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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#371301

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:25:33 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>>
>> [OCD stuff]
    ^^^
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzz-eFmKaw

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>


PointedEars
-- 
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#371310

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:57:42 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:25:33 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > [OCD stuff]
>     ^^^
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzz-eFmKaw
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
> 
> PointedEars
> -- 
> I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.
> 
> (from: WolframAlpha)

No, it wasn't an ad hominem because THAT'S the way you appear to me.  You
wouldn't approve of me being a hypocrite now, would you? :-)

BTW, what do you think dark matter is?

Gary

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

#371316

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:57:42 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' 
> Lahn wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:25:33 AM UTC-7, Thomas 
>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> [OCD stuff]
>>    ^^^
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnzz-eFmKaw
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
> 
> No, it wasn't an ad hominem

Yes, it was.

> because THAT'S the way you appear to me.

So you admit that you have indeed attacked the person instead of the
argument.  (And that you have no idea what OCD is, although it is explained
well by the authors of the video that you referenced in another video
referenced there.)

> BTW, what do you think dark matter is?

(You are changing the subject now because you have lost the previous
argument, yes?)

Dark matter is a substance of yet unknown composition that interacts only
gravitationally and constitutes about 27 % of the total mass–energy (so
about 85 % of the matter) of this universe.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>


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]

#371331

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:50:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:57:42 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' 
> > Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
> > 
> > No, it wasn't an ad hominem
> 
> Yes, it was.
> 
> > because THAT'S the way you appear to me.
> 
> So you admit that you have indeed attacked the person instead of the
> argument.  (And that you have no idea what OCD is, although it is explained
> well by the authors of the video that you referenced in another video
> referenced there.)

Wow!  You really ARE OCD, and probably ADHD, too.

> > BTW, what do you think dark matter is?
> 
> (You are changing the subject now because you have lost the previous
> argument, yes?)

I'm not arguing with a guy who has mental problems.

> Dark matter is a substance of yet unknown composition that interacts only
> gravitationally and constitutes about 27 % of the total mass-energy (so
> about 85 % of the matter) of this universe.
> 
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>
> 
> PointedEars

I didn't ask you to parrot what wiki says.  Do you have problems parsing
sentences, too?

Gary

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

#371345

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:50:53 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> because THAT'S the way you appear to me.
>> So you admit that you have indeed attacked the person instead of the 
>> argument.  (And that you have no idea what OCD is, although it is
>> explained well by the authors of the video that you referenced in
>> another video referenced there.)
> 
> Wow!  You really ARE OCD, and probably ADHD, too.

Despite various hints, you still have no clue what you are talking about.

>>> BTW, what do you think dark matter is?
>> (You are changing the subject now because you have lost the previous 
>> argument, yes?)
> 
> I'm not arguing with a guy who has mental problems.

Good, because you are not dealing with such a person in this case.

You are hopelessly overestimating your skills.  How typical of a crackpot.

>> Dark matter is a substance of yet unknown composition that interacts
>> only gravitationally and constitutes about 27 % of the total
>> mass-energy (so about 85 % of the matter) of this universe.
>> 
>> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>
> 
> I didn't ask you to parrot what wiki says.

That would be _Wikipedia_, but I did not.  The wording above is my own.

(And if you had actually read the referred article, you would have noticed
that my idea of dark matter as worded differed slighty from the most widely
accepted explanation which is described there, too.)

> Do you have problems parsing> sentences, too?

Yeah, probably it’s my mistake.  *PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

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

#371351

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > Wow!  You really ARE OCD, and probably ADHD, too.
> 
> Despite various hints, you still have no clue what you are talking about.

I have another clue now: you have not denied it :-)
> You are hopelessly overestimating your skills.  How typical of a crackpot.

Oh, so now you're claiming I'm a crackpot!  Personal attack!  Ad Hominem!
You are WAY of the mark, nutjob.

> > > Dark matter is a substance of yet unknown composition that interacts
> > > only gravitationally and constitutes about 27 % of the total
> > > mass-energy (so about 85 % of the matter) of this universe.
> > > 
> > > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter>
> > 
> > I didn't ask you to parrot what wiki says.
> 
> That would be _Wikipedia_, but I did not.  The wording above is my own.
> 
> (And if you had actually read the referred article, you would have noticed
> that my idea of dark matter as worded differed slighty from the most widely
> accepted explanation which is described there, too.)

You still haven't said what you think it might be.

> > Do you have problems parsing sentences, too?
> 
> Yeah, probably it's my mistake.  *PLONK*
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars

You did that once before, nutjob.  As far as I'm concerned, you are an
overzealous, extremely-adversarial, exceedingly-opinionated narcissist
who picks on others to inflate your own ego.  Your attacks on Bodkin
and others are completely inappropriate and unreasonable.

Gary

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

#371367

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:25:14 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:28:54 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

> You still haven't said what you think it might be.
> 
>> > Do you have problems parsing sentences, too?
>> 
>> Yeah, probably it's my mistake.  *PLONK*
 
Poor little gary doesn't have any friends now. He's a perpetual irritant, 
like a mosquito...always buzzing around being a damn nuisance.

>> PointedEars
> 
> You did that once before, nutjob.  As far as I'm concerned, you are an
> overzealous, extremely-adversarial, exceedingly-opinionated narcissist
> who picks on others to inflate your own ego.  Your attacks on Bodkin and
> others are completely inappropriate and unreasonable.

The game's up Draper. All those 'others' are yourself under a different 
nickname. That is obvious from the idiocy rating of the posts.

So it's *PLONK* from me too. 

> Gary

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

#371369

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 9:20:55 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> "Poor little me doesn't have any friends now. I'm a perpetual irritant, 
> like a mosquito...always buzzing around being a damn nuisance with my
> refuted BaTh nonsense."

Ralphie-boy finally tells the truth

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

#371313

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 06:39:35 -0800, Gary Harnagel said to himself:

"Gawd! Even my own colleagues think I'm an idiot"

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

#371333

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:29:41 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 06:39:35 -0800, Gary Harnagel said to himself:
> 
> "Gawd! Even my own colleagues think I'm an idiot"

So Ralphie-boy falls back to his usual dishonesty, demonstrating once again
that he has no integrity.

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

#371312

On Wed, 02 Dec 2015 15:25:28 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> 
>> So you don't believe that more photons exist at longer wavelengths than
>> at shorter ones for the same amount of energy?
> 
> Strawman; that is _not_ what I meant.
> 
> [The energy that a photon has, and transports, is always
> 
>   E_γ = p c = ℎ f = ℎ c∕λ,

Wrong! it is h(c+v)/λ.
 

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

#371309

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 22:33:40 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> For a given absolute temperature T, these functions have a local maximum
> each that defines the *peak* frequency or *peak* wavelength,
> respectively,
> of the corresponding electromagnetic wave (which you can determine by
> solving numerically the equations dI(f, T)∕df = 0 for f or dI(λ, T)∕dλ =
> 0 for λ).
> 
> For the CMBR with the absolute temperature as measured above, these are
> ca.
> 160.2 GHz and 1.871 mm, respectively (ibid.)

What is actually measured? I think it is wavelength. Light does not have 
a 'frequency'. That is calculated as c/lambda, or in plain English, 'wave 
arrival rate'.. 
If the correct equation, (c+v)/Lambda were used, much of the nonsense 
surrounding the CMBR (and the rest of modern physics) might be eliminated.

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

#370781

John Gogo wrote:

> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 1:10:28 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> 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.

Not even wrong.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?  
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web