Re: Pulse of the Universe(Time and Waves)

[HVAC]

On 2/7/2012 10:23 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
> nightbat meeting Einstein was one lucky break. As Feynman said QM is
> weird. I can add in the macro universe is just as weird. Humankind can
> never find the spot where big bang took place.

Of course we have.


> Or an edge to the
> universe Or explain the curvature of space.


Both questions have been fully explained.

> universe,and age by how far light has traveled (the visible universe)
> How about the unseen universe.I go with 22 billion years


ALL observations point to almost exactly 13.7 billion years old.
Your wild ass guess is 22 billion.

Let's see....Which should we go with?




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[G=EMC^2]

Not guessing just adding in stuff others leave out. 13.7 only takes
the time light from far away to get to our solar system. . Ha Ha Ha
Surely their joking TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/7/2012 1:46 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>>> universe,and age by how far light has traveled (the visible universe)
>>> How about the unseen universe.I go with 22 billion years
>>
>> ALL observations point to almost exactly 13.7 billion years old.
>> Your wild ass guess is 22 billion.
>>
>> Let's see....Which should we go with?
>>
>> --
>

> Not guessing just adding in stuff others leave out. 13.7 only takes
> the time light from far away to get to our solar system. . Ha Ha Ha
> Surely their joking TreBert

Again, the top people in this area ALL agree to within 200 million
years, as to the big bang. These use the best equipment and have
the best training available.


What are YOU rollin with, Bert?

[G=EMC^2]

I'm rollin with a good brain. I know what they are leaving out. They
are counting just a few percent of the universe we can actually see.
After Helium heavy atoms like metals took great time to get
constructed that imperial minds sweep under the rug. How long does it
take a star to have 30 masses as the Sun? It then implodes to become
a neutron star and how long does a star tyake to have a mass of 100
Suns to end up as a black hole? We detect gamma bursts (GRBs) so often
it proves the universe is older than 22 billion years. Think of the
star Antares in Scorpio.Think of that fprmation of gasses of the Eagle
Nebula. Its so huge yet it started with a single hydrogen atom. Get
the picture How long does it take to make molecular hydrogen?
Starting with the first grain of sand how long did it take to build
the Earth? Think hard on that .Don't say 4.5 billion years. You might
like to jump on 4.5 but its much older,and you know it TreBert PS
it can take 200 billion years for a white dwarf star to evolve down to
a brown dwarf or more That is why Rees tells me 22 billion is off by
trillions.

[HVAC]

On 2/7/2012 6:09 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> I'm rollin with a good brain. I know what they are leaving out. They
> are counting just a few percent of the universe we can actually see.
> After Helium heavy atoms like metals took great time to get
> constructed that imperial minds sweep under the rug. How long does it
> take a star to have 30 masses as the Sun? It then implodes to become
> a neutron star and how long does a star tyake to have a mass of 100
> Suns to end up as a black hole? We detect gamma bursts (GRBs) so often
> it proves the universe is older than 22 billion years. Think of the
> star Antares in Scorpio.Think of that fprmation of gasses of the Eagle
> Nebula. Its so huge yet it started with a single hydrogen atom. Get
> the picture How long does it take to make molecular hydrogen?
> Starting with the first grain of sand how long did it take to build
> the Earth? Think hard on that .Don't say 4.5 billion years. You might
> like to jump on 4.5 but its much older,and you know it TreBert PS
> it can take 200 billion years for a white dwarf star to evolve down to
> a brown dwarf or more That is why Rees tells me 22 billion is off by
> trillions.

So now your age for the universe is more than a trillion years ?

[G=EMC^2]

> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Read with some accuracy It was Rees that goes with more than a
trillion years. I am saying 22 billion years. That is a very
conservative figure. 13.9 is not reality,but it will be going up and
up. There is more to the universe than the eye can see. Get the
picture TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/8/2012 8:55 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> So now your age for the universe is more than a trillion years ?
>>
>>
>

> Read with some accuracy It was Rees that goes with more than a
> trillion years. I am saying 22 billion years. That is a very
> conservative figure. 13.9 is not reality,but it will be going up and
> up. There is more to the universe than the eye can see. Get the
> picture TreBert

You know, Bert, you're right....

I'm going to throw out ALL the observation and ALL the
science that shows the exact age of the universe as being
13.7 billion years, and go along with YOUR idea of 22 billion
years, which you just made up from thin air.

[G=EMC^2]

Less than 100 years ago the Milky Way was the whole universe and it
was less than a billion years old. When we start finding dark matter
and energy with the use of radio waves 22 billion will be on the
money TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/8/2012 10:46 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> Less than 100 years ago the Milky Way was the whole universe and it
> was less than a billion years old. When we start finding dark matter
> and energy with the use of radio waves 22 billion will be on the
> money TreBert

Really? What observational data do you base this on?

[G=EMC^2]

Not my observations. Imperial thinkers thought all stars were inside
the Milky Way. In reality they are using same method in saying
universe is 13.9. They do say they can be off by more than 25% He He
He O ya TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/8/2012 7:06 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>>> Less than 100 years ago the Milky Way was the whole universe and it
>>> was less than a billion years old. When we start finding dark matter
>>> and energy with the use of radio waves 22 billion will be on the
>>> money TreBert
>>
>> Really? What observational data do you base this on?
>>
>>
>

> Not my observations.


So, I was correct when I said you just made a wild ass guess?

> Imperial thinkers thought all stars were inside
> the Milky Way. In reality they are using same method in saying
> universe is 13.9.

No they don't. Do you have ANYTHING that backs that up? No?

...And it's 13.7 billion. Not 13.9

> They do say they can be off by more than 25% He He
> He O ya TreBert

Who says that? Please provide a name.


PS- You see, Bert, the party's over here. No longer
will you be able to just make up answers, call them
'theories', and have them go unchallenged. Painus is
gone and nitebat is dead. You are alone.



Have a nice day!

[G=EMC^2]

I will have a nice day(two lobsters) You are to stupid(low wit) to
relate time with an accelerating expanding universe. That spacetime is
not flat but curved. That stars curve light.. Add up the time it takes
a Eagle type nebula to form. Add up the time as it gets warmer and
warmer to get to 28,000,000F for fusion to take place.Don't post till
you added this up and gave the exact sum. O ya TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/9/2012 9:00 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> I will have a nice day(two lobsters) You are to stupid(low wit) to
> relate time with an accelerating expanding universe. That spacetime is
> not flat but curved. That stars curve light.. Add up the time it takes
> a Eagle type nebula to form. Add up the time as it gets warmer and
> warmer to get to 28,000,000F for fusion to take place.Don't post till
> you added this up and gave the exact sum. O ya TreBert

Request denied.

[G=EMC^2]

Imperial thinkers go with if you were at any place in the universe you
could say you were at the center. Best to keep in mind we have no
idea of the boundary,or shape of the universe. I go with saddle shape.
So which side is its middle? TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/12/2012 9:55 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> Imperial thinkers go with if you were at any place in the universe you
> could say you were at the center. Best to keep in mind we have no
> idea of the boundary,or shape of the universe. I go with saddle shape.
> So which side is its middle? TreBert

The 'boundary' or the shape have no bearing upon
us being in the exact center of the universe.

Guess again.

[G=EMC^2]

If you could think you would know the center of the universe is an
unknown. To add to that 94% of the universe is unseen.We are sitting
in a chair in a pitch dark room,and trying to measure our distance to
the walls,and the room has no walls,No floor or ceiling. Get the
picture yet? TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/13/2012 11:17 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> If you could think you would know the center of the universe is an
> unknown.

Only to an imperial thinker like you.

> To add to that 94% of the universe is unseen.We are sitting
> in a chair in a pitch dark room,and trying to measure our distance to
> the walls,and the room has no walls,No floor or ceiling.

If the room TRULY had no ceiling, walls or floor, wouldn't
that place the observer in the exact center?

Take a hit of Geritol and get back to me.

[G=EMC^2]

You do not have the wit to get the picture. Not knowing where the
center is makes saying I'm at the center possible but the odds against
are just about infinite. Post when you can think TreBert

[HVAC]

On 2/17/2012 8:30 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> If the room TRULY had no ceiling, walls or floor, wouldn't
>> that place the observer in the exact center?
>>
>> Take a hit of Geritol and get back to me.
>>
>> --
>>
>

> You do not have the wit to get the picture. Not knowing where the
> center is makes saying I'm at the center possible but the odds against
> are just about infinite. Post when you can think TreBert

Bert: No offense, but you're just too stupid and uneducated to
understand these concepts. Now that I've insulted you, allow me
to once again, *try* to educate you by way of an example.

In an infinite string of numbers, wouldn't the number 8 be in
the EXACT center of that string?