- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,703
- 2,335
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It is true that if the study estimated the number of galaxies within a 13 billion light year radius, they would have missed those at 13.8 billion light years.Ok, I guess I misunderstood though since the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, 13 billion years is pretty close, they only missed any that came into existence in 800 million years which cant be that many.
They would have also missed those at 15 billion light years, and 60 billion light years, and 2.5 trillion light years, and 400 trillion light years, etc.
It is possible that the universe that began with the Big Bang is far bigger than the age of the universe allows us to observe. And we cannot possibly get information on any galaxies out there that are further from us than what light could have traveled during the age of the universe.
How could the universe be that big? As I explained before, space time itself is expanding. If galaxies are very far away, then the total expansion of the universe between us and them causes their portion to recede from us faster than the light is traveling toward us. So, though the light is traveling through space at the speed of light, the net expansion of spacetime is so great that the light is actually traveling backwards with respect to us. If that expansion continues like that, the light will never reach earth.
The laws of our observable universe are constant as far as we can tell. But what if the mass of the electron is off by a minute fraction at the far extreme of our universe? We might not be able to detect that. Then suppose that the total universe that came from the Big Bang is trillions of times larger than the universe we can observe, and that this same minute factor continues through countless iterations. Then it is indeed possible that there are portions of that universe that act very different from what we know.Maybe, but most cosmologists dont think that though. Most think the laws of physics are universal.
Science is resolved by those who understand the particular subject reviewing and correcting the work of other experts. As I said, from what I can see, those papers from the leading experts in the physics of the first microsecond of our universe agree that it probably did not come from a singularity. Many may disagree with them, but science is not determined by a vote.Because not everybody agrees with the old Hawking. Like prize winning physicists Paul Davies and Arno Penzias among many others. In addition, to eliminate the singularity he inserts a highly speculative concept called "imaginary time" that not many physicists agree exists.
I have quoted four strong sources that the universe did not begin from a singularity.It was a response to a letter in the Letters section of the November 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.
Your response: Goldsmith responded to a letter in the Letters section of Natural history. At this point all we have is hearsay. You heard that Goldmith said this about some letter to the editor. And, with all due respect, judging by your misunderstanding of the physics, I doubt if you heard Goldsmith right. But if you would like to quote what Goldsmith said, or give us a reference that one could actually look at, I will see what I can do.
Again, even if the universe went back to a singularity, that does not prove that all possible dimensions of spacetime stopped existing. It would only make spacetime as we know it undefined. Spacetime becomes the equivalent of 0/0, which is indeterminate.See above about Goldsmith and imaginary time.
And no, as I told you many times, "indeterminate" is not the same as "whatever Ed1wolf says is true". And yet somehow you insist that you know what indeterminate leads to. That is complete flapdoodle.
And again, the only way one gets back to a singularity is to look only at relativity while ignoring quantum mechanics. You can't do that. You can't say we will just ignore quantum mechanics (which would be overwhelming at that scale) and make a conclusion based on that faulty premise.
Again, saying our equations would resolve to indeterminate is not the same thing as saying that they resolve to whatever Ed1wolf says they resolve to.Of course, they are not going to say it was started by a creator.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Physics is a complex subject. Hawking changed his mind after further study. I would tend to trust what he learned after a lifetime of study over what he thought as a youth.Even though some well respected ones do and did. Including Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose when they were younger.
Physics is based on facts, not by a vote.I am very impressed with your conversants. But they may or may not represent the majority view.
Fun with words.Since the universe is everything that exists physically, then its cause cannot be physical.
If you define the universe as all that physically exists, then your definition includes all the observable universe, plus all things that started from the Big Bang that are too far away to see, plus all things that may have existed "outside" or "beyond" the Big Bang.
So the Big Bang could have been caused by something physical in the total physical universe of reality.
Upvote
0