If the universe is <10,000 old....

[NGC 6712]

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

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.

 

[Metal Minister]

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.....

And now we know why martyr44 stopped having discussions with you.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

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.

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

 

[philadiddle]

And now we know why martyr44 stopped having discussions with you.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

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.

My mind has been changed through these types of conversations before. If you guys actually have good reasons I geniunly want to hear them. I will continue to wait...

 

[philadiddle]

But my point is that its still a guess...perhaps and educated one, but a guess nonetheless

May God Richly Bless You! MM

You should read the paper I referred to you, then you wouldn't have made this statement.

 

[Martyrs44]

sfs:

You made a claim. Support it.

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.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

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.

 

[NGC 6712]

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

I always say observable because as a scientist I am precise in my use of terminology.

 

[samaus12345]

What is your career NGC 6712?

 

[NGC 6712]

What is your career NGC 6712?

Astrophysicist (cosmologist)

 

[samaus12345]

How old do you believe the universe is?

 

[NGC 6712]

How old do you believe the universe is?

13.75 +/- 0.11 billion years.

 

[samaus12345]

Do you believe "In the beginnig God" or "in the beginning singularity"?

 

[NGC 6712]

Do you believe "In the beginnig God" or "in the beginning singularity"?

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.

 

[samaus12345]

So the ultimate cause of our universe is A-God? B-singularity?

 

[NGC 6712]

So the ultimate cause of our universe is A-God? B-singularity?

That is one way of putting it. Put it this way - I do not go A singularity, B God.

 

[samaus12345]

I mean God? OR singularity?

 

[NGC 6712]

I mean God? OR singularity?

Let's have both.

Gotta run - dinner time.

Oh - I hope England win the ODI series and the next Ashes !!!!!

 

[Metal Minister]

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

 

[NGC 6712]

So are you saying that the big bang's evidence is more mathematical rather than physical?

May God Richly Bless You! MM

No - I am saying that extrapolating to the singularity is mathematical. But the Big Bang Theory technically does not need that. The Big Bang Theory is really about what happens later than that. The evidence is that the Universe was once in a hot dense state and underwent expansion. That is the essence of what the theory is about.