Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #456499

Re: Two Trillion Galaxies,

Show all headers | View raw

On 2016-11-08, Adamastor Glace Mortimer <nospam@no.invalid> wrote:
> David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Well, that's just it - we don't KNOW that. We can't SEE or detect that far,
>> cuz there's this annoying temperature-and-geodesics singularity about 13.6
>> bly from us that isn't letting anything past.
>>
>> We can theorize, and fit our theories to what we CAN see... but even to see
>> _to_ that distance we have to use something other than electromagnetic
>> radiation, because all of that gets stopped about 300 kly beforehand.
>>
>> So that 92 bly figure is someone's theory, and figuring out how to test such
>> theories is Hard, says Astronomer Barbie. Now wih new Dark Matter Seashore
>> Resort!
>
> I wonder how much you'll have to deny in order to really have a
> good argument against that 92 +/- billion light year theory. And
> let's not get hung up on the word "theory." Remember, universal
> gravitation is also a theory.

Um, degrees in math and physics here, I know theory v hypothesis v guess v
wishful thinking thx. The whole point is that someone talking about stuff out
to 92 bly is talking about stuff that we _can't see or test_; and yes, I should
have said "someone's hypothesis", my bad. They've built a castle, much like the
superstring folks have, and it may be pretty but without testable bits it's
math at best.

Where did you "keep seeing" this figure, by the way? Nature? Phys.Rev.D?
Scientific American? A peer-reviewed astronomy journal? ... Facebook?

> If you accept the 13.x billion year time period since the Big Bang
> then insisting on the radius of the universe being only 13.x
> billion light years is going to require some interesting theories
> from you.

Never said that. Go back up and read. I said we don't KNOW how large it is
outside of the parts we can detect, and at present we don't have any way to
actually find out. And I said the furthest we can PERCEIVE runs up against
that singularity 13.6 bly ago/away. The _visible_ radius is 13.6 bly; needs
that extra word in there to be what I said.

Now if the stuff we CAN see on the edges ended up interacting with stuff that
is now outside our view, whether visible matter or gravity waves or whatever,
that would give us some way to indirectly reconstruct what's further away. And
that might be involved in whatever your source is hypothesizing - but a firm
"It's 92 bly, plus or minus" is rather beyond us at present, so that's a
feature of his hypothesis that can't actually be checked. If you see what I
mean here?

We don't have good arguments for OR against that figure.

Dave
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
website on VIC is down,	probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Back to rec.arts.sf.written | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 11:02 -0700
  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 15:06 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-17 15:16 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, TB <tsbrueni@dcn.davis.ca.us> - 2016-10-17 18:33 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-17 19:23 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:18 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-18 09:06 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 09:46 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-10-18 14:28 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:19 -0700
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 16:26 -0600
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 21:58 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-17 21:25 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, tsbrueni@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:20 -0700
  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-18 09:10 -0700
    Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, TB <tsbrueni@dcn.davis.ca.us> - 2016-10-18 10:29 -0700
      Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 10:42 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-19 15:07 -0400
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-20 10:20 +0100
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-21 08:30 -0400
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 06:11 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-22 00:29 -0500
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> - 2016-10-22 09:26 +0100
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2016-10-24 21:17 +0000
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-25 04:15 -0500
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Adamastor Glace Mortimer <nospam@no.invalid> - 2016-11-08 01:19 +0000
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-08 04:25 -0600
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-21 16:59 +0100
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-21 11:07 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 12:07 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-22 22:59 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 11:32 -0700
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-23 12:22 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-10-22 09:03 -0400
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 13:36 -0600
          Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 13:19 -0700
            Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 14:35 -0700
              Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-10-19 16:52 -0600
                Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 16:15 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-19 17:30 -0700
        Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-10-20 10:02 +0800
  Re: Two Trillion Galaxies, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-22 06:42 +0200

csiph-web