TOTAL DARKNESS lasted 550 MILLION years until the first STARS LIT UP The first stars were formed much later than had been previously thought in the boffinry community, according to new maps of the universe's "ancient light" from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite. Astrophysicists have now calculated that the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old, based on the light emitted by …
>Even if you could accelerate continuously at 1g, you would never reach light speed.
If you are an subatomic particle and launched with enough energy you could get close enough for government work though. Probably wouldn't have accelerated at 1g though.
It's all based on the mistaken premise that light goes through a vacuum with no energy loss. The truth is that the further it travels, the more tired it gets, therefore it has less energy (especially if it had to wade through any dark matter kludges), and *that* is why it is red shifted all the way down to microwave levels, nothing to do with this crazy hand-waving scientific nonsense.
Also note that it is not by coincidence that our wireless devices are all in the microwave range, this range is used because it works as a camouflage against the 'cosmic background' and hopefully nobody was watching too closely while we were gleefully transmitting sitcoms without proper cover, or there will be marauding hordes of alien I Love Lucy fans... it's a global conspiracy but one for our own protection.
Alternatively the big bang happened in a strong strong magical field -
When light encounters a strong magical field it loses all sense of urgency. It slows right down. And on the Discworld the magic was embarrassingly strong, which meant that the soft yellow light of dawn flowed over the sleeping landscape like the caress of a gentle lover or, as some would have it, like golden syrup.
"I've never really understood why that was worded as an 'either/or' thing..."
It's not, in the sense that it's either "like the caress of a gentle lover" or "like golden syrup" - the either or is referring to those so describing it: Depending who you asked, you'd generally either hear the first description, or the second.
Well, no, we don't believe we know everything. That's kind of the point. If we believed we knew everything, we wouldn't be launching satellites to make observations and see how well those observations line up with what we think we know.
The universe is a vast and tricksy place, and our intuition evolved to make sense of only a small sliver of it. The universe is in no hurry to reveal its secrets and in any event is under no observation to conform to our expectations. Hence, science, which is always observing, making predictions, and asking questions.
if they can't get the history of the earth right how close are they to this .. ?
Notwithstanding everything else that's wrong with your assertions, already addressed by others, and the ambiguity (at best) of this particular statement, these are two completely different scientific fields. It's like saying that what we know about semiconductors is wrong because we don't fully understand how many anaesthetics work. Why should certainty in the two fields necessarily be linked?
IMHO=might want to Google this and watch it , especially the last 4 minutes...Seems that a recompilation of the entire run of data yielded this 17 minute video map...this happened after the data for this article was crunched several years ago...CMB ?? sure, just watch the video... it's a keeper...RS.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
