Hmm...It's a little too categorical opinion. Don't you think?
From the second link: "A paper on the findings is published in Physics Letters B 10.1016."
Gravity never zero
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
From the second link: "A paper on the findings is published in Physics Letters B 10.1016."
Hi origin.
Thanks again for your response. Much appreciated. Sorry, rushed still; so briefly....
I bolded those bits in my last post which again stress the point/observation I am trying to convey.
The point/observation being that we 'have no information' about THEN regarding the actual size of the universe we observe, since all we have is those 'now' observations which we INTERPRET as a certain 'size' NOW which we 'assume' is of a 'larger' size than THEN....but about which (and here is the crux of my point/observation)....
...because we cannot actually measure what existed THEN in any THEN-concurrent context, all we can say NOW is that the universe now 'looks' a certain size which we 'assume' to be 'larger than it was' because of our theory/model based on interpretations of the evolving phenomena.
However, what if the current 'size' of the universe is AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN FACT, but that it is our interpretation of the 'evolving phenomena' that leads us to conclude it 'larger' than it was?
See? I cannot make it any plainer as to what I am pointing/observing/wondering about.
Meanwhile your response are still based on the assumption that we CAN 'compare' NOW with some distant THEN, and hence that we CAN say anything about the 'size' THEN compared to the 'size' NOW. HOWEVER, that is the very assumptive basis that I am questioning/pondering about here; to wit.....
What if the 'size' has NOT CHANGED AT ALL? What if the evolving phenomena is interpreted as 'size' but has nothing to do with 'size' at all? That is what I am wondering about?
Any further thoughts on this aspect, origin, anyone?
Thanks again, mate, everyone! Back in a couple of days if I can.
.
Last edited:
Of course they are not totally complete. That does not mean unevidenced conjectures are just as good though. QED is not totally complete - yet it is good enough to result in the computer you are tapping away on.
That is known as planks time. Feel free to look it up, I would just stumble around if I tried to explain it.
Yes.
Hi origin.
Thanks again for your response. Much appreciated. Sorry, rushed still; so briefly....
I bolded those bits in my last post which again stress the point/observation I am trying to convey.
The point/observation being that we 'have no information' about THEN regarding the actual size of the universe we observe, since all we have is those 'now' observations which we INTERPRET as a certain 'size' NOW which we 'assume' is of a 'larger' size than THEN....but about which (and here is the crux of my point/observation)....
...because we cannot actually measure what existed THEN in any THEN-concurrent context, all we can say NOW is that the universe now 'looks' a certain size which we 'assume' to be 'larger than it was' because of our theory/model based on interpretations of the evolving phenomena.
However, what if the current 'size' of the universe is AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN FACT, but that it is our interpretation of the 'evolving phenomena' that leads us to conclude it 'larger' than it was?
See? I cannot make it any plainer as to what I am pointing/observing/wondering about.
Meanwhile your response are still based on the assumption that we CAN 'compare' NOW with some distant THEN, and hence that we CAN say anything about the 'size' THEN compared to the 'size' NOW. HOWEVER, that is the very assumptive basis that I am questioning/pondering about here; to wit.....
What if the 'size' has NOT CHANGED AT ALL? What if the evolving phenomena is interpreted as 'size' but has nothing to do with 'size' at all? That is what I am wondering about?
Any further thoughts on this aspect, origin, anyone?
Thanks again, mate, everyone! Back in a couple of days if I can.
.
Like I said before, the evidence indicates that the universe is larger today than it was yesterday - so you conjecture that the size has not changed is just, an idle conjecture. Do you have any evidence that the size has not changed or just your speculation?
HI again, origin. Was just checking for typos before logging out and caught your prompt response. Thanks for same.
I am involved in a discussion elsewhere with someone who is well respected and well versed in the 'cosmological recession' explanations.
His explanations say that the 'observations' regarding 'cosmological photons' and the 'redshift/recession' we 'observe' and interpret as 'space expansion/increase etc is due to the SOLELY to the different/changed measurement/space/time 'metrics' AT EITHER END. That is, that the observations of photon wavelength 'increase' due to cosmological space travel is NOT DUE to the 'space transit' per se, but due to the measurement 'here' based on conditions/metrics etc which have 'changed' while the photon was traveling to us 'here' from 'there'.
Naturally, this raises the questions in me which prompted my ponderings as described here.
If what we 'see' is due to 'changes' HERE 'locally', then who is to say that our INTERPRETATION of our 'locally dependent' measurements/interpretations are not merely illusions regarding 'size' and other aspects which have no direct connection to the photon and its 'space travel' per se? The only connection is that we 'observe' it NOW 'unaffected' by that space transit, hence we cannot say HOW BIG that 'space' actually IS/WAS at all unless we can 'measure it directly' like we do in our local 'unexpanded/unincreased space' (significantly UNaffected by cosmological component of space 'expansion/increase').
If so, then we can only ASSUME that DISTANT REACHES OF INTERGALACTIC SPACE 'has got bigger than it was before'. Hence my logical query//observation now....
Perhaps the 'size' aspect is a NON EVENT in fact? Perhaps what we see is NOT 'bigger than before'? etc etc?
Get my drift?
Really gotta go now. Thanks again, and cheers until we speak again, origin!
.
The Universe can't be infinitely big for it would take infinite time to expand to infinite size. 13.7 billion years is not infinity, and feels more like yesterday rather than infinity!How can that be?
It's just really big. Is infinite!
You say you can not comprise infinity?
It wasn't Wiki who said that but me. And what's this about being infinitesimally small. You'll be right mate!If Wiki says so ! :shrug:
Perhaps infinitesimally small ?
Emil, that one paper is why I had added the bit about observation of galactic scales .... Projected to the universe as a whole. I also said there was some merit but there were also issues with symmetry and inflation that were not adequately addressed.
And that paper was only linked to and from what I could see did not form the only basis of the lay article. A lot of speculation. Which is O.K. As long as it is clearly referenced as speculation.
So, the universe has a diameter about 27.5 ± 0.22 billion light years ?
Oops ... There is a problem ! "The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 billion parsecs (46 billion, or 4.6 × 1010, light years) in any direction."
You are the one with the problem. I'm not quoting any figures - go figure!
Certainly, I have even more problems !
I am happy for you if you don't have problems.
So your evidence is 'some guy on the internet thinks this'? Well, sorry if I am not impressed with this source.
Absolutely. You are one of these guys who always takes the counter postion of the scientific community because they cannot be trusted.
So what you do is accept parts of the information from these 'untrustworthy scientist' and discard their analysis and you then apply your missunderstanding of the most basic physics to come up with fantasy pseudo-science explanations.
Yeah, I think I get your drift rather well.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, it turns out that this is incorrect.
The big bang may have, in fact, created a universe that is infinite in size. That is, it is possible that the universe didn't start at zero size and then expand to its current size, but rather it started at infinite size then expanded further.
We only see a part of the universe - the part that light has had enough time to travel to us from since the big bang. So, all this talk about the size of the universe being x number of metres refers only to the size of the visible universe.
Emil you are a bit confused.
The light from the farthest objects is ~13.2 years old, and it is thought that the universe is 13.7 years old which puts the edge of the observable universe ~46 billion ly away. So whats the problem?
As long as someone can sort out if it was walnut sized or infinitely big, it matters not to me, for the idea of the required compression is rather mind-boggling and infinite size but getting bigger is just as weird.
Robittybobitty,
I've pointed this out to you before,... you'rs (everybodies) idea of what is weird and what is common sense, and what 'everybody knows' is based on the small, slow part of existence which we directly experience.
The universe isn't that limited in how it works.
I've pointed this out to you before,... you'rs (everybodies) idea of what is weird and what is common sense, and what 'everybody knows' is based on the small, slow part of existence which we directly experience.
The universe isn't that limited in how it works.
That is why it is up to the likes of you to explain it in the simplest way possible.
No one thinks the 'diameter' of the universe is 27.5 billion light years. This is your strawman, or probably more likely just your confusion.
Here is the simple explanation.
Light that reaches earth that is 13.2 years old does not mean that it was emitted 13.2 ly away from us. The universe is expanding it is not static. When the 13.2 billion year old light was emitted it was much closer than 13.2 ly. It took longer to reach us because the universe is expanding. That is also the reason that the light is redshifted. The object that emitted the light 13.2 billion years ago is MUCH farther away than 13.2 ly.
If you would like to learn more or do the actual calculations there are many sites that have this information look up "redshift Z".
- Status