# UniKEF analysis

Persol said:
I think they are called scientists...

It is sad when todays self-proclaimed experts require others to do their thinking for them and rely upon the repetative mathematical steps to declare they are scientists.

Frankly the greater minds do the leg work and HSchool freshmen can learn the mathematics.

The following is a distinctly different theory but yet has parallels to UniKEF.

The parallels are that gravity is a function of energy flowing. In this case between different dimensions. I don't believe in more than 3D with time being a property of the the 3 and not a 4th.

It also has gravity as being the function which results in the accelerated expansion of the universe which UniKEF also predicts.

The reason for posting this however is that it contains information regarding the gravitational attraction vs repulsion distance which I have not seen before.

According to this the transisition from attraction to repulsion (predicted by UniKEF) occurs at 15 Blyr distance.

That distance seems non-sensical in that the universe has a radius of 13.7 Blyr. :bugeye:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223151354.htm

Last edited:
The universe does not have a radius of 13.7 Gly. It is 13.7 Gy old, but the particle horizon (the "observable radius") is something like 46 Gly. Do your homework, Mac.

- Warren

chroot said:
The universe does not have a radius of 13.7 Gly. It is 13.7 Gy old, but the particle horizon (the "observable radius") is something like 46 Gly. Do your homework, Mac.

- Warren

Go back to sleep Warren.

:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

You are way off as usual.

What you don't know what the units of Gly are? Billions of "Light years" The distance light travels in a year. Speaking of doing homework the latest figure is 78 not 42 :bugeye:

chroot is correct, MacM. The latest estimate for the radius of the universe is about 46 Gly. There was a mistake made in the original poplar news media confusing the radius with the diameter. Niel Cornish was stating the universe had a present diameter of at least 78 billion light years, but the reporter misunderstood that to be the radius. The 78 Gly diameter has more recently been expanded to about 92 Gly diameter. And, uh, professional astronomers prefer to use parsecs as a means as stating distances, as 'lightyears' can give mistaken impressions. A lightlear today in our nieghborhood is not the same distance as a lightyear 13 billion years ago. It is complicated to understand, considered too complicated for the general public, so the imprecise lightyear is used instead. Light is only 'c' in CO-MOVING reference frames, something not understood by Special Relativists. I have given up trying to explain, but here is a short link by Ned Wright that explains cosmological distances and measures:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-03/06May05-CSUN-clean.pdf

Edit: sorry, I just noticed that I failed to post the link I was speaking of.

Last edited:
2inquisitive said:
The latest estimate for the radius of the universe is about 46 Gly. There was a mistake made in the original poplar news media confusing the radius with the diameter. Niel Cornish was stating the universe had a present diameter of at least 78 billion light years, but the reporter misunderstood that to be the radius. The 78 Gly diameter has more recently been expanded to about 92 Gly diameter....

Thanks. You seem to be correct. I found simular information after you posted.

But that doesn't excuse chroot for distorting the Gly units and claim I confused age (Gy) with distance. Gly is distance.

MacM said:
But that doesn't excuse chroot for distorting the Gly units and claim I confused age (Gy) with distance. Gly is distance.

What are you going on about, moron? I didn't "distort" anything. You said the radius of the observable universe was 13.7 billion light-years. I pointed out that, as usual, you're wrong, and the observable universe actually has a radius of about 46 billion light-years. Others have corroborated. Suck it up, moron.

- Warren

chroot said:
What are you going on about, moron? I didn't "distort" anything. You said the radius of the observable universe was 13.7 billion light-years. I pointed out that, as usual, you're wrong, and the observable universe actually has a radius of about 46 billion light-years. Others have corroborated. Suck it up, moron.

- Warren

Speaking of morons. I had fogotten just how moronic you are.

Here is what you wrote:

The universe does not have a radius of 13.7 Gly. It is 13.7 Gy old,...

The distance we see, not the calculated distance based on assumptions of expansion rates. Moron.

"What you see is what you get."

MacM said:
The distance we see, not the calculated distance based on assumptions of expansion rates. Moron.

What the hell are you talking about, moron? This sentence isn't even grammatical. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and is not 13.7 billion light-years in radius, as I said. I have no idea what your argument is. There's nothing wrong in the sentence you just quoted. Do you actually have an argument? Or are you, as usual, just fundamentally incapable of admitting that you made an obvious, elementary mistake?

- Warren

chroot said:
What the hell are you talking about, moron? This sentence isn't even grammatical. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, and is not 13.7 billion light-years in radius, as I said. I have no idea what your argument is. There's nothing wrong in the sentence you just quoted. Do you actually have an argument? Or are you, as usual, just fundamentally incapable of admitting that you made an obvious, elementary mistake?

- Warren

Look in the mirror moron. I stated the observed radius as 13.7Gly. Yes that is 13.7 G years old and the distance we see at the speed of light.

FYI: Not that you give a crap about truth but I personally posted information on this forum about the calculated diameter of the universe months ago. So go stuff your crackpot crap where the sun doesn't shine.

MacM said:
Look in the mirror moron. I stated the observed radius as 13.7Gly. Yes that is 13.7 G years old and the distance we see at the speed of light.

And that's WRONG, moron. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but the observable universe is 46 billion light-years in radius. The universe was not always the same size as it is today. It is not 13.7 billion light-years in radius, as I've already said, and others have agreed.

Apparently, you're just completely incapable of actually understanding anything you read, even simply-structured sentences about basic concepts like distance and time. This doesn't stop you from responding with vitriol, however, which is why your threads end up being a hundred pages of white noise.

- Warren

chroot said:
And that's WRONG, moron. The universe is 13.7 billion years old, but the observable universe is 46 billion light-years in radius. The universe was not always the same size as it is today. It is not 13.7 billion light-years in radius, as I've already said, and others have agreed.

Apparently, you're just completely incapable of actually understanding anything you read, even simply-structured sentences about basic concepts like distance and time. This doesn't stop you from responding with vitriol, however, which is why your threads end up being a hundred pages of white noise.

- Warren

Add to the list of unfavorable characteristics for yourself the practice of deliberate distortion, innuendo and lying. Your post excludes the following information:

MacM said:
FYI: Not that you give a crap about truth but I personally posted information on this forum about the calculated diameter of the universe months ago. So go stuff your crackpot crap where the sun doesn't shine.

I didn't distort anything. I didn't make any innuendo. I didn't lie about anything. You listed a number for the radius of the observable universe -- which was factually incorrect -- and I corrected it (and, appropriately, called you a moron). That's the extent of it, Mac. The fact that you think simply being corrected by someone about something as concrete as a figure prompts half a page of accusations of distortion, innuendo, and lies speaks volumes about your mental state. I know distortion, innuendo, and lies are your three favorite words, but perhaps you should reserve them for situations in which they actually make sense, lest the mental-health cat find its way out of the bag.

- Warren

chroot said:
I didn't distort anything. I didn't make any innuendo. I didn't lie about anything. You listed a number for the radius of the observable universe -- which was factually incorrect -- and I corrected it (and, appropriately, called you a moron). That's the extent of it, Mac. The fact that you think simply being corrected by someone about something as concrete as a figure prompts half a page of accusations of distortion, innuendo, and lies speaks volumes about your mental state. I know distortion, innuendo, and lies are your three favorite words, but perhaps you should reserve them for situations in which they actually make sense, lest the mental-health cat find its way out of the bag.

- Warren

Your propensity to run off at the mouth is well known. Your continued repeating of false innuendo does not make it correct. Go smart off else where.

BTW I can recommend washing ones foot before sticking it in their mouth:

***************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
Size of the universe and observable universe
Main article: Observable universe

However, the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The edge of the cosmic light horizon is 13.7 billion light years (4.19 Gpc) distant.

The present distance (comoving distance) to the edge of the observable universe is larger, due to the ever increasing rate at which the universe has been expanding; it is estimated to be about 78 billion light years (7.8 × 1010 light years, or 7.4 × 1026 m).

http://www.olduniverse.com/home_page.htm

Our universe expands at a rate of about 20 kilometers per second (km/sec) per million light years of galaxy distance. If the universe expands uniformly at this rate, a galaxy 15 billion light years away should recede at 300,000 km/sec, which is the speed of light. This galaxy presumably cannot be seen, and so 15 billion light years is regarded as our observational limit. Our observable universe is considered to be a sphere with a radius of 15 billion light years.

If we apply the Gamow postulate that the initial universe had the density of nuclear matter, our present observable universe (30 billion light years in diameter)

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.1507

Using the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT), a team of astronomers from The Netherlands, Germany, France and the USA have discovered the most distant group of galaxies ever seen, about 13.5 billion light-years away from our Milky Way galaxy.

******************************************************

You are a pathetic basket case Warren.

Distances in cosmology are complicated things. There are several ways to express distances, but I will focus on only two, because that seems to be where the confusion lies.

MacM, what you are referring to is known as a comoving distance. It is the distance that would be measured if the coordinate points of each object were locked into place, in other words, they have no relative motion in time.

A proper distance is the distance the two objects are apart when the light from the distant object is detected. The light from your example was emitted (possibly) 13.5 billion years ago. We have just now recieved the light, so the proper distance to that galaxy is 40-something billion light years. The proper distance to the light horizon is about 46 Gly, which is called the 'observable universe'.

In cosmology, the radius of the observable universe IS 46 Gly. You were speaking of the comoving distance (13.7 Gly) and calling that the 'observable universe', which is technically incorrect, although I understood what you were referring to.

MacM,

The wikipedia article is using a different distance definition than I used.

The "olduniverse" page is simply wrong, and makes the exact same mistake that you made only a few posts ago: it assumes that the universe was always the same size it is today. I'll note, as others have noted previously, that it doesn't help your case to use crackpot websites as support.

The third website discusses a distant galaxy cluster. It has nothing to do with the particle horizon.

Is that the best you can do to assert that I'm a "pathetic basket case?" It seems telling that you weren't able to find a single website which supports your original claim that the universe is 13.7 billion light-years in radius.

- Warren

As long as we are speaking of cosmological distances, there is something else that is confusing and difficult to understand by many, myself included.

Back to your example of the galaxy located an estimated '13.5 billion light years away'. That STILL does not mean the galaxy was located 13.5 billion of our present light years away when the light we recieved was emitted. That comoving distance assumes nothing has transpired since the light was emitted 13.5 billion years ago, again if the coordinate points of the galaxy and our coordinate points here on Earth were locked into place, such as a graph on paper. The overlooked reality of such a graph is that the light has been travelling for 13.5 billion years and has been 'stretched' in wavelength since being emitted, probably by a factor of about a thousand. Would a meterstick also be longer today than it was 13.5 billion years ago, assuming this meter could travel from then to now? Don't forget, a meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458ths of a second.

2inquisitive said:
As long as we are speaking of cosmological distances, there is something else that is confusing and difficult to understand by many, myself included.

2Iq..... As I would hope you know I respect you as a poster and appreciate your participation to clarifiy what you think might be a point of confusion.

The simply fact is, and I have tried to make that point, there is no confusion here. I am well aware that the 13.7Gly figure is an observation, further that it is understood that in those 13.7Gly since light was emitted the source has been moving away in expansion.

As I said I personally posted here many months ago the erroneous report that the universe as 156Bly in diameter. Now I had not seen the correction to that of actually being 78Gly, which I'm glad this series of posts has pointed out.

However, the issue here is chroot's continued distortions and outrageous bullshit behavior claiming to know what I do or do not know. He is a menace no more no less.

The 13.7 Gly "figure" is not an "observation," it's an incorrect conclusion from an old man who doesn't know jack about cosmology. How's that for some outrageous bullshit behavior?

- Warren