| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
28 May 2004 06:26:51 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 11:04:42 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> announced:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
....and there's less than a month to slim down before the wedding!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Hartman" |
|
| Title: Re: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 11:56:41 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Noelie S. Alito wrote:
| "Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> announced:
|
|>The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say astronomers.
|>
|>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
|>for details.
|
|
| ...and there's less than a month to slim down before the wedding!
|
|
In my mind, this raises an interesting question: The standard
creationist view seems to be that God created Earth at the same time as
the rest of the universe. Are there, however, any creationists that
believe that the universe is old, but the earth is young (i.e., that the
~ universe was created ~ 156 billion years ago, but that God only got
around to creating the earth 6000 years ago)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAuhSG1O8SCngk1kQRAuGhAJwLd8HW9F14JbeFg1brFTs1tl/+1wCgjMiX
uz8xRRzOJhemTs+1qNeHXjk=
=8Tpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 11:47:02 PM |
|
|
Noelie S. Alito <noelie@deadspam.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> announced:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
...and there's less than a month to slim down before the wedding!
It's really hard to get a size 156billion bridesmaid dress. But at least
it settles one thing - the universe is a Broad...
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au
a little emptier, a little spent
as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 03:15:18 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide,
say astronomers.
Awful news, considering the price of gas these days.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Walking on Glass" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 07:32:28 PM |
|
|
And it came to pass that Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> did
write in alt.atheism, news:1v8eb0hnfr5sora2a6qnr14od01j574b3t@4ax.com:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
Lets hope Shrub doesn't hear of this! That's a *lot* more space to hide
WMD's in 8-)
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
29 May 2004 02:27:51 AM |
|
|
In article <1v8eb0hnfr5sora2a6qnr14od01j574b3t@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 08:01:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 12:37:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:01:26 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
--
Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 03:11:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:37:33 +0000 (UTC), Severian
<severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:01:26 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
31 May 2004 12:03:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:37:33 +0000 (UTC), Severian
<severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:01:26 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
As I said, any *possible* idea, not some arbitrary nonsense that you
choose to believe because you don't know any better.
--
Sev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SkArcher" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 03:16:39 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:37:33 +0000 (UTC), Severian
<severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:01:26 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
acknowledging the non-existence of god and taking responsibility for your
own actions?
--
SkArcher - A.A#590
Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information
available. - Benford's law of controversy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 05:31:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC), SkArcher <SkArcher@Viking.Breakfast.Spam> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
acknowledging the non-existence of god and taking responsibility for your
own actions?
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists basis all
evidence.
As far as taking responsibility for my own actions, I'm clearly called to that as a
Christian.
What are you getting at?
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 07:39:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 May 2004 22:31:23 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC), SkArcher <SkArcher@Viking.Breakfast.Spam> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
acknowledging the non-existence of god and taking responsibility for your
own actions?
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists basis all
evidence.
That isn't even English.
As far as taking responsibility for my own actions, I'm clearly called to that as a
Christian.
What are you getting at?
Exodus 20:16
--
Replace nospam with group to email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 09:43:30 PM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nvvkb0ph3k171v9vetav4do4tl11paqsvh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 22:31:23 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC), SkArcher
<SkArcher@Viking.Breakfast.Spam> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming
"See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
acknowledging the non-existence of god and taking responsibility for
your
own actions?
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists
basis all
evidence.
That isn't even English.
Asking Earl for evidence is like asking a 10 year old about sex. He may know
the words but does not understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ethan Rogati" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 09:59:06 PM |
|
|
In article <Q5xuc.12998$_k3.301661@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nvvkb0ph3k171v9vetav4do4tl11paqsvh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 22:31:23 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC), SkArcher
<SkArcher@Viking.Breakfast.Spam> wrote:
On Sun, 30 May 2004 20:11:15 +0000 (UTC), duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming
"See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Nearly any possible idea is better.
Like what?
acknowledging the non-existence of god and taking responsibility for
your
own actions?
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists
basis all
evidence.
That isn't even English.
Asking Earl for evidence is like asking a 10 year old about sex. He may know
the words but does not understand.
I don't know; kids are growing up awfully fast these days.
--
Ethan Rogati
edr2442@earthlink.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
31 May 2004 05:37:39 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 02:43:30 +0000 (UTC), "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists
basis all
evidence.
That isn't even English.
Asking Earl for evidence is like asking a 10 year old about sex. He may know
the words but does not understand.
Aw, mikey, shirley you can do better than that. You don't even address his comment here.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
31 May 2004 05:35:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:39:52 +0000 (UTC), Jon Fleming <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
Why would I acknowledge the non-existence of God when he clearly exists basis all
evidence.
That isn't even English.
And you understood.
As far as taking responsibility for my own actions, I'm clearly called to that as a
Christian.
What are you getting at?
Exodus 20:16
Do you know what it says?
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
31 May 2004 10:16:28 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:i3njb0tejird9jrja20qujejgdvh2io62s@4ax.com:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming
"See! Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Then giving up and pulling an uncreative and completely imaginary story out
of my *****?
Damn, duke. If you need an answer to that one...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
01 Jun 2004 12:17:47 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 03:16:28 +0000 (UTC), Eric Gill
<ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:i3njb0tejird9jrja20qujejgdvh2io62s@4ax.com:
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for
the fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming
"See! Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
Then giving up and pulling an uncreative and completely imaginary story out
of my *****?
Damn, duke. If you need an answer to that one...
Duke's "reasoning" says that, since nobody knows everything about
existence, his god did it all.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theda" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
31 May 2004 10:58:10 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<i3njb0tejird9jrja20qujejgdvh2io62s@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 29 May 2004 07:27:51 +0000 (UTC), johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
Fascinating, if a little bit confusing. Of course, I'm waiting for the
fundies to jump on this one, waving their Babbles and screaming "See!
Goddidit!" at the tops of their lungs.
Have you got a better idea?
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
Are you listening to yourself? What kind of religion IS this? A
buncha freakin cannibals? Mmmm, slurp slurp.
Love,
Theda
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
29 May 2004 04:31:28 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> thought hard and said:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
<pseudo intellectual fundie mode>
One plus five equals six. Six is Satan's number. Sixty-six doubly so.
This is proof that Satan is toying with you heathen atheist scientist
folk!
</end>
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 04:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
And I still can't find a parking space.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
28 May 2004 08:52:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 21:39:00 +0000, Thomas P. wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm for details.
And I still can't find a parking space.
Oh, there's plenty -- there just a long way from where you want to go.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
29 May 2004 05:38:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
For some reason, I had always assumed astronomical distances were
already corrected for red-shift time dilation (meaning the travel time
would be much shorter than the distances given). I'm surprised that
is not the case.
From the article:
"What it means is that the starting point of a particle of light, a
photon, reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is
now 78 billion light-years away.
And that is the radius of the Universe."
So what happened to the photons that were radiated from that distant
starting point in a direction opposite from us? Did they fall off the
edge of the universe? If they didn't, their reasoning would seem to
argue for a universe that is 312 billion light years across--or
rather, at least that far across, since, even within Bang cosmology,
it would presumably be the case that there remains a great deal of
universe beyond our visible horizon.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noelie S. Alito" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 08:49:58 AM |
|
|
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
For some reason, I had always assumed astronomical distances were
already corrected for red-shift time dilation (meaning the travel time
would be much shorter than the distances given). I'm surprised that
is not the case.
From the article:
"What it means is that the starting point of a particle of light, a
photon, reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is
now 78 billion light-years away.
And that is the radius of the Universe."
So what happened to the photons that were radiated from that distant
starting point in a direction opposite from us? Did they fall off the
edge of the universe? If they didn't, their reasoning would seem to
argue for a universe that is 312 billion light years across--or
rather, at least that far across, since, even within Bang cosmology,
it would presumably be the case that there remains a great deal of
universe beyond our visible horizon.
There's a photon gutter around the universe. If it gets blocked up,
there'll be photon spillage and a whole lot of finger-pointing.
Noelie
--
Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and
less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there
are no solids in the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a solid.
There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are
no straight lines. --R. Buckminster Fuller
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 10:13:52 PM |
|
|
Kronk wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
For some reason, I had always assumed astronomical distances were
already corrected for red-shift time dilation (meaning the travel time
would be much shorter than the distances given). I'm surprised that
is not the case.
From the article:
"What it means is that the starting point of a particle of light, a
photon, reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is
now 78 billion light-years away.
And that is the radius of the Universe."
So what happened to the photons that were radiated from that distant
starting point in a direction opposite from us? Did they fall off the
edge of the universe?
If a photon is emitted way out there in a direction opposite from us,
and there is no one around to see it, did it make a light?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 11:54:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:13:52 +0000, dkomo wrote:
Kronk wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm for details.
For some reason, I had always assumed astronomical distances were
already corrected for red-shift time dilation (meaning the travel time
would be much shorter than the distances given). I'm surprised that is
not the case.
From the article:
"What it means is that the starting point of a particle of light, a
photon, reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is now
78 billion light-years away.
And that is the radius of the Universe."
So what happened to the photons that were radiated from that distant
starting point in a direction opposite from us? Did they fall off the
edge of the universe?
If a photon is emitted way out there in a direction opposite from us, and
there is no one around to see it, did it make a light?
--dkomo@cris.com
Depends on whether or not we observe its "twin" particle....
--
In the Beginning, was the Command Line...
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dkomo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
30 May 2004 10:13:04 PM |
|
|
Kronk wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
For some reason, I had always assumed astronomical distances were
already corrected for red-shift time dilation (meaning the travel time
would be much shorter than the distances given). I'm surprised that
is not the case.
From the article:
"What it means is that the starting point of a particle of light, a
photon, reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is
now 78 billion light-years away.
And that is the radius of the Universe."
So what happened to the photons that were radiated from that distant
starting point in a direction opposite from us? Did they fall off the
edge of the universe? If they didn't, their reasoning would seem to
argue for a universe that is 312 billion light years across--or
rather, at least that far across, since, even within Bang cosmology,
it would presumably be the case that there remains a great deal of
universe beyond our visible horizon.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Thomas Grisham" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
01 Jun 2004 12:35:41 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<1v8eb0hnfr5sora2a6qnr14od01j574b3t@4ax.com>...
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
Yes, but when I said that last year...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1e9d6178.0306220958.181a874%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dauthor%253Ajgrisham%40scu.k12.ca.us%2B%252Buniverse%2B%252Blight%26btnG%3DSearch
Oh! Ye of little faith!
JTG 6/1/04
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Astronomers size up the Universe |
01 Jun 2004 01:57:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:35:41 +0000 (UTC), (John
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<1v8eb0hnfr5sora2a6qnr14od01j574b3t@4ax.com>...
The Universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide, say
astronomers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm
for details.
Yes, but when I said that last year...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1e9d6178.0306220958.181a874%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26q%3Dauthor%253Ajgrisham%40scu.k12.ca.us%2B%252Buniverse%2B%252Blight%26btnG%3DSearch
Oh! Ye of little faith!
JTG 6/1/04
In that link, you say you have heard of evidence of a star 158 billion
light years away.
1) That is not the same thing as Dr. Cornish is saying.
2) A cite for where you heard of such evidence would be helpful in
examining the credibility of the source.
and 3) Even if you are right that there are stars that far away, you
only get credit for being right if you are right for independently
verifiable and rational reasons.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
