Superior limit to Universe extension

Hi to All,
concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
3.14*13.7billion light years?
Explanation:
in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
it's maximum speed... the light one...
What do you think about that?

wrote in message ...
Hi to All,
concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
3.14*13.7billion light years?
Explanation:
in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
it's maximum speed... the light one...
What do you think about that?

That idea has been all but disproven. It's widely believed that the
universe expanded at much greater speeds than C when it was very
young.

Google universe inflation for more info, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

On 29 Giu, 11:06, "nospam" wrote:
wrote in ...
Hi to All,
concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
3.14*13.7billion light years?
Explanation:
in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
it's maximum speed... the light one...
What do you think about that?

That idea has been all but disproven. *It's widely believed that the
universe expanded at much greater speeds than C when it was very
young.

Google universe inflation for more info, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

Thanks, that's sound good.
Unfortunately no speed limit monitoring probes that day :-)

wrote in message
...
| Hi to All,
| concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
| maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
| 3.14*13.7billion light years?


No.


| Explanation:
| in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
| south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
| universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
| cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
| it's maximum speed... the light one...
| What do you think about that?


It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.

On 29 Giu, 12:34, "Androcles" wrote:
wrote in message

...
| Hi to All,
| concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
| maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
| 3.14*13.7billion light years?

No.

| Explanation:
| in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
| south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
| universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
| cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
| it's maximum speed... the light one...
| What do you think about that?

It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.

Consider that infinite is just a mathematical concept ... from a
physical point of view what does it mean infinite?
AFAUK, infinite is higher than 10 billion light year ... might be I
could agree...

wrote in message
...
| On 29 Giu, 12:34, "Androcles" wrote:
| wrote in message
|
|
...
| | Hi to All,
| | concerning the universe extension is it possible to assume that the
| | maximum distance between two points in the Universe is
| | 3.14*13.7billion light years?
|
| No.
|
| | Explanation:
| | in the earth the max distance between 2 points (e.g. north pole and
| | south pole) is one half the ring, i.e. 3.14*r (r=earth ray). In the
| | universe speed material cannot exceed the light one, so the universe
| | cannot have an extension higher than it's age, always travelling to
| | it's maximum speed... the light one...
| | What do you think about that?
|
| It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.
|
| Consider that infinite is just a mathematical concept ... from a
| physical point of view what does it mean infinite?

Consider that infinite means what it means, goes on forever.
From a physical point of view that's what it means.
That you cannot grasp the idea and are rabbiting about light
and time (l = electromagnetic radiation, t = time) only shows
your mind is finite.

Look, if we have a finite universe around us then we can have
another one just like it twice as far away, and since "universe"
means all, everything, then that second one is part of the universe.

Your way of thinking is "what happens to a ship when it falls off
the edge of the world?" because you assume there is an edge.




| AFAUK, infinite is higher than 10 billion light year ...


might be I
| could agree...

Doesn't really matter, there are some things that are unknowable
and even if we did know them they don't affect us in any way.
Anyone can have an unprovable theory but what's the point?


|

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:34:51 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.

That is currently not testable, and may well never be testable. Current
theory is not complete enough to say with any certainty whether the
Universe is finite or infinite. The only proper, scientific answer is
that we have a good idea about the size of the observable Universe, and
that we don't know much about what lies beyond that.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:34:51 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| It's a load of ridiculous baloney, the Universe is infinite in extent.
|
| That is currently not testable, and may well never be testable.

There ya go, right on the money!
Same with your crank theories about big bangs.
Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the
right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense.
The crazier the theory the more you nod your stupid heads to it.
If the bible says "in the beginning" there must have been a beginning.
If the bible says "forever and ever amen" there can't be a end.
Big Bonk is illogical religious claptrap disguised as "science".
You are nodding your stupid head to Smiffy because you are just
another unthinking sheep, bleating the same baa as all the other sheep.

Someone gives an opposite point of view and you whine "can't test it",
but when the view is in line with your idiotic indoctrination you
don't whine then, do you, hypocrite?

"Of course, you're perfectly correct, Smiffy, I like Big Bonks...."
"Not testable, Androcles, I don't like your idea at all..."

You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson.

I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that the Big Bang is a
theory, that may be wrong, but happens to be well supported by multiple
independent observations. It is the best theory we have.

There are no observations at all that really help us to understand the
structure of the Universe outside the part that is accessible to us.
There are many good theories to guide investigation, but so far, that is
all they are doing.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we remember that it
_is_ speculation.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:11:42 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| You are no scientist and never will be, Peterson.
|
| I'm intellectually honest enough to recognize that the Big Bang is a
| theory, that may be wrong, but happens to be well supported by multiple
| independent observations. It is the best theory we have.

What's the red shift of the CMBR?
A shift that comes to us omnidirectionally and is homogeneous.

Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and
reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent
observations. The best ewe have, right, and it MAY be wrong?
Yes, I'd say such illogical claptrap MAY be wrong.
And it is the best ewe have, based solely on some reddish galaxies,
the shift being a function of distance.
Perhaps the CMBR is the glory of heaven redshifted as the throne
of your god recedes from ewe as ewe and your universe implodes,
huh?
And ewe are intellectually honest.
Ewe are no intellectual, Peterson, ewe are one of the non-thinking flock.
The best theory we have is that the universe is infinite in both space and
time, always was, always will be, and light slows down as its energy
is spread over an ever increasing surface. That theory is well supported
by multiple independent observations and your Big Bonk is religious
bull****, the best ewe have.