"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

King Mob

J C wrote: »

No ... you haven't!!!

The size of the universe. the amount of mass in the universe. The amount of electrons in the universe.
This figure of 10^132 that you've dreamed up.
It's all there in the post.

J C wrote: »

No more waffling lies ... which figure or which calculation is wrong?

Not find it a little hypocritical to get pissy with people when you think they are ignoring your questions?

But hey, you're lying for the LORD. So it's all good.

J C

Improbable wrote: »

You're not taking into account the mass of intergalactic material.

This was taken into account in the estimate of the Milky Way Galaxy. Here is the relevant Encyclopædia Britannica page:-

THE MILKY WAY GALAXY
As noted earlier, the first reliable measurement of the size of the Milky Way Galaxy was made in 1917 by Harlow Shapley. He arrived at his size determination by establishing the spatial distribution of globular clusters. Instead of a relatively small system with the Sun near its centre, as had previously been thought, Shapley found that the Galaxy was immense, with the Sun nearer the edge than the centre. Assuming that the globular clusters outlined the Galaxy, he determined that it has a diameter of about 100,000 light-years and that the Sun lies about 30,000 light-years from the centre. His values have held up remarkably well over the years. Although dependent in part on the particular component being discussed, with neutral hydrogen somewhat more widely dispersed and dark (i.e., nonobservable) matter perhaps filling an even larger volume than expected, the stellar disk of the Milky Way system is just about as large as Shapley's model predicted. The most distant stars and gas clouds of the system that have had their distance determined reliably lie roughly 72,000 light-years from the galactic centre, while the distance of the Sun from the centre has been found to be approximately 27,000 light-years.
The total mass of the Galaxy, which had seemed reasonably well established during the 1960s, has become a matter of considerable uncertainty. Measuring the mass out to the distance of the farthest large hydrogen clouds is a relatively straightforward procedure. The measurements required are the velocities and positions of neutral hydrogen gas, combined with the approximation that the gas is rotating in nearly circular orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. A rotation curve, which relates the circular velocity of the gas to its distance from the galactic centre, is constructed. The shape of this curve and its values are determined by the amount of gravitational pull that the Galaxy exerts on the gas. Velocities are low in the central parts of the system because not much mass is interior to the orbit of the gas; most of the Galaxy is exterior to it and does not exert an inward gravitational pull. Velocities are high at intermediate distances because most of the mass in that case is inside the orbit of the gas clouds and the gravitational pull inward is at a maximum. At the farthest distances, the velocities decrease because nearly all the mass is interior to the clouds. This portion of the Galaxy is said to have Keplerian orbits, since the material should move in the same manner that the German astronomer Johannes Kepler discovered the planets to move within the solar system, where virtually all the mass is concentrated inside the orbiting bodies. The total mass of the Galaxy is then found by constructing mathematical models of the system with different amounts of material distributed in various ways and by comparing the resulting velocity curves with the observed one. As applied in the 1960s, this procedure indicated that the total mass of the Galaxy was approximately 200,000,000,000 times the mass of the Sun.
During the 1980s, however, refinements in the determination of the velocity curve began to cast doubts on the earlier results. The downward trend to lower velocities in the outer parts of the Galaxy was found to have been in error. Instead, the curve remained almost constant, indicating that there continue to be substantial amounts of matter exterior to the measured hydrogen gas. This in turn indicates that there must be some undetected material out there that is completely unexpected. It must extend considerably beyond the previously accepted positions of the edge of the Galaxy, and it must be dark at virtually all wavelengths, as it remains undetected even when searched for with radio, X-ray, ultraviolet, infrared, and optical telescopes. Until the dark matter is identified and its distribution determined, it will be impossible to measure the total mass of the Galaxy from the rotation curve, and so all that can be said is that the mass is perhaps five or 10 times larger than thought earlier. That is to say, the mass, including the dark matter, must be about 1,000,000,000,000 times the mass of the Sun, with considerable uncertainty. The nature of the dark matter in the Galaxy remains one of the major questions of galactic astronomy. Other galaxies also appear to have such matter in their outer parts. The only possible kinds of material that are consistent with the nondetections are all rather unlikely, at least according to present understanding in physics and astronomy. Planets and rocks would be impossible to detect, but it is extremely difficult to understand how they could materialize in sufficient numbers in the outer parts of galaxies where there are no stars or even interstellar gas and dust from which they could be formed. Massive neutrinos and other exotic, hypothetical subatomic particles also might be difficult to detect, but there is no good evidence that they even exist, and therefore they can only be considered a highly conjectural solution to the puzzle. It will take considerable effort to identify the dark matter with any degree of certainty. In the meantime it must be said that astronomy does not know what makes up much of the universe.
Copyright 1994-1999 Encyclopædia Britannica

Improbable

I'm not gonna quote that whole block of text, just the bit you so conveniently highlighted for me.

"the mass, including the dark matter, must be about 1,000,000,000,000 times the mass of the Sun, with considerable uncertainty."

dark matter =/= intergalactic material

Even if it was, that is the mass of the galaxy, not of intergalactic material.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

The size of the universe. the amount of mass in the universe. The amount of electrons in the universe. This figure of 10^132 that you've dreamed up. It's all there in the post. Not find it a little hypocritical to get pissy with people when you think they are ignoring your questions? But hey, you're lying for the LORD. So it's all good.

Specifically what figure about the size of the Universe or the maximium number of electrons as measured by the electron mass equivalent of the Universe is incorrect in my calculations?

Also specifically what is wrong with the figures or the calculation of the number of permutations being 10^132 for choosing from 20 Amino acids at 100 points on a specific amino acid chain?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Specifically what figure about the size of the Universe

The fact you had to be corrected on it 3 times?
The fact you can't tell the difference between billion and millions?
the fact you don't understand what an event horizon is.

J C wrote: »

or the maximium number of electrons as measured by the electron mass equivalent of the Universe is incorrect in my calculations?

Because you're assuming that all the mass in the universe is electrons which isn't true?
And all this was out lined in the post you keep ignoring like the liar you are.

J C wrote: »

Also specifically what is wrong with the figures or the calculation of the number of permutations being 10^132 for choosing from 20 Amino acids at 100 points on a specific amino acid chain?

Because it's an entirely made up number that you've copied from a person who clearly doesn't understand what either electrons or amino acids are.

And notice how you're ignoring all those other points?
You do realise you are ignoring them right?

Do you even know yourself why you are ignoring them?

sponsoredwalk

[latex] 1 \ x \ 10^9 \ = \ 1 \ Billion \ = \ 1 \ thousand \ million[/latex]

[latex] 1 \ x \ 10^{10} \ = \ 10 \ Billion \ = \ 10 \ thousand \ million[/latex]

The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars (30 to 70
sextillion stars),[25] organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which
themselves form clusters and superclusters.[26]

You understand that this is:

[latex] 8 \ x \ 10^{10} \ = \ 80 \ Billion \ = \ 80 \ thousand \ million \ \approx \ 1 \ X \ 10^{11} [/latex]

Very different numbers J C and seeing as you were correlating your
calculation with electrons I think the numbers would turn out vastly
different. Check online for yourself, the Hubble telescope has even
higher predictions than the one I put up.

J C

Improbable wrote: »

I'm not gonna quote that whole block of text, just the bit you so conveniently highlighted for me. "the mass, including the dark matter, must be about 1,000,000,000,000 times the mass of the Sun, with considerable uncertainty." dark matter =/= intergalactic material Even if it was, that is the mass of the galaxy, not of intergalactic material.

The dark matter estimate includes inter-galactic dark matter.

Improbable

J C wrote: »

The dark matter estimate includes inter-galactic dark matter.

What about intergalactic matter which isn't dark matter?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The dark matter estimate includes inter-galactic dark matter.

Ohh another lie there JC.
The page you claim is from the EB in fact says it's just counting the dark matter in the Milkyway, not any extra galactic mass.

Whoops. Caught out again.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

The fact you had to be corrected on it 3 times? The fact you can't tell the difference between billion and millions?

The 93 billion/million was a typo ... and the calculation used 93 billion and was correct all along ... talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!

King Mob wrote: »

the fact you don't understand what an event horizon is.

Iknow quite well what an Event Horizon is ... and I used your 93 Billion light year Universe Diameter figure in my last calculation.

King Mob wrote: »

Because you're assuming that all the mass in the universe is electrons which isn't true?

Obviously, only a tiny fraction of the entire mass of the universe is contained in electrons ... but I used the figure to calculate the upper limit for the number of electrons in the universe by calculating the electron mass equivalent of the Universe. In actual fact, the number of electrons are considerably less than 10^82 ... which widens the gap even further with the 10^132 figure for the number of aa permutations in a 100 chain protein.

King Mob wrote: »

And all this was out lined in the post you keep ignoring like the liar you are. Because it's an entirely made up number that you've copied from a person who clearly doesn't understand what either electrons or amino acids are. And notice how you're ignoring all those other points? You do realise you are ignoring them right? Do you even know yourself why you are ignoring them?

I am telling the truth.

The fact that you have cited nothing specific that is wrong with my figures or my calculations shows that you are lying about me!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

It was a typo ... and the calculation was correct all along ... talk about 'sweating the small stuff'!!

Well you where the one talking about your maths prowess....

J C wrote: »

Iknow quite well what an Event Horizon is ...

No you don't because that requires you to have a grasp of junior cert physics.

J C wrote: »

and I used your 93 Billion light year Universe Diameter figure in my last calculation.

You mean after you used the incorrect number twice?

J C wrote: »

Obviously, only a tiny fraction of the entire mass of the universe is contained in electrons ... but I used the figure to calculate the upper limit for the number of electrons in the univers by calculating the electron mass equivalent of the Universe. In actual fact, the number of electrons are considerably less than 10^82!!!

Case and point.

J C wrote: »

which widens the gap even further with the 10^132 figure for the number of aa permutations in a 100 chain protein

Which is still an entirely made up number by an idiot who doesn't understand amino acids or electrons.

J C wrote: »

You are the liar ... and I am telling the truth.

Then why do you have to lie and ignore so many questions?

J C wrote: »

The fact that you have cited nothing specific that is wrong with my figures or my calculations shows that you are lying about me!!!

Yes I have. Several times. And even if your math was right, what exactly does it prove? Snails are crap at interstellar flight?
I thought you were meant to be showing the mathematical proof you had against evolution....
Turns out that was a lie too I guess...

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Ohh another lie there JC.
The page you claim is from the EB in fact says it's just counting the dark matter in the Milkyway, not any extra galactic mass.

Whoops. Caught out again.

You appear to be correct about this ... so what is your estimate for this matter?
... even if it 10 times greater than all galactic matter and dark matter combined ... it still only increases the time taken by the metaphorical snail to transport every electron mass equivalent over and back across the 93 billion light-year Universe diameter to 10^115 ... which is still well short of 10^130.

BTW I have re-checked the permutions figure and the correct figure for the permutations on a 100 chain protein is 10^130.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

You appear to be correct about this ... so what is your estimate for this matter?
... even if it 10 times greater than all galactic matter and dark matter combined ... it still only increases the time taken by the metaphorical snail to transport every electron mass equivalent over and back across the 93 billion light-year Universe diameter to 10^124 ... which is still well short of 10^130.

Yes 10^130 is a very big number.
Well done JC. Have a biscuit.

However the figure is a made up one from and idiot who, like you doesn't understand basic science like what amino acids are and what an electron is.

J C wrote: »

BTW the correct figure for the permutations on a 100 chain protein is 10^130.

Now you see JC I'd love to believe you and all but you've proved yourself to be an incompetent liar who lacks basic reading comprehension and mathematical skills.
I'm going to need a reputable source for this claim or it's going on your big pile of lies.

Improbable

J C wrote: »

You appear to be correct about this ... so what is your estimate for this matter?
... even if it 10 times greater than all galactic matter and dark matter combined ... it still only increases the time taken by the metaphorical snail to transport every electron mass equivalent over and back across the 93 billion light-year Universe diameter to 10^124 ... which is still well short of 10^130.

Also, isn't that only the diameter which was estimated for the observable universe?

King Mob

Improbable wrote: »

Also, isn't that only the diameter which was estimated for the observable universe?

Yup the number I corrected him with is to the particle horizon.

But then JC can only repeat what he's been told to repeat by creationist cranks.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Yup the number I corrected him with is to the particle horizon.

But then JC can only repeat what he's been told to repeat by creationist cranks.

The Event Horizon has a radius of 18 billion light years ... and it doesn't have a diameter of 93 billion light years ... which was your figure for the diameter of the visible Universe.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YRjfuEP_QycC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=What+is+the+distance+to+the+%22cosmic+event+horizon%22&source=bl&ots=6-NkW_PGKo&sig=fIwM0U-oSSYaHS2Xuhh2dYtz9Zw&hl=en&ei=MIWfTIfeM4TIswbd9rDmDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20the%20distance%20to%20the%20%22cosmic%20event%20horizon%22&f=false

J C

King Mob wrote: »

I'm going to need a reputable source for this claim or it's going on your big pile of lies.

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The Event Horizon is has a radius of 18 billion light years ... and it doesn't have a diameter of 93 billion light years ... which was your figure
http://books.google.com/books?id=YRjfuEP_QycC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=What+is+the+distance+to+the+%22cosmic+event+horizon%22&source=bl&ots=6-NkW_PGKo&sig=fIwM0U-oSSYaHS2Xuhh2dYtz9Zw&hl=en&ei=MIWfTIfeM4TIswbd9rDmDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAzge#v=onepage&q=What%20is%20the%20distance%20to%20the%20%22cosmic%20event%20horizon%22&f=false

Now you see they are actually using the wrong term. The proper term for the edge of the universe is particle horizon

So how long did it take you to google that then JC?

Notice how it;s not even close to the original figures you had?
So we can assume you where lying then?

And here's where I got my figure: http://books.google.com/books?id=fFSMatekilIC&lpg=PR1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

And you're still ignoring many many many other points.
Why is that JC? How is that included in any definition of the word "truth"?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Have a look at the figures:-

That's clearly not what I asked for.

You can copy and paste that block of nonsense all you like, it's not suddenly gonna to become a proof.

But then I suppose that providing the proof would require you to stop lying and tell the truth for once.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see they are actually using the wrong term. The proper term for the edge of the universe is particle horizon

So how long did it take you to google that then JC?

Notice how it;s not even close to the original figures you had?
So we can assume you where lying then?

And here's where I got my figure: http://books.google.com/books?id=fFSMatekilIC&lpg=PR1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

And you're still ignoring many many many other points.
Why is that JC? How is that included in any definition of the word "truth"?

If you cannot point out anything that is wrong with my figures or my calculations then I think I will leave to all of the objective 'lurkers' on the thread to make up their minds as to who is wrong and who is correct on this issue.
Pathetically (and inappropriately) repeating the accusation of lying is doing your case no good whatsoever!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

If you cannot point out anything that is wrong with my figures or my calculations

We did. Repeatedly.
You're just too dense and dishonest to admit it.

J C wrote: »

then I think I will leave to all of the objective 'lurkers' on the thread to make up their minds as to who is wrong and who is correct on this issue.
Pathetically (and inappropriately) repeating the accusation of lying is doing your case no good whatsoever!!!

Oh I agree.
I'm sure you're doing a fantastic job of showing exactly how ignorant, ill informed, dishonest and plain stupid you have to be to be a creationist.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

And here's where I got my figure: http://books.google.com/books?id=fFSMatekilIC&lpg=PR1&pg=PA27#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fair enough ... and I have used this figure for the diameter of the visible universe in my updated calculation.

Improbable

I lost the point of this quite a while ago. Is this the mathematical proof against evolution? Because if that is what you're trying to do, then I gotta tell you that this is the most misguided and flat out wrong and idiotic proof ever.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Fair enough ... and I have used this figure for the diameter of the visible universe in my updated calculation.

So when you first did your stupid little nonsense calculation (more likely copied it fro some website) you where indeed lying when you gave the diameter of the universe?

And so are you going to answer any of the numerous other points made against your inane claims?
Or is that too honest for you?

King Mob

Improbable wrote: »

I lost the point of this quite a while ago. Is this the mathematical proof against evolution? Because if that is what you're trying to do, then I gotta tell you that this is the most misguided and flat out wrong and idiotic proof ever.

Basically he's trying to say that a really big number is a really big number. So therefore this other really big number someone pulled out of their ass shows evolution is impossible.
But I doubt he knows what point he's trying to make himself.

ColmDawson

What's amusing about it is that even if he somehow shows evolution to be impossible, he still won't even have gone one step towards showing the Genesis story to be true.

keppler

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF JC's LYING

J C wrote: »

PAGE 41 18-09-2010/10:46

I wasn't at the meeting ... so I cannot confirm or deny whether these women 'waggled their breasts' ... but I know that they wouldn't do so if they were professional models ... or indeed ordinary women with respect for themselves ... so I frankly don't believe that they did so.
Equally, your charge that they had 'enormous' breasts is clearly wrong, based on the photo you have posted. All this stuff seems to be in your 'dirty' mind, Robin!!!!

( ALL THESE QUOTES ARE JC'S AND ARE CHRONOLOGICALLY DATED)

J C wrote: »

PAGE 43 18-09-2010/13:33
... and the 'jury is still out' on John May, as far as I am concerned ... I still haven't got my hands on his book yet.

J C wrote: »

PAGE 44 18-09-2010/15:12
OK

The following are the 7 reasons why John May rejects and detests Evolution:-

1: It teaches us to be satisfied with - not understanding origins.

2: It promotes the dangerous nonsense of no first cause - no supreme scientist and suggests order came from disorder.

3: It is a mataphysical speculation, a doctrine dressed up in scientific garb.

4: Anyone who teaches evolution is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the known scientific facts.

5: It is a toxic poisonous mind virus which destroys the hearts immune system against hope and common sense.

6: It is an anaesthetic against reason.

7: It cripples sanity, promotes myths, obscures reality and elevates matter above a maker.

Discuss....

J C wrote: »

PAGE44 18-09-2010/17:14
How about the 10 Commandments of Logic ... according to John May


We must not accept myths -- In defiance of science.

We shall not reject laws -- That show a first cause.

We shall not deny acts -- That confirm known facts.

We shall practise reason -- In every season.

We should taste the fruit -- Of visible truth.

We must cast off bias -- With its seed in lies.

We shall use the mind -- And not be blind.

We must never accept tradition -- over scientific ammunition.

We must refuse to choose -- A pseudoscientific ruse.

We must respect the relevance -- Of testable evidence.


... any chance that you guys would start to obey these commandments ... in your deliberations on Evolution?

(INTERESTING BIT;))

J C wrote: »

PAGE45 18-09-2010/17:14
... I have read the 'free bit' of his book on his website ... and it has considerable literary merit.:)

http://www.theoriginofspeciousnonsense.com/book%20demo/bookdemo.html

(AND THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING)

J C wrote: »

PAGE 65 23-09-2010/21:33
Just got my hands on John May's book ... he IS one of YOU guys!!!

JC ive read the free bit of may's book too!
at no point does it make any reference to these '7 reasons or 10 commandments'


this means JC
1. you were either lying about not being at the meeting
or
2. you were lying about not having the book

Interesting

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

J C wrote: »

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

J C wrote: »

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

J C wrote: »

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Have a look at the figures:-

First let me show you how to establish the upper limit for the number of electrons in the electron mass equivalent of the Universe :-
5.98E+21 Weight of Earth in tonnes (5,976,000,000,000,000,000,000 Te).

1.97E+27 Weight of The Sun in tonnes (330,000 times that of the Earth).

1.97E+39 Weight of The Milky Way Galaxy (including dark matter) in tonnes (1,000,000,000,000 that of The Sun).

1.00E+10 There are 10 thousand million galaxies in the Universe.

1.97E+49 Weight of The Universe in tonnes (assuming all galaxies have an average weight = to The Milky Way Galaxy).
1.97E+55 Weight of The Universe in grams.

9.10E-28 Weight of an Electron in grams (0.00000000000000000000000000091 grams).
2.17E+82 Number of electrons in The Universe if all matter consisted only of electrons.


Now let us set our metaphorical snail on its travels:-

9.30E+10 light yrs diameter of the Universe
9.46E+12 Km in one light year
8.80E+26 Metres in 93,000,000,000 Light Years
1.00E-01 'Snails Pace' of 0.1 Metres or 4 Ins per Hour
8.80E+27 Hours to travel 93,000,000,000 Light Years
6.33E+31 Seconds to travel 93 Bn Light Years over and back
2.17E+82 Electrons in the Universe
1.37E+114 Seconds to move each electron over and back across the Universe at 'Snails Pace' taking one electron at a time

So it takes approximately 10^114 seconds to move every electron in the universe over and back across its 93 billion light years diameter taking one electron at a time ... and even if inter-galactic material is 10 times the amount of all other material in the Universe, the number of seconds required by our proverbial snail just increases to 10^115!!!
... and this is still only an infinitesimally small fraction of 10^130

Just in case anyone isn't getting the point and so that JC doesn't need to repeat this quote again..He's already done it
more times than I have....:D:)
..

Zillah

This thread must die.

Burn the witch.

Lock this shit.

Ban everyone.

*copy/pastes five pages of creationist drivel*

keppler

J C wrote: »

Distance has nothing to do with Creation ... many Creation Scientists believe that the Universe is infinite!!

JC here you go trying to change the subject again.
did you honestly think that you could just throw 'steady state theory' in your attempt at an answer and i would run at it like a retriever dog?
NO NO NO JC
now we have been discussing redshift and your apparent indecisiveness as to what causes it for many pages now (for some reason you still think this has a bearing on whether it can be used for calculating distance or not).

And you still havnt given me a straight answer to my question:mad:
DO YOU THINK ITS INACCURATE AT CALCULATING DISTANCE AND THEREFORE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE ESTIMATED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THEREFORE IMPLY THAT GOD DID CREATE THE EARTH 6000YEARS AGO?