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.