 |
Ummm. Bare shoulders and Ph.D. astronomy . . . I'm guessing this gal is the gal to take to the next science fiction convention that's up . . . |
Posted on 08/07/2006 1:55:19 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I'm not complaining, but this is not the first posting of this story. You can find a long discussion of it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1677257/posts
A search for "universe" turns it up.
/joke
Thanks for the link.
How can infinity get bigger?
Maybe this thread can stay on the trail. The other one sure wandered off into the deep bog very quickly.
|
Ummm. Bare shoulders and Ph.D. astronomy . . . I'm guessing this gal is the gal to take to the next science fiction convention that's up . . . |
"It's a great big universe, and we're all really puny / We're just tiny little specs about the size of Mickey Rooney"
So bascially scientists are coming up with new terms to say "It's a big a$$ed universe out there"
A better headline might be:
People Who Think They Can Determine the Size and Age of the Universe Fooling Selves, Few Others
If a finite dimension is placed on the universe, doesn't that imply a boundary and by implication something beyond that boundary? Or, presuming the universe curves back on itself, are they just saying if you head off in any direction, you'll get back to where you started after traveling 180 billion L.Y.'s?
it only makes sense that infinite expansion leads to infinite contraction back to another "big bang" and it starts up all over again.
This weeks theory. I'll check in next week to see what's new.
Well, this news screws up a lot of my plans.
"it only makes sense that infinite expansion leads to infinite contraction back to another "big bang" and it starts up all over again."
And that's sort of the Hindu cosmology concept. The universe is created again and again. Who knows? Maybe the Hindus are right?
Is your deity the right deity? That's always the question, eh. If the Hindus are right, it's going to be a crowded world of insects and worms. They's gonna be some reincarnation surprises, doncha know.
"This weeks theory. I'll check in next week to see what's new."
Well, this isn't really a new theory. It's new information to inform the current theory. There is a difference, you know.
Should read - (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang - which we are pretty sure happened, and if it did, likely involved radiation, which we are reasonable sure must have had a certain starting level, and we believe must currently (and for the past several billion years) decay at a certain fixed rate.)
Can someone explain this problem?
1. The speed of light is suppose to be a constant at 299,792,458 m/s.
2. The size of the universe is suppose to be billions of light years across.
3. The universe is suppose to have expanded to close to its present size during the 'Big Bang' in a fraction of a second.
It doesn't add up.
Hmm. The trail appears fresh and still somewhat undisturbed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.