A Thread is born. A grand future can be seen. Such hope.
Three messages, one of them administrivia, then WHAM! The stupid rains.
Can you code in some test to be administered to all members to rate the level of stupid they bring in here when they sign up? Something like: Not Too Stupid, Stupid, Intellectually Terminal. Then mods can assign the level of stupid required to participate in a thread upon its promotion. This one should have been restricted to Not Too Stupid. All other ratings would have been barred from participating.
This thread is now irrevocably poisoned. It will need a miracle to cure it. Maybe we can get someone to say grace over it?
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.
They are inept at defining their terms and their definitions are contradictory as a result so ultimately it's themselves and not me that they are contradicting. Those outside the club are having a good laugh at the whole thing together with my cat.
So 10's of thousands of the most intelligent people in the world over many generations all arrive at the same contradictory and inept conclusions while you and a handful of intellectually stunted crackpots have the inside scoop on the real truth?
Sounds familiar. You're not the first nutjob with a deep sense of inferiority coupled with delusions of intellectual grandeur to posit the rest of the real intellectual world is in conspiracy against you.
Take solace in the fact that you are not alone in your dementia.
Present your definition of the terms the Universe and expansion so I can examine both of your definitions and see if either is consistent and whether the terms are compatible.
No, I don't argue known facts with nutjobs. I'll leave that to those with more patience than I.
Appeals to some superior numbers of allegedly intellectually superior people do nothing but demonstrate the paucity of your own mental capacities, I am sorry to inform you.
That's alright, Al. You are not informing me of anything I do not already know. I have no problem recognizing the paucity of my own mental capacities in this subject.
When generations of, not just alleged but for real, really smart people say the sun is a star up close and stars are suns far away, the universe is expanding, black holes exist and similar cosmological pronouncements, I have the capability of seeing the logic without the capability of reproducing the decades of study.
On the other side, Sir, you cannot seem to recognize your own glaring paucity in the face of a great body of work and feel some sad necessity to degrade the stellar intellectual work of thousands over generations while holding your own obviously deficient musings as somehow superior. You're a sad little man, Al.
I know precisely why these things are physically impossible and absurd and I can formulate what I know well enough.
Obviously not since you continue to fail to do so.
Show me your proof on the impossibility of black holes. I can handle the math, I assure you. List your equations and where you differ from Hawking. Then publish your work and buy a ticket to Stockholm.
First, infinities may not exist in any concrete, countable physical shape for the science to deal with. They are either nothing or pure potentialities. That is elementary maths, in spite of whatever some mathemagicians starting from Cantor might have said to the contrary and that puts firmly paid to the idea of singularities in any way, shape or form.
Infinities? Who said anything about infinities? No one who knows what they are talking about postulates any infinities about a black hole?
If you are trying to refer to a popular misconception of a signularity then you are far into left field, just where a crackpot would stand. See my Message 182.
Next I doubt very much that the relationship between density, mass and gravity and light is of the kind postulated by the black holes hypothesis. There could be an increase of density only up to a certain limit.
So you doubt that a greater mass equates to a greater gravity?
Your crackpot is showing.
Anyway, I have caught myself here. As I said prior I will not argue known facts of science with a crackpot.