There'd have to have been an awful lot of that specific stuff around in the early universe to account for the CBR we see today.
And the fact that there was pretty much zero
All the while I'm still trying to find the centre of my infinite baffle, in which to place my loudspeaker.
My problem with "dark matter" and "dark energy" is that the so-called solution for the phenomena is presented without applying the proper scientific methods on the open questions.Isn't that what you just said? "there is likely something else".
I remember it being suggested several years ago being a possible solution to the "why". Shortly after that it began to live a life of its own with the impact of "the theory" describing the problem... other possibilities hardly investigated.
With regard to this and other phenomena a controversial theory emerged some time ago, which is mocked throughout the scientific world (and therefore hardly given attention to), because it was not formulated by somebody from the "proper field". The theory however appears to "repair" some problems in Einstein's Theory of Relativity and presenting an understandable and elegant mathematical frame-work capable of explaining a lot of open questions.
That's why Darts was invented... i thinkAnd the fact that there was pretty much zero
All the while I'm still trying to find the centre of my infinite baffle, in which to place my loudspeaker.
@Jeff: I like Chocolate pudding... with cream, please
Last edited:
If you look at the sky from z8_GND_5296, is half of it empty?
If z8_GND_5296 is a raisin in a loaf of bread rising in an oven, present calculations indicate it is the outermost raisin, closest to the crust.
If the entire sky if full of stars at z8_GND_5296, well, if we can see them looking north, while they can see us looking south, what do they see when they are looking north? Surely scientists don't think they can see us twice in two directions.
Last edited:
So if you don't understand cosmological physics, and you aren't willing (capable) of doing the hard work to arrive at an understanding, you can just take another bong hit or do some philosophical navel gazing and make up your own version. Try that with electrodynamics and see if you can find an alternate route to the microprocessor.
Ok, I have found some clarity.
Distances in the Universe
Near the end "cosmological constant" and "dark energy" answer some questions.
It says the introduction of the cosmological constant means the universe is now considered finite, i.e. not infinite.
The last two sentences provide his answer to this thread title.
Distances in the Universe
Near the end "cosmological constant" and "dark energy" answer some questions.
It says the introduction of the cosmological constant means the universe is now considered finite, i.e. not infinite.
The last two sentences provide his answer to this thread title.
Yes, this is one area where uninformed stoners feel certain that they know more than mere professional, trained, scientists. Who needs observational data, experimental results, or rigorous analysis to talk about the universe?
This is why, when I studied philosophy in university, I avoided metaphysics: it seeks to offer insight into the nature of reality and the universe without ever referring to what we actually know about the observable universe (aka reality). As Wittgenstein said, "That of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence.". If metaphysics makes untestable assertions then it is as significant as the sound of one hand clapping.
This is why, when I studied philosophy in university, I avoided metaphysics: it seeks to offer insight into the nature of reality and the universe without ever referring to what we actually know about the observable universe (aka reality). As Wittgenstein said, "That of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence.". If metaphysics makes untestable assertions then it is as significant as the sound of one hand clapping.
That's right; multi-layered universes (Multiverse). ...An excellent theory, a plausible reality.
As weird as it sounds what I said is correct, if you were 13 billion light years away you would not be at the outer most ripple, you would still be at the center and the outer most ripple would still be 13 billion light years away from that center
I wouldn't say infinite dimensions, maybe a complex interaction between three dimensional space and curved two dimensional space (mass and energy)
True. Hopefully the speed of light and speed of time is faster in them, so they don't have to wait 13.7 billion solar spins so to speak, until dolphins, humans, computers, satellites, cyborgs, art and so on started to appear in their chaos.
There is one big problem: we encounter a horizon at approximately 13.7 billion years, beyond which we can't see what's going on. We assume that this horizon defines the edge of our universe. But is that assumption correct. We can't see beyond it, that's a fact.
That means for the size of our universe that we can only confirm that it's at least 13.7 billion years old, but can't possibly tell how old it really is.
About "space" (do you mean the "thing" our universe would be part of?)... if we can't even see the edges of our universe, how can we tell what's beyond those edges?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.