Superior limit to Universe extension

Androcles wrote:
Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the
right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense.

The history is physics is very clear about "common sense." Common sense
is a child's way of viewing the Universe.

You really have no idea that you are a netloon, do you?

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| Not testable and never will be. You idiots will always find just the
| right evidence to support your nonsense and ignore common sense.
|
| The history is physics is very clear about "common sense." Common sense
| is a child's way of viewing the Universe.
|
| You really have no idea that you are a netloon, do you?

You really have no idea you are a stooopid ****, have you?
Join the host.
*plonk*

Dear cestblu:

wrote in message
...
....
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.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN

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,

No.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#FTL
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX

so the universe cannot have an extension
higher than it's age,

There appears to be no direct correlation between size and age.

always travelling to it's maximum speed... the
light one...

The local speed limit applies to kinetic motion. The Big Bang
was not an explosion, where stuff was blasted away from some
center. We can see in the direction we are moving away from, and
there is no glowing core of some sort of explosion.

What do you think about that?

You are at least thinking, and that is always good. You might
want to read he
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.... in four parts.

David A. Smith

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

We can see in the direction we are moving away from, and
there is no glowing core of some sort of explosion.

Every direction we look is the direction we are moving away from. And we
do, in fact, see the glowing core of the Big Bang- it's called the
cosmic microwave background.

Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing out that the Big Bang
wasn't an explosion in any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion
has to be understood as an analogy, and can't be taken literally.
_________________________________________________

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

Dear Chris L Peterson:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)"
wrote:

We can see in the direction we are moving
away from, and there is no glowing core of
some sort of explosion.

Every direction we look is the direction we
are moving away from.

More specifically, we have an anomalous motion wrt the Universe
at large, to the tune of 300 km/sec away from (towards?) Virgo.

And we do, in fact, see the glowing core of
the Big Bang- it's called the cosmic
microwave background.

This was a self-excited plasma state that quenched 300,000
*after* the Big Bang.

Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing
out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in
any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion
has to be understood as an analogy, and can't
be taken literally.

.... but because of the choice of words, guarantees that it will
be taken literally ...

All covered in the Cosmology pages I directed the OP to.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear Chris L Peterson:
|
| "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:24:04 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
| \(dlzc\)"
| wrote:
|
| We can see in the direction we are moving
| away from, and there is no glowing core of
| some sort of explosion.
|
| Every direction we look is the direction we
| are moving away from.
|
| More specifically, we have an anomalous motion wrt the Universe
| at large, to the tune of 300 km/sec away from (towards?) Virgo.
|
| And we do, in fact, see the glowing core of
| the Big Bang- it's called the cosmic
| microwave background.
|
| This was a self-excited plasma state that quenched 300,000
| *after* the Big Bang.
|
| Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing
| out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in
| any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion
| has to be understood as an analogy, and can't
| be taken literally.
|
| ... but because of the choice of words, guarantees that it will
| be taken literally ...
|
| All covered in the Cosmology pages I directed the OP to.
|
| David A. Smith

What's the red shift of the CMBR, Smiffy?

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:23:02 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:

More specifically, we have an anomalous motion wrt the Universe
at large, to the tune of 300 km/sec away from (towards?) Virgo.

There is some interesting data in that respect, but I think this
interpretation remains far from conclusive. Fascinating possibilities,
though.
_________________________________________________

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

In article ,
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

snip

Of course, you're perfectly correct in pointing
out that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in
any real sense. Thinking of it as an explosion
has to be understood as an analogy, and can't
be taken literally.

... but because of the choice of words, guarantees that it will
be taken literally ...

Which choice of words was in fact made by a leading opponent of the
theory, Fred Hoyle, with the intent to belittle or disparage it.
Ironically enough, the expression was apparently irresistible to
journalists and other populizers, to the extent that it stuck fast --
and now is mostly used without a trace of sarcasm.

--
Odysseus

On 29 Giu, 19:24, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote:
Dear cestblu:

wrote in message

...
...

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.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN

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,

No.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...gy_faq.html#MX

so the universe cannot have an extension
higher than it's age,

There appears to be no direct correlation between size and age.

always travelling to it's maximum speed... the
light one...

The local speed limit applies to kinetic motion. *The Big Bang
was not an explosion, where stuff was blasted away from some
center. *We can see in the direction we are moving away from, and
there is no glowing core of some sort of explosion.

What do you think about that?

You are at least thinking, and that is always good. *You might
want to read hehttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... in four parts.

David A. Smith

Thanks. A Very good link for finding answers to common FAQ.