Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395931 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 25 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 21:25 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-18 09:10 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 10:42 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-19 15:07 -0400
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-21 08:30 -0400
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-21 16:59 +0100
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 22:59 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 11:32 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 12:22 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-22 09:03 -0400
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 13:44 +0000
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 13:36 -0600
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 13:19 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 16:52 -0600
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 16:15 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-19 16:31 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 17:30 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-10-19 20:16 -0400
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-20 10:02 +0800
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-18 10:56 -0700
Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58081011.D26@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #396168 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:40:52 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >...i'm a fuckin genuis.
>
> Yeah... one who can't even spell 'genius'... LOL!
I'm 1.75% of the population...
Other users have misspelled genius as:
jenis - 26.64%
genious - 9.83%
genilce - 1.97%
genuis - 1.75%
jenish - 1.31%
genice - 1.09%
Other - 57.41%
and I don't use words like "can't" in my vocabulary because ...I can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 20:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <58080cf1$0$61754$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #396168 |
On 10/19/2016 7:31 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:40:52 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > >> ...i'm a fuckin genuis. > > Yeah... one who can't even spell 'genius'... LOL! > Yes, people who call everybody "idiots" but can't spell idiot or say they are a "genius" but can't spell genius are the height of entertainment on the Net.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 10:02 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <e6qmssFdt5bU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #396141 |
On 20/10/16 1:42 am, The Starmaker wrote: > TB wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:09:41 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0 >>>> >>>> How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age >>>> of the universe to a trillion years???? >>>> >>>> first 'they' have to learn how to say the word...trillion. >>>> >>>> they might have to look it up on the internet first... >>>> >>>> of course the rest of yous are just going to ...wait. >>> >>> >>> >>> i mean really..the bottom line is, >>> the only reason 'these people' come up >>> with an extra "trillion gallaxies" is because >>> they want to upgrade their telescopes and >>> astronomy software...gettin more funding. >> >> What evidence do you have that astronomers are lying about their beliefs that there might be 2 trillion galaxies? > > Come on....it's common sense with 'these people'. > > They used to say "billions and billions of galaxies", now it's Two trillion???? > > > Did their math get better?? > > > Or did someone fall asleep on their calculator? and woke up and exclaim, "Look! Theres 2 trillion galaxies!!!" > > > > Doesn't that mean there are two trillion Earth-Like planets??? Hasn't reached the news yet...who can think that far ahead today? > > > Only i can...i'm a fuckin genuis. > > > > The Starmaker > Well, sua generis, thank goodness. -- Robert B. born England a long time ago; Western Australia since 1972
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bff7885-f874-4228-bf3e-17cd742ded04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395931 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 20:01:46 UTC+2 użytkownik The Starmaker > How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age > of the universe to a trillion years???? You are stupid. The number of ==detectable== galaxies is about... 10^10. But the total number is very easy to guess, because infinity, of course. 10^10 = number of galaxies in the Hubble's sphere, which is about 40 Gly. The standard criterium of the visibility in the general sense, is just eq. about 4%.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7092pFnfrsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #395931 |
Am 17.10.2016 20:02, schrieb The Starmaker:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/science/two-trillion-galaxies-at-the-very-least.html?_r=0
>
>
>
>
> How long do you think it will take for 'these people' to change the age
> of the universe to a trillion years????
>
>
I personally think, that General Relativity is in fact true, but GR with
complex numbers instead of tensors.
Such a GR describes a cosmological concept, where time behaves like a
real axis, which has a spacelike, imaginary inverse.
What we call 'space' or 'universe' is then the image, we receive from
the past along our own past light cone. This cone is defined by equality
of real and imaginary units, or as 45° from our own axis of time.
If now the axis of time curves, the universe also changes. The former
one shrinks and a new picture ('universe') pops out of nowhere - in a
'big bang'.
We could eventually count galaxies in it. But this is similar to
counting clouds and afterwards saying, this number is the number of
clouds forever.
So galaxies belong to the past and the further away the more remote in
the past. This past could stretch pretty far, if our telescopes get
better. And so we can count galaxies like clouds in the sky and come to
no end.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web