Are black holes called black because nothing can ever escape from them, not even light

[J.C.MacSwell]

53 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

 

Where is ground zero of the big bang?  Shouldn't there be a void 13 or more billion years wide void with an outward moving ring of mass?  and why would the CMB be coming from every direction and not all moving away from the source?

We are at ground zero...not uniquely...but just like everywhere and everyone else.

[Paulsrocket]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We are at ground zero...not uniquely...but just like everywhere and everyone else.

Statistically there is exactly a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the Earth is not ground zero of the big bang.  In fact, the Earth being the center of the universe is what the Catholic Church believed before Galileo proved them wrong.  That said a 13 billion year wide void should be visible

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

Statistically there is exactly a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the Earth is not ground zero of the big bang.  In fact, the Earth being the center of the universe is what the Catholic Church believed before Galileo proved them wrong.  

Only if you assume your model (your understanding) is correct.

If as I claimed ground zero is everywhere, you need to struggle with logic or math not to realize that under that assumption there is 100% chance the Earth (like everywhere else) is at ground zero.

19 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

  That said a 13 billion year wide void should be visible

But it isn't.

Kind of throws your model (your understanding) out the window, does it not?

[Paulsrocket]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Only if you assume your model (your understanding) is correct.

If as I claimed ground zero is everywhere, you need to struggle with logic or math not to realize that under that assumption there is 100% chance the Earth (like everywhere else) is at ground zero.

But it isn't.

Kind of throws your model (your understanding) out the window, does it not?

Or in a simulation very little, almost no mass would be needed and logical laws need not apply.  LOL are you literally claiming that everything just popped into existence at the same time?  Sounds like the moment that the big computer in the sky was turned on.  How do you explain the evidence of inflation if everything just popped into existence?  See in reality there are no holes, because everything is a hole which leaves just emptiness.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

Or in a simulation very little, almost no mass would be needed and logical laws need not apply. 

You can argue for a different set of assumptions, but if you also don't want logic applied to them then you're well outside of science. But Fantasyland has it's merits...I guess.

[Paulsrocket]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can argue for a different set of assumptions, but if you also don't want logic applied to them then you're well outside of science. But Fantasyland has it's merits...I guess.

Are you claiming that everything just popping into existence at once like you claimed is science?  I suppose that you also consider a lightning bolt hitting a dead lifeless pond creating DNA the most powerful molecular computer code in the known universe like Darwin who never saw a single gene claimed, to be science as well?

Edited January 11 by Paulsrocket

[pzkpfw]

59 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

... I suppose that you also consider a lightning bolt hitting a dead lifeless pond creating DNA ...

Astounded again.

Nobody (in science) claims this.

It's a strawman that creationists argue against.

[MigL]

There is no 'ground zero' for the Big Bang.
It happened everywhere because it is an expansion of everything, not an explosion that blasted stuff out into a void.

I  guess we were both right.
Wikipedia links are above your level of understanding, and your understanding does seem to be at a grade 3 level.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Paulsrocket said:

Are you claiming that everything just popping into existence at once like you claimed is science? 

No one claimed everything just popped into existence. The conversation was about the expansion of the universe, not the origin of the universe.

Seriously, you should either try to learn what people are telling you, or go learn some science on your own and THEN come here to discuss it. As it is you are simply a train wreck.

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

Where is ground zero of the big bang?

We call it 'the universe'

2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

Shouldn't there be a void 13 or more billion years wide void

We call it 'space'. The pressure is <10^-6 Pascals which is a near-perfect vacuum by earthly standards

2 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

with an outward moving ring of mass?

Mott-Gurney shrapnel distributions apply to this sort of 'big bang'

                                       

The uniform shrapnel distribution we see on the larger scale is more suggestive of free gas expansion. ie there wasn't any shell casing involved.

3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

and why would the CMB be coming from every direction

Photons emitted from a uniform shrapnel distribution?

3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

and not all moving away from the source?

Do you think photons emitted by the shrapnel can only travel in the same direction as the shrapnel?

[joigus]

3 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

If it must act as you say, then there is no theory as it becomes a proven fact and the theory vanishes.  Since no one knows for sure and there are no musts it remains theory.

This makes no sense. And in fact it's usually the other way: The theory determines what to measure. Einstein famously pointed it out. 

It is because we have a theory that we can tell deviations of rotational velocity of galaxies from expected behaviour betrays excess density (DM), and certain measurements on supernovas confirms accelerated expansion. Those are parameters in the theory. That's why we expect those patterns, and we find them.

Only rarely an experimental discovery comes completely from out of the blue. Although it does happen from time to time. An example from physics is the neutrino.

I really think at this point you should take some time out for reflection.

[exchemist]

6 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

Does anyone know? I mean is there even an internet link?

There is no “void”, as you call it, because it was the universe itself that was expanding, from a small, hot, dense state. I mean, there are even internet links on this. 😄

But my troll detector is now starting to flash, prompted by your attempts to introduce further random  elements of nonsense. This behaviour has a familiar smell.
 

Edited January 11 by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

To Paulsroket - there is a breadth of knowledge available to you here, but many missed opportunities on your part of benefiting from it all.  Please take into account what they are saying before posting. Argumentation will then turn into solid discussion beneficial to all parties. Nonetheless, read myself the thread from top to bottom and learning a lot. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

There is no 'ground zero' for the Big Bang.
It happened everywhere because it is an expansion of everything, not an explosion that blasted stuff out into a void.

I  guess we were both right.
Wikipedia links are above your level of understanding, and your understanding does seem to be at a grade 3 level.

LOL, I said the exact opposite but I think it's just about how one would define it.

It's either nowhere and does not exist or it's everywhere with no favoured position.

..and of course no centre of the Universe.

Not that I'm 100% on the Big Bang theory but it's currently the best we have and nothing else is remotely close.

In any case Paulsrocket has significant errors in even the most basic understanding of the theory. It really isn't necessary to believe it to understand it better than displayed in his posts unless he has some mental block or is intentionally misrepresenting it.

 

If he could grasp the basics, he would see that it fits the data, rather than claim it can't be true because we would see this huge void.

[Bufofrog]

13 hours ago, Paulsrocket said:

How was that determined when neither have been observed?  Seriously I am asking

I seriously don't believe you.

If this was a good faith question I would take the time to answer you but you are simply denying theories that you don't understand, so it would be a waste of my time.

Just read and try to understand the article that you provided, the answer to your 'serious' question is in the article.

[Paulsrocket]

11 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Astounded again.

Nobody (in science) claims this.

It's a strawman that creationists argue against.

Darwin claimed that a lightning bolt hitting a pond created life, in his letter to Hooker.

In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.

My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

You are correct however that this is NOT science as we know it now

 

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL, I said the exact opposite but I think it's just about how one would define it.

It's either nowhere and does not exist or it's everywhere with no favoured position.

..and of course no centre of the Universe.

Not that I'm 100% on the Big Bang theory but it's currently the best we have and nothing else is remotely close.

In any case Paulsrocket has significant errors in even the most basic understanding of the theory. It really isn't necessary to believe it to understand it better than displayed in his posts unless he has some mental block or is intentionally misrepresenting it.

 

If he could grasp the basics, he would see that it fits the data, rather than claim it can't be true because we would see this huge void.

Actually mathematics works equally well in either direction, meaning that if the universe is inflating all one needs to do is retrace the trajectories of mass to find the zero point.  I wonder if you are old enough to remember the big crunch, which was predicted to happen after the big bang ran out of energy and the universe began retracting as gravity began pulling things in reverse.  Do you remember when that was settled science.  This theory pretty much ended when the speed of expansion was determined to be increasing not slowing however, which was said to be caused by dark matter and energy which represents 95% of all mass and energy.  So imagine that 95% of mount Everest is missing, where would it be?

21 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I seriously don't believe you.

If this was a good faith question I would take the time to answer you but you are simply denying theories that you don't understand, so it would be a waste of my time.

Just read and try to understand the article that you provided, the answer to your 'serious' question is in the article.

If you do not believe me that no one has observed either dark matter or energy, all you need to do is to provide the name of the first person to view these.  See reality is not determined by what you or I believe, or do not believe.  All that you can do here is to choose one theory over another.

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

There is no “void”, as you call it, because it was the universe itself that was expanding, from a small, hot, dense state. I mean, there are even internet links on this. 😄

But my troll detector is now starting to flash, prompted by your attempts to introduce further random  elements of nonsense. This behaviour has a familiar smell.
 

There are internet links on Bigfoot too.  Really

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Paulsrocket said:

So imagine that 95% of mount Everest is missing, where would it be?

!

Moderator Note

This has been explained so often to you in this thread that it's clear you're trolling the forum with specious arguments you have no intention of ever giving up. This breaks the rules we have on bad-faith arguments, soapboxing, and trolling. 

I'm closing this since you keep bringing up other issues every time you get corrected. This behavior will get you banned if you keep it up. Nobody wants to discuss anything with someone who ignores facts in favor of some agenda.