Starship Asterisk*

How do astronomers decide how big the universe is? If the theory of the Big Bang is true then there must be a central point in the universe with all space surrounding that point and expanding all the time. If this is the case where is our galaxy located relative to that point? Astronomers state that they have located light emitted by galaxies almost 14 billion years ago and that those galaxies must have been close to the BB. If the Milky Way is 14 bly from that point then there must be galaxies 28 bly distant from us on the other side of the BB point. Additionally, from our position in our galaxy we can only see about 40-50% of the universe because the rest is blocked by the mass of the Milky Way. How far out does space go from us in the opposite direction from the BB point? Could the universe 'bubble' stretch 40 or 50 billion light years across?

The picture I get from information gleened from many discussions in The Asterisk Cafe and Discuss an APOD is that there is no center or edge to the universe. Using your bubble analogy, the universe is the skin of the bubble, not the volume enclosed by the bubble. The size of the universe is in part determined by the topology of that skin and I can find no agreement on that.

Now, about that 14 by, if the light from those galaxies took 14 by to reach us, those galaxies have to be more than 14 bly away. Those galaxies are receding from us (at an ever increasing rate), so they must have moved in the time it took for their light to reach us. Also, since there is no center of the universe (the big bang happened everywhere), we should be able to look in any direction and find similar galaxies, which, in effect, kind of makes us the center of our universe.

Anyway, that is my current understanding. Do I sound confused???

Your estimate of 40 or 50 bly universal diameter seems reasonable, In fact I think I've seen estimates of 57 bly.

Bystander.
It is difficult to imagine something that has mass and volume yet no centre or edge.
I suppose that it will require some kind of spiritual and intuitive insight, rather than a purely scientific one, to fully understand the nature of this physical manifestation that we observe around us.

<< Using your bubble analogy, the universe is the skin of the bubble, not the volume enclosed by the bubble.>>

Oh, That is a good one! A good way to see it clearly, as to what they are trying to say. As BigBangTheory (BBT) would say it, the Universe started at a point, that point then expanded in all dimensions as well as in time, from there. The skin of a balloon, or surface of a bubble, would be like the universe as we see it, stretching ever larger as it expands. (it is difficult to find a suitable analogy to use that transcends dimensions)

As there is a Hollow Earth Society, BBT might be likened to a Hollow Universe Society. And also like HES, destined to find its way into the dust bin of history and failed theories.

- - - -

The longer we accumulate data and discover the Truth, the more we think of new explanations to describe the true nature of the Universe and Reality.

Hello Kovil

Just have to smile.


Sorry I have not had the time to get back to you on the other topic.

This project is more demanding than I thought.

Next day or so,,,,,,,I hope.

brian boru wrote:It is difficult to imagine something that has mass and volume yet no centre or edge.
I suppose that it will require some kind of spiritual and intuitive insight, rather than a purely scientific one, to fully understand the nature of this physical manifestation that we observe around us.

well, in the bubble analogy, the center is inside the bubble and therefor cannot be found anywhere on its surface.

think about some dots randomly scattered in the plane. their mass center falls into the samee plane, but slightest folding or twisting of this plane puts mass center outside of it. so, in the realm of arbitrary (non-flat) geometry, having mass center "outside" of mass space is a rule rather than an exception. Riemann (or whatever the spelling is) geometry plays a trick to describe this situation without need in "extra" dimension, but even there you have concepts like "tangent" euclidean space, etc.

the problem is that math doesnt tell us how to construct correct mental image of this, so we have little choise but rely on this bubble crap, which is - imho - way too far from being perfect analogy.

kovil wrote:[snip]

As there is a Hollow Earth Society, BBT might be likened to a Hollow Universe Society. And also like HES, destined to find its way into the dust bin of history and failed theories.

[snip]

(my bold)

Why (is it so destined)?

Reply to Nereid

Why is the BBT relegated to history's dust bin of failed theories?

Because, and let me count the ways;

1. The Universe did not begin like The Bible would have it. It has always been here and will always be here, there was no Big Bang.

2. Redshift is not dependent on recessional velocity alone, and shortly it will be undeniably shown how and why.

3. The Universe is not expanding in all dimensions, therefore; there is no need for the prop of dark matter and dark energy to support the presuppositions of BBT, let alone the invention of neutronium to make neutron stars, nor the necessity for black holes to supply the energy engine of the misinterpretations of observations in deep space of gigantic jets of hypervelocity matter. None of that is what is actually happening. The BBT Interpretive Ministries of Data are looking with their preferred template of metaphor to explain what they think they are seeing. Unfortunately for them and those who read and believe what the media disseminates, that is not what is happening.

Allow me, and a few others who are Electric Theory oriented, to direct the spending of $15 Billion in government research funds, and in 10 years data and answers will arrive to prove these points stated here. A dozen additional space based observational platforms in a wider and fuller spectrum of electromagnetic radiation wavelengths, and a dozen more space probes to measure solar wind and electric field potentials and planetary environments as well as cometary events and behavior, will supply the needed data to show just how electrical our solar system truly is. A reinterpretation of deep space data in light of a new understanding of the electrical nature of matter and how it acts and interacts in space will make a better explanation of what is going on out there.

The time has come for the ignorance and narrow mindedness of gravitational only cosmology to end, and for the electrical nature of matter to be equally considered in our postulations of what is truly going on out there, and down here on Earth. Gravity and Electricity are equally important, for both are intimately involved in matter and its behavior.

Does anyone really think that the Northern Lights and electronic communications disruptions are not caused by electrical effects arriving from the Sun?

Does anyone really think that when matter chemically reacts to form compounds, in the air on land and in the water, it is not doing so out of electrical activity in the outer electron shells? Likewise when energy is released in say an explosion, that it is not an electrical event at its most basic level of activity?
And when an atomic bomb explodes, that it is not the nucleus which is dividing from being under too much electrical stress, and the couple of extra neutrons released in the chain reaction are not a part of the energy release from the over electrical stress surface tension on the nucleus? All bombs, chemical or atomic, are electrical in their basic nature. All chemical activity among elements and matter, are electrical in their basic nature.

It is foolish and ignorant to say that matter is not electrical in how it behaves, and that the electrical nature of matter is unimportant in space.

Part II

We live in a complex society which has many levels of agendas going on simultaneously. On one of those levels of activity, The Church likes BBT very much as it fits hand in glove with their own imaginings of how the Universe began, and so they support BBT tooth and nail. The Church also has great influence on many human beings, a great number of which are in positions of power and influence in government, big business and in control of the media. This trickle down of influence and power directs in large extent where funds and energy are directed in the endeavors which science investigates and which areas science ignores, as well as what lines of thought are expressed in the media to the general population. Throughout history personal agendas of those at the top influence what humanity does in general. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch hunts, the Earth as flat, the Earth as the center of the solar system. Power is the most difficult of all to use properly, and many have erred in their use of it. (Am I on the verge of being no exception?)

Part III

Science has no explanation for why Gravity exists, nor for why Inertia exists, nor for why Energy exists. These are the three inexplicables, and our best clues as to the true nature of this Universe and this Reality. Science does understand very well how gravity, energy and inertia interact, behave, and begat transformational causations. Gravity, Energy and Inertia are interwoven in complex ways within matter, and this is the main reason why we have had such a difficult time to unravel what we observe, and in how we view this Universe and Reality. The BBT is like using the Earth as the center of the solar system, it takes a very complex explanation to explain the motions of the planets, but it can be done. Likewise, using the BBT to explain the observations of the further away Universe requires complex ways to make sense of it all, it can be done, but like the geocentric solar system model it is incorrect, however convoluted or inventive of mathematical workarounds to solve the problems it encounters as the decades roll along and more data arrives. The Data is the Truth, the BBT is only a theory, and as such it seems that the media and science in general has forgotten that inconvenient fact or truth.

PS. Please do not take this personally Nereid, if this attacks your own belief structure. This is written in a 'professional' idiom, to espouse the human conditions under which we all must operate within, in whatever field of work and living we do, as we are all members of our respective society and this planet Earth, and subject to operating within the existing conditions. As prone to making statements as I am and not asking questions, your influence upon me has been very beneficial and I very much hope that it will continue to have good effects.

Let's take this one at a time ...

kovil wrote:Reply to Nereid

Why is the BBT relegated to history's dust bin of failed theories?

Because, and let me count the ways;

1. The Universe did not begin like [...] would have it. It has always been here and will always be here, there was no Big Bang.

[snip]

And the observations which support this assertion/these assertions (always been here, always will; no BB) are ... what? In which papers were they published?

For our beloved Nereid, no labor would be too great. (are you sure you are not really Ourania?)

I would ask that I be allowed to spar within this contest without one or both hands being tied behind my back in terms of allowable references from which to quote. Defending an accused Salem Witch from the Inquisitors and the drownding pool, and not being allowed to quote from the texts of "Hippocrates who is credited with being the first physician to reject superstitions and beliefs that credited supernatural or divine forces with causing illness. Hippocrates was credited by the disciples of Pythagoras of allying philosophy and medicine. He separated the discipline of medicine from religion, believing and arguing that disease was not a punishment inflicted by the Gods, but rather the product of environmental factors, diet and living habits. Indeed there is not a single mention of a mystical illness in the entirety of the Hippocratic Corpus."[1], would be such a task. As peer reviewed and published papers are likened synonymous with the religious texts in use at the time of the Salem Witch Trials. They do not include possible reasons and explanations and reasonings not within their own bailiwick of purview.

The Twelve Labours of Hercules (Greek: dodekathlos) are a series of archaic episodes connected by a later continuous narrative, to fetch back for Hera's representative Eurystheus a magical animal or plant. [2]

OURANIA (or Urania) was one of the nine Mousai, the goddesses of music, song and dance. In Classical times she, Ourania, came to be titled the muse of astronomy and astronomical writings. In this guise she was depicted pointing to a globe with a rod.[3]

URA′NIA (Ourania). One of the Muses, a daughter of Zeus by Mnemosyne. She was regarded, as her name indicates, as the Muse of Astronomy, and was represented with a celestial globe to which she points with a staff. [4]

"The Mousai, the goddesses of music, song and dance, and who dwell on Olympos. They are nine daughters begotten by great Zeus; Kleio and Euterpe, Thaleia, Melpomene and Terpsikhore, and Erato and Polyhymnia and Ourania and Kalliope."[5]

- - -

In the 1930s Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe was flat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage, "Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[6]

Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a "fudge factor") to the equations to avoid this "problem". When Einstein heard of Hubble's discovery, he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life".[7]

Einstein's lack of considering the electrical nature of the atom and matter in general was the problem with his development of general relativity's spacetime continuum curvature or inverse thereof. When the electrical nature of matter is considered there is no problem with having a flat, non-expanding/contracting homogeneous universe.

To address the question of whether this Universe has always been here or recently sprang into existence by Apparational Causation 6 days ago, or 6000 years ago, or 13.7 Billion years ago; one is almost compelled to resort to religious reasoning, as scientific data collection and analysis methods are insufficient and not exacting enough in finite detail nor logical deduction from the gatherable evidence to support a definite decision in either direction. It must remain an open question to which we in all likelihood will never have definate proof about. But inductive teleological arguments aside, my analysis of the data says that it is more likely that the Universe has always been here, than it was created a specific time ago.

- - - - -

wikipedia.org - [1], [2], [3], [6], [7],

theoi.com - [4], [5],

Hello Kovil

Great response Kpvil

What you say maybe correct.

It will take maybe another two years for evidence to filter through and maybe put the Big Bang to rest.

kovil wrote:For our beloved Nereid, no labor would be too great. (are you sure you are not really Ourania?)

I would ask that I be allowed to spar within this contest without one or both hands being tied behind my back in terms of allowable references from which to quote. Defending an accused Salem Witch from the Inquisitors and the drownding pool, and not being allowed to quote from the texts of "Hippocrates who is credited with being the first physician to reject superstitions and beliefs that credited supernatural or divine forces with causing illness. Hippocrates was credited by the disciples of Pythagoras of allying philosophy and medicine. He separated the discipline of medicine from religion, believing and arguing that disease was not a punishment inflicted by the Gods, but rather the product of environmental factors, diet and living habits. Indeed there is not a single mention of a mystical illness in the entirety of the Hippocratic Corpus."[1], would be such a task. As peer reviewed and published papers are likened synonymous with the religious texts in use at the time of the Salem Witch Trials. They do not include possible reasons and explanations and reasonings not within their own bailiwick of purview.

The Twelve Labours of Hercules (Greek: dodekathlos) are a series of archaic episodes connected by a later continuous narrative, to fetch back for Hera's representative Eurystheus a magical animal or plant. [2]

OURANIA (or Urania) was one of the nine Mousai, the goddesses of music, song and dance. In Classical times she, Ourania, came to be titled the muse of astronomy and astronomical writings. In this guise she was depicted pointing to a globe with a rod.[3]

URA′NIA (Ourania). One of the Muses, a daughter of Zeus by Mnemosyne. She was regarded, as her name indicates, as the Muse of Astronomy, and was represented with a celestial globe to which she points with a staff. [4]

"The Mousai, the goddesses of music, song and dance, and who dwell on Olympos. They are nine daughters begotten by great Zeus; Kleio and Euterpe, Thaleia, Melpomene and Terpsikhore, and Erato and Polyhymnia and Ourania and Kalliope."[5]

- - -

May I take it that there are no observations referenced, even indirectly, in this (above) part of your post?

In the 1930s Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe was flat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage, "Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[6]

Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a "fudge factor") to the equations to avoid this "problem". When Einstein heard of Hubble's discovery, he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life".[7]

I'm not clear on this kovil, can you clarify please?

Apart from there being no papers referenced, it seems that the only observations you mention are those made by Hubble, on 'the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature'.

Is that so?

If so, when did Hubble publish these observations? An approximate answer, such as 'in the 1920s and 1930s' will do?

If there are others, please say so, and provide at least a summary of them.

Einstein's lack of considering the electrical nature of the atom and matter in general was the problem with his development of general relativity's spacetime continuum curvature or inverse thereof. When the electrical nature of matter is considered there is no problem with having a flat, non-expanding/contracting homogeneous universe.

First, this seems to be irrelevant - nothing to do with observations.

Second, this seems to allude to an alternative cosmological idea (to modern concordance cosmological models, a.k.a. 'the Big Bang Theory').

Third, it is expressed in the present and is categorical ("is no problem").

To what extent are you seeking to bring in something like 'EU theory' or 'plasma cosmology' here?

In any case, please provide references to papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, that a) describe this alternative cosmology, and b) show that 'there is no problem with having a flat, non-expanding/contracting homogeneous universe'. For b), please ensure that at least the major classes of cosmologically-relevant observations are covered.

For avoidance of doubt, you get no leeway on this - either retract your (present, categorical) assertion or pony up the evidence (in the form of proper references).

To address the question of whether this Universe has always been here or recently sprang into existence by Apparational Causation 6 days ago, or 6000 years ago, or 13.7 Billion years ago; one is almost compelled to resort to religious reasoning, as scientific data collection and analysis methods are insufficient and not exacting enough in finite detail nor logical deduction from the gatherable evidence to support a definite decision in either direction.

I'm lost kovil, so please help me out here.

First, as has been made very clear (I hope - ask for clarification if you are unsure), this is a scientific forum, not a philosophy or religious one.

Second, this part of your post (that I am quoting here) seems to directly contradict your earlier one:

Earlier: 1. The Universe did not begin like [...] would have it. It has always been here and will always be here, there was no Big Bang.

Here: "[...] scientific data collection and analysis methods are insufficient and not exacting enough in finite detail nor logical deduction from the gatherable evidence to support a definite decision in either direction."

So which is it kovil, black-and-white ('has always ... will always') or shades of grey?

Third, this is irrelevant to the question I asked you, isn't it? I mean, I asked you for the (scientific) observations which support your categorical claim, and you reply by saying (my paraphrase) that whatever observations there might be not only do not support your claim, but also that they never can!

It must remain an open question to which we in all likelihood will never have definate proof about. But inductive teleological arguments aside, my analysis of the data says that it is more likely that the Universe has always been here, than it was created a specific time ago.

[snip]

Hmm, so you have retracted your claim then? You are admitting that the relevant scientific data might be consistent with the BBT?

In any case, you still did not answer my question - what are the observations ('data') that support your assertion(s)? In which papers were they published?

Yes, I need you to help keep me on track, my tendency to wander into literary cuteness can never substitute for scientific reference.

To narrate my point; politics, philosophy, religion and social milleau cannot be separated from the large view of science in society. In the small view it can to some extent, depending on the discipline of the individual, and even then all the other aspects will creep in to some extent.

Unfortunately I suspect there are no peer reviewed papers I can quote from to support my positions. So you may erase my posts. It is likely up to me to get published the papers supporting my views, and to that extent I am working on the problem, but it will take a few days (LOL) to accomplish this.

You do your job as a moderator better than I do my job as a poster.
Great posting as reply to the Lisi theory of everything with all those links.

I appreciate your patience with me, and I'll quit wasting your and NASA's time here, and see about using some of the other forums you suggest.

A bientot for now.

Second part:

kovil wrote:Reply to Nereid

Why is the BBT relegated to history's dust bin of failed theories?

Because, and let me count the ways;

[snip]

2. Redshift is not dependent on recessional velocity alone, and shortly it will be undeniably shown how and why.

[snip]

As with your response to part one ("1." in the post of yours that I am quoting here), you seem to have made a dizzying leap between a present, categorical assertion ("is the BBT relegated to history's dust bin" and "Redshift is not dependent on recessional velocity alone") and a bravely expressed hope ("shortly it will be undeniably shown how and why").

Oh, and this second part seems to contain a strawman of (for long-time Café readers) the most obnoxious kind; namely, that the observed redshifts of extra-galactic objects are accounted for in BBT solely by a General Relativity (GR) based 'expansion of the universe'.

So, in one sense, your statement is both 100% correct and 100% irrelevant (to your assertion)!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note for new readers: in modern astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, the observed redshifts of objects are attributed to some combination of three different mechanisms:

- relative motion along the line of sight; this is the classical "Doppler effect", and dominates the observed redshifts of objects within the Local Group of galaxies, whether they be the Moon, the Cassini spacecraft, Barnard's star, the star S2 near SgrA*, hot shocked gas in supernova remnants in our Milky Way (and the Magellanic Clouds, M33 (etc)), or CO molecules in M31 (and much more). It is also an important component in the line spectrum of all galaxies, arising from rotation (e.g. in spirals), integrated motion (e.g. in elliptical galaxies; line broadening in this case), or relative motion within galaxy groups or clusters. And so on.

- gravitational redshift; this is a quite minor component and is observed only in a small number of highly dense objects, such as white dwarfs, and accretion disks around (SM)BHs (supermassive black holes). The physics underlying this kind of redshift is that described by GR, and tested to very high precision in a series of 'lab' experiments that date back nearly half a century now.

- cosmological redshift, or 'the expansion of space'. Like the previous kind of redshift, the underlying physics is also GR ... but applied to the whole universe this time. Historically and observationally this is 'the Hubble relation(ship)' - an almost linear relationship between the observed (integrated, central) redshift of galaxies and their distances; the constant (slope of the line) is H0, the Hubble constant, the 'present' value of the (local) rate of expansion of the universe.

It is the last which kovil is (apparently) referring to ... otherwise his assertion is, as I have said, completely standard physics, astrophysics, and cosmology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Would you like to try again, kovil? Re-state this 'way' in which "the BBT [is] relegated to history's dust bin of failed theories"?

kovil wrote:Reply to Nereid

Why is the BBT relegated to history's dust bin of failed theories?

Because, and let me count the ways;

1. The Universe did not begin like The Bible would have it. It has always been here and will always be here, there was no Big Bang.

2. Redshift is not dependent on recessional velocity alone, and shortly it will be undeniably shown how and why.

3. The Universe is not expanding in all dimensions, therefore; there is no need for the prop of dark matter and dark energy to support the presuppositions of BBT, let alone the invention of neutronium to make neutron stars, nor the necessity for black holes to supply the energy engine of the misinterpretations of observations in deep space of gigantic jets of hypervelocity matter. None of that is what is actually happening. The BBT Interpretive Ministries of Data are looking with their preferred template of metaphor to explain what they think they are seeing. Unfortunately for them and those who read and believe what the media disseminates, that is not what is happening.

Allow me, and a few others who are Electric Theory oriented, to direct the spending of $15 Billion in government research funds, and in 10 years data and answers will arrive to prove these points stated here. A dozen additional space based observational platforms in a wider and fuller spectrum of electromagnetic radiation wavelengths, and a dozen more space probes to measure solar wind and electric field potentials and planetary environments as well as cometary events and behavior, will supply the needed data to show just how electrical our solar system truly is. A reinterpretation of deep space data in light of a new understanding of the electrical nature of matter and how it acts and interacts in space will make a better explanation of what is going on out there.

The time has come for the ignorance and narrow mindedness of gravitational only cosmology to end, and for the electrical nature of matter to be equally considered in our postulations of what is truly going on out there, and down here on Earth. Gravity and Electricity are equally important, for both are intimately involved in matter and its behavior.

Does anyone really think that the Northern Lights and electronic communications disruptions are not caused by electrical effects arriving from the Sun?

Does anyone really think that when matter chemically reacts to form compounds, in the air on land and in the water, it is not doing so out of electrical activity in the outer electron shells? Likewise when energy is released in say an explosion, that it is not an electrical event at its most basic level of activity?
And when an atomic bomb explodes, that it is not the nucleus which is dividing from being under too much electrical stress, and the couple of extra neutrons released in the chain reaction are not a part of the energy release from the over electrical stress surface tension on the nucleus? All bombs, chemical or atomic, are electrical in their basic nature. All chemical activity among elements and matter, are electrical in their basic nature.

It is foolish and ignorant to say that matter is not electrical in how it behaves, and that the electrical nature of matter is unimportant in space.

Part II

We live in a complex society which has many levels of agendas going on simultaneously. On one of those levels of activity, The Church likes BBT very much as it fits hand in glove with their own imaginings of how the Universe began, and so they support BBT tooth and nail. The Church also has great influence on many human beings, a great number of which are in positions of power and influence in government, big business and in control of the media. This trickle down of influence and power directs in large extent where funds and energy are directed in the endeavors which science investigates and which areas science ignores, as well as what lines of thought are expressed in the media to the general population. Throughout history personal agendas of those at the top influence what humanity does in general. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch hunts, the Earth as flat, the Earth as the center of the solar system. Power is the most difficult of all to use properly, and many have erred in their use of it. (Am I on the verge of being no exception?)

Part III

Science has no explanation for why Gravity exists, nor for why Inertia exists, nor for why Energy exists. These are the three inexplicables, and our best clues as to the true nature of this Universe and this Reality. Science does understand very well how gravity, energy and inertia interact, behave, and begat transformational causations. Gravity, Energy and Inertia are interwoven in complex ways within matter, and this is the main reason why we have had such a difficult time to unravel what we observe, and in how we view this Universe and Reality. The BBT is like using the Earth as the center of the solar system, it takes a very complex explanation to explain the motions of the planets, but it can be done. Likewise, using the BBT to explain the observations of the further away Universe requires complex ways to make sense of it all, it can be done, but like the geocentric solar system model it is incorrect, however convoluted or inventive of mathematical workarounds to solve the problems it encounters as the decades roll along and more data arrives. The Data is the Truth, the BBT is only a theory, and as such it seems that the media and science in general has forgotten that inconvenient fact or truth.

PS. Please do not take this personally Nereid, if this attacks your own belief structure. This is written in a 'professional' idiom, to espouse the human conditions under which we all must operate within, in whatever field of work and living we do, as we are all members of our respective society and this planet Earth, and subject to operating within the existing conditions. As prone to making statements as I am and not asking questions, your influence upon me has been very beneficial and I very much hope that it will continue to have good effects.

For posterity, here - in full - is kovil's Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:00 pm post ('BBT as witch hunt or inquisition').

Hello All

Well we do have interesting reading.

If it was not for Neried I think our pencils would be blunt, her answer allows us to stretch and look for the scientific answers backed by our science main stream.

But! History does show us that main stream being on the wrong train and the wrong track in many cases.

brian boru wrote:How do astronomers decide how big the universe is? If the theory of the Big Bang is true then there must be a central point in the universe with all space surrounding that point and expanding all the time. If this is the case where is our galaxy located relative to that point? Astronomers state that they have located light emitted by galaxies almost 14 billion years ago and that those galaxies must have been close to the BB. If the Milky Way is 14 bly from that point then there must be galaxies 28 bly distant from us on the other side of the BB point. Additionally, from our position in our galaxy we can only see about 40-50% of the universe because the rest is blocked by the mass of the Milky Way. How far out does space go from us in the opposite direction from the BB point? Could the universe 'bubble' stretch 40 or 50 billion light years across?

The universe is infinite.

craterchains wrote:

CC, a word of caution. Maybe you shouldn't roll your eyes at god. He may be the old testament god, who lacks a sense of humor and is extremely prone to violence.

I'm terribly sorry for all the blabber the junior posted. He is very young god, I hope you all understand and forgive.

I've been helping my Hubby out, I know many of you think He left this planet and no longer cares, but if you could only imagine what He has been busy with all this time... His new pet project, Universe v2, aka Kingdom of Heaven, is going to rock! So many bugs fixed and, of course, exciting new features... we have shown private alpha to few of your prophets, and so far feedback was all positive. We certainly hope that you all will like it!

So, any way, I'm back, and I'm going to pay more attention to our jr.

Jr, if you're reading this, I really need to talk to you (at home).

p.s.: do not mind spelling mistakes, please. The last lenguage I spoke was hebrew, and it was many years ago.

Hello All

Yep the universe is infinite.

But! for God's sake, lets leave "GOD" out of the picture.

Not God in the posts.

Ahh the wonders of the lap top, greetings from the land of camels and oil, two months down and four to go.
What’s with this, I go away for a short while and now God and God’s mom are posting here?
Well I had a talk with Allah and his side kick Buda and they have both informed me that they take their orders from #1, this being God, God is God.
Secondly that the persons impersonating him here and going so far as to claim being his mother are “ from what I hear “ displeasing him to a rather large degree. I should think that each of you might want to disclose whom you really are and ask him to forgive you. Do what you will, your soul just may be fuel for the fire at this moment.
For those of you whom are non- believers, “ whom might even want to delete this post for what you believe to be the right reasons “ Your choice, your soul?
All I can honestly say to you is that if you spend one week with me here with bullets flying at you from every direction, crater chains all around your little whole in the sand dirt, you will pray to God that he sees you through. EVERYONE does.
By the way, The universe is infinite and it’s the only one we get right now, something told me to say that, it didn’t come from me.

God bless the United States of America, I personally am 4 months away from the promised land.

THX1138 wrote:Ahh the wonders of the lap top, greetings from the land of camels and oil, two months down and four to go.
What’s with this, I go away for a short while and now God and God’s mom are posting here?
Well I had a talk with Allah and his side kick Buda and they have both informed me that they take their orders from #1, this being God, God is God.
Secondly that the persons impersonating him here and going so far as to claim being his mother are “ from what I hear “ displeasing him to a rather large degree. I should think that each of you might want to disclose whom you really are and ask him to forgive you. Do what you will, your soul just may be fuel for the fire at this moment.
For those of you whom are non- believers, “ whom might even want to delete this post for what you believe to be the right reasons “ Your choice, your soul?
All I can honestly say to you is that if you spend one week with me here with bullets flying at you from every direction, crater chains all around your little whole in the sand dirt, you will pray to God that he sees you through. EVERYONE does.
By the way, The universe is infinite and it’s the only one we get right now, something told me to say that, it didn’t come from me.

God bless the United States of America, I personally am 4 months away from the promised land.

THX: you and your G.I. Joes need to watch this to learn who you're really fighting for. It's neither for truth, justice, nor all that's dear...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3139148549

Thanks THX1138, keep your head down and away from those crater chains. Make it home safe.

Just be thankful that they are very small crater chains THX.

Keep yer ass covered and make it home safe.

There is a God, I know that for sure, been there and I too knew there were no athiests in fox holes. More dirt please.