| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 07:08:23 PM |
| Object: |
The oldest explosion in the universe |
The oldest explosion in the universe
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/3/6/1
8 March 2006
Astronomers have detected the most distant -- and therefore oldest --
gamma-ray burst ever. The burst, called GRB 050904, was observed last
September and is thought to have come from an explosion that happened
around 12.8 billion years ago, when the universe was just 7% of its
current age. The explosion released an intense flash of gamma rays that
has been measured by three independent teams of astronomers from the
US, Italy and Japan. The results -- reported in three papers in this
week's Nature -- could help shed more light on the dynamics of the
early universe.
See: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/3/6/1
.
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 11:27:33 AM |
|
|
The idiots dont understand hubble.
The visible unverse is not the whole universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 12:40:13 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29553-44130885-523@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
The idiots dont understand hubble.
The visible unverse is not the whole universe.
I hate it when I agree with you.
I still think you are slightly insane and living in a fantasy world. Being
correct this once doesn't change anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 11:54:14 AM |
|
|
We can't see the whole universe, therefore the big bang theory is just
an educated guess.
The theory has one big contradiction however: How can "something"
(heat, light and motion) come from "nothing" (completely dark, empty
and motionless)? If the pre-universe was completely cold and dark,
there must had been something (a power source) which caused the
"exploison". Otherwise we violate causality.
I think it was always there, all the light and plasma. That's my
logical conclusion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 12:02:49 PM |
|
|
"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message news:1142099654.501132.193320@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
We can't see the whole universe, therefore the big bang theory is just
an educated guess.
The theory has one big contradiction however: How can "something"
(heat, light and motion) come from "nothing" (completely dark, empty
and motionless)? If the pre-universe was completely cold and dark,
there must had been something (a power source) which caused the
"exploison". Otherwise we violate causality.
I think it was always there, all the light and plasma. That's my
logical conclusion.
A four dimensional universe cannot be described using only three
dimensions. The universe is not "something" that came from "nothing".
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 12:44:04 PM |
|
|
"John" <nospam@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dhEQf.3815$Bj7.2376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"uri" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1142099654.501132.193320@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
We can't see the whole universe, therefore the big bang theory is just
an educated guess.
The theory has one big contradiction however: How can "something"
(heat, light and motion) come from "nothing" (completely dark, empty
and motionless)? If the pre-universe was completely cold and dark,
there must had been something (a power source) which caused the
"exploison". Otherwise we violate causality.
I think it was always there, all the light and plasma. That's my
logical conclusion.
A four dimensional universe cannot be described using only three
dimensions. The universe is not "something" that came from "nothing".
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 12:46:43 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0TEQf.12062$Uc2.1072@fed1read04...
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
Why did it have to be a mass?
How can you describe a location of an event that happened before the
co-ordinates we have to use existed?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 01:15:35 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"John" <nospam@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dhEQf.3815$Bj7.2376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
First *YOU* have to prove that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang,
and that it involved a 'mass', and that there was such a thing as a
'place' before the Big Bang occurred.
Otherwise you are asking questions that exhibit the Presumptive
Philosophical Error of the Third Type - your question presumes a
circumstance the validity of which has not been established - and
probably never will be.
It's rather like asking "how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin?" when every good little Baptist knows dancing is a sin so angels
don't dance.
[FWIW, the three types of Presumptive Philosophical Error are:
(1) Asking a question (such as "does God exist?") which has a trivial
answer ("if you think so") which no one is willing to accept.
(2) Asking a question (such as "what am I?") the answer to which is
ever-changing, and which may even be changed in the effort to provide
the answer, and
(3) Asking a question (such as "why is there air?") which presumes a
circumstance (that the existence of air is the result of a decision
made by a reasoning being) the validity of which has not been
established.]
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 01:45:17 PM |
|
|
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1142104535.812548.84450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"John" <nospam@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dhEQf.3815$Bj7.2376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
First *YOU* have to prove that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang,
I have to "prove" a question to your theory? Must be a very nice place
where you live.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 01:56:14 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qMFQf.12074$Uc2.1838@fed1read04...
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1142104535.812548.84450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"John" <nospam@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dhEQf.3815$Bj7.2376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
First *YOU* have to prove that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang,
I have to "prove" a question to your theory? Must be a very nice place
where you live.
I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for the
big bang.
The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.
Are you asking others to prove your theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 02:03:59 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULidnaey8-L8to7ZRVnysg@pipex.net...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qMFQf.12074$Uc2.1838@fed1read04...
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1142104535.812548.84450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"John" <nospam@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dhEQf.3815$Bj7.2376@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>
What existed "before" the Big Bang, the question of causality etc are
all nonsensical questions, because space *and time* are two aspects
of the same thing. *Both* were created in the BB.
If that is true, where was the mass that caused the big bang?
First *YOU* have to prove that there *was* a 'cause' for the Big Bang,
I have to "prove" a question to your theory? Must be a very nice place
where you live.
I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for the
big bang.
The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.
Are you asking others to prove your theory?
It's not my theory, it's the theroy of the Big bang. Perhaps you should
read up on it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 03:25:02 PM |
|
|
On Saturday 11 March 2006 20:03, Billy decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<X1GQf.12079$Uc2.5381@fed1read04>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULidnaey8-L8to7ZRVnysg@pipex.net...
I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for the
big bang.
The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.
Are you asking others to prove your theory?
It's not my theory, it's the theroy of the Big bang. Perhaps you should
read up on it.
Did I miss the bit where it had a cause?
Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed and
required a causal agent?
I would love to learn more from you.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 04:09:06 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXRxw8Wt3Y7ZRVny0A@pipex.net...
On Saturday 11 March 2006 20:03, Billy decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<X1GQf.12079$Uc2.5381@fed1read04>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULidnaey8-L8to7ZRVnysg@pipex.net...
I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for
the
big bang.
The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.
Are you asking others to prove your theory?
It's not my theory, it's the theroy of the Big bang. Perhaps you should
read up on it.
Did I miss the bit where it had a cause?
Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed and
required a causal agent?
I would love to learn more from you.
1st thing you will learn from me is "Don't come to class without doing your
homework"
No accepted theory suggest the Bang made the matter, just distributed it.
Unless you are prepaid to show otherwise, class is dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 04:29:32 PM |
|
|
On Saturday 11 March 2006 22:09, Billy decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<eTHQf.12099$Uc2.8082@fed1read04>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXRxw8Wt3Y7ZRVny0A@pipex.net...
Did I miss the bit where it had a cause?
Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed
and required a causal agent?
I would love to learn more from you.
1st thing you will learn from me is "Don't come to class without doing
your homework"
No accepted theory suggest the Bang made the matter, just distributed it.
Unless you are prepaid to show otherwise, class is dismissed.
No the first thing I learned from you is that a spell checker is not always
worth using.
Critically, you are demanding an explanation of something that can not be
explained. The terminology used to discuss the location and nature of the
matter which (if it did at all) existed before the big bang only came into
being with the big bang and are therfore meaningless at t<0.
As a side note, when you say matter can I assume you mean "energy?" Without
getting into a pedantic debate, it makes life easier if we are using terms
the other one understands.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
11 Mar 2006 09:00:39 PM |
|
|
Who created God =BF
God was not created.
creation is a elolution product.
Your created by a chain of events.
God did not evolve .
God did not grow up but god feals and learns .
This universe of we can see a small part is all a small amount of
energy invested.
100 % of the energy anywhere and evrywhere in th real iniverse was
converted from Gods active force.
This universe sits on Gods finger in time.
wile you record all you know on evry carbon atom that is on its way to
the black hole to change from a thermal state to a clear state.
140 planets with people like us will fall into this bh wit us.
600 walks of man ,,hobits and giants too.
cave man was a holographic life form too.
Then God can stand at the helm of the ship I biiult.
all things and all times.
th second you die ,,4 billion years went past.
evry atom of carbon you left behind is all you ever knew.
heaven wount exsist without us.
jesus is beside me .
he recorded on carbon his dna copied and he passed on his blood so dna
would copie his carbon onto your carbon via your dna .
when will he come ??
he never left you
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 10:26:47 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXRxw8Wt3Y7ZRVny0A@pipex.net...
On Saturday 11 March 2006 20:03, Billy decided it was time and wrote in
sci.physics (<X1GQf.12079$Uc2.5381@fed1read04>):
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ULidnaey8-L8to7ZRVnysg@pipex.net...
I have never seen tadchem espouse a theory which required a cause for
the
big bang.
The theory that is was caused, and caused by mass, is your theory.
Are you asking others to prove your theory?
It's not my theory, it's the theroy of the Big bang. Perhaps you should
read up on it.
Did I miss the bit where it had a cause?
Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed and
required a causal agent?
I would love to learn more from you.
I would be supprised if you could point to one that doesn't. Do google of
primeval atom.
The widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe is the Big Bang
Theory. In 1948, George Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a
gigantic explosion of the primeval atom and that the various elements
observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the big
bang. At that time, the temperature that ranged somewhere near 10 billion
degrees helped fuse subatomic particles into what we now know of as the
chemical elements.
The extremly high density within the primeval atom would cause the universe
to expand at near light-speed. As this matter expanded, the hydrogen and
helium would cool and condense into what would later become the stars. This
would explain the expansion of the universe and the physical basis of
Hubble's law. The original explosion propelled them away from each other,
and they have continued doing so, all the while slowing down.
This presents some interesting possibilities. When the velocity of the
galaxies reaches zero, will they start pulling in towards the center of the
universe, to once again combine into the primeval atom, where it will then
explode again? Is our universe then only one in an endless chain of
universes? Or will the galaxies continue to move away from each other
forever? Might they stop moving after a while, and just stay motionless?
These questions and more have to be answered before the Big Bang Theory can
be accepted as the truth, but we may never truly know for sure.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25815/bigbang.html
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 11:27:44 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hkgSf.12552$Uc2.6409@fed1read04...
"T Wake" <taswakeAT@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ONOdnXRxw8Wt3Y7ZRVny0A@pipex.net...
Can you point me in the direction of where the accepted theory (not the
coffee table pop-science book versions) dictates that the mass existed
and
required a causal agent?
I would love to learn more from you.
I would be supprised if you could point to one that doesn't. Do google of
primeval atom.
Well, this is interesting yet mainly points to the existance of the
"primeval atom" at t=0. I would be interested to see a peer reviewed article
which asserts what existed before that point. Do you know of any?
The widely accepted theory of the creation of the universe is the Big Bang
Theory. In 1948, George Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a
gigantic explosion of the primeval atom and that the various elements
observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the big
bang.
We now know that most of the elements we see today have been produced
significantly longer after the big bang.
IIRC from my days in university, the early universe (up to around t=100
seconds) was "pure energy" and only then did the particles with mass form.
The development of heavy elements came a lot later. (Again IIRC) It is (or
at least was) taught that atoms were formed around 300000 years after t=0.
At that time, the temperature that ranged somewhere near 10 billion
degrees helped fuse subatomic particles into what we now know of as the
chemical elements.
1x10^11 K is not *that* fantastic a temperature although it is probably hot
enough to prevent nucleaons forming. IIRC the current BB model has a t=0
temperature in excess of 1x10^32 K.
I am not trying to be overly pedantic here but it is important that we are
debating from a common ground. Your post implies that the 1x10^11 K
temperature was required to fuse sub-atomic particles into elements.
Assuming you meant electrons and protons when you say sub-atomic particles,
increasing the temperature allows them to escape the bonds which form
atoms - now my exact recollections are a bit sketchy so if required I will
look it up later - and I seem to recall that when the temperature is over
about 1x10^8 K the nucleons will be able to escape the nuclei and even
hydrogen atoms cant form.
Hopefully some one will be able to either correct or confirm this.
The extremly high density within the primeval atom would cause the
universe to expand at near light-speed. As this matter expanded, the
hydrogen and helium would cool and condense into what would later become
the stars. This would explain the expansion of the universe and the
physical basis of Hubble's law. The original explosion propelled them away
from each other, and they have continued doing so, all the while slowing
down.
Again, very interesting yet it is not completely in line with the current
observations.
I haven't seen any data which indicates that the rate of cosmological
expansion is reducing.
This presents some interesting possibilities. When the velocity of the
galaxies reaches zero, will they start pulling in towards the center of
the universe, to once again combine into the primeval atom, where it will
then explode again? Is our universe then only one in an endless chain of
universes? Or will the galaxies continue to move away from each other
forever? Might they stop moving after a while, and just stay motionless?
These questions and more have to be answered before the Big Bang Theory
can be accepted as the truth, but we may never truly know for sure.
It is possible the "big bang" theory (or in fact any t=0 event theory) will
never be able to be accepted as "the truth." In fact, in science most
"truths" are later found to be a subset of the larger picture which only
becomes clear as knowledge and technology advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 12:12:16 PM |
|
|
Scripsit "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
1x10^11 K is not *that* fantastic a temperature although it is probably hot
enough to prevent nucleaons forming. IIRC the current BB model has a t=0
temperature in excess of 1x10^32 K.
For t=0 exactly, oughtn't the temperature go towards infinity?
I haven't seen any data which indicates that the rate of cosmological
expansion is reducing.
Probably the author is from back when the cosmological constant was
assumed to be zero and the Hubble constant therfore necessarily
decreasing over time.
--
Henning Makholm "In my opinion, this child don't
need to have his head shrunk at all."
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 12:46:39 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 18:12, Henning Makholm (henning@makholm.net)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<87wteuxnr3.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>):
Scripsit "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
1x10^11 K is not *that* fantastic a temperature although it is probably
hot enough to prevent nucleaons forming. IIRC the current BB model has a
t=0 temperature in excess of 1x10^32 K.
For t=0 exactly, oughtn't the temperature go towards infinity?
Very probably.
I should correct myself to t~1x10^-44 or something :-)
This is the difficulty with any theory which pertains to the environment
around t=0.
I haven't seen any data which indicates that the rate of cosmological
expansion is reducing.
Probably the author is from back when the cosmological constant was
assumed to be zero and the Hubble constant therfore necessarily
decreasing over time.
True.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 01:05:43 PM |
|
|
This is stupid.
There was NO BB inside this visible universe.
This visible universe is as far as we can see and thats not far.
Dark Energy is the photons from outside this visible unverse at c with
NO wavelength.
Energy under presure.
A star at the edge of this viisible unverse is near c and 14 billion
light years away .
It was where we see it 14 billion years ago.
But now its far out of this visible universe .
BUT the point a photon left it dont move .
We are going twards that point .
Time is the rate energyreacts with energy c.
boath inside and outside this visible universe.
Time colided with time .
Our time is limited to wavelength or no reaction above or below other
then G.
G is the void of ep as dark energy closes in behind a partical in
motion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 01:34:54 PM |
|
|
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:05, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<25483-4419B707-1179@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>):
This is stupid.
No. You are stupid.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 01:37:59 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:05, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<25483-4419B707-1179@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>):
This is stupid.
No. You are stupid.
Yeah? Well it's *opposite day*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 02:31:34 PM |
|
|
"QCD Apprentice" <qcd.apprentice@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dvceqm$7pj$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
T Wake wrote:
On Thursday 16 March 2006 19:05, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net)
procrastinated for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<25483-4419B707-1179@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net>):
This is stupid.
No. You are stupid.
Yeah? Well it's *opposite day*.
LOL
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 02:01:25 PM |
|
|
So then Where is that star we see near the edge of this visible
universe now =BF
wake you dumbfuck ...
It was at the edge of the hubble max 14 billion years ago where we saw
it but where is it now ?
Its outside this visible universe .
BUT STILL SHINES .
The mass in this universe is in a plane wave.
Its a flat universe we see ..
time colided with time.
There was NO BB INSIDE THIS VISIBLE UNIVERSE .
Thats too much mass for light to excape much less all this mass.
besides the fact the relitive speed from star to star is 0.02 c.
c is constant inside and outside .
Your a dumbfuck wake ..so how would you understand it ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 02:32:15 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25483-4419C415-1182@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
So then Where is that star we see near the edge of this visible
universe now ¿
Its over there. ----->
wake you dumbfuck ...
tj you illiterate moron, go away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 05:51:25 PM |
|
|
Where is it now dumbass !
Its NOT in this visible universe .
The photons are.
Morons dont understand whats inside this visible universe much less
whats outside it.
We are at the edge of its universe.
where are we now !!
WE are going twards the point it ejected photons because that point
dont move even if the star is fatser then c wrt us.
SO we passed the photon at c that was at c.
but has no wavelength.
ep is dark energy our time wount react with but will displace .
c is gods active force evrywhere inside and outside the visible
universe.
c is the only rate energy reacts .
it cant be made any simpler and yet your still too stupid to undrstand
...
The star near the edge of hubble max visible universe we see now was
there 14 billion years ago and is outsde this visible universe now .
THE BB DID NOT TAKE PLACE INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE .
The universe is as old as dark energy .
Dark energy colides at some point evrywhere at some point.
TIME COLIDES WITH TIME equals mass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 06:21:28 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25483-4419F9FD-1255@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
Where is it now dumbass !
Look, child, when adults are talking you can keep out of it.
Remember your saying "ter stupfid" applies to you, more than anyone else.
(by the way, do you hang out with Spaceman?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 09:13:41 PM |
|
|
***** you wake ..your nothing but a cheep dumbfuck .
You dont understand a fucking thing because your IQ is too small to
comprehend it.
MAKE ME
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
17 Mar 2006 12:06:04 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29553-441A2965-1316@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
***** you wake ..your nothing but a cheep dumbfuck .
And you are an illiterate buffoon.
You dont understand a fucking thing because your IQ is too small to
comprehend it.
MAKE ME
Make you what, retard?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
16 Mar 2006 09:16:27 PM |
|
|
TELL US WHAT DARK ENERGY IS JACKASS WAKE .
ienstien told us ,,not that many people have the iq to understand
anything he or I said
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The oldest explosion in the universe |
17 Mar 2006 12:09:03 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29553-441A2A0B-1317@storefull-3211.bay.webtv.net...
TELL US WHAT DARK ENERGY IS JACKASS WAKE .
ienstien told us ,,not that many people have the iq to understand
anything he or I said
Well, as you are functionally illiterate I am impressed you think of
yourself in the same category as Einstein.
The reality of it is, though, you are just a retard with a WebTV and
inadequate parental supervision.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
