Sorry to throw a wrench in your theory but can you tell me what the speed of thought is compared to the speed of light? Oh wait, your cosmologists never considered that as a viable question to even be asked, have they? So by what standard do you secularists think you have considered all possible scenarios regarding where we are, how old time and space is, how large and expansive it is or how far into it we can see?
Of course the speed of thought is just word salad, a totally meaningless assertion meant as an attempt to misdirect the audience attention so that they don't realize the rest of the paragraph is just misrepresentation and irrelevancies.
Nothing in this thread is related to secularists. For example, the initial description and calculations that became the Big Bang Theory was formulated by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a priest and astronomer. It is understood and accepted by educated Christians worldwide.
The expansion of the Universe is NOT a secular idea or issue, only one of knowledge versus ignorance.
The second misrepresentation you make is asserting that anyone thinks "have considered all possible scenarios regarding where we are, how old time and space is, how large and expansive it is or how far into it we can see". It is only ignorant Christians that make any claims of knowing all the answers.
The third and possible the greatest misrepresentation in that paragraph is your assertion that we know how big things are. What we can know is a minimum size and age. We can know that we can see at least 13 billions light years and so the universe is at least 13 billion years old.
Speaking to you as one Christian to another, it is a shame that you worship such a small and dishonest version of GOD. Learn a little, you will find that GOD is far greater than the pitiful little bling-bling pimp daddy critter you seem to worship.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
As I understand, the latest estimates are closer to 150+- bly diameter. This from the measurements of the ever-so-slight curvature we are seeing.
I'm not so sure about this. Do you have a reference? Our estimates of the curvature still straddle zero, so don't help much! As far as I am aware, the figure quoted by Percy is still approximately correct.
So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own?
Hmmm, the stupid is strong with this one...
The only stupid one here is the guy who's lying about being something he isn't as he claims other universes have been identified to be older than their age signifies. But at least you're a consistent liar who will revert to childish mockery and ill-placed arrogance rather than actually producing evidence for what you claim.
But of course none of you produced evidence for anything at all, you just post self serving drivel that attempts to elevate you above those who reject your inane tripe and dares to actually say it to you.
But at least you're a consistent liar who will revert to childish mockery and ill-placed arrogance rather than actually producing evidence for what you claim.
You back for more? Really? After demonstrating to everyone what a fuckwit you are? Is that wise?
Listen, son, you turn up here knowing nothing and you make wide-sweeping accusations against whole bodies of professional scientists. Already you're a dick in everyone else's eyes. As I am one of those scientists, I take particular offense.
You then reveal just how unbelievably stupid you are by completely failing to appreciate the nonsense with which I was mocking you. Grow up a bit, say give it ten years to be safe, then come back and try asking a few questions politely, and we may get somewhere.
Being a Christian creationist doesn't automatically mean you have to behave like a jerk - so don't do it, ok?
I'm not so sure about this. Do you have a reference?
Yes. All wrong. After some research (yes, at work) I found this in the Wiki article cited:
78 billion light-years. This is a lower bound for the diameter of the whole Universe (not just the observable part), if we postulate that the Universe is finite in size due to its having a nontrivial topology (as discussed in this article), with this lower bound based on the estimated current distance between points that we can see on opposite sides of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). If the whole Universe is smaller than this sphere, then light has had time to circumnavigate it since the big bang, producing multiple images of distant points in the CMBR, which would show up as patterns of repeating circles. Cornish et al. looked for such an effect at scales of up to 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light years) and failed to find it, and suggested that if they could extend their search to all possible orientations, they would then "be able to exclude the possibility that we live in a Universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter". The authors also estimated that with "lower noise and higher resolution CMB maps (from WMAP's extended mission and from Planck), we will be able to search for smaller circles and extend the limit to ~28 Gpc." This estimate of the maximum diameter of the CMBR sphere that will be visible in planned experiments corresponds to a radius of 14 gigaparsecs, or around 46 billion light years, about the same as the figure for the radius of the observable Universe given in the opening section.
156 billion light-years. This figure was obtained by doubling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it is a radius. Since 78 billion light-years is already a diameter, the doubled figure is incorrect. This figure was very widely reported..
Sure enough the cites (16, 17, 18) were my sources.
So I struck on the erroneous reports. Did I just lose my Not Too Stupid rating?
Have to admit, though, the subtitle is nice, as requested.