Let there be more light

swimmerguy's picture

Hehe, facebook thinks, because I satirize conservatives and Mormons and religious people so much that the ads I'd appreciate would be for Rick Perry's Day of public Prayer, and the 22 month old preacher, and "Living Scriptures".

The Economist always talks about how good facebooks advertising aiming is, but it has a bit of a hard time when I always say the opposite of what I like, as sarcastic satire.

Although, maybe it works in a sense, because they are interesting definitely, even if I don't agree with them, being a liberal atheist.

Honestly, "Living Scriptures", child-indoctrinating cartoonized Mormon scriptures, really? You fucking child-indoctrinating butt fucking cock knuckle bitches.
Hehe, I think that's kinda funny :P

Comments

elph's picture

The articles here...

on unreasonable faith will surely elicit many smiles:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/

anarchist's picture

You actually posted a funny journal.

This one made me laugh.
Also, I decided to put this somewhere on here because this is a GLBT site, but the SPK album I'm listening to just used the word bisexual. That's relevant. :D

anarchist's picture

I found a video you would be interested in.

I like this comment on it:
"Actually there are already parts of our own universe which are invisible to us, because the light is still on the way or will never reach us. Our observable universe ends about 14 billion parsecs ahead. There we can see the the beginning of the universe, the first stars. The real size can only be estimated based on the expansion of the universe. Yes, there could be others, but maybe not "space apart". Our space itself (and time) had a beginning in (our?) big bang."

Also, in your last journal you said that you can't focus on Earth because it's so small. I just wanted to ask how you can ignore what is emotionally part of you. People don't ignore their penises if they're too small. And the folks at the Westboro Baptist Church point out that people don't ignore their brains when they're too small.

elph's picture

14 billion parsecs!

Actually... this is incorrect! (Look up the definition of parsec.)

@0411manuel (who you've quoted) should have said 14 billion light years.

swimmerguy's picture

Perhaps

That's not a measurement of the observable universe, because they know the stuff that we can observe that's the farthest away is, adjusting for inflation, something like 46 billion light years away now, because it's been getting farther apart the whole time the universe has been expanding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt5ghXdq6Z0&safe_search=on

elph's picture

Bravo!

Of course your thinking is quite correct!

My error was in citing the age of the most distant observable portion of our universe. That is generally accepted to be ~14 billion years. In other words, the radiation from these most distant nascent stellar objects started towards us ~14 billion years ago (approximately 300,000 years following the putative big bang).

However (as you've said), the universe has been expanding since the birth of these objects ~14 billion years ago. How much that expansion has been is far less certain. For most of the universe's life, although expansion was continuing (momentum remaining from "big bang"), it was decelerating (due to gravitation). However, it is now thought that in the last 1/3 of the universe's life (roughly at the birth of the solar system), the rate of expansion seems(!) to have been picking up (dark energy?). There is much speculation as to what is actually taking place and what's to blame... :(

Much work for future cosmologists... you, maybe?

Whether the stated distance of 14 billion parsecs is correct for the "current" physical distance (from what vantage point?) to those distant objects whose radiation burst forth 15 billion years ago... maybe. I am not up to date on such calculations...

My quick "rush to judgment" was a result of the similarity in the numbers: 14 billion... both for distance (in parsecs) and for age (light years).

This may just be a coincidence... but, I am now motivated to delve deeper (as I hope you are). :)

****

Edit (30 minutes later)

It was written 5 years, but here's an article that does a very respectable job of getting one's mind around this conundrum:

http://everyjoe.com/technology/how-can-we-see-galaxies-47-billion-light-...

elph's picture

Further... for those few having even the slightest interest

Tangentially related to these issues of distances in our universe is the nature of time.

For the curious, please listen to this BBC program:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002w557

Choose the program labeled Time. Likely the first listed.