Compacting universe before big bang?

[Asmodean Prime]

Ok, McQ, what is it you are asking me, in a concise and easily recognised manner?

[Asmodean Prime]

Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Oh, I know, you are not willing to answer my posts anymore.  No matter.

I will stick to my guns.

Glory go God.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, Ok, I wrote:

Superior knowledge? Maybe. But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers. Not you, not me. But it is only that - an estimate. A rough guess. In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

It should have been astronomers or cosmologists, not astrologers.  A stupid mistake on my part.

[Aullios]

Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Fine, I'll bite then.

Stars, gasses, vacuums, planets, comets, asteroids, black holes, pulsars, quasars, galaxies, or clusters cannot speak.  Therefore, at least most of the "heavens" are uncapable of declaring the "glory of God."

Secondly, the Earth is not hung upon nothing.  The Earth is held in place by angular momentum, centripedal force, and gravity, as described by the laws of planetary motion.  Take away any of those three forces and God can't help you.

There, I disproved them both.  However, you're just going to ignore this post and ask another dumb question.  Sorry, McQ.

[Asmodean Prime]

Not quite true, Aullios.  Gravity itself (the attraction between two massive bodies) is still a phenomena - as is 'magnetism'.

In early days, people thought the earth was supported on the back of giant turtles, etc.

But God suspends the earth in empty space.  He hangs the earth upon 'nothing'

[Aullios]

Not quite true, Aullios.  Gravity itself (the attraction between two massive bodies) is still a phenomena - as is 'magnetism'.

In early days, people thought the earth was supported on the back of giant turtles, etc.

But God suspends the earth in empty space.  He hangs the earth upon 'nothing'

Depends on which definition of phenomenon you use.  I usually think of a phenomenon as something that is unexplainable, and in that case, no, gravity and especially not magnetism are not phenomena.  We have equations that can predict and govern their properties.

Also, I have a problem with you using the verb "hung."  It implies that the Earth was placed here, which is a very flawed hypothesis.  The Earth was formed here of dust and rocks left over from past supernovae, along with the Sun.

[McQ]

Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Fine, I'll bite then.

Stars, gasses, vacuums, planets, comets, asteroids, black holes, pulsars, quasars, galaxies, or clusters cannot speak.  Therefore, at least most of the "heavens" are uncapable of declaring the "glory of God."

Secondly, the Earth is not hung upon nothing.  The Earth is held in place by angular momentum, centripedal force, and gravity, as described by the laws of planetary motion.  Take away any of those three forces and God can't help you.

There, I disproved them both.  However, you're just going to ignore this post and ask another dumb question.  Sorry, McQ.

No problem, Aullios. You're right on the money. Gravity is indeed one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with the Electromagnetic Force, the Strong and the Weak Nuclear Forces.

[Asmodean Prime]

McQ, look at the dictionary definition of magnetism.  According to my reading, it is classed as 'phenomena'

Oxford English dictionary

[Aullios]

McQ, look at the dictionary definition of magnetism.  According to my reading, it is classed as 'phenomena'

Oxford English dictionary

I usually think of a phenomenon as something that is unexplainable, and in that case, no, gravity and especially not magnetism are not phenomena.

[Asmodean Prime]

Ok, aullios, I can't argue with what you usually think

But I'm referencing the Oxford English dictionary

[Whitney]

Dictionaries are a poor source for scientific terms, very few dictionaries are even able to define evolution properly.

[Aullios]

Odd.  You win on this one... most dictionaries do define magnetism as a phenomenon.  (I checked American Heritage and Webster's.)

However, connotation is very different from definition... and thus would prevent me from defining magnetism as a phenomenon.

[Asmodean Prime]

Thank you, aullios.

I, too, will admit my mistakes and shortcomings when shown to be wrong.  It's certainly refreshing to hear that from an atheist. Some would say the same about Christians, I know.  But I will certainly admit to what I don't know.

But why so odd, aullios? Ok, i may not be able to win a lot of arguments on this forum, due to lack of education maybe, but may I point you to my signature?

I stand by that.

[McQ]

Odd.  You win on this one... most dictionaries do define magnetism as a phenomenon.  (I checked American Heritage and Webster's.)

However, connotation is very different from definition... and thus would prevent me from defining magnetism as a phenomenon.

Aullios, you are not wrong. Here are two helpful links for you.

First, definitions of what forces are in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28physics%29

Now, magnetism and the electromagnetic force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

[Asmodean Prime]

laetus, you signature says:

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous"

And what of those in atheism, in your view?