Superior limit to Universe extension

"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*

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:53:37 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

From any point the observable horizon is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, so I hardly
makes any sense to talk about two points that are not causally connected.

Hi Sam-

The radius of the observable horizon is about 46 billion ly, not 13.7
billion ly. You need to consider the long term effect of expansion: the
distances now and the distances when the light was first produced are
not the same. We can easily observe different parts of the Universe that
are not _now_ causally connected.

_________________________________________________

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

On Jun 30, 3:53*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
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?

* *From any point the observable horizon is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, so I hardly
* *makes any sense to talk about two points that are not causally connected.

* *No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a person can even
consider dumping such speculative junk into the celestial
arena,perhaps there is some perverse satisfaction is being utterly
silly but that is about as far as it goes for believing the 'every-
valid-point-is-the-center' cartoon framework.

Again,absolutely bewildering that it is even considered never mind
that it is the dominant view of those who know no better

.

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

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

~1091 according to WMAP.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:56:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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?

The Universe did not expand from a point outward in a spherical
fashion. This is fallacious thinking and has nothing to do with Big
Bang theory.

Also, the expansion of space is not constrained by light speed.
Therefore the Universe can be much larger in extent than its age, and
galaxies have relative separation velocities that exceed the speed of
light.

See:

http://www.dark-cosmology.dk/~tamara...Am_BigBang.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0310808v2.pdf

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 3:53 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
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?

From any point the observable horizon is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr, so I hardly
makes any sense to talk about two points that are not causally connected.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that a person can even
consider dumping such speculative junk into the celestial
arena,perhaps there is some perverse satisfaction is being utterly
silly but that is about as far as it goes for believing the 'every-
valid-point-is-the-center' cartoon framework.

Again,absolutely bewildering that it is even considered never mind
that it is the dominant view of those who know no better
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like "bots".

HJ
..