beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."

Compared to what
..…

Not “compared” to anything. Its “size” is not defined relative to something else because there is no reason to believe there is something else to compare it with.
Instead, its “size” is simply a measure of how long it would take a photon of light to go full circl ...[text shortened]...
-what is the premise for your belief that there exists some kind of “void” that it is “in”?[/b]

I have been blasting you and others here who claim the singularity has
been both all there is, and is growing, when growing demands a place
to grow into which breaks your singularity was everything argument.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Even an expanding balloon expands into areas
it didn’t occupy before it expanded so what was it expanding
into?
Kelly

I see you suffer from the same selective sight that knightmeister does when it comes to dimension concepts. I have already shown you that an expanding balloon does not expand into new areas, yet you chose to ignore that post and repeat the falsehood.

Originally posted by KellyJay
…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."

Compared to what
..…

LOL, you really do not spend anytime thinking before
you write do you? The phrase “…it must have been
extremely dense and small.” Those were you words
not mine! You said, “SMALL” my reply to you was
this,

“Compared to what and how do you know, or why would you suspect ...[text shortened]... of being dense too, does
not have any validity to it either, did it have mass at all?
Kelly

…you and others here say the universe is getting
larger so whatever size that singularity was BEFORE the Big Bang ...…(my emphasis)

According to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “BEFORE” the big bang.

…If it isn’t growing why ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre
. .…. (my emphasis)

Why do you lie?
I never said nor implied in any way that it has a “centre”.
What “centre” ? It has no “centre”!

I also noted that this post of yours and in your subsequent post you just refuse to knowledge the logic in what I said when I said:

“ Its “size” is not defined relative to something else because there is no reason to believe there is something else to compare it with.
Instead, its “size” is simply a measure of how long it would take a photon of light to go full circle from one end of it to the other (“full circle” because it is has no boundaries in 3-dimentions and a straight line in 3-dimentions would bring it back to its starting point in this case). “

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have been blasting you and others here who claim the singularity has
been both all there is, and is growing, when growing demands a place
to grow into which breaks your singularity was everything argument.
Kelly

…when growing demands a place to grow into ...…

Not when there is no "place" to grow into and the stretching of space itself alone constitutes “growth”

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you suffer from the same selective sight that knightmeister does when it comes to dimension concepts. I have already shown you that an expanding balloon does [b]not expand into new areas, yet you chose to ignore that post and repeat the falsehood.[/b]

Yes, when the radius expands I am telling you in reality it is
taking up more area than it did before. Granted I understand
if a straight line is giving you issues a real circle must just
blow you mind, but trust me it is true. I've show you that your
balloon example is bogus, don't know why you keep coming back
to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…when growing demands a place to grow into ...…

Not when there is no "place" to grow into and the stretching of space itself alone constitutes “growth”[/b]

Again with the circular straight line logic I see.
I gave you an experiment you can test the truth
of your statement, stand on a balloon so there is
no place for it to expand and try to get it to
expand, let me know how that goes will you?

I submit that either the force of the air entering
into the blow will push off the foot creating area
to expand the balloon, or and more likely nothing
will occur you will not get the balloon to expand
if you are truly standing on the balloon the lack
of space and the balloon will stop air from
allowing it to expand.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you and others here say the universe is getting
larger so whatever size that singularity was BEFORE the Big Bang ...…(my emphasis)

According to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “BEFORE” the big bang.

…If it isn’t growing why ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre
. .…. (my emphasis)

Why do you ...[text shortened]... s and a straight line in 3-dimentions would bring it back to its starting point in this case). “[/b]

If there was no before the Big Bang, there couldn’t be a
singularity I take it? Besides straight lines, circles, choices,
selections, design, and host of other terms you need to
read up on, getting your story straight should be another
one.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…you and others here say the universe is getting
larger so whatever size that singularity was BEFORE the Big Bang ...…(my emphasis)

According to the main-stream big bang theory, there was no “BEFORE” the big bang.

…If it isn’t growing why ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre
. .…. (my emphasis)

Why do you ...[text shortened]... s and a straight line in 3-dimentions would bring it back to its starting point in this case). “[/b]

You are very free with the word lie here, I suggest you point out to
me where I claimed you said it? I also submit I did address your
logic with respect to size, you just refuse to read it I guess, because
it is there in my post.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again with the circular straight line logic I see.
I gave you an experiment you can test the truth
of your statement, stand on a balloon so there is
no place for it to expand and try to get it to
expand, let me know how that goes will you?

I submit that either the force of the air entering
into the blow will push off the foot creating area
to expan ...[text shortened]... the balloon the lack
of space and the balloon will stop air from
allowing it to expand.
Kelly

Given the fact that there IS space around the balloon, that wouldn’t be a valid way to “test” the hypotheses that if there is NO space around the universe then it can still expand merely by space itself within itself stretching and without that space “stretching into” some other kind of space.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If there was no before the Big Bang, there couldn’t be a
singularity I take it? Besides straight lines, circles, choices,
selections, design, and host of other terms you need to
read up on, getting your story straight should be another
one.
Kelly

…If there was no before the Big Bang, there couldn’t be a
singularity I take it?
...…

No.

How does it logically follow from:

1 “there was no before the Big Bang”

That:

2, “there couldn’t be a singularity”

?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are very free with the word lie here, I suggest you point out to
me where I claimed you said it? I also submit I did address your
logic with respect to size, you just refuse to read it I guess, because
it is there in my post.
Kelly

Reminder:

……If it isn’t growing why ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre
. .…. (my emphasis)
...…

This is responding to my post thus you are saying that I “ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre” -correct?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…If there was no before the Big Bang, there couldn’t be a
singularity I take it?
...…

No.

How does it logically follow from:

1 “there was no before the Big Bang”

That:

2, “there couldn’t be a singularity”

?[/b]

What role do you think the singularity played in the Big Bang, maybe
you have a different belief about that than the one I'm used to
hearing about? Explain your view of the relationship between the
singularity and the Big Bang please.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Reminder:

[b]……If it isn’t growing why ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre
. .…. (my emphasis)
...…

This is responding to my post thus you are saying that I “ATTEMPT to
measure things moving away from the centre” -correct?[/b]

Before you call me a liar again, did you see me quote you in any
way shape or form, did I hint you made that claim?

Going on to your question, exactly how do you measure the age of
the universe?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Given the fact that there [b]IS space around the balloon, that wouldn’t be a valid way to “test” the hypotheses that if there is NO space around the universe then it can still expand merely by space itself within itself stretching and without that space “stretching into” some other kind of space.[/b]

Okay the balloon example stinks for saying the expanding universe
isn't growing, you have another one?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Given the fact that there [b]IS space around the balloon, that wouldn’t be a valid way to “test” the hypotheses that if there is NO space around the universe then it can still expand merely by space itself within itself stretching and without that space “stretching into” some other kind of space.[/b]

I told you to stand on the balloon too, that simulates not having
any space around the balloon, but then you run into the problem
I predicted would occur, it would not expand with no space.
Kelly