Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − − ==39 billion light years away?== − − I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information. − − PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST) − − :Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST) − − ::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST) Line 170:
Line 160: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Starlight problem (view source)
Revision as of 00:20, January 31, 2012
, 00:20, January 31, 2012moved thread for contiguity
How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
== My applogies, but thats funny ==
== My applogies, but thats funny ==
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::: Where is this? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:58, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well, we don't have indoor plumbing yet, so you're going to have to use the outhouse out back. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
==39 billion light years away?==
I'm sorry, who is claiming to have seen stars 39 billion light years away? The farthest objects visible are 13 billion year old Gamma Ray Bursts, which agrees nicely with the 13.7 billion year age of our universe that scientists have calculated. If you do not cite the 39 billion light year claim, I will delete it and replace it with the correct information.
PS: Here's my citation, before you ask: [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4350/gamma-ray-burst-closest-yet-big-bang source] [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:13, 30 January 2012 (EST)
:Search on "39 billion light years" and you see numerous references to it. Also, you might allow more than 4 minutes to respond to a talk page comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 30 January 2012 (EST)
::Excuse me, I don't need to do a Google search to find references for your completely wrong statement. I have already provided a source for the correct figure. Your figure is a well-known misinterpretation of the estimated diameter of the universe. By the way, you know that if you tell people that an object 39 billion light years away disproves the universe being 13.7 billion years old, you're basically admitting that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)