291–300 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this just word association, or you saying there’s some notable connection here?
If I was an editor at the Smithsonian, I'd be worried about peddling bogus theories for clicks at a time my employer is under scrutiny from the government. Apparently, they are not worried though, which astonishes me, hence my comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We definitely have reason to believe that there’s universe outside the observable universe. The CMB uniformity suggests that that’s the case as do our theoretical models. The mere fact that two observers have different observable universes indicates it is indeed an illusory artifact. Just because something is untestable today doesn’t mean it will be for all time. However, the untestability problem has started to cree…
>Just because something is untestable today doesn’t mean it will be for all time. This is generally true, but such ideas are kept outside the realm of science until they are. In this case specifically, all our knowledge points to this remaining untestable as it would require FTL travel which is on par with violating conservation of energy or time travel. It even allows solving the halting problem (Turing machine in t…
The observable universe is defined as natural light reaching us. It says nothing about repeaters. If someone id at the edge of your observable universe they could still send you a message. They’re observable universe would necessarily include light that wouldn’t reach you due to expansion. Of course, it is possible we’re within a black hole or some other weird space time geometry in which the universe folds in on itself in which case it is possible the observable universe is the universe. I’m not saying that’s impossible since we don’t know. I’m simply stating my Bayesian priors based on my understanding of the evidence collected so far about the CMB and what it and the theoretical models we have suggest. It doesn’t make other theories less valid, it just means where I’d make a wager if I had to. As you say, right now it’s not capable of being a scientific theory and it’s a stretch to even be called a hypothesis.
Still, this is just a reversion to our natural state where we have philosophical ideas grounded in the best knowledge we have trying to find ways to unlock the secrets, not unlike ancient Greeks. We might succeed or we might not but I still think it’s a scientific pursuit grounded in the scientific method in some way. For example, we have no way of really confirming whether our models are correct about estimating the distance to stars. Still, we think it’s true enough because it works locally. Science is and always has been a fuzzy endeavor of truth seeking and only local models of simple interactions have a “nonexistent” amount of error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know?
Because measurements confirm a homogeneous and isotopic universe. A spherical universe would imply a special point, the center, which would go against these cosmological principals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be super cool to find out! And then it also begs the question, is there something at the center that unites the two poles? If so then what is it! It would also imply that our whole universe is rotating - the only reason this happens on Earth is because of our planets rotation and the Coriolis effect.
I've been following this news for the past couple of weeks-- in essence your statement is what they are hypothesizing, and that the "something at the center that unites the two poles" might be that we are within a black hole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology for the curious.
If you were inside a black hole you wouldn't be able to see light from "deeper" because it wouldn't be able to travel towards you.
This is not what we see within the universe, so I don't think we can be inside a black hole
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I understand this response -- basically all of cosmology involves theories based only on somewhat subjective interpretations of sensor data targeting far-off objects. So I don't necessarily disagree . But what could possibly happen other than they act like all other physical objects do? It boggles the mind to think how broken physics would have to be to accommodate a second correspondence principle for t…
Except most theory can be observed where this one can’t until we find a wormhole to travel through or break c
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thats just a distinction between the Observable Universe and the Universe. The observable universe should be labeled "Our" Observable Universe as what is observable depends on where you are. Imagine a sphere growing outward at the speed of light, this is what is observable this region is aka the Hubble Volume. Right beyond the edge there just hasn't been enough time for the light to reach our location. No woowoo requ…
There is only one Entire Universe; it's not a multiverse. And we observe it as a sphere, sized by the speed of light in every direction. Trying to see beyond the edge would be like trying to peer out of a black hole. It would probably look blue, like Cherenkov radiation. (but I'm biased, due to having blue eyes). If the Entire Universe is infinite, then it's eternal in time. And then we get philosophical again.
sorry if someone already asked this, but what is clockwise when there's no "up"? The earth axis is like 60 degrees off the axis of milky way, so it's not clear what the frame of reference is.
In theory it doesn't matter what the frame of reference is. Instead of thinking of it like spin, think of it like heads or tails. Both are binary measures and frame of reference doesn't matter. For example if you're flipping a penny on a glass table and someone is looking from the bottom, they'll see the same ratio as you. In a fair universe you'd expect pretty much a 50/50 heads/tails clockwise/anti-clockwise outcom…