How Old is our Universe?

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott and Zan Light speed is always constant. Gravity can cause the
photon's wave to be blue entering a strong gravity field. Gravity can
Change it to red when leaving a strong gravity field. Motion does the
same thing. That is why motion and gravity are equivalent. That is what
SR and GR are all about. bert


Please don't preach to me about SR or GR. I have probably forgotten
more about either than you ever knew.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott In Cambridge Mass. super cold sodium had photons measured speed
at 3mph. I'm sure you will tell us how it got back to 'c'?? bert


It is all about the medium through which it passed. Take an E&M course
if you don't get it.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott it was my knee that got sprained so you were going in the right
direction. Einstein did not like QM,and I say its humankind's best
theory. Einstein said people in a space ship could not tell if they were
moving or the background;. I could tell if I was inside a fast moving
space ship. bert


Absense of exterior references, no you could not. Einstein pictured a
spacecraft without windows to look out. And his demonstration of the
equivalence of accelerated reference frames and gravity are valid under
that assumption.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Zan and Scott We could have a big problem with light. Best to keep in
mind space very far out comes out of my convex theory. That this theory
predicts that space expansion is faster than 'c'. There is a point where
light can't get back to us. I call this great space convex curve
"The speed of light horizon" My theory predicts the larger the
universe gets and the faster it expands will never be delectable. It
begs the question When did the universe's horizon become invisible?
Without an answer to this important question humankind can not even
speculate the size and age of the universe. It is much to big an unknown
to fudge. We have the evidence of an accelerating. We
have well received theories expansions goes back to the BB A thought
just jumped in Could the expansion of space be intrinsic That means
space was inflating before the BB. That fits well with my Gravity +
spin is in theory. Space in great motion could explain matter and
anti-matter not cancelling each other out at the BB That fits well
with my "Time lapse theory" The universe is energy,and motion..
Inflation theory gives great meaning to the "aether" It governs the
state of the universe. We can no longer relate the size of the
universe to its age. We must know they are not relative. bert


I prefer to deal with reality than fantasy. Please keep your fantasies
to yourself or identify them as such.

To recap - you have no theory, you have a simple idea. It is not a
theory because it has not been subjected to any form of scientific
testing. In addition, it is not supported by scientific data available
to date nor does it make predictions that could be tested by scientific
data in the future to differentiate it from the predictions of other
scientific theories. So, again, you have no theory.

Claiming things fit simply implies you lack the full understanding of
what has been discovered. Using your limited knowledge you can make
things fit like taking a sledgehammer to make a square peg fit into a
round hole. It doesn't mean that the peg was meant to fit, just that
you are forcing the issue due to your lack of comprehension.

Estimates based on current data are closer to reality.

What the **** do you know about that? It doesn't need to have anything
to do with reality at all.

In article . com, wrote:

Estimates based on current data are closer to reality.

What the **** do you know about that? It doesn't need to have anything
to do with reality at all.

Wow. This explains the motive behind the majority of your posts.

Wow. This explains the motive behind the majority of your posts.

A missing ingredient in your calculations, errors in your premisses,
all of this can make your estimate completey wrong.

And as for a person stupid enough to believe that the universe has an
age. Well, then the universe cannot be everything, and then it is not
the universe.

In article . com, wrote:
Wow. This explains the motive behind the majority of your posts.

A missing ingredient in your calculations, errors in your premisses,
all of this can make your estimate completey wrong.

And as for a person stupid enough to believe that the universe has an
age. Well, then the universe cannot be everything, and then it is not
the universe.

I was referring to this comment of yours:

"What the **** do you know about that? It doesn't need to have anything
to do with reality at all."

That you couldn't even quote my post in full, short as it was, shows that
you're rather dishonest and not worth responding to anymore. Goodbye.

That you couldn't even quote my post in full, short as it was, shows that
you're rather dishonest and not worth responding to anymore. Goodbye.

Dishonest? Me? Yeah right. Goodbye.

The reason why I quote only what a person said, is because I find it
rather annoying with unnecessary repetition of data.

Is this dishonesty? I think it is efficiency.