Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369426 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-09 01:04 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-11 16:44 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-09 01:04 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 01:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 06:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 07:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 11:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-09 21:07 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-09 11:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Open Collector <openc@opencollector.org> - 2015-11-09 20:53 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 06:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 09:48 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:45 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-09 16:28 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 06:45 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-11 15:57 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 15:04 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 10:00 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 15:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 17:44 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2015-11-11 11:35 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:05 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 18:20 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 19:07 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 00:19 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-11 20:54 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:02 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 08:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-09 18:49 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 18:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:37 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-10 18:37 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-10 19:24 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:06 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 11:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 12:28 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:13 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-10 15:21 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-11 21:03 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-12 09:29 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-12 20:40 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-12 18:59 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:58 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 12:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-13 15:30 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 15:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-13 18:54 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-13 13:05 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-13 18:50 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 00:33 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-14 16:49 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 19:34 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 18:43 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-14 19:59 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:17 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:15 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:54 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 13:23 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-15 21:20 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 17:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-17 21:51 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 12:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 19:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-18 09:24 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-20 17:01 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 12:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:03 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-20 21:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2015-11-22 11:04 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 18:15 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 19:40 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gatuzo <Gatuzo@gallaxial.com> - 2015-11-22 00:25 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-22 11:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:06 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 11:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-23 17:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:17 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:05 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:31 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-26 10:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-27 01:55 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 04:52 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 05:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 06:21 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-27 06:55 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 16:34 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 10:00 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:34 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Androcles Ghost<xx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:23 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 15:09 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 14:58 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:54 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-28 23:58 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:38 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-29 11:53 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-11-14 10:25 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 04:14 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 13:31 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 16:46 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-23 19:10 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-23 22:39 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 21:04 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-23 21:49 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 00:34 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 01:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 01:36 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 02:52 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 11:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 04:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 12:36 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 05:16 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 18:38 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-24 20:47 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 15:27 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 23:48 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-24 17:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 17:28 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 18:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-24 19:00 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-27 12:22 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-27 19:37 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-28 10:17 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 18:17 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-28 18:27 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 11:02 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-29 07:50 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 13:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 16:44 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 17:49 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-28 18:43 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 17:09 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 10:47 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-29 20:13 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 13:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:39 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-30 12:02 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-11-30 18:14 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-01 10:57 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:08 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 19:41 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-12-01 14:14 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:09 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-30 20:52 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 15:07 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-30 17:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 04:13 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-01 18:15 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-01 22:33 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-01 21:47 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 14:57 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 07:30 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 03:12 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:25 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 06:39 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 15:57 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 08:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 17:50 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:06 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 22:28 +0100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 14:25 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-03 16:20 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-03 08:23 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-02 12:10 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-02 16:21 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 10:25 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-11-11 18:56 +0000
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-10 17:51 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-09 22:36 -0600
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-10 00:40 -0500
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-09 23:38 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-10 01:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-11 09:16 +1100
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-10 18:37 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-11-11 02:53 -0800
Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ? alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-11 16:44 -0800
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b178cc57-038c-428b-ad44-bfefa005e20a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369674 |
Dear kefischer: On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:00:14 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:45:18 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote: ... > >... > >> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html > I read what he wrote wrong, the discussion > was about velocity with distance, and he switched > to age. This thread title is about "why" the Universe is the age reported, which no one can answer. It devolved into various methods of determining age (which is still perhaps on topic). So there are several possible methods of determining "how long ago the Big Bang occurred". And all of them in some sense, talk about "age". > When that happens, a person speaking > and changing the subject widely, I am not able > to understand what words he is saying, it may > be a more than average cognition problem, > but I think many people have. The current value of Hubble constant (red shift with distance / age) is NOT a constant over the entire history of the Universe. > This is a complex subject, a lot of > things have to be considered. Sure. But you still have to keep your eye on the ball... We are talking about the *age* of the Universe. Or should be... David A. Smith
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 18:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s5i74bps2hfl1u6l5tcn9n3mrmspkaoc2h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369692 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:35:01 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:
>Dear kefischer:
>
>On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:00:14 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 06:45:18 -0800 (PST), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>...
>> >...
>> >> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
>> I read what he wrote wrong, the discussion
>> was about velocity with distance, and he switched
>> to age.
>
>This thread title is about "why" the Universe is the age reported, which no one can answer. It devolved into various methods of determining age (which is still perhaps on topic). So there are several possible methods of determining "how long ago the Big Bang occurred". And all of them in some sense, talk about "age".
>
>> When that happens, a person speaking
>> and changing the subject widely, I am not able
>> to understand what words he is saying, it may
>> be a more than average cognition problem,
>> but I think many people have.
>
>The current value of Hubble constant (red shift with distance / age) is NOT a constant over the entire history of the Universe.
>
>> This is a complex subject, a lot of
>> things have to be considered.
>
>Sure. But you still have to keep your eye on the ball... We are talking about the *age* of the Universe. Or should be...
>
>David A. Smith
Obviously I did not read the link, but
that is because his writing has sunk in content
to a jumbled mess.
I am interested in the main sequence
studies, but I have questions about how the
amount of matter in a star is presumed or
calculated, I think some stars gain a great
deal of matter all through their life, and
that could make a big difference in the
elements and age estimates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n20i28$re3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369707 |
kefischer wrote: > I think some stars gain a great deal of matter all through their life, > and that could make a big difference in the elements and age estimates. No it doesn't. What falls into a star is matter already fused and divergent. There is nothing to fuse at it anymore. Therefore that matter is NOT part of a star. A star is only a star because is fusioning. If not fusioning that it must be something else, not a star.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 18:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v6j74blkr1msf2farcohtven4drbfdeer2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369710 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm
<ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>kefischer wrote:
>
>> I think some stars gain a great deal of matter all through their life,
>> and that could make a big difference in the elements and age estimates.
>
>No it doesn't. What falls into a star is matter already fused and
>divergent. There is nothing to fuse at it anymore. Therefore that matter
>is NOT part of a star. A star is only a star because is fusioning. If not
>fusioning that it must be something else, not a star.
Moron troll, why do you write about
things you know nothing about, change
your nym again, this one is too stupid
to even exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n20iqp$tuf$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369713 |
kefischer wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm > <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote: > >>kefischer wrote: >> >>> I think some stars gain a great deal of matter all through their life, >>> and that could make a big difference in the elements and age >>> estimates. >> >>No it doesn't. What falls into a star is matter already fused and >>divergent. There is nothing to fuse at it anymore. Therefore that matter >>is NOT part of a star. A star is only a star because is fusioning. If >>not fusioning that it must be something else, not a star. > > Moron troll, why do you write about > things you know nothing about, change your nym again, this one is too > stupid to even exist. I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried to be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a Sun is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 19:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d0m74b9hiqgahrpbfgdvlveev83i4ncfap@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369715 |
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:26:18 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm
<ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>kefischer wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:13 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm
>> <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>kefischer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think some stars gain a great deal of matter all through their life,
>>>> and that could make a big difference in the elements and age
>>>> estimates.
>>>
>>>No it doesn't. What falls into a star is matter already fused and
>>>divergent. There is nothing to fuse at it anymore. Therefore that matter
>>>is NOT part of a star. A star is only a star because is fusioning. If
>>>not fusioning that it must be something else, not a star.
>>
>> Moron troll, why do you write about
>> things you know nothing about, change your nym again, this one is too
>> stupid to even exist.
>
>I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried to
>be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a Sun
>is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and
>Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.
No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
have never been fused.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n20lul$45s$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369723 |
kefischer wrote: >>I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried >>to be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a >>Sun is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and >>Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter. > > No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes > have never been fused. Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun. You meant something completely else, apart from hydrogen or other ELEMENTARY particles. Elementary particles are not flying just like that through the Universe. I hope is right what I say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 20:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u2s74b58pd7g8fao9s78uifuva6b38uqhd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369729 |
On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:19:34 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm
<ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote:
>kefischer wrote:
>
>>>I never change my name. If you don't like it, not my business. I tried
>>>to be explicit, for you to understand that whatever matter falls into a
>>>Sun is NOT part of the Sun, since that matter is ALREADY fusioned (and
>>>Divergent). Admit your error and start learning Divergent Matter.
>>
>> No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes
>> have never been fused.
>
>Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun.
Nothing falls into the Sun, in the
Divergent Matter model, the surface
of the sun is pushing the solar atmosphere
outward at 500km/s, and colliding with
huge amounts of molecular matter
and some solids or gases.
>You meant something completely
>else, apart from hydrogen or other ELEMENTARY particles. Elementary
>particles are not flying just like that through the Universe. I hope is
>right what I say.
Change your nym, and STFU.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n22d63$hij$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369742 |
kefischer wrote: >>> No, moron troll, "hydrogen" molecules and isotopes >>> have never been fused. >> >>Hydrogen is rarely falling into a Sun. > > Nothing falls into the Sun, in the > Divergent Matter model, the surface of the sun is pushing the solar > atmosphere outward at 500km/s, and colliding with huge amounts of > molecular matter and some solids or gases. This only because you dont understand Divergent Matter, but primary you dont even understand what Divergent means. Which explain your errors and confusion you exhibit in this theory. You are lying as well, saying antecedently that hydrogen molecules are falling undigested into the Sun.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 08:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <83c212c6-3306-46f8-b279-95f82101bc6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369426 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 4:04:16 AM UTC-5, nero wrote: > ..why ? ..and only so Young ? The why has to do with red shift observations then projecting it backwards for a ball park guess of how many years old. I know you have objection to the interpretation of red shift so I understand your questioning of the universe's age. I am leaning towards the big bounce notion where the universe compressed will bounce back caused by energy density therefore a sort of oscillating universe. Then again where is intelligent life if the universe is for ever? At the end of the day we will never know for sure as no one was there when the BB happened.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c0d59171-4577-4320-a04d-ce6eccf40cbc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369426 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 5:04:16 PM UTC+8, nero wrote: > ..why ? ..and only so Young ? The universe is of an infinite age. About 14 billion years it acquired visibility via stars being able for the first time to emit radiation. Only from this point on we have knowledge of its existence and therefore we believe it is just as old as the emissions of the stars and other objects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 18:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <374dd291-cd77-4f56-b810-b56d8a8ed324@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369488 |
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 8:49:04 PM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 5:04:16 PM UTC+8, nero wrote: > > ..why ? ..and only so Young ? > > The universe is of an infinite age. About 14 billion years it acquired visibility via stars being able for the first time to emit radiation. Only from this point on we have knowledge of its existence and therefore we believe it is just as old as the emissions of the stars and other objects. There is no way to know this answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-09 22:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <s96dnfdUSYno6dzLnZ2dnUU7_8z_fwAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #369488 |
On 11/9/15 11/9/15 8:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > The universe is of an infinite age. What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > [... silly GUESS] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1tdhm$24u$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369499 |
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:37:09 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 8:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >> The universe is of an infinite age. > > What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > >> [... silly GUESS] Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves. Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size. Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a 'time interval'. Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very idea of limits does not apply to them at all. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1tg8i$8s8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #369567 |
Henry Wilson wrote: > Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very > idea of limits does not apply to them at all. This is a very strong statement to come up with. Any evidence that it is as you just said? No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 09:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <oaq44bddfgvai4s51q47174q63q1qesud4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369568 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:24:03 +0000 (UTC), Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> wrote: >Henry Wilson wrote: > >> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very >> idea of limits does not apply to them at all. > >This is a very strong statement to come up with. Any evidence that it is >as you just said? No. True, it is a strong statment becassue it is novel. Space doesn't actually exist, objects do. Objects possess lengths and those and the lengths between them define what we conceive as 3D space. No matter how many objects are added, space will accommodate them. A collection of objects defines a volume of 'space' but space itself is not a volume. It is nothing but a mathematical concept. Get it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 11:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56424B3D.5EF8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #369567 |
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:37:09 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 8:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> The universe is of an infinite age.
> >
> > What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
> >
> >
> >> [... silly GUESS]
>
> Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our
> experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves.
>
> Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have
> difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size.
>
> Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a
> 'time interval'.
>
> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very
> idea of limits does not apply to them at all.
In the beginning, (notice that the sentence begins with "In the begining")
God created the heavens and the earth.'
So, according to ancient science here, space which is part of the "heavens" had to have a beginning.
It was created...In the beginning.
Now, you can call the beginning, the beginning of Time.
by definition:
be·gin·ning
b?'giniNG/
noun
noun: beginning; plural noun: beginnings
1.
the point in time or space at which something starts.
https://www.google.com/#q=define+beginning
You're just one of those people of many here that uses words without understanding the meaning of the words.
Is that some kind of illness i'm not aware of????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 12:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79f68113-11cb-402e-a8cf-b356b92d0248@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369567 |
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 8:37:47 AM UTC-10, Henry Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:37:09 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 11/9/15 11/9/15 8:49 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >> The universe is of an infinite age. > > > > What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > > > > >> [... silly GUESS] > > Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our > experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves. > > Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have > difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size. > > Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a > 'time interval'. > > Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very > idea of limits does not apply to them at all. > > > > > Tom Roberts The beginning and end are swapping time and space, then a new inverted continuum expands forever. The matter has a purpose: swapping space for time. Space goes into matter, time comes out. That conserves continuum. The 13.8 billion year age is only from redshifted galaxies as far as viscosity allows. It is from a distance measurement. As gravity shrinks space and the the universe expands, the space is not replenished at the edge because of viscosity. That lack of replenished space prevents our seeing an infinite distance. It is opaque where viscosity disallows our observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 09:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <qmq44bd2ogfo1qgbcfh7vrk59d4jvi50l7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369575 |
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our >> experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves. >> >> Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have >> difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size. >> >> Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a >> 'time interval'. >> >> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very >> idea of limits does not apply to them at all. >> >> > >> > Tom Roberts > >The beginning and end are swapping time and space, then a new inverted continuum expands forever. The matter has a purpose: swapping space for time. Space goes into matter, time comes out. That conserves continuum. > >The 13.8 billion year age is only from redshifted galaxies as far as viscosity allows. It is from a distance measurement. As gravity shrinks space and the the universe expands, the space is not replenished at the edge because of viscosity. That lack of replenished space prevents our seeing an infinite >. It is opaque where viscosity disallows our observations. There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses INTRINSIC energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. The known universe is like a turbulent gas with whole galaxies being its 'atoms'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-10 15:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56427BFC.1B05@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #369584 |
HGW wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > >> Our psychological concept of both Space and Time is based on our > >> experience with their intervals rather than on the dimensions themselves. > >> > >> Spatial intervals have two ends. Time intervals have two ends. We have > >> difficulty in imagining intervals of infinite size. > >> > >> Just as SPACE itself is not a 'spatial interval', TIME itself is not a > >> 'time interval'. > >> > >> Like number, neither Space nor Time have a beginning or an end. The very > >> idea of limits does not apply to them at all. > >> > >> > > >> > Tom Roberts > > > >The beginning and end are swapping time and space, then a new inverted continuum > expands forever. The matter has a purpose: swapping space for time. Space goes > into matter, time comes out. That conserves continuum. > > > >The 13.8 billion year age is only from redshifted galaxies as far as viscosity allows. > It is from a distance measurement. As gravity shrinks space and the the > universe expands, the space is not replenished at the edge because of > viscosity. That lack of replenished space prevents our seeing an infinite >. It > is opaque where viscosity disallows our observations. > > There was no big bang. There are lots of little bangs. Light loses INTRINSIC > energy as it travels and that shows up as redshits. The known universe is like > a turbulent gas with whole galaxies being its 'atoms'. The little bangs are the result of the big bang.. maybe you need pictures: https://media.giphy.com/media/IjmMzurYulKEw/giphy.gif http://bestanimations.com/Holidays/Fireworks/fireworksanimation-13.gif http://its-the-simple-things.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fireworksAnimation1.gif
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web