ubject: Re: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:40:10AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have
> been created out of the nonphysical, which I take to be intelligence.
>
Ther
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:40:10AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> The more interesting question is how the physical universe could have
> been created out of the nonphysical, which I take to be intelligence.
>
There are many accounts of how something (the universe) could have
arisen from nothi
-15, 10:45:18
Subject: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
Hi Stephen P. King
He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt
on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with
alternate theorie. In which case, the Big Bang
simply
2012-11-15, 15:55:10
Subject: Re: Re: 14 billion years ago there was a huge explosion
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:20:14AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno and Russell,
>
> The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
>
Of course, but the big bang is not the same th
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:55:10AM +1100, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Actually, according to Wikipedia:
>
> Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, the
> International Astronomical Union [4] presently use "age of the
> universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:20:14AM -0600, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Bruno and Russell,
>
> The evidence of a Big Bang is enormous. See, for example:
>
Of course, but the big bang is not the same thing as the beginning of
the universe.
Also, the cosmic microwave background, which is the direct
o
Hi Stephen P. King
He's got his work cut out for him, not so much as casting doubt
on other's theories, but in explaining all of the data obtained with
alternate theorie. In which case, the Big Bang
simply happened another way than that taught.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/15/201
Rubbish, it not a measurement of the age of the universe, but rather
of the Hubble constant. It only corresponds to the age of the universe
in the context of a specific theory, usually the Friedmann universe,
which is one of the simplests solutions to Einstein's theory of
general relativity.
Journ
Hi Russell Standish
It's not theory, it's measurement to 4 figures, with an error of plus or minus
0.87 %:
http://www.universetoday.com/13371/1373-billion-years-the-most-accurate-measurement-of-the-age-of-the-universe-yet/
"13.73 Billion Years -- The Most Precise Measurement of the Age of th
9 matches
Mail list logo
