| 15 Jun 2007 02:39 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54  Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
One of the huge parts of the explanation that no one seemed to realize was that stars have a finite age and distance.
I know I read that. But this isn’t a theory this is nothing but assumptions. What i read the biggest thing to note is about the finite age of the Universe and how it’s expanding. Finite age and distance of stars was important but not as important as fite age of the Universe.
 
  | |
|
| 15 Jun 2007 02:39 pm |
strychnine in the guacamole Rep: 47 Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 16,019 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
One of the huge parts of the explanation that no one seemed to realize was that stars have a finite age and distance.
Zucas just said that.
“Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us."- Zucas
  | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:40 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Zucas wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Actually Zucas left a lot of the explanation out.
Well as I say mostly what I’m finding out about this is that it’s nothing but assumptions. You stated that it was based on a theory. A scietific theory is the closest thing to fact there is. Meaning I would have think I would have found a solid answer. But this isn’t a theory. It’s a paradox, contradiction to the Steady State Theory. But it’s not proven. Remember theories in science are so close to being facts. It’s not the same as theories as we would think of as religion is.
The big bang theory. That’s what I’ve been trying to point out all along. Before the big bang theory this paradox was considered as proof of special relativity.
But it’s not proof. This is an assumption. I don’t know what this is doing. Olber’s paradox is nothing but assumption.
So what explains this is the Big Bang Theory?
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:40 pm |
Banned Rep: 51 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:42 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | Exactly theories are pretty much considered facts. But Olber’s Paradox is based on assumptions. ---
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:42 pm |
The one and only OP Rep: 27 Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9,100 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
ON the universe itself, NOT in.
No matter what you or anybody says we don’t know yet.
After all, we’ve only been to the moon and back.
Club: Ramunematt Is A Fucking Dumbass
 | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:42 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Zucas wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Actually Zucas left a lot of the explanation out.
Well as I say mostly what I’m finding out about this is that it’s nothing but assumptions. You stated that it was based on a theory. A scietific theory is the closest thing to fact there is. Meaning I would have think I would have found a solid answer. But this isn’t a theory. It’s a paradox, contradiction to the Steady State Theory. But it’s not proven. Remember theories in science are so close to being facts. It’s not the same as theories as we would think of as religion is.
The big bang theory. That’s what I’ve been trying to point out all along. Before the big bang theory this paradox was considered as proof of special relativity.
But it’s not proof. This is an assumption. I don’t know what this is doing. Olber’s paradox is nothing but assumption.
So what explains this is the Big Bang Theory?
I know Olber’s paradox is just an assumption. The big bang theory is what solves it.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:43 pm |
The one and only OP Rep: 27Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9,100 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
Exactly theories are pretty much considered facts. But Olber’s Paradox is based on assumptions.
There are multiple theories on the beginning of the universe. If they’re all considered fact then we’re idiots.
Not to mention science NEVER claims a theory as fact until it is proven as fact.
Club: Ramunematt Is A Fucking Dumbass
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:43 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Online Predator wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
ON the universe itself, NOT in.
No matter what you or anybody says we don’t know yet.
After all, we’ve only been to the moon and back.
How the universe started is only a small part of what there is to know about the universe, There are physics, matter, size, etc.
We have observed quite a lot.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:45 pm |
strychnine in the guacamole Rep: 47Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 16,019 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
True, we know the stars/galaxies in the universe are rapidly expanding outwards and away from each other. Scientist have a method of measuring the distances of Galaxies with gama ray pulsing light compared to space time and speed of light velocity or something like that. I would have to look it up to get the exact facts on it.
Last edited 15 Jun 2007 02:45 pm by Xtrm Liability | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:45 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | But theories are the closest things to facts. They are almost considered facts. Theories are basically it’s been tested multiple times and has been found to have worked.
But I’ll figure out the Big Bang Theory. ---
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:45 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Exactly theories are pretty much considered facts. But Olber’s Paradox is based on assumptions.
There are multiple theories on the beginning of the universe. If they’re all considered fact then we’re idiots.
Not to mention science NEVER claims a theory as fact until it is proven as fact.
Every scientific fact once started a theory. And BTW we have observable evidence that supports the big bang, that’s why it is mainstream.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:46 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | Woah woah the Big Bang Theory says exactly what I said. The answer is because the Universe is expanding. I’m pretty sure I stated that. Even how old the Universe is. ---
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:46 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Xtrm Liability wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
True, we know the stars/galaxies in the universe are rapidly expanding outwards and away from each other. Scientist have a method of measuring the distances of Galaxies with gama ray pulsing light compared to space time and speed of light velocity or something like that. I would have to look it up to get the exact facts on it.
Haha, we know more about the universe besides expansion.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:46 pm |
The one and only OP Rep: 27Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9,100 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Olber’s Paradox
Ah alright. It has to do with to things. One the Universe isn’t infinite but finite but growing infinitely. Thus this causes some stars to continue to be further away as to where there are a large finite amount of stars that will never ever have light reach the earth.
But from what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions. That the reason starlight can’t reach here is because redshift of photons whic causes us to receive lower photon energies and because the universe is finite but still expanding infinitely causing some stars too far away to have affectable light. But what I’m reading this is nothing but assumptions and not necessarily proven.
lol
Nothing on the universe has really been proven yet. The universe is a big place.
Nothing in the Universe has been proven yet? We know more about the universe than you think.
ON the universe itself, NOT in.
No matter what you or anybody says we don’t know yet.
After all, we’ve only been to the moon and back.
How the universe started is only a small part of what there is to know about the universe, There are physics, matter, size, etc.
We have observed quite a lot.
How the universe was created is an example.
No, we have observed very little, especially considering out time of existence has been quiet short.
We have observed much on our planet but very little outside of our planet. We still have much to learn and always will have something to learn.
Club: Ramunematt Is A Fucking Dumbass
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:47 pm |
The one and only OP Rep: 27Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9,100 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
But theories are the closest things to facts. They are almost considered facts. Theories are basically it’s been tested multiple times and has been found to have worked.
But I’ll figure out the Big Bang Theory.
But they are not facts. By calling them facts we are breaking the rules of science and it is no longer science but what we believe. We cannot combine the two.
Club: Ramunematt Is A Fucking Dumbass
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:49 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,789 OFFLINE | Zucas wrote:
Woah woah the Big Bang Theory says exactly what I said. The answer is because the Universe is expanding. I’m pretty sure I stated that. Even how old the Universe is.
That’s the biggest factor about the explanation, but only part of it. There is the finite speed of light, the origin of all light is a finite distance away, finite age of stars, and what you mentioned about expanding space from an opaque singularity.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:50 pm |
The one and only OP Rep: 27Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 9,100 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Online Predator wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Exactly theories are pretty much considered facts. But Olber’s Paradox is based on assumptions.
There are multiple theories on the beginning of the universe. If they’re all considered fact then we’re idiots.
Not to mention science NEVER claims a theory as fact until it is proven as fact.
Every scientific fact once started a theory. And BTW we have observable evidence that supports the big bang, that’s why it is mainstream.
And NOT every theory becomes a fact.
To call the big bag a fact when there are multiple different theories with evidence going for them we are just being plain stupid.
Nobody will ever know the beginning of the universe. The only way to know is to be there, which we weren’t.
Club: Ramunematt Is A Fucking Dumbass
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:50 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 54Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 40,050 OFFLINE | All I’m saying though is that a scientific theory is as close to being a fact as it gets. It’s not exactly a fact but it’s close. I’m not calling it a fact but I’m just saying it’s as close as it gets. That’s why theories are taken very seriously by scientists to go off of. ---
| |
| 15 Jun 2007 02:50 pm |
strychnine in the guacamole Rep: 47Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 16,019 OFFLINE | Nobody knows how the universe was created. We have a few facts that support theories on how it was created, but it is, and remains a theory! ---
| |
|
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
»
Off-Topic
» I have another paradox for ya'll to solve
