Superior limit to Universe extension
ces...@yahoo.it
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?
nospam
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.:
Androcles
| 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
| 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?
It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.
ces...@yahoo.it
> <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in message
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...
ces...@yahoo.it
> <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in messagenews:c623d9c8-d2a2-4795...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Thanks, that's sound good.
Unfortunately no speed limit monitoring probes that day :-)
Androcles
<ces...@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:036612c9-9137-4544...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
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?
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<ces...@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:c623d9c8-d2a2-4795...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
...
> 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
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>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
Chris L Peterson
<dl...@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.
ces...@yahoo.it
> Dear cestblu:
>
> <cest...@yahoo.it> wrote in message
>
> news:c623d9c8-d2a2-4795...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > 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,
>
> 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
Thanks. A Very good link for finding answers to common FAQ.
Androcles
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:q5hf64deumqc2vi6e...@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:34:51 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >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.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:m6if64tq06nk6ev19...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> \(dlzc\)"
> <dl...@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.
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
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7qQ9k.4039$I76...@newsfe11.phx...
What's the red shift of the CMBR, Smiffy?
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>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
<dl...@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.
Androcles
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| >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.
Odysseus
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:m6if64tq06nk6ev19...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > 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 ...
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.
--
Odysseus
Chris L Peterson
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> 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.
Androcles
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:39:10 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
|
| > 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
Greg Crinklaw
>> 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?
Sam Wormley
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
Androcles
"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1cc59$48682f79$48002992$12...@TULAROSA.NET...
You really have no idea you are a stooopid cunt, have you?
Join the host.
*plonk*
oriel36
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
.
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
> 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.
hones...@centurytel.net
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:489710fd-8a9c-4d78...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I like "bots".
HJ
.