How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

[ianw16]

If the blind were healed and life time lame folks got up instantly and ran, and the deaf were healed, and the dead raised...you think that was all in the mind? Or are you in complete denial?

Nope, that is a made up fairy tale.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, I know, that’s what they said also about that “energetic neutral atom” ring around the heliosphere too. Which just shows their ignorance as an atom can not be energetic enough to be the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two and be neutral at the same time.

So you’ll have to excuse me if I call their terminology of neutral a laughable excuse for their ignorance. And others who believe neutral atoms are so energetic they are emitting so much radiation they are the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two.

So frankly, I don’t think any of you know what you are talking about.....

What on Earth are you babbling on about?
Is English not your first language?
Your comprehension skills are so profoundly missing it seems to amount to basic errors in translation.
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with Marmet’s paper which formed the basis of my quote.

Stop blaming Hubble for the mistakes of others. Hubble made it clear he did not believe his data supported an expanding universe, but gave a more accurate picture of his count data if another then undiscovered cause was assumed.

Hubble didn’t support expansion in the least.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

“Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Stop with the PR and blaming Hubble for that fiasco.....

Once again what are you babbling on about?
What is Hubble being blamed for given that Lemaitre and Hubble are being equal credit for Hubble’s Law.
Taking me out of context to the point of inventing statements I never made is dishonest.

Apparently you understand nothing of deceleration radiation which would be in the microwave bandwidth as shown by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. A black body is merely in thermal equilibrium and there is no true black body although they simply calculate them as such to the first approximation as it makes it simpler.

You are an inane poster and even more inept at lying as your dishonesty is so transparent.
In this case it is engaging in word salad in a desperate attempt to convey comprehension when it is clearly obvious you are way out of your depth.
I can call your bluff by asking how QM and QED leads to your conclusion but history will show the deafening sound of crickets will prevail.

In the past you associated deceleration radiation with Bremmstrahlung which produces continuous electromagnetic radiation by decelerating a charge (Physics101) and has nothing to do with blackbody radiation as does your QM/QED word salad.
You can’t even get your inane stories right from thread to thread.

Also let’s be clear that even in your theory the CMB was emitted while the universe was in a “plasma” state........ so why you suddenly question plasmas ability to produce black body simply calls your own theory into question.... it seems you don’t believe your own theory and plasma cooling to form hydrogen......

Once again you are taking me out of context.
The CMB represents the transition stage when plasma goes from being opaque to transparent about 300,000 years after the BB.
Photons are scattered in the plasma.
To us the observer, the CMB is the surface of last scattering.
Since the CMB in our fame of reference has no optical depth the photons are being scattered at the very nearly the same temperature since scattering is only occurring at the surface, hence the CMB is a blackbody with a temperature of around 3000K in its rest frame.
In our frame of reference after taking expansion into account the photons are redshifted into the microwave range and the CMB has a blackbody temperature of 2.7K.

I wasn’t vague at all, I specifically said at the heliopause.....

Another lie as a simple word search indicates you have never used the term in this thread until now.

Straw man as that is the energetic “neutral” atom ring...... you know, the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two that is, cough, neutral...... that they couldn’t even see till they got a probe out there......

And 500,000K is idiot talk. Anyone who thinks the surface of the sun is 5,000K and plasma at the heliopause is hotter than the suns surface doesn’t need listened to. It is a measure of its energy, charge, not an actual temperature. Next you’ll be telling me you believe the plasma surrounding our galaxy is at 2 million K, the temperature of the suns corona, yet far from any source of heat. It’s a measure of its charge, not a temperature.....

Only an idiot would use the photosphere as a reference.
The correct reference is the solar corona where the solar wind originates and has a temperature of around 2 million K.
When the solar wind reaches the Earth’s neighbourhood it drops to around 1.5 million K.
The rapid cooling to 500,000K at the heliopause is due to the collision of the solar wind with the interstellar medium.

Once again you don’t seem to understand simple English, the average 500,000K value is not something made up but based on Voyager and Ibex measurements.

Except the scans of the CMB are not a continuous scan. They are made at the same time during the year so the satellite is in the correct hemisphere. Only you are confused....

It doesn’t change because it is made always during the same time of the year. Do your research before opening your mouth.

In terms of sheer stupidity this one is up there with your “the surface of a balloon is one dimensional”.
If your scenario was true only a small area of the CMB would be scanned; the entire sky is scanned.
This is how Planck scanned the sky:

“First, Planck measures the sky at a single point as opposed to WMAP’s and COBE’s differential measurements between two points. Second, Planck repeats the measurement of a ring on the sky every minute for 1 hour. It then moves onto the next ring. Planck’s trivially simple image reconstruction for each ring is to average all the revolutions together into a single ring. Thus, each point in the sky will be measured 60 times during one hour and the 60 measurements will be averaged together. Therefore, within 1 hour, Planck has a reliable measurement of the intensity of the CMB over a single ring. It takes Planck 6 months to scan the whole sky.”

Another example of inept lying; you made up a statement that is so blatantly false that even the most minimal scrutiny reveals it to being a lie.

I’ve solved them all, you just can’t admit that “neutral atoms” wouldn’t be energetic and be the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two because neutral has nothing to do with that description at all. So why would anyone accept any definition of neutral you chose to give?

Did you really solve them all; I must have missed it.
In what year did you win the Nobel Prize?
Once again the term inept lying comes to mind; everyone of your ideas is found to be so ludicrously wrong and the best you can do is now engage in outright lying while making yourself look like a bigger fool.

Well, explain how those “energetic neutral atoms” are the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two if they are “neutral”?????

You can’t can you without admitting neutral doesn’t belong in that description at all.....

I have no idea what you are babbling on about, but I am absolutely certain you don’t either

Magic? Your the one proposing massive particles (energy E=mc^2) yet no electromagnetic emissions. All because you won’t accept what is right in front of your eyes with a mass of more than twice the galaxies mass right where your magic dark matter was supposed to exist....

And 12 years ago they couldn’t even see that 2 million K emission, it was “dark”. But now that it is light, you have shut your eyes so you don’t have to see...

Your PR doesn’t impress me, as I see it for what it is, fakery.....

A person of minimal critical thinking skills might ask themselves the question if the hot gas surrounding our galaxy accounts for the missing dark matter then why is dark matter still necessary?
First of all is the missing Baryon problem for visible matter which was solved by the discovery of the hot gas including hot intergalactic gas in galaxy clusters.
This only applies to the 5% of visible matter where as dark matter is 25%.

Secondly is the rotation curve itself where the dark matter inside the orbits of the outer stars that affects the rotation curve rather than dark matter halo extending beyond the disk.
The hot gas is outside the disk and even if part of it resides inside the disk the density is far too low to affect the rotation curve.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When the observing is only done here you are projecting when you try to make time the same, and space...out there. How things behave in the solar system and area is all well and good and important. Too bad the models of the universe and it's origin in the religion of science are godless and fishbowl based projection.

I've explained how the evidence says you're mistaken. If you have contradictory evidence, or a reasoned argument to support your claim, by all means present it.

 

[dad]

Word salad. Show us the science.

Ask around as to how far man has been or even a probe. Less than one light day away. Ask around as to where light is seen from anywhere in deep space. Here! Rather than face the facts of the limits of science you rant about salad.

 

[dad]

Nope, that is a made up fairy tale.

Sorry if you call all holy men of God and all people who have seen miracles of all ages liars. You have NO basis in fact to do so, just personal incredulity and a displayed bias.

 

[SelfSim]

Ask around as to how far man has been or even a probe. Less than one light day away. Ask around as to where light is seen from anywhere in deep space. Here!

Do you have any idea about theoretical Physics's explanations of how light is produced, how it behaves in different situations and the role of the observer?
If you doubt the textbook Physics, then please present your objections to it because what you say above is frankly, quite inanely juvenile.

 

[ianw16]

Sorry if you call all holy men of God and all people who have seen miracles of all ages liars. You have NO basis in fact to do so, just personal incredulity and a displayed bias.

Zero evidence for these made up stories. Jack and the Beanstalk is more believable. Pure woo.

 

[ianw16]

Ask around as to how far man has been or even a probe. Less than one light day away. Ask around as to where light is seen from anywhere in deep space. Here! Rather than face the facts of the limits of science you rant about salad.

Still got no science, then? As expected. Never studied it, did you? Why are we not surprised?

 

[dad]

Do you have any idea about theoretical Physics's explanations of how light is produced, how it behaves in different situations and the role of the observer?
If you doubt the textbook Physics, then please present your objections to it because what you say above is frankly, quite inanely juvenile.

If there is something along that line that relates to the unknown time and space of the far universe, try posting it. Ha.

 

[yaacotd]

Simple question(s):

How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...?

Discussion...?

God Bless!

If you can tell me how old is God
then you can tell me how old is His creation.

 

[dad]

Zero evidence for these made up stories. Jack and the Beanstalk is more believable. Pure woo.

So you do want to continue blaspheming the holy people and word of God here rather than pony up some sort of defense of your beliefs. OK.

 

[dad]

Still got no science, then? As expected. Never studied it, did you? Why are we not surprised?

Not sure why you mention what is studied when talking about a probe that basically hardly got off the runway in this big universe!

 

[dad]

If you can tell me how old is God
then you can tell me how old is His creation.

No. Who says God started in Gen 1? That was just a week's work for the great I Am. He was here before the creation of the earth and sun and stars etc.

 

[yaacotd]

No. Who says God started in Gen 1? That was just a week's work for the great I Am. He was here before the creation of the earth and sun and stars etc.

So what?

That is stupid.

 

[SelfSim]

If there is something along that line that relates to the unknown time and space of the far universe, try posting it.

.. ok .. (see below).
Oh .. and for Physics' purpose of understanding the behaviour of light, nothing is 'unknown':
Time:

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.

Then, Relativity of Simultaneity:

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Its really quite simple when one bothers to look it up for oneself .. (as opposed to deliberately choosing wilful ignorance, being lazy, and then throwing stones at non existent targets).

 

[sjastro]

Next you’ll be telling me you believe the plasma surrounding our galaxy is at 2 million K, the temperature of the suns corona, yet far from any source of heat. It’s a measure of its charge, not a temperature.....

How could have I missed this gem; it surpasses the surface of a balloon is one dimension comment for sheer stupidity.
First of all what makes you think there is a heat source for the hot gas cloud given it is radiating X-rays.
The facts are the hot gas cloud is cooling by radiating heat to its colder surroundings in the form of X-rays; this is physics101 fact (1).

Physics101 fact (2); the rate of heat loss depends on the density of the object, the higher the density the greater the rate.
The density of the gas cloud is extremely low (lower than high vacuums found in laboratories) and the rate of heat loss is very small resulting in high temperatures being maintained for billions of years.

Physics101 fact (3); the hotter the object the higher the frequency of the radiation as it cools.
X-ray radiation indicates the object is extremely hot so there are no surprises it is at a magnitude of millions of degrees K.

As to what heated the halo in the first place there are various theories such as accretion shock where the gas is pulled through gravitational potential well of the Milky Way or shock waves generated by high velocity gases injected into the halo by supernovae.

Your comment it’s a measure of charge not a temperature, instead of coming across as an intelligent remark the very opposite has occurred………….
There is so much comic irony in your posts; you make ad hom attacks against individuals as being ignorant who happen to be knowledgeable enough to see through your nonsense of making up stories as a substitute for your own ignorance of basic physics.

 

[dad]

So what?

That is stupid.

So what? Let's see, if the universe, earth and life were created in the time of Adam then this universe is just not as old as God. Am I missing something here?

 

[dad]

.. ok .. (see below).
Oh .. and for Physics' purpose of understanding the behaviour of light, nothing is 'unknown': Light in the fishbowl is interesting. However it does take a certain amount of time to move here in the area of this solar system and earth. If we stuck the light in some space that had no time as we know it, but some different mix of time and space or whatever, obviously light would not take the same time to move a certain distance!

Time:

From your link

" In our epoch, during which electromagnetic waves can propagate without being disturbed by conductors or charges, we can see the stars, at great distances from us, in the night sky."

The assumption is that it is not 'disturbed'. However unless space and time were the same, the light simply could not get here in earth time!

Then, Relativity of Simultaneity:

From your ridiculous link

"
A popular picture for understanding this idea is provided by a thought experiment similar to those suggested by Daniel Frost Comstock in 1910[13] and Einstein in 1917.[14][12] It also consists of one observer midway inside a speeding traincar and another observer standing on a platform as the train moves past.

A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other. For the observer on board the train, the front and back of the traincar are at fixed distances from the light source and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time.

For the observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, the rear of the traincar is moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off, and the front of the traincar is moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same in all directions for all observers, the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, the flashes of light will strike the ends of the traincar at different times.


I mean...really!!!? Trains on earth! Ha. That is supposed to tell us time is the same in the far universe!? Utterly ridiculous. You might as well conduct fish races in a fishbowl and use the winning fish's time to tell us what time is like near Alpha Centauri!

Its really quite simple when one bothers to look it up for oneself

Like you just did!!!? Hilarious.

Sorry, I have to give your posts a big GONG!

 

[SelfSim]

.. ok .. (see below).
Oh .. and for Physics' purpose of understanding the behaviour of light, nothing is 'unknown':

Light in the fishbowl is interesting. However it does take a certain amount of time to move here in the area of this solar system and earth. If we stuck the light in some space that had no time as we know it, but some different mix of time and space or whatever, obviously light would not take the same time to move a certain distance!

Then it would not be 'light' as science knows, would it?
If you alter the Physics of some region of space, its up to you to convince us you can then describe that universe! Good luck with that, (and you will never gain agreement from others), because you then cannot assume any of science's (nor common language) definitions, nor even that your own mind can interpret that universe!

Your dialogues on this topic of yours thus far, fall into the realm of pure fantasy.
This is why I state that your thought experiments on this topic are inane and juvenile .. its a conversation one might have with about a five year old child.

Time:

From your link

In our epoch, during which electromagnetic waves can propagate without being disturbed by conductors or charges, we can see the stars, at great distances from us, in the night sky."

The assumption is that it is not 'disturbed'. However unless space and time were the same, the light simply could not get here in earth time!

Firstly, 'not disturbed' is not an assumption. In fact, 'disturbed' is mostly anticipated.
If the light is 'disturbed' by known influences, it imprints signatures which are also empirically known and thus appear in the received spectra. For instance yellow sunglasses 'disturb' light and shift the light to appear yellow.
Secondly, as I stated above, if you alter the Physics of the universe, then you have immersed yourself in a quandry of a delusional fantasy universe. Why do you do keep doing that?
A serious question arises:
"Is your religion preventing you from living in our known universe, or have you just chosen to do this, just to wind us all up?"

Relativity of Simultaneity:

From your ridiculous link

A popular picture for understanding this idea is provided by a thought experiment similar to those suggested by Daniel Frost Comstock in 1910[13]and Einstein in 1917.[14][12] It also consists of one observer midway inside a speeding traincar and another observer standing on a platform as the train moves past.

A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other. For the observer on board the train, the front and back of the traincar are at fixed distances from the light source and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time.

For the observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, the rear of the traincar is moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off, and the front of the traincar is moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same in all directions for all observers, the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, the flashes of light will strike the ends of the traincar at different times.

I mean...really!!!? Trains on earth! Ha. That is supposed to tell us time is the same in the far universe!? Utterly ridiculous. You might as well conduct fish races in a fishbowl and use the winning fish's time to tell us what time is like near Alpha Centauri!
Its really quite simple when one bothers to look it up for oneself
Like you just did!!!? Hilarious.

Sorry, I have to give your posts a big GONG!

Well sorry to rain on your deluded, self-declared victory parade, but until you can describe other than your fantasies, you aren't even in the same science conversation as the rest of us in this thread.

There's a web-word for persisting with such behaviours in science forums (and note I don't intend offensiveness here) but the word is 'troll'.

 

[dad]

Then it would not be 'light' as science knows, would it?

Not all light has to be fishbowl light.

If you alter the Physics of some region of space, its up to you to convince us you can then describe that universe! Good luck with that, (and you will never gain agreement from others), because you then cannot assume any of science's (nor common language) definitions, nor even that your own mind can interpret that universe!

Why would we expect ignorant people to tell us what the unknown is like in far space? We can make our own stuff up thanks!

Your dialogues on this topic of yours thus far, fall into the realm of pure fantasy.

So, unless we project your religion onto the far universe it is fantasy. Got it.

This is why I state that your thought experiments on this topic are inane and juvenile .. its a conversation one might have with about a five year old child.

Sorry if I exposed your little train thought experiment as ridiculously inept to cover deep space! Then YOU call others juvenile??

Firstly, 'not disturbed' is not an assumption. In fact, 'disturbed' is mostly anticipated.

If something takes less or more or different time to do something you have no way to know it was disturbed! It looks normal to you in the fishbowl.

If the light is 'disturbed' by known influences, it imprints signatures which are also empirically known and thus appear in the received spectra. For instance yellow sunglasses 'disturb' light and shift the light to appear yellow.

Strawman. You have no way of knowing what time is involved in deep space. Pretending something would appear 'disturbed' if it did not involve fishbowl time is disturbingly narrow minded.

Secondly, as I stated above, if you alter the Physics of the universe, then you have immersed yourself in a quandry of a delusional fantasy universe. Why do you do keep doing that?
A serious question arises:

How could we alter the unknown, and especially space and time out in the unknown? The only altering involved is in your religious perceptions.

"Is your religion preventing you from living in our known universe, or have you just chosen to do this, just to wind us all up?"

Relax, we all live in this fishbowl. FYI the fishbowl is not the universe though! No more than your little train set goes round and round the stars!!!!


People who rightly point out that you do not know what you are talking about in the discussion of space and time and the spiritual and creation in deep space are not trolls. They are sane.