How big are the stars?

(Friedrich von Schiller, in The Maid of Orleans. Act iii. Sc. 6)Goodbye -- Sylas

I'm told yours is more simple, therefore better. Parse this one, you have limitations!
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know" Einstein

Good, I'm glad you're starting to see what He's up against!
"Human beings, vegetables, or comic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player" Einstein

So arkathon, what are the dimensions of this fantasy bubble which contain us and our local time constraint? Where is the boundard beyond which time runs differently? Outside our solar system? Outside our galaxy? Outside the local cluster of galaxies?Where does your fantasy start and finish?

Good questions. I think it's safe to say no human will ever get near it. I did mention from the outset the boundry was still to be determined. My feeling so far is that it would be either near outside our solar system, or even out near some of the nearer stars. (on the outside, not more than 6-12 thousand or so light years)But, I don't think you need to worry about it much, because except for your age estimate of the universe, it shouldn't affect much?

arky, it looks like you will have to push your fantasy boundary to at least 8,000 light years from earth. That's the limit that parallax measurements can measure astronomical objects out to. No change in the speed of light affects such measurements. Or do you now imagine that light starts to bend and curve outside your fantasy boundary and invalidate distances obtined through parallax?I can hardly wait for your next fairytale.

Arkathon, I think this was refering to the Copenhagen Interpretations of QM. I believe it was Einstein who also said that you can look at a watch and speculate about the mechanisms inside that make it work but unless you break open the watch to look you will only be guessing, and the fact that you break open the watch destroys what you are attemping to discover .

I think ark's missing a simple point.There isn't just one bubbles, but two. The first bubble is directly around the observer, and the second is about 8000 miles around the observer. If we would get get out of this first bubble and be in the second (which is impossible), then yes, our observations would be inconsistent and couldn't be used as an argument againts a young universe.But you must remember, this first bubble (which you are inextricably intertwined to) cancels out the effects of the second bubble, therefor making our observations accurate.So, to recap, if we were viewing the universe from the second bubble, all of our observations would be off if we didn't account for this fundamental difference in time between the two. But the first bubble (which we are bound to) cancels out this fundamental difference so we don't need to account for the differential time, and therefor our observations are accurate.You were close, ark. But you just missed that fact that there are two bubbles, not just one. This is understandable and your efforts into the subject are commendable.

Oh really. Somehow I don't think you are talking about a created time limited dimension which we are all now restricted to. As far as measurements being off, I'm afraid some of them are. The difference seems to me to be that creationists try to extend the time limited ball of ours to infinite space. For them to do that, they would have to have something like a very different speed of light. It seems simpler to me to use time. After all, time is the big sticker, as to how long ago the universe was made. Add to this a 'known quantity' which is that we were created with a time limititation. Add to that that we will, according to the 'manual', time will be no more. Add to this a known creation date. Combine the known quantities, and use it to help explain what we see. Someone told me the big bang concept woud require the universe to have exploded out from a small condensed 'object' I think it was the size of a little ball, or something. Perhaps someone has heard how big this little thing was? Anyhow it needs some imagination there as well, it seems to me.{AdminTL edited quote box code}[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-27-2004]

Arkathon, hello
I think the current thought of the theory of the Big Bang can be best described as a Quantum fluctuation. The size of the universe Planks number.That is smaller than comprehension. No where will you find the exact age of the Universe, the age of the Earth has closer approximations. But I have seen no one anywhere on these boards claim a number. You seem to have a little angst about this subject matter. Is the current body of Scientific knowlege somehow clashing with your belief systems.
It did mine. But closing my eyes and wishing it all away did not work for me. I have come to accept certain things to be true and am in good company. Life is stranger than fiction. [This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-26-2004]

E.C. and your numbers sre different, was she refering to older ideas? (1600 vs. at least 8000 l.y.) Also, I was wondering, the star is it or we 'moving' in the 6 months between exposures? (expanding universe, etc.) In other words an object on the grass in the lawn just sits there. Is there any movement, etc. light years away that could possibly affect it? Secondly, the very term light year refers to how long it takes for light to travel now in our time sphere. If a star was out of the sphere of our time influence, would it matter how long we think it took to get there? In other words, really a light 'year' only applies in the bubble! Anywhere else it may better simply be refered to as a distance in space. Or at least a perceived distance.{AdminTL edited coding on this one, too}[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-27-2004]

So then, you are saying this 'ball' was even smaller than a soccer ball. I got into trouble with an apparent cosmos wiz when I reffered to the big bang as somewhere around thumb sized. I'll have to wait for a second and maybe third opinion on this, because I don't want to sound dumb next time I refer to the size you adherants of the theory say it was. So far you say it's so small, it's outta sight. (and out of this sprung our world, and the cosmos in totality -this beats the virgin birth!)I can see why you call life 'stranger than fiction'.

You think thats wierd,, try reading about Black Holes. They break all the rules. http//http://www.livinguniverseweb.com/bigbang.htm

I suspect they don't break any rules. It is our limited conception of things, and limited rules we made so far that it would break. We just have to admit we know very very little.

I stand corrected. I think. Ever heard of a figure of speech? **I forgot how "Literal" some people can be.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 02-26-2004]