|
 |
On 29-Jul-08 23:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> What I do know is that I studied special and general relativity
>> and some cosmology when I was at the university and that your claim that
>> the real size of the universe may be 'staggering larger' than the
>> observable universe does not seem to fit what I remember.
>
> You might find this article interesting:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03
>
> A quote:
>
> "Notice that, according to Hubble's law, the universe does not expand
> at a single speed. Some galaxies recede from us at 1,000 kilometers
> per second, others (those twice as distant) at 2,000 km/s, and so
> on. In fact, Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain
> distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed
> of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance
> is about 14 billion light-years."
That is what I said also. So given the time of day, I skip that one for
tonight.
> And btw, I didn't say the universe *is* staggeringly larger than the
> observable part of it (observable by us, that is). What I said is that
> it's perfectly *possible* for it to be enormously larger. We simply have
> no physical means of knowing. However, AFAIK, current consensus is that
> it's probable that the size of the universe is significantly larger than
> the observable part, because that's one good explanation of some observed
> phenomena related to the big bang theory.
AFAIK that is not the consensus. I.e. if significant means a couple of
times. If it means a P<.05 that is probably true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
