Here's the reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230368/
when they determine the "exact" sizeOriginally posted by RainOfSteel:
In Timothy Ferris', The Whole Shebang, he reported that one Inflation researcher had determined that the universe might be as large as 10^10^12.
Mr. Ferris, startled, asked his friend, "In what?"
His friend said, "Well now, at 10^10^12, it doesn't really matter!" (It turned out that it was in centimeters, but that isn't that big a difference than lightyears with that size.)
This was in the mid-90s. They've obviously done some refining of their ideas since then.
Well, the current idea is that there is nothing. You can't get past the edge of the universe because you literally can't go where the universe isn't.Originally posted by sid6.7:
when they determine the "exact" size
of the universe....im always gonna
wonder...then whats beyond that?
You are thinking in 3 dimensions!Originally posted by ravs:
I think of the photon wave front from the big bang. The bang happens and light at the front of everything else rushes out in all directions at the speed of light into the void. The furthest apart in terms of geometry two photons can go is 180 degrees. Both travelling at 1c away from each other.
Where am I going wrong?
Ravs
You're talking about M-Theory developments of String Theory (and both aren't theories yet, they're both just hypotheses).Originally posted by Blue Ghost:
One of the intriguing theories of the origins of the universe is that the universe itself is a result of a collision between two super-membranes, or "branes". This implies that there's a kind of "space" between two oscillating things that collide every now and then. If this is the case, then there may be some "thing" beyond normal universe existance. By that I mean a kind of "space" beyond normal "space".
There's no assumption that it's "true" or "false" implicit beforehand in that at all. You formulate a hypothesis (sometimes to explain existing data, sometimes not) and then you test it by making objective observations. If those observations produce data that supports the hypothesis then great, gather more and see if it can be independently confirmed. If it doesn't, then that usuallly means that the hypothesis is either flawed and needs to be change til it fits the observations.A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
That is not my understanding of the situation, but I'll have to go off and review what I have read previously before I try and make any further assertions.Originally posted by Aramis:
BG:
Hypothesis is Sci-speak for "Conjecture which has survived peer review and/or oversight committee review, fits the available data, and is worthy of testing."
Wasn't there a topic a short while ago (perhaps more than one) about playing nice?Originally posted by Malenfant:
[...] cynical anti-science crap [...] spouting [...]