Superior limit to Universe extension

"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.

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 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

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

"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.

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 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:39:10 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and
reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent
observations.

I haven't heard of that theory.
_________________________________________________

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

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:39:10 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| Great theory about an explosion that starts all over the rim and
| reaches us at the centre, well supported by multiple independent
| observations.
|
| I haven't heard of that theory.

A nice example of your non-intellectual honesty.

Of course not, ewe have your head up your arse muttering
"intellectual honesty", convinced ewe are right because all
the other sheep say "baa" when ewe do.

I've heard of your Big Bonk.

Answer the question.
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.

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?