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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n396s1$6m1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370962 |
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 01:55:00 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Henry Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:31:27 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Henry Wilson wrote: >>>>> No. Again, Einstein wrote in 1905 in “On the electrodynamics of >>>>> moving bodies”, page 1, paragraph 2: >>>>> >>>>> ‘[…] The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be >>>>> superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not >>>>> require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special >>>>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty >>>>> space in which electromagnetic processes take place.’ >>>> That's all about his P1 not his P2, idiot. >>> You are still the idiot here. This is an *exact* quotation from >>> paragraph 2 of the cited work. >>> >>>>> Which part of that do you not understand? >>>> >>>> I don't understand how anyone can be as stupid as you. >>> >>> Beats me in your case as well. >>> >>>> Now quote his P2. >>> >>> BTDT. If only you cared to read… >> >> You obviously haven't read beyond paragraph 2. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy> > > I have read beyond paragraph 2, but the issue here was *only* paragraph > 2 of the work. You claimed: > > “Einstein's P2 requires an absolute aether to unify the speed of light > from differently moving sources.” > > That is wrong, because paragraph 2 of the work says the exact opposite > of what you claim. And it starts with saying that attempts to detect > that ether have been unsuccessful, and that therefore the idea of the > ether should be abandoned: > > “Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to > discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” > suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics > possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They > suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of > small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be > valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics > hold good.¹” > > “*Unsuccessful* attempts” and “*no* properties corresponding to the idea > of absolute rest”! That's right. that is what his first postulate is all about. You obviously don't understand the theory you spend all your time defending. Do you have an ulterior motive? Then he defines his second postulate, in which he merely states that light speed in space is independent of the speed of both the observer and the source. Physical principles require more than a few words to make them valid. To claim source independence without providng a physical reason for it is just pathetic nonsense. >> Was it too hard for you ..or did you find it too nonsensical to read? > > Einstein makes a lot of sense there, but one must *want to* understand > him first. You don’t do either. You clearly don't have the brains to understand either the theory or its blatant flaws. > PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 10:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n26ulf$6h4$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #369878 |
On 13.11.2015 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote: > > How could anything exist for a billion years without changing? > Light quanta are made of fields and even a Norwegian microprofessor > should know something about the behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has > he ever seen a gas discharge at very low pressure? > Down under upside down logic: "An electric discharge in a low pressure gas proves that no photon can exists for billion of years in the intergalactic high vacuum." -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 04:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab3af400-55b7-4894-8cc1-288a041d0ba8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369921 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:25:05 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > On 13.11.2015 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote: > > > > How could anything exist for a billion years without changing? > > Light quanta are made of fields and even a Norwegian microprofessor > > should know something about the behaviour of fields in high vacuum. Has > > he ever seen a gas discharge at very low pressure? > > > > Down under upside down logic: > "An electric discharge in a low pressure gas proves that no photon > can exists for billion of years in the intergalactic high vacuum." > > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient galaxies? Is the universe conspiring against him, too? Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 13:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n279js$fbr$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #369929 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ab3af400-55b7-4894-8cc1-288a041d0ba8@googlegroups.com... |I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient galaxies? |Is the universe conspiring against him, too? According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own point of view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does it, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-21 16:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <941310ad-97d2-4bb9-949c-be3d39274634@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369931 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:31:58 AM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:ab3af400-55b7-4894-8cc1-288a041d0ba8@googlegroups.com... > > |I wonder what he thinks he's seeing when he looks at those ancient > galaxies? > |Is the universe conspiring against him, too? > > According to your Shit, they're ancient only from their own > point of view. It doesn't mean they're ancient for us, does > it, poor idiot? I always look at it from the point of view that the very act of light is a miracle. Light is so rare in the universe that any measure of it is a privilege.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2vob0$b1a$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370574 |
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]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <14634540.10F5PiinAv@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370720 |
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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 21:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5653EFE1.1F85@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #370749 |
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 spaceâ€) 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]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 21:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4c95561-f5f6-4dc3-9269-d6c7ef7cec87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370768 |
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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 00:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5654210A.4A80@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #370769 |
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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 01:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56542D7B.5110@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #370775 |
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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 01:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0a85fe76-14fa-480d-9773-5cfab73ace0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370775 |
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]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5618876.tTmsz12s73@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370780 |
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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 02:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5db0ac98-04b4-4212-9889-79aa43842e42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370782 |
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]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3041480.M9i5rGGYZc@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370783 |
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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 04:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f6b44a2-cd8f-4c72-af0f-e5393a408b50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370785 |
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]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <565459CD.9030308@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370788 |
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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 05:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4c7c4fc2-6d47-4d41-b5d8-d792fec3ebf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370791 |
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]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5654AEA0.8060404@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #370794 |
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]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 20:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n32et6$m4l$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #370804 |
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]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web