bumab Posted July 22, 2005 Report Share Posted July 22, 2005 Bumab, the universe is decelerating. thus all the mass that is scattered around the universe will attract each other towards the centre of mass. and this mass is so huge that it will compress in its own gravity and again will cause a big bang. this is just a cycle. I was under the impression the universe's expansion was accelerating. You sure about that? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshav_1983 Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 I was under the impression the universe's expansion was accelerating. You sure about that? :hihi:yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldcreation Posted July 23, 2005 Report Share Posted July 23, 2005 yes. Revolution in Cosmology …something is amiss. At the very least, the expansion is not decelerating as rapidly as once though. Either scientists must reconcile themselves to kooky energy, or they must modify or abandon inflation. (Scientific American, Jan. 1999 Vol. 280, 1 “This led me to reconsider my theoretical prejudices. I now think it is very reasonable that there should be a cosmological constant” [s. Hawking] (Astronomy, Oct. 1999 Vol. 27, 10, p. 44-51) Could the enthusiasm generated by inflation and its offshoots conceal a monstrous error?” (Scientific American Jan. 2001 Vol. 284 p. 37, 54, 58) Time has come to put general relativity and the cosmological constant back into circulation, or revise the imperfect last lines of the standard stanza with yet another unconventional maneuver. coldcreation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xersan Posted August 2, 2005 Report Share Posted August 2, 2005 My suggestion is to fix the Ho at a definity value and not move it. That value is zero: As in zero velocity. That then simply gives you the amount of time t the universe has been evolving: Infinity. Your high idea is philosophic and has effects as tranquillizer. But the value of Ho is measurable parameter. Also I prefer to think about universe and life by infinity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan2006 Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 To my understanding a photon is what makes up light in simplest forum, even if you had a device to measure how old a photon is still you could not determine infinity, foreverism, or eternity. Age has no meaning therefore why do we speculate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 I think you guys are forgetting the best source for working out the age of the universe: the bible. The universe is as large as 5000 years old. Simply counting back the generations to Adam and Eve tells us that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 Wow... Might I remind people that time is relative. So the question becomes: If time exists, and the universe can be measured by age in the form of time, then what is the age of the universe relative to earth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 what is the age of the universe relative to earth?I'm guessing a bit older... like 2 or 3 times as much. Cheers. :beer: Universe: ~12-15 billion yearsEarth: ~3-6 billion year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 I think you guys are forgetting the best source for working out the age of the universe: the bible. The universe is as large as 5000 years old. Simply counting back the generations to Adam and Eve tells us that!I'm sorry, but you are using the wrong book. Everybody knows the sanscrit Sidvadic Hrathas is the ONLY book that gives the correct lineage back to the start of the universe. It gives the age as 12,422 years, with an error of only a few hours. And since it is a much older book than the Bible, it is obviously better in every respect. Thank you. :beer::):lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 My suggestion is to fix the Ho...Fix the ho?!?! What's wrong wi' my sister that needs a fixin'? :beer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 Before you all disparage this thread too much more, maybe it should be moved to the strange claims forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 15, 2006 Report Share Posted June 15, 2006 Before you all disparage this thread too much more, maybe it should be moved to the strange claims forum? Why does almost every discussion seem to end up there? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Quite simply because we are no longer talking about a project, or homework, but someone's ideas that are far flung from the accepted levels of current science theory. That is not to say that something may grow out of a discussion of ideas in the strange claims forum, but until such does, it is nothing more than some persons possibly misguided musings. We (I include myself as a member and not as a staff person) do not want a visitor to this site to read this and become confused between what is read here and with what is currently accepted by the scientific community at large as accurate theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebralEcstasy Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Quite simply because we are no longer talking about a project, or homework, but someone's ideas that are far flung from the accepted levels of current science theory. That is not to say that something may grow out of a discussion of ideas in the strange claims forum, but until such does, it is nothing more than some persons possibly misguided musings. We (I include myself as a member and not as a staff person) do not want a visitor to this site to read this and become confused between what is read here and with what is currently accepted by the scientific community at large as accurate theory. While normally I would agree with you.... there remains the fact that there is not one scientist on the planet that can pinpoint the exact age of the universe using the currently known methods. So that theory itself could be considered a strange claim.... *laughs* It just happens to be one the majority can agree upon. As science continues on, and man continues to try and understand - it is the questioning of other scientists that pushes us for a more concrete, truthful answer. There are those among the scientific community who have received much flack for investigating the earth's magnetic field's rate of decay, because the rate of decay suggests that the earth is much younger than other scientist's believe. With that being said, if the earth is much younger, what can be said for the universe? Also who is to say that there isn't someone on this board that is currently studying such things, who will make an inference he/she hasn't before and come up with a whole new thought that is capable of proving/explaining all of the previous uncertainties with certainty. Afterall, isn't this what true science is about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebbysteiny Posted June 18, 2006 Report Share Posted June 18, 2006 Sorry, Celebral, I kinda lost your point. Who cares if our calculation for the Universe being 15 billion years is only accurate to a few hundred million years or even 1 billion years? Also, who cares if the Earth is 5 billion years or 4.5 billion years. Either way, are current understanding of the Universe remains the same and the irrefutable proof that the Bible or any other theory predicting the Earth to be only a few thousand years old remains irrefutable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDMclean Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 I predict that the Universe is ageless. That time is an illusion, a very elaborate one, but an illusion none-the-less. So "I don't by it jack". The age of the earth on the other hand, that is something that agrees with me. I am interested to know what it's relative time period is to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebralEcstasy Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 Sorry, Celebral, I kinda lost your point. Who cares if our calculation for the Universe being 15 billion years is only accurate to a few hundred million years or even 1 billion years? Also, who cares if the Earth is 5 billion years or 4.5 billion years. Either way, are current understanding of the Universe remains the same and the irrefutable proof that the Bible or any other theory predicting the Earth to be only a few thousand years old remains irrefutable. Actually I said nothing of the bible. I think you should reread the post. I was making an inference that if the studies proved to be true, and that the earth were indeed younger, then the universe may be as well. Meaning that if one set of calculations were off, so could the others be. (I had to ask the spouse on this one, to see if he understood what I was trying to convey - ironically enough he came up with the same thought as you*laughs*) I was simply pointing out that it was good to have people posting their thoughts and ideas, as it could lead to others which were more conclusive, as cwes said that he thought we shouldn't be posting anything but what current theory was. Is my point clear now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.