Scale of the Universe 2.

[peewee_RotA]

That's not yet a testable hypothesis

This sentence describes all of astronomy as we know it.   

-continue-

[quadz]

That's not yet a testable hypothesis

This sentence describes all of astronomy as we know it.

Astronomy has verified predictions of general relativity.

[peewee_RotA]

That's not yet a testable hypothesis

This sentence describes all of astronomy as we know it.

Astronomy has verified predictions of general relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

Sorry, I just like to throw this monkey wrench out periodically. Most people (Quadz not included) have a poor understanding of the difference between observational sciences and experimental sciences. You'll see this most often when people try to compare archaeology to the scientific method.

[quadz]

Because the Big Bang theory makes predictions which have implications about the size and age of the universe, and these are predictions which are consistently being confirmed by experiment.

My understanding is that theories related to the big bang have mass clumping together at points at the start of the expansion, predicited via relativities universal laws, then you make measurements of gaps between these clumps, and therefore the current edge of the universe can be measured.  I don't think this is related to the size or age of the universe in any shape or form though

Hubble expansion and CMB?

(Particularly CMB in relation to predictions.  Hubble expansion (& general relativity) -> Big Bang -> CMB (predict) -> CMB (confirm).)

My undestanding would be: The clumps you mention do relate to size and age, by way of their relation to the CMB predictions.  The clumping relates to the speed of light (gravity) when the early universe was a certain temperature.

[reaper]

You basically said the big bang theory helped confirm the size and age of the universe.  I said in no way did that happen.  I don't see how that can be any more obvious.

[quadz]

You basically said the big bang theory helped confirm the size and age of the universe.  I said in no way did that happen.  I don't see how that can be any more obvious.

 

Of any theory in all of science, what could possibly relate more to the size and age of the universe, then the theory describing its beginning and its rate of expansion?

I have to assume my previous reply to you was somehow unclear.

Hubble expansion and CMB are both used to measure the age of the universe.  Hubble expansion and CMB are both tightly related to the Big Bang theory.

[reaper]

Of any theory in all of science, what could possibly relate more to the size and age of the universe, then the theory describing its beginning and its rate of expansion?

I have to assume my previous reply to you was somehow unclear.

Hubble expansion and CMB are both used to measure the age of the universe.  Hubble expansion and CMB are both tightly related to the Big Bang theory.

They attempt to measure the age of the universe, you think because the big bang theory predicts something (what's at the edge of space), and we later measure those predictions, through some tricks with angles and universal laws, that that means we know the age of the universe.  As far from the truth as possible imo, just because the theories create testable events does not mean anything is true.  I think the evidence against these discoveries proving the age and space of the universe, is far greater, not to mention the lack of knowledge.

[reaper]

Not in any Hitler like deflection of questions, this quote was written hundreds of years ago and seems more relevant today : )

"
O men! Here is a parable set forth! Listen to it! Those on whom, besides Allah, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! And if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly.  Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition!
"

[quadz]

not to mention the lack of knowledge.

Achievement Unlocked

[reaper]

You've taken my quote out of context.  I was referring to a long list of what scientists don't know.  You actually have to have a theory that makes sense before you can compare it to another theory.  If you want to say the universe just exploded into what we want, and will probably do that over and over, you need some evidence to explain away the harmoniousness of life.  Currently the big bang theory seems.. not encompassing.

[Arm0r]

evidence to explain away the harmoniousness of life. 

Harmoniousness of life?     You're being serious?   What in thee fuck, is so "harmonious" about life?   The universe is so non-life friendly it's insane

har·mo·ni·ous  (här-mn-s)
adj.
1. Exhibiting accord in feeling or action.
2. Having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined: a harmonious blend of architectural styles.
3. Characterized by harmony of sound; melodious

If you think this 1/10000000th grain of sand we call earth is good enough to make that statement I have to call bullshit.  Explanation please?

[reaper]

Harmoniousness of life?   smiley_abqt  You're being serious?   What in thee fuck, is so "harmonious" about life?   The universe is so non-life friendly it's insane

har·mo·ni·ous  (här-mn-s)
adj.
1. Exhibiting accord in feeling or action.
2. Having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined: a harmonious blend of architectural styles.
3. Characterized by harmony of sound; melodious

If you think this 1/10000000th grain of sand we call earth is good enough to make that statement I have to call bullshit.  Explanation please?

I consider the definition to be about balance, in a sense related to the 2nd definition above.  I'm sure a preacher could better explain.

[QwazyWabbit]

The original post was about an application demonstrating the range of scales in the universe. From the very smallest scales through the orders of magnitude to the very largest, the observable universe as a whole. Metaphysics aside, we have barely begun to observe that which is observable in the totality of space-time. Furthermore, as the universe ages and continues to expand, eventually more of the universe will become unobservable because expansion will carry light photons away from us faster than they can propagate. One can say the most distant parts of the universe are already in a black hole, beyond an event horizon we can't see past.

[ex]

I wasn't saying that either theory is invalid, simply that I lean towards the idea that our universe has a lot more still yet to be discovered, instead of the conflated view that the boundary of the universe is soon to be closed in upon.  It's my opinion, quadz, and that's pretty shitty that you would respond to it in this way.  I thought I made that pretty obvious it's what I personally thought, not that I was invalidating anyone else's opinions or theories, just that I think it's this way personally.  What's wrong with having my personal opinions on this topic?

I think I see where the disconnect is occurring:

I don't consider myself qualified to hold opinions about any aspect of theoretical cosmology.

All I can really do is try to achieve a layman's understanding of existing theories, what predictions these theories make, how they've been experimentally verified and to what degree of precision, how they've been attempted to be falsified, and what physicists have to say about their expectation of future discoveries and what sorts of problems they're currently grappling with.

If I attempt to reason about the implications of any of these theories, it is an attempt to say, "if I've understood correctly, then _______ ?"  I would not be expressing an opinion, but rather my best understanding, and as such I would surely wish to be corrected if my understanding were flawed.

You asked, "What's wrong with having my personal opinions on this topic?"  It seems to me the danger may be that one's opinions might be resistant to criticism.

Well glad to see we're on the same page, actually.    I am not beyond reason, in fact nothing could be further from the truth.  I keep my mind open to any and all possibilities that may exist.  What I also do at the same time is weigh the probability of truth in differing arguments.  I do find people misread what I say as an ignorant or self-absorbed opinion.  I am sorry if I came off this way.  I try not to.

I guess it comes down to word usage.

Anyway, my opinions are open ended.  They are ever-changing, as science and our understanding of the universe is.  I simply believe in all honesty that the size of our universe is a lot bigger than the "soccer ball"-type conflated view that some are theorizing now.  Could I be wrong?  Absolutely.  But as has been shown time and time again, usually we are wrong when we try to conflate ideas instead of expand them.

Honestly, I'd love to get proven wrong OR right.  It's about learning and continuing the pursuit of intellect, so we can get off this planet and survive in the future before another comet, ice age, super volcano, or whatever other natural calamity wipes us off the face of the earth.  We're a rare organism to have the mental wherewithall to understand that every so often, we do get wiped off the face of the earth.  My hope is that we figure out how to stop fighting with each other and get the fuck off this rock before we're all gone.

Of course, most scientists agree the human race probably will get wiped out before we understand how to do this.

But I'm against most of the scientists on this one.  If we have the capacity to understand we're going to be gone, then we have a chance to save ourselves.  Maybe I keep hope alive, but I don't think that's wrong.

Anyway, just my thoughts... thanks for listening.   

[ex]

The original post was about an application demonstrating the range of scales in the universe. From the very smallest scales through the orders of magnitude to the very largest, the observable universe as a whole. Metaphysics aside, we have barely begun to observe that which is observable in the totality of space-time. Furthermore, as the universe ages and continues to expand, eventually more of the universe will become unobservable because expansion will carry light photons away from us faster than they can propagate. One can say the most distant parts of the universe are already in a black hole, beyond an event horizon we can't see past.

This is an interesting reply.  While I don't think distant parts are sinking into a black hole, I do agree (and this was my point) that the universe is continually expanding, and yes there are certain parts that (with the technology today) we will never be able to observe, and some points which will become unobservable.

That's why I don't think the universe is a small bubble.  It's a huge bubble, and eventually will encounter Heat Death, where all usable energy is used up, and the universe reaches absolute zero, right about the time when it "pops."  Yes, I believe the universe we live in will eventually disintegrate into base particles far tinier than the smallest scale quantum foam and strings, and fall into the field of whatever the fuck the universe is floating in.

I don't believe it will just start all over again...I believe it's just like us, human beings, all animal and plant life, all stars and everything we know.  It all has a life cycle.  The universe will eventually be like us, just die, and decay into disintegrated particles.

I guess I'm a big observational science type.  I observe how we are as organisms, and put the universe on a similar stellar scale, as just another "organism" housing us.  I might be wrong, but it seems fairly plausible that if we don't come back after death, the universe won't either.

More of my thoughts.