in whole or in part, and those efforts have not been successful. There is no competing theory, so there is no question of whether an alternative model is superior in any way. Your "a human had to be there" argument is just plain silly - throughout science there is no such restriction.
I am not attempting to "refute" the BB Theory... I've clarified this to you several times now. I've already thoroughly explained the differences between religion and science to you (and specifically why the BB Theory is religion as opposed to science).
Your lame dodge only confirms your lack of subject knowledge.You won't attempt to refute the evidence because you can't.
You can't have it both ways. If I stand two people back to back with flashlights the light will travel exactly as fast .... the same distance.... as one flashlight shone by me. The only way to expand faster than the speed of light is to have particles without mass. Can you have substance with no mass? And considering gravity losing to expansion. I just read of a black hole gobbling up galaxies. Do they also gobble up space? Things that make me wanna go Hmmm.... As black holes grow in influence dose space shrink? A black hole that swallows eight galaxies. Will the space that contained the galaxies be gone also? I am not a physicist. Can't even spell it.
You've done no such thing. You've made sadly failed attempts to rule out whole major fields of science as not being science. You'd like to think that physics is dead - since NONE of its current direction conforms with the limitations you would like to impose.
No. I refuse to "refute the evidence" because attempting to prove/disprove a religion leads to numerous logical fallacies. You're currently committing a Circular Argument Fallacy ("fundamentalism") for starters...
Yes. Photons are massless. Things with mass can't travel at the speed of light. Close by interactions are covered by the special theory of relativity, while total cosmology is covered by the general theory. This is the universe, so "close" doesn't me what it usually mean to me!! The special theory does not include issue relating to the expansion of the universe - that's covered by the general theory. The thing is that if a "piece of space" expands one can end up having hugely distant objects depart from us at faster than the speed of light. The reasoning is that if each "piece of space" expands by some small amount over some amount of time, it will end up being significant when one considers the number of pieces of space between here and the farthest reaches of the universe that we can detect. The exapnsion would amount to the small rate of expansion of each piece multiplied by the umbelievably gigantic number of pieces of space that are lined up in every direction. Over a long enough path, that will end up being greater than the speed of light. So, there is a concept of the observable universe - a distance beyond which we can't observe anymore, because they are far enough away that the speed of light won't allow their photons to ever reach us.
This is just plain nonsense. Physicists are totally open to refuting our understanding of what happened at that time. In fact, they work toward that. And, you don't have anthing that the rest of the world would consider a circular argument.
By the same logic the universe could collapse faster than the speed of light .If a black hole is massive enough. But I don't really buy it and apologies for being so stubborn about it. But even in a finite universe a photon source could dim naturally and not be seen because it was too far away no matter the speed of light. But all we need is a bigger light bucket to see the big bang. right?
Science is not a belief system. You misunderstand what the enterprise of science is, and how it fundamentally differs from any theological conclusion one could ever reach.
Mantra 38a. (Shifting the Burden, specifically the Cops & Robbers Fallacy) Mantra 30. (Bogus Position Assignments) No valid argumentation presented.
The Mantra schtick doesn't change the fact that you are incapable of debating the evidence; it makes you appear immature.
