Age of Universe Edges Closer to Officer Bert's Prediction!

nightbat Only a cowardly low wit classical Google thinker would not
go back in spacetime than the big bang They leave out the cause. I
can't do that.especially what we now know the fabric(energy) of space
and how our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. I say shame
on them The spacetime before the big bang was 200 billion years This
was the time needed to create the big bang event, The spacetime from
that explosion(inflation) to "now" is 22 billion years. These figures
are approximations as all measurements are Bert

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

nightbat Only a cowardly low wit classical Google thinker would not
go back in spacetime than the big bang They leave out the cause. I
can't do that.especially what we now know the fabric(energy) of space
and how our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. I say shame
on them The spacetime before the big bang was 200 billion years This
was the time needed to create the big bang event, The spacetime from
that explosion(inflation) to "now" is 22 billion years. These figures
are approximations as all measurements are Bert



nightbat

You're in great form Major and correct as to pre BB energy
existence. The google loving mainstream has a long way to catch up to us
and your guesstimated age of the Universe is just as good as theirs.
Attempting to guess the present age of the immense Universe is like
placing clothes in a dryer that has pocket change in some pockets and
turning the dryer on. After a few spins you watch the dryer window and
notice the loose change floating around and wonder how old are they and
where or what clothes did they come from? So called empty space is just
like that but the change of the floating loose stars and planets are there.

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat you have to add up the universe"s corpses(black dwarfs). You
have to add the time at takes gravity to evolve a white dwarf to a black
dwarf. We don't even know how long a Sun like star takes from the first
molecular hydrogen to the last that will create fusion. We don't know
how long submicroscopic particles(building blocks) take to form the
first hydrogen atom. How long a time to create a hydrogen universe that
even now is 90% hydrogen..Only I have added these events up. The Google
brains won't even give them a thought because it is unknown and unknown
is scarey,and should be swept under the rug.Can't be proven Its not in
any book. Best to call people that talk about it "loony,and they just
babble. Oh ya We do know our Sun came to shine 5 billion
years ago.,and has 5 billion more years to shine That is a total of 10
billion years. This begs the question Was it created from new
hydrogen or recycled hydrogen? The difference could be very time
consuming Bert

Aw, poor goosed goose! lol!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:07:22 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

There are "here" and "now" if we want them to
be. And i most definitely want there to be a
"here". So keep mentally farting, 'cause you
can't change this [****] no matter how hard
you twy.

happy days and...
stawwy stawwy nights

You left your projector on again, painsnuh.


$10 says he was attacked by a goose as a child ;-)

Double or nothing that he attacked a goose as a teenager.

ESL!


It wasn't his fault. His trousers just fell open, and he tripped onto that
goose. It wasn't HIS fault his penis entered it...

Physicist know an hydrogen atom can last 2 trillion years. Knowing this
fact how can they ever tell us spacetime of the universe 13,5 billion
years. It just don't add up. Gravity needs lots of time from the
beginning of the universe to evolve it to a universe of 'now" They
don't count in the spacetime major events. They are to stupid to realize
these events took great amounts of time. The only event they seem to
measure right is our Sun's birth 5 billion years ago Reality is lots
of spacetime events of great importance took place before,but they leave
their time frame out. go figure bert

In article , (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Physicist know an hydrogen atom can last 2 trillion years. Knowing this
fact how can they ever tell us spacetime of the universe 13,5 billion
years. It just don't add up. Gravity needs lots of time from the
beginning of the universe to evolve it to a universe of 'now" They
don't count in the spacetime major events. They are to stupid to realize
these events took great amounts of time. The only event they seem to
measure right is our Sun's birth 5 billion years ago Reality is lots
of spacetime events of great importance took place before,but they leave
their time frame out. go figure bert

I'm not even going to bother to answer your points about lifetimes since
you are completely incapable of answering other questions you've been
asked about the abundance of iron in the moon. It seems you like to ignore
facts if you don't like them.

Having said that, I would like to point out that the physicists you call
stupid are at least capable of carrying out simple multiplication. You, on
the other hand, claim that 10 x 22 equals 2200.

Despite that, you have the gall to call other people stupid. It beggars
belief.

Tom K It has been observed the Moon lacks metals,and that is especially
true of "IRON" is that not plain enough? By metals they also mean
aluminum cooper lead,and lithium to name a few we here on Earth
surface.in great abundance Go figure Bert

That is the life span of a hydrogen atom. What if time is part of
natures balancing act? That would mean if it takes all those trillions
of years for the hydrogen atom to decay,it would take that same length
of time to create. The micro world must be so very old. I think its so
old that it fits with QM being so weird. A second in the macro realm
might relate to 1000,trillion years in the micro realm. In distances it
would be visa versa. It fits go figure Bert

In article , (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Tom K It has been observed the Moon lacks metals,and that is especially
true of "IRON" is that not plain enough? [...]

Isn't it plain enough to you that I and others have shown you that there
*is* iron in lunar rocks and its abundance is absolutely consistent with
the impact theory?

Why is it that you can't actually address the scientific evidence?

Tom I read in books Moon rocks are very simple,and lack metals and core
reading indicate no iron core for the Moon Go figure Bert