andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> And what exactly does this all prove? I haven't seen anything in those 
> links that I did not know (but I admit I did not read everything) and 
> nothing that even remotely supports your 'The real size of the universe 
> is completely impossible to know. It could be just slightly larger than 
> the observable universe, or it could be staggeringly larger. There's 
> just no way of knowing.' but I might have missed it.

  Uh? I said that the current widely agreed consensus is that the universe
not only can expand faster than c (which you don't seem to disagree with),
but most probably has done so (because that would explain many observed
phenomena). I gave links to wikipedia pages where you could find references
to more material.

  Of course there's no absolute *proof* of this. By the very definition
of cosmological horizon it's *impossible* to have an absolute proof of
this (ie. that the universe is larger than the observable universe).
However, currently science most agrees that this is very likely.

  Your way of writing seems to imply something like "you have not given
me any proof about this, and thus I don't believe you". In other words,
you still state that the size of the universe is at most the size of
a sphere with a radius of the age of the universe itmes the speed of
light (although you don't seem to deny that the universe *can* expand
faster than c).

  Well, where's your proof? Or any serious references, for that matter.
At least I gave you *something*.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message