 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / June 2008Superior limit to Universe extension
Hi to All, concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the maximum distance between two points in the Universe is 3.14*13.7billion light years? Explanation: in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to it's maximum speed... the light one... What do you think about that? > Hi to All, > concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's maximum speed... the light one... > What do you think about that? That idea has been all but disproven. It's widely believed that the universe expanded at much greater speeds than C when it was very young. Google universe inflation for more info, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation > <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in messagenews:c623d9c8-d2a2-4795-89f6-7dc9f4d85074@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > Hi to All, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation Thanks, that's sound good. Unfortunately no speed limit monitoring probes that day :-) | Hi to All, | concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the | maximum distance between two points in the Universe is | 3.14*13.7billion light years? No. | Explanation: | in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | it's maximum speed... the light one... | What do you think about that? It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent. > <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent. Consider that infinite is just a mathematical concept ... from a physical point of view what does it mean infinite? AFAUK, infinite is higher than 10 billion light year ... might be I could agree... | > <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in message news:c623d9c8-d2a2-4795-89f6-7dc9f4d85074@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... | > | Hi to All, | > | concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | Consider that infinite is just a mathematical concept ... from a | physical point of view what does it mean infinite? Consider that infinite means what it means, goes on forever. From a physical point of view that's what it means. That you cannot grasp the idea and are rabbiting about light and time (l = electromagnetic radiation, t = time) only shows your mind is finite. Look, if we have a finite universe around us then we can have another one just like it twice as far away, and since "universe" means all, everything, then that second one is part of the universe. Your way of thinking is "what happens to a ship when it falls off the edge of the world?" because you assume there is an edge. | AFAUK, infinite is higher than 10 billion light year ... might be I | could agree... Doesn't really matter, there are some things that are unknowable and even if we did know them they don't affect us in any way. Anyone can have an unprovable theory but what's the point? >It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent. That is currently not testable, and may well never be testable. Current theory is not complete enough to say with any certainty whether the Universe is finite or infinite. The only proper, scientific answer is that we have a good idea about the size of the observable Universe, and that we don't know much about what lies beyond that. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com | >It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent. | | That is currently not testable, and may well never be testable. There ya go, right on the money! Same with your crank theories about big bangs. Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense. The crazier the theory the more you nod your stupid heads to it. If the bible says "in the beginning" there must have been a beginning. If the bible says "forever and ever amen" there can't be a end. Big Bonk is illogical religious claptrap disguised as "science". You are nodding your stupid head to Smiffy because you are just another unthinking sheep, bleating the same baa as all the other sheep. Someone gives an opposite point of view and you whine "can't test it", but when the view is in line with your idiotic indoctrination you don't whine then, do you, hypocrite? "Of course, you're perfectly correct, Smiffy, I like Big Bonks...." "Not testable, Androcles, I don't like your idea at all..." You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson. >You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson. I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that the Big Bang is a theory, that may be wrong, but happens to be well supported by multiple independent observations. It is the best theory we have. There are no observations at all that really help us to understand the structure of the Universe outside the part that is accessible to us. There are many good theories to guide investigation, but so far, that is all they are doing. There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we remember that it _is_ speculation. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com | >You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson. | | I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that the Big Bang is a | theory, that may be wrong, but happens to be well supported by multiple | independent observations. It is the best theory we have. What's the red shift of the CMBR? A shift that comes to us omnidirectionally and is homogeneous. Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent observations. The best ewe have, right, and it MAY be wrong? Yes, I'd say such illogical claptrap MAY be wrong. And it is the best ewe have, based solely on some reddish galaxies, the shift being a function of distance. Perhaps the CMBR is the glory of heaven redshifted as the throne of your god recedes from ewe as ewe and your universe implodes, huh? And ewe are intellectually honest. Ewe are no intellectual, Peterson, ewe are one of the non-thinking flock. The best theory we have is that the universe is infinite in both space and time, always was, always will be, and light slows down as its energy is spread over an ever increasing surface. That theory is well supported by multiple independent observations and your Big Bonk is religious bullshit, the best ewe have. > Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and >reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent >observations. I haven't heard of that theory. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com | > Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and | >reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent | >observations. | | I haven't heard of that theory. A nice example of your non-intellectual honesty. Of course not, ewe have your head up your arse muttering "intellectual honesty", convinced ewe are right because all the other sheep say "baa" when ewe do. I've heard of your Big Bonk. Answer the question. What's the red shift of the CMBR? A shift that comes to us omnidirectionally and is homogeneous. Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent observations. The best ewe have, right, and it MAY be wrong? Yes, I'd say such illogical claptrap MAY be wrong. And it is the best ewe have, based solely on some reddish galaxies, the shift being a function of distance. Perhaps the CMBR is the glory of heaven redshifted as the throne of your god recedes from ewe as ewe and your universe implodes, huh? And ewe are intellectually honest. Ewe are no intellectual, Peterson, ewe are one of the non-thinking flock. The best theory we have is that the universe is infinite in both space and time, always was, always will be, and light slows down as its energy is spread over an ever increasing surface. That theory is well supported by multiple independent observations and your Big Bonk is religious bullshit, the best ewe have. >> Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the > right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense. The history is physics is very clear about "common sense." Common sense is a child's way of viewing the Universe. You really have no idea that you are a netloon, do you? | >> Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the | > right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | You really have no idea that you are a netloon, do you? You really have no idea you are a stooopid c.nt, have you? Join the host. *plonk* Dear cestblu: ... > concerning the universe extension is it possible > to assume that the maximum distance between > two points in the Universe is 3.14*13.7billion > light years? No. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN > Explanation: > in the earth the max distance between 2 points > (e.g. north pole and south pole) is one half the > ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the universe > speed material cannot exceed the light one, No. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX > so the universe cannot have an extension > higher than it's age, There appears to be no direct correlation between size and age. > always travelling to it's maximum speed... the > light one... The local speed limit applies to kinetic motion. The Big Bang was not an explosion, where stuff was blasted away from some center. We can see in the direction we are moving away from, and there is no glowing core of some sort of explosion. > What do you think about that? You are at least thinking, and that is always good. You might want to read here: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm ... in four parts. David A. Smith On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote: >We can see in the direction we are moving away from, and >there is no glowing core of some sort of explosion. Every direction we look is the direction we are moving away from. And we do, in fact, see the glowing core of the Big Bang- it's called the cosmic microwave background. Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion has to be understood as an analogy, and can't be taken literally. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com Dear Chris L Peterson: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com > \(dlzc\)" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Every direction we look is the direction we > are moving away from. More specifically, we have an anomalous motion wrt the Universe at large, to the tune of 300 km/sec away from (towards?) Virgo. > And we do, in fact, see the glowing core of > the Big Bang- it's called the cosmic > microwave background. This was a self-excited plasma state that quenched 300,000 *after* the Big Bang. > Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing > out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in > any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion > has to be understood as an analogy, and can't > be taken literally. ... but because of the choice of words, guarantees that it will be taken literally ... All covered in the Cosmology pages I directed the OP to. David A. Smith | Dear Chris L Peterson: | [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | | David A. Smith What's the red shift of the CMBR, Smiffy? On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:23:02 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote: >More specifically, we have an anomalous motion wrt the Universe >at large, to the tune of 300 km/sec away from (towards?) Virgo. There is some interesting data in that respect, but I think this interpretation remains far from conclusive. Fascinating possibilities, though. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com <snip> > > Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing > > out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ... but because of the choice of words, guarantees that it will > be taken literally ... Which choice of words was in fact made by a leading opponent of the theory, Fred Hoyle, with the intent to belittle or disparage it. Ironically enough, the expression was apparently irresistible to journalists and other populizers, to the extent that it stuck fast -- and now is mostly used without a trace of sarcasm.  SignatureOdysseus On 29 Giu, 19:24, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear cestblu: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > David A. Smith Thanks. A Very good link for finding answers to common FAQ. > Hi to All, > concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's maximum speed... the light one... > What do you think about that? From any point the observable horizon is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, so I hardly makes any sense to talk about two points that are not causally connected. No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > From any point the observable horizon is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, so I hardly > makes any sense to talk about two points that are not causally connected. Hi Sam- The radius of the observable horizon is about 46 billion ly, not 13.7 billion ly. You need to consider the long term effect of expansion: the distances now and the distances when the light was first produced are not the same. We can easily observe different parts of the Universe that are not _now_ causally connected. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > cest...@yahoo.it wrote: > > Hi to All, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a person can even consider dumping such speculative junk into the celestial arena,perhaps there is some perverse satisfaction is being utterly silly but that is about as far as it goes for believing the 'every- valid-point-is-the-center' cartoon framework. Again,absolutely bewildering that it is even considered never mind that it is the dominant view of those who know no better . On Jun 30, 3:53 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote: > cest...@yahoo.it wrote: > > Hi to All, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a person can even consider dumping such speculative junk into the celestial arena,perhaps there is some perverse satisfaction is being utterly silly but that is about as far as it goes for believing the 'every- valid-point-is-the-center' cartoon framework. Again,absolutely bewildering that it is even considered never mind that it is the dominant view of those who know no better ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I like "bots". HJ . |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.