Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
41 online now:
Coragyps, JonF, Pressie (3 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,689 Year: 1,437/23,288 Month: 1,437/1,851 Week: 77/484 Day: 77/93 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


(1)
Message 4 of 248 (583182)
09-25-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-31-2010 8:52 PM


WOW!!!
The unmitigated arrogance you secularists engage in not to mention the limited view of our Universe you promote would be embarrassing if it wasn't so incredibly shallow as to be juvenile in its scope. I mean, it was decades ago that Carl Sagan defined the endlessness of Space by stating that we are one of multiple yet potentially unknown millions of Solar Systems within one of multiple yet potentially unknown millions of Galaxies which are within one of potentially multiple yet unknown millions of Universes that make up the full and undefinable expanse of eternity/time and space?

Since the undeniable truth of his statement is supported by all of the absolute UNKNOWNS which it details, how arrogant is it to attempt to place any size on the universe based on what we humans are able to observe from our very limited perspective?

And how typical it is that the observable size of the universe doesn't coincide with the age which your science claims is accurate. In any other REAL/VALID science that contradiction would tell the scientists that their original calculation was in error and they would start over to discover where the discrepancy lies which led to the erroneous outcome.

But in usual fashion your pseudo science attempts to marry the two opposing positions and explain them away as rational contradictions. You use the Hubble constant and the expansion of the universe to explain the discrepancy yet the Hubble constant was formulated on observations which had to be explained away in understandable terms so the resulting theory of an ever expanding Universe was created.

Not to put words in your mouth, but you will say that It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, and it is also true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But it does NOT follow that the size of the universe is simply the distance light traveled in 13.5 billion years. You can’t stop there. Why?

Because the universe is expanding, and has been for 13.5 billion years. According to Hubble's Law Everything in the entire universe is flying away from each other at a rate linearly proportional to its distance. That’s Hubble’s Law. The distance that light has to travel over time is continuously getting bigger and you MUST take that into account.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-31-2010 8:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by frako, posted 09-25-2010 9:57 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 10:15 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-25-2010 1:09 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1158 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


(1)
Message 8 of 248 (583198)
09-25-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver
09-25-2010 10:15 AM


Re: WOW!!!
how arrogant is it to attempt to place any size on the universe based on what we humans are able to observe from our very limited perspective?

Jeez, do you think that may be why we call it the *Observable* Universe? D'ya think?

And how typical it is that the observable size of the universe doesn't coincide with the age which your science claims is accurate.

quite typical actually - we find that in 97.2% of universes, their observable size doesn't coincide with their age. Strange, but true...

In any other REAL/VALID science that contradiction would tell the scientists that their original calculation was in error and they would start over to discover where the discrepancy lies which led to the erroneous outcome.

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.

...so the resulting theory of an ever expanding Universe was created.

yep, and to think that there are still idiots out there that think it had something to do with predictions from General Relativity - some people, eh?

Not to put words in your mouth, but you will say that It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old

Certainly looks that way

and it is also true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

Yep, that's how we see it

But it does NOT follow that the size of the universe is simply the distance light traveled in 13.5 billion years.

Yep, you got it. It does not follow.

You can’t stop there. Why?

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

The distance that light has to travel over time is continuously getting bigger and you MUST take that into account.

Oh my god, you're so right. How could we all be so stupid??? And we've been doing it wrong for nearly a century thank god you are here to put us right

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?

Well, in your case zero compared to lots

I'm sorry, I am being very rude here. Please, don't be offended. Remember, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you

*

Typical, arrogant condescending and mindless tripe from a self-aggrandizing pseudo intellectual who has just proven that mockery and laughing emoticons is his only weapon because he has no serious rebuttal to offer.

And you just proved you're no more a cosmologist than Captain Kangaroo is because your own lie betrays you. You have the audacity to say this? quite typical actually - we find that in 97.2% of universes, their observable size doesn't coincide with their age. Strange, but true...

So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own? And if we have observed others, why is the multiverse theory just that, a theory? So educate us and tell me how many universes this 97.2% number represents. But before you further embarrass yourself by deepening your lie check out this site which you would normally agree with cuz it would make you sound smarter than you obviously are. http://www.physorg.com/news174921612.html Notice that this is theoretical physics and no other universes have actually been observed at all so your claim that the observable size of any other universes have ever been determined or calculated is totally bogus and reveals the true dishonesty you project because a true cosmologist would never make such an obvious error.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 10:15 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2010 11:03 AM Archangel has responded
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2010 11:21 AM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 11 by onifre, posted 09-25-2010 11:37 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1158 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020