Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:30 AM
47 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 45 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
17NextFF
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 16 of 248 (583212)
09-25-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AZPaul3
09-25-2010 12:01 PM


Re: Allspice and Cinnamon Wafting In The Air
A Thread is born. A grand future can be seen. Such hope.

Three messages, one of them administrivia, then WHAM! The stupid rains.

To be fair, the thread was more of:

OP: How?

Admin: Promote

Percy: Like this. See here.

8 months of silence

Then WHAM! The stupid arrives...

You ignored it for 8 months so you can't really complain when it gets used for idiot baiting

But I'm all ears if anyone wants to go forward on a more positive note...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:01 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:44 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:59 PM cavediver has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3809
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 17 of 248 (583213)
09-25-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
09-25-2010 12:13 PM


Monet: Garden at Giverny
You ignored it for 8 months so you can't really complain when it gets used for idiot baiting

I was travelling at the time. I was doing 97.2% light speed. It's only been a few minutes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 12:13 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 12:56 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 09-25-2010 12:59 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 18 of 248 (583215)
09-25-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by AZPaul3
09-25-2010 12:44 PM


Re: Monet: Garden at Giverny
I was travelling at the time. I was doing 97.2% light speed. It's only been a few minutes.

Hmmm.... 8 months, 97.2%, few minutes? something doesn't sound quite right....


Aha, so by my calculations it has actually been at least 1.88 months... err, oh, you were making a joke


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:44 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 1:06 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3809
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 19 of 248 (583217)
09-25-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
09-25-2010 12:13 PM


Michelangelo: Moses San Pietro
But I'm all ears if anyone wants to go forward on a more positive note...

Good ... Thank you.

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.

How is this measured? What are the limits within the error bars?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 12:13 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 1:12 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2792 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 20 of 248 (583218)
09-25-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by AZPaul3
09-25-2010 12:44 PM


Re: Monet: Garden at Giverny
81.2 thousand minutes.

AbE: Well, so much for my grand entrance.

Edited by lyx2no, : Why not?


"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." — Mohmoud Ahmadinejad
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:44 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 1:03 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 21 of 248 (583219)
09-25-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by lyx2no
09-25-2010 12:59 PM


Re: Monet: Garden at Giverny
Well, so much for my grand entrance.

Ahh, twas only yesterday that I was wondering where you had skulked off to...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 09-25-2010 12:59 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3809
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 22 of 248 (583221)
09-25-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by cavediver
09-25-2010 12:56 PM


Piano Concerto in C - Mozart, K 503
oh, you were making a joke

No. At my age time goes by so quickly that 1.88 months is actually just a few minutes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 12:56 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 23 of 248 (583222)
09-25-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Archangel
09-25-2010 9:20 AM


Re: WOW!!!
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2010 9:20 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 24 of 248 (583224)
09-25-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AZPaul3
09-25-2010 12:59 PM


Re: Michelangelo: Moses San Pietro
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2010 12:59 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 09-26-2010 1:38 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 848 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 25 of 248 (583234)
09-25-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by cavediver
09-25-2010 11:03 AM


Re: WOW!!!
Archangel writes:

So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own?

cavediver writes:

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.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 11:03 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 09-25-2010 4:19 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 27 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 4:28 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 28 by frako, posted 09-25-2010 5:18 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 248 (583236)
09-25-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Archangel
09-25-2010 3:44 PM


Re: WOW!!!

Jesus h christ, do you have a neurological disorder that prevents you from recognizing sarcasm and humor?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2010 3:44 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1720 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(5)
Message 27 of 248 (583237)
09-25-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Archangel
09-25-2010 3:44 PM


Re: WOW!!!
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2010 3:44 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2813
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 28 of 248 (583249)
09-25-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Archangel
09-25-2010 3:44 PM


Re: WOW!!!
cavediver hit the nail on the head when he wrote that
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Archangel, posted 09-25-2010 3:44 PM Archangel has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1775
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 29 of 248 (583277)
09-25-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-25-2010 10:15 AM


Re: WOW!!!
cavediver says;

very true - but us cosmologists don't give a shit about problems and discrepancies in our theories. We just like to make up shit to demonstrate how much more clever we are than plebs like you.

and

Oh, don't forget that us cosmologists are a bunch of pseudo-scientific wankers. We're not going to explain this to you - we *want* you to be confused

Ha...I knew it!

I am going back to my flat earth where the scientists either go to church or jail and all the dragons are clearly marked on the map.

Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 10:15 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3809
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 30 of 248 (583300)
09-26-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by cavediver
09-25-2010 1:12 PM


Jennifer Lopez
I owe, I owe, so off to work I went.

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:

quote:

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.[15] 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."[7] 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..[16][17][18]


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 1:12 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Annafan, posted 09-27-2010 11:44 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
17NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019