Oldest Galaxies
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
PlastikBuddha
New member
His followers can be, however.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Right. You're obviously not looking very hard.
Proof?
So basically all of biology, geology, and astrology get thrown away? Nice.
Disintegrate? So all of those novas out there are optical illusions? Nuebulae as stellar nurseries are faked?
Letsargue
New member
Bull!, who said?
There is no distance or size or timeline to the so-called "universe". There is no such "THING" (Singular) as "THE UNIVERSE" (Singular). That's like saying, the creature is so big and eats so much we can't tell what it is. It's not "THE CREATURE", it's all creatures and each is separate of itself.
Everything is separate of itself. There are many things, and not any one thing is the collective thing that makes up a total thing / Universe.
There can not be a straight line through the so-called universe in any direction; that cannot exist.
If you did try to place a straight line through the so-called universe, it may or may not ever go out any side, it may just as well wonder around throughout all the galaxies without end. The light from any one galaxy could be from any direction, or every direction, no one could possibly tell. The scientists are just a bunch of babling fools trying to get their grants refurbished.
It's the brain-dead fool that thinks the so-called "universe" can be understood in any degree or form.
Describe the race at Daytona at any one moment, in detail, that's nothing.
If you want to be "unscientific" and just throw out a bunch of stupid theories, I can do that too.
---Paul---
PlastikBuddha
New member
Do you even understand what science means?
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Letsargue, I believe you are confused (very confused). My post [Show us your calculations.] was in response to the following post from Bob B;
This is a very specific claim. Bob B claims he has carried out very specific calculations. I want to see them. Though your diatribe was entertaining (and I'm sure it felt good to get out), it is completely irrelevant to my request of Bob B.
Bob B said:
This is a very specific claim. Bob B claims he has carried out very specific calculations. I want to see them. Though your diatribe was entertaining (and I'm sure it felt good to get out), it is completely irrelevant to my request of Bob B.
Letsargue
New member
Science, and what we see that is called science, has nothing to do with each other.
Science is not theory, what we see in all the sciences are nothing but theory, and that is just guessing.
Yes, I “know” what science is.
No one “KNOWS” a theory.
---Paul---
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Letsargue said:
What are the differences between the two?
Letsargue said:
How should science work?
Letsargue said:
Then describe it to us.
Letsargue said:
This comment doesn't make any sense. Everyone can know & understand a theory. However, it is impossible to know whether a theory is correct. Is that what you mean?
Letsargue
New member
How old are you, maybe twelve?
Theories are not knowledge; knowledge is to KNOW what something “is”, or how it “is”. Not how one thinks it “may be”, or “could be”.
To say the universe is this way, or that way, is BULL; no one can possibly “KNOW” how the universe “is”. They can only make their best educated guess how the universe could be. There're many, many different theories, and they to the most part contradict with each other.
Anyone can theorize about anything, Like GOD. The Book lets us know God, no theory.
Peace.
---Paul---
SUTG
New member
Letsargue
New member
I think you meant to say "astronomy".
Well, I Know this is not to me, but I used the same word the other day, So;
No, I didn’t say that. I’m as big a theorist as anyone, but I know the difference in Knowing and Theorizing. Science is the Knowing, or the search to know. Which there are very little of.
When a scientist takes a piece of maybe a jaw bone, and defines almost every aspect of a pre-history varmint, I say BULL!
What is Evaluation? There are dozens of versions of it, and there are dozens that speak out against it, is that your knowledgeable science. No one can possible Know exactly what happened, Just a big guess, or the faith in God. Pick one.
Peace.
---Paul---
HistoryKid
New member
Maybe this question was already asked, but here it goes anyway.
Is there life in any of these galaxies? With all of these giant spinning masses of planets and stars, is there any life there? Or are we still it?
Is a Universe this vast only capable of supporting on form of high thinking beings? Or, is it possible that we aren't alone, even if that life is only a galaxy away.
Another question, will David Beckham be playing for any of these galaxies?
Is there life in any of these galaxies? With all of these giant spinning masses of planets and stars, is there any life there? Or are we still it?
Is a Universe this vast only capable of supporting on form of high thinking beings? Or, is it possible that we aren't alone, even if that life is only a galaxy away.
Another question, will David Beckham be playing for any of these galaxies?
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Bob B, where are the calculations?
Letsargue
New member
PlastikBuddha
New member
I think you meant to say "astronomy".
:doh:
Darn tootin' I did. Thanks for spotting that. Although of course, astrology needs to be thrown on the rubbish heap regardless.
Letsargue
New member
Justin?
It looks like you like science; let me show you something that no one else on earth knows. If they did, you would surly have heard about it.
*All things radiate a frequency. The near 120 or so, pure elements do, and each has its own unique frequency. - If that’s so:
*“Carbon”; There’s a lot of Carbon near the surface of the earth, right? Oil, Coal, and many minor carbon compounds, and Carbon has its own energy frequency, and there’s a lot of it. - If that’s so:
*All life as we know it, are Carbon base, or are mainly Carbon compounds, mostly Carbon. Life has done very well within a strong Carbon energy radiation. Therefore life must survive within a High carbon energy frequency, called the life frequencies.
The Male and Female factors are just one half cycle off the carbon frequency out of sink of each other. If that’s so:
*All life must live within a desirable environment, not a toxic environment; one that is in harmony with the life forces. (Example: all life must have a good measure of water; but remove the water, and the life will die) If that’s so:
*Lets remove the coal, and the oil, from our life support environment, the Carbon energy radiation from all the coal and oil that makes up our energy environment. We can also remove the sun’s energy, wouldn’t that be fun?
Peace.
---Paul---072707
PlastikBuddha
New member
What are you even talking about?
JustinFoldsFive
New member
Letsargue, not only are you making absolutely no sense, but my question isn't even directed at you. Only Bob B can provide the answer. If you would like to start a discussion, create a new thread!
This sounds like a line from a TV infomercial. And, accordingly, it assigns a similar value assessment to the claims.
Here.
Cosmic inflation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrums of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, inhomogeneous universe. Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).
Inflation was first proposed by American physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth in 1981[2] and was given its modern form independently by Andrei Linde,[3] and by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt.[4]
While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observational tests. Inflation is thus now considered part of the standard hot big bang cosmology. The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.
Inflationary epoch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078.
The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.
It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion of space meant that elementary particles remaining from the grand unification epoch were now distributed very thinly across the universe. However, the huge potential energy of the inflaton field was released at the end of the inflationary epoch, repopulating the universe with a dense, hot mixture of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons as it entered the electroweak epoch.
The key numbers here are :
10-33 seconds
and
1026 times as large.
If this period had lasted just one more interval of 10-33 seconds the universe would have increased in size from a large orange (or small pumpkin) to its present size of 13.7 billion light years.
Multiply 1026 times as large by say 0.4 feet (orange or pumpkin sized) we get
0.4 x 1026 feet.
One light year is 186,000 miles/sec x 5280 feet/mile x 365 days/year x 24 hours/day x 3600 sec/hour = 3.097 x 1016 light feet
So 13.7 billion light years would be 13.7 x 109 (1 billion) x 3.097 x 1016 feet = 4 x 1026 feet.
This is within a factor of 10 of what we got by multiplying an orange-sized universe (0.4 feet) by 1026.
But considering what Wikipedia said above:
“This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor)” I think the calculation is seen to be in the right ballpark (only a factor of 10 away).