Diameter of known universe in statute miles!

[ianke]

Thanks again speedfreek. I appreciate the fact that I am not the only person that seems a bit frustrated over the generally accepted theories. I believe it is our duty to keep asking questions. It keeps the big dogs on their collective toes if nothing else.<br /><br />Note: The gravity statement was a joke. I do understand the theory Albert E. laid out (just an intentional over simplification) I just meant it to say that we need to keep an eye on the other options (in particular the simple ones) when looking for the ultimate truths in science.<br /><br /><br />I myself have fallen into the trapp of wanting an outcome to br true while researching the new and unknown. Research in any discipline comes with the inherent problems of maintaining objective thought processes. It is human nature to want to be right.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hello MeteorWayne. You have hit the nail on the head. I agree with you all the way. My only problem with this current issue is this. If alternate conclusions can also be assertained from the same observations, then it is wrong to discount or belittle those theories you do not asbscribe to. It appears to me that (and this may be the media's fault) an inordinate amount of weight is being given to only the one option. This can really slow down the whole process.<br /><br />Consider the string theory camp before the days of membrane theory. They had all kinds of problems with multiple true equations, but threw out the super gravity theory guys because they used one too many spatial dementions. The String camp tossed their theories because they just knew they were on the only true path. Next comes in the Membrane theory. Membrane theory is (with a few other minor points) essentially string theory with extra dementions. WHAT A CONCEPT! Suddenly the universe was "running on greased grooves" again for the theoretical boys. They found out that all of their separate equations were really manifestations of the same thing. It seems they needed to listen to others a little better. It might have saved a little time. <br /> <br />Note: This was just an example. I don't mean to step on any toes with this.<br /><br />I also do not think that the imploding cosmos I laid out in the above link is, or even has a good probability of being the ultimate answer. It is my intent to show that you can not just pick an answer to a problem just by saying it fits. Rather one must eliminate what you know to be wrong. This gets you closer to the knowledge you seek to start with (the truth). I didn't mean to sound like Sherlock Holmes here. lol Ultimate truth does not allow for too many correct answers. It is way too messy.<br /><br />Also, you are right about the time we live in. Discovery and knowledge is growing at an exponential rate. That is truly amazing and exciting! <br /> <b></b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> 1.7*10^19 times I think <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Guess Fossett would need a tailwind then ... lol<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>