Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370574 > unrolled thread

Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#370574 — Re: Why is the universe 13.8 milliards years old ?

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:31:58 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ab3af400-55b7-4894-8cc1-288a041d0ba8@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient 
> galaxies?
> |Is the universe conspiring against him, too?
> 
> According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own
> point of view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does
> it, poor idiot?

I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is a miracle.  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a privilege.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#370720

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:

> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:31:58 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak
>
>> 
>> According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own point of
>> view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does it, poor idiot?
> 
> I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is
> a miracle.  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> privilege.

This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote 
space, everything is black...or nearly. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370749

Henry Wilson wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
>> […]  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
>> privilege.
> 
> This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
> space, everything is black...or nearly.

Another common misconception.  Actually, light is everywhere in the 
universe, and photons range among the most frequent particles, but it is not 
everywhere in wavelengths that human eyes can see.  Where the human eye sees 
only blackness, there are usually only infrared light, microwaves, or radio 
waves.

Most well-known, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the 
“afterglow” of the Big Bang) permeates the universe; its maxima are between 
those of infrared light and radio waves.  And it is in fact relativistic 
redshift that makes very distant objects (“remote space”) detectable only 
using devices of specialized branches of astronomy.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Astronomy>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_astronomy>


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370768

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
> >> […]  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> >> privilege.
> >
> > This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
> > space, everything is black...or nearly.
> 
> Another common misconception.  Actually, light is everywhere in the
> universe, and photons range among the most frequent particles, but it is not
> everywhere in wavelengths that human eyes can see.  Where the human eye sees
> only blackness, there are usually only infrared light, microwaves, or radio
> waves.
> 
> Most well-known, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the
> “afterglow” of the Big Bang) permeates the universe; its maxima are between
> those of infrared light and radio waves.  And it is in fact relativistic
> redshift that makes very distant objects (“remote space”) detectable only
> using devices of specialized branches of astronomy.


There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..

a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..

the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
first to go.


so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
of expansion..
it's just a fading star.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370769

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..
> 
> a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..
> 
> the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
> first to go.
> 
> 
> so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
> of expansion..
> it's just a fading star.

Are you a complete idiot, or just a partial idiot? You are just making this up as you go along, with your silly ramblings refuted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why do you bother? Every time you type something on your keyboard you just reveal your ineptitude...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370775

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..
> >
> > a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..
> >
> > the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
> > first to go.
> >
> >
> > so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
> > of expansion..
> > it's just a fading star.
> 
> Are you a complete idiot, or just a partial idiot? You are just making this up as you go along, with your silly ramblings refuted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Why do you bother? Every time you type something on your keyboard you just reveal your ineptitude...


It's just  a Hubble theory...it's based on a theory, it's not correct, it's nonsense.


'It appears' to moving away...the stars, the galaxies...it's just older stars and galaxies just fade off it's red first.


Come back a thousand years and you'll find I'm correct.


The Starmaker




and the age of the universe is determined by 'when' you ask the question.

Ask the question 500 years ago, and you get a different answer. Ask another few hundred years...and you get 
a different answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370778

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:04:36 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..
> > >
> > > a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..
> > >
> > > the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
> > > first to go.
> > >
> > >
> > > so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
> > > of expansion..
> > > it's just a fading star.
> >
> > Are you a complete idiot, or just a partial idiot? You are just making this up as you go along, with your silly ramblings refuted by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > Why do you bother? Every time you type something on your keyboard you just reveal your ineptitude...
> 
> It's just  a Hubble theory...it's based on a theory, it's not correct, it's nonsense.
> 
> 'It appears' to moving away...the stars, the galaxies...it's just older stars and galaxies just fade off it's red first.
> 
> Come back a thousand years and you'll find I'm correct.
> 
> The Starmaker
> 
> and the age of the universe is determined by 'when' you ask the question.
> 
> Ask the question 500 years ago, and you get a different answer. Ask another few hundred years...and you get
> a different answer.


It's not my fault yous people accept all these theories as...actual facts, which they are not.


Get real!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370780

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 09:34:05 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:

> It's just  a Hubble theory...it's based on a theory, it's not correct, it's nonsense.


Well, theory relativistic estimations of the age of 
the Universe are based on, assumes very clearly, that 
there is nothing we could call "the age of the Universe".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370782

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 09:34:05 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker
> napisał:

Attribution line, not attribution novel.

>> It's just  a Hubble theory...it's based on a theory, it's not correct,
>> it's nonsense.
> 
> 
> Well, theory relativistic estimations of the age of
> the Universe are based on, assumes very clearly, that
> there is nothing we could call "the age of the Universe".

Not even wrong.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370783

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 11:26:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 09:34:05 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker
> > napisał:
> 
> Attribution line, not attribution novel.
> 
> >> It's just  a Hubble theory...it's based on a theory, it's not correct,
> >> it's nonsense.
> > 
> > 
> > Well, theory relativistic estimations of the age of
> > the Universe are based on, assumes very clearly, that
> > there is nothing we could call "the age of the Universe".
> 
> Not even wrong.

Relativistc moron really doesn't like to be
reminded about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370785

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 11:26:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>> > Well, theory relativistic estimations of the age of
>> > the Universe are based on, assumes very clearly, that
>> > there is nothing we could call "the age of the Universe".
>> 
>> Not even wrong.
> 
> Relativistc moron really doesn't like to be
> reminded about it.

If only you knew what a *gibberish* you are posting.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370788

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 12:48:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 11:26:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas
> > 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> >> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >> > Well, theory relativistic estimations of the age of
> >> > the Universe are based on, assumes very clearly, that
> >> > there is nothing we could call "the age of the Universe".
> >> 
> >> Not even wrong.
> > 
> > Relativistc moron really doesn't like to be
> > reminded about it.
> 
> If only you knew what a *gibberish* you are posting.

:)
Unfortunately, you can't explain. You can only 
yell and make an idiot of yourself. 
As expected from a relativistic moron.

There is NOTHING behind your wise faces. Your 
moronic, pseudowise  mumble is nothing more, 
than a simple moronic, pseudowise mumble.
And your Shit isn't even consistent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370791

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> Unfortunately, you can't explain. […]

There is nothing that could be explained to you.  You are posting only
incoherent nonsense.  Should you ever get past that stage it might be
worthwhile to discuss your ideas, which unfortunately so far are all
misconceptions (about relativity, and physics in general).  Then you would
also be in a position to have the chance to understand (my) explanations.

Until then, the best advice that you can be given is either to take courses
in English or to communicate in a language that you actually speak.  This is
an international newsgroup after all, so it is OK to post in your native
language instead.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370794

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 13:36:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately, you can't explain. […]
> 
> There is nothing that could be explained to you.

So you can only make an idiot of yourself
with yelling and posting incoherent nonsenses.
As expected from a relativistic moron.

>  Then you would
> also be in a position to have the chance to understand (my) explanations.

There is NOTHING behind your wise faces. Your
moronic, pseudowise  mumble is nothing more,
than a simple moronic, pseudowise mumble.
And your Shit isn't even consistent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370804

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, you can't explain. […]
>> There is nothing that could be explained to you.
> 
> So you can only make an idiot of yourself […]

No, you see, there is just nothing that could be explained *to you* at this
early point in your learning curve.  You have to pass by yourself the point
where you want to learn (first English, then physics).


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370810

Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5654AEA0.8060404@PointedEars.de...

mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
>> mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, you can't explain. […]
>> There is nothing that could be explained to you.
>
> So you can only make an idiot of yourself […]

|No, you see, there is just nothing that could be explained *to you* at this

Yes, you see, so you can only yell and make an idiot from yourself.

|early point in your learning curve.  You have to pass by yourself the point
|where you want to learn (first English, then physics).

No, I don't have to.
I know enough physics to be sure, there is nothing hidden
behind your wise faces. You imagine you're 5 levels wiser,
than common mortals, or more; but it's only  your
imagination.
You're just an ordinary, mumbling fool. As expected from
a relativistic moron. And your Shit isn't even consistent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370827

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 06:04:36 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > 
> > Henry Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> […]  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> > >> privilege.
> > >
> > > This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote
> > > space, everything is black...or nearly.
> > 
> > Another common misconception.  Actually, light is everywhere in the
> > universe, and photons range among the most frequent particles, but it is not
> > everywhere in wavelengths that human eyes can see.  Where the human eye sees
> > only blackness, there are usually only infrared light, microwaves, or radio
> > waves.
> > 
> > Most well-known, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the
> > “afterglow” of the Big Bang) permeates the universe; its maxima are between
> > those of infrared light and radio waves.  And it is in fact relativistic
> > redshift that makes very distant objects (“remote space”) detectable only
> > using devices of specialized branches of astronomy.
> 
> 
> There seems to be some mistake about what red shift is..
> 
> a red shift is not due to expansion or movement..
> 
> the red shift is due to a decaying star due to it's age..the red is the
> first to go.
> 
> 
> so the further you see the more red shifts you'll find...but not because
> of expansion..
> it's just a fading star.
> 
> 
> The Starmaker

The universe is unlimited in any sense: time and space.
You improvise with time, and the Big Bangers with space.

The both improvisations are wrong... as any improvisation is, after all. :)

E = E0 * exp(-d)... 
it's jest the common dissipation of energy... unavoidable in any transmision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370830

alsor@interia.pl wrote:

> The universe is unlimited in any sense: time and space.

Nonsense.

> You improvise with time, and the Big Bangers with space.

Gibberish.

> The both improvisations are wrong... as any improvisation is, after all.
> :)

What you are blathering does not even deserve the designation 
“improvisation”.  “Flatulence” is more like it.
 
> E = E0 * exp(-d)...

Whatever…

> it's jest the common dissipation of energy... unavoidable in any
> transmision.

Your pointless blathering here appears to be unavoidable indeed… until one 
discovers killfiles.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370833

W dniu środa, 25 listopada 2015 00:48:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał:
> alsor@interia.pl wrote:
> 
> > The universe is unlimited in any sense: time and space.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> > You improvise with time, and the Big Bangers with space.
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> > The both improvisations are wrong... as any improvisation is, after all.
> > :)
> 
> What you are blathering does not even deserve the designation 
> “improvisation”.  “Flatulence” is more like it.
>  
> > E = E0 * exp(-d)...
> 
> Whatever…

That's just the end of your stupid improvisations.

> Your pointless blathering here appears to be unavoidable indeed… until one 
> discovers killfiles.

I know a much simpler method: You can insert your head to your ass. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370759

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:10:28 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 16:46:22 -0800, John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:31:58 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak
> >
> >> 
> >> According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own point of
> >> view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does it, poor idiot?
> > 
> > I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is
> > a miracle.  Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a
> > privilege.
> 
> This is true, most of the universe contains very little light. In remote 
> space, everything is black...or nearly.

If you believe this to be true then you must at once realize how powerful the base magnitude of Earth's visual ability is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web