Size of the universe

Will we ever get mandatory sub-thumbnails?

Sorry, this went right past me.Huh?

A thumbnail of Jennifer Lopez would be better than just her name written. ;-)

sorry, accidently posted twiceEdited by creationliberty, : sorry, accidently posted twice

If anyone is going to be honest, they cannot say they know the distance of the universe, if it does have an end. All the calculations made about the distance of the universe relies heavily on the speed of light being a constant. (without a constant, how can you measure anything)I saw this thread after I posted in the speed of light thread, and you can see for yourself:-------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, experiments were done at Harvard, Smithsonian, and Cambridge to slow light down using a specially treated cesium gas. The first experiments yeilded light to 38 MPH. Two years later, they stopped light, and then released it again like a material particle. It was also able to be speeded up to 300 times faster than normal.
(See David Whitehouse, science editor, Beam Smashes Light Barrier, BBC News, July 19, 2000; See also William J. Cromie, Physicists Slow Speed of Light, Harvard University Gazette, Feb 18, 1999; See also Malcolm W. Browne, Researchers Slow Speed of Light to the Pace of a Sunday Driver, New York Times, Feb 18, 1999)Since the constant speed of light has been disproven, that means all measurements based on light speed distance cannot be determined to be accurate without claiming absolute knowledge of the universe. Red Shift, for example, ASSUMES the speed of light is a constant, it ASSUMES light has always traveled at the same rate, and it ASSUMES that the light has not traveled through anything that may change its speed and/or appearance.
-------------------------------------------------------------Without a constant speed of light, there is no way for us to determine, with any confident accuracy, the distance to stars or the universe itself. They very well could be billions of light years away, and it's a reasonable theory, but we don't know, and it's arrogant and unlawful for people to tell students the evolutionary guesses of distance outside our solar system is "fact."(For more details, see "The Big Dud Theory," at "creationliberty.org)

so it should be bigger than we think

(bolding mine)Care to explain what the theory of evolution has to do with cosmology? The distance of the universe from what? Or do you mean the size of the universe?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

So now you are posting the same nonsense here that you posted in another thread.Can you do us a favor. If you are going to post nonsense all over the place, can you at least make it different nonsense in each post.

Nonsense. The distance measurements to distant objects in the universe generally use methods that are independent of the speed of light. In fact the Hubble 'constant' is actually calculated by measuring redshift (the size of which does depend on the speed of light) against distances measurements which do not depend on the speed of light.If your real issue is with red shift, I think you are attacking the wrong aspect of cosmology. Red shift is evidence that the universe is expanding and that rate of expansion is increasing.Here's that link again describing stellar distance measurement techniques.Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

The speed of light in a vacuum i.e. the near vacuum of interstallar space is a constant. The experiment you refer to is measuring the speed of light in a medium other than a vacuum i.e. cesium gas, which of course is not a vacuum. In no way does this experiment invalidate the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum at 186,000 miles per second. Its arrogant that you think that you with what little knowledge on this subject you apparently have and with the errent information you post, think you are more correct than 99.99% of scientists working in these fields. That is what is arrogant. Though it is not unlawful for you to be an ignorant in the subject, it just makes you look stupid.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

It is ironic. Evolutionist (who are supposed to believe in an old universe) believe that the universe went from a speck to the size of 50 billion light years in a split second as a result of Inflation. Creationists (who are said to believe in a young universe) believe that it took 6 days for this to occur. The creationists believe it took a trillion+ times longer for the majority of the universe to come into existance than the evolutionists believe. 1 split second vs. 6 days

Of course, that is NOT accurate or correct. It might be true that some creationists really believe that the universe was created in six days but no one else. Everyone that has actually looked at the evidence understands it took about 13.7 billion years for the universe to evolve so far.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I am referring to the time it took for the universe to be 50 billion light years in size. Evolution teaches that as a result of Inflation this occurred in less that a trillionth of a second, whereas creationists say it took several days.

Hi, Philip! Welcome aboard! Is your birthday the eighteenth of June, by any chance? Which creationists say that inflation took place at all? And which side found the evidence for inflation/an expanding universe?

HUH?Who told you that?Do you even understand what that means?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!