We do know the size of the observable universe. The radius of the observable universe is approx. 46.5 billion light years.
You can estimate the the number of stars and (though a much rougher guess) the number of planets.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We do know the size of the observable universe. The radius of the observable universe is approx. 46.5 billion light years.Wow...so you're trying to tell me scientists know exactly how big the universe is, and how many stars planets etc there is within it?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
philadiddle said:Why do they need to know all the details of the universe to make the calculation?
And after all that a guy on a forum says "Nuh-uh, I have a NASA link that says they don't know everything so their calculations are wrong, even though I don't understand their calculations or the models they are using, I am still confident in my position."
And for some reason, we are the ones not listening who need to learn from you.....
NGC 6712 said:We do know the size of the observable universe. The radius of the observable universe is approx. 46.5 billion light years.
You can estimate the the number of stars and (though a much rougher guess) the number of planets.
Because the truth hurt him? You guys can't defend anything about your view, and you continually show that you are pretty ignorant on the topic. You claimed that you know better than the physicists who have calculated the universe's net energy as zero. Now back it up. I pushed martyr44 to back up his assertions too but when he realized he couldn't he stopped talking to me. I suppose you will follow suite now. That's very telling of the strength of your view.And now we know why martyr44 stopped having discussions with you.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
You should read the paper I referred to you, then you wouldn't have made this statement.But my point is that its still a guess...perhaps and educated one, but a guess nonetheless
May God Richly Bless You! MM
You made a claim. Support it.
You did make the claim that since the sun is burning off energy that that somehow means that it couldn't have been made through natural processes. Support it.sfs:
I....don't...have to...support it. It's law. Law by all observation and experimentation and it remains that way whether you like it or not.
I told you, you backward thinker: the onus is on you and your skeptic comrades.
Bye.
But my point is that its still a guess...perhaps and educated one, but a guess nonetheless
Also this is as you said the "observable" universe. We can't see to its farthest points yet.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Both.Do you believe "In the beginnig God" or "in the beginning singularity"?
That is one way of putting it. Put it this way - I do not go A singularity, B God.So the ultimate cause of our universe is A-God? B-singularity?
I mean God? OR singularity?
NGC 6712 said:Both.
Though let me temper the singularity part. Until we have a true quantum theory of gravity then the Big Bang singularity is a mathematical construct that may turn out to be different than currently conceived.
So are you saying that the big bang's evidence is more mathematical rather than physical?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?