LogFAQs > #878726207

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How do we know the universe is expanding from a single point?
lilORANG 05/08/17 7:41:21 PM #18:	KeyBlade999 posted... It may or may not be. We cannot observe that which is unobservable (which is limited to the aptly named observable universe). Theories suggest that the universe is homogeneous on very large scales and these have held true for our observable universe: whether they're true for the universe beyond is anyone's guess, but logically it'd make sense if it was. Think of it like two separate rooms in your house. You can observe the temperature, humidity, etc., of the room you're in. You can logically assume these factors are mostly true for the other room, even though quantum mechanically there's a chance that all the particles in that room's air have bunched up into a really small space. Possible but logic dictates it unlikely. Similarly while the universe beyond our observable universe could be really anything, logically the homogeneity we observe holds true for the rest of the universe. I get that in theory, but the big bang doesn't seem logically as intuitive the same way as the temperature in another room does. I'm thinking more like tossing a pebble in the ocean, and all the microorganisms being like "holy smokes, there was a big bang and now all the water is emanating from that one point!" but these little guys can only see the part of the ocean that is affected by the pebble, and don't understand that the rest of the ocean don't give a damn about the pebble and is doing its own thing. We can't talk about logic when there's some extraordinary causal event breaking the chain of logical inference. Deducing the temperature of a room is one thing because we can compare it to other stuff that we know, like the temperature of the room we are currently in. When the theory in question is supposed to explain the literal beginning of the universe, you can't really do that because we don't have anything to compare it to at that scale. What if the "big" bang was just a relatively small bang in a much larger universe? We're using what we know about our observable universe and applying it to the universe at large, despite the fact that we're the outlier. That's not logical at all, at least in my mind. Again, maybe there's some badass sciencey equation that makes sense of all this that I've never seen --- #FeelTheBern http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg <cite>lilORANG posted [p:878726207] in How do we ... [t:75316576]...</cite> <quote><cite>KeyBlade999 posted...</cite> <quote>It may or may not be. We cannot observe that which is unobservable (which is limited to the aptly named observable universe). Theories suggest that the universe is homogeneous on very large scales and these have held true for our observable universe: whether they're true for the universe beyond is anyone's guess, but logically it'd make sense if it was. Think of it like two separate rooms in your house. You can observe the temperature, humidity, etc., of the room you're in. You can logically assume these factors are mostly true for the other room, even though quantum mechanically there's a chance that all the particles in that room's air have bunched up into a really small space. Possible but logic dictates it unlikely. Similarly while the universe beyond our observable universe could be really anything, logically the homogeneity we observe holds true for the rest of the universe.</quote> I get that in theory, but the big bang doesn't seem logically as intuitive the same way as the temperature in another room does. I'm thinking more like tossing a pebble in the ocean, and all the microorganisms being like "holy smokes, there was a big bang and now all the water is emanating from that one point!" but these little guys can only see the part of the ocean that is affected by the pebble, and don't understand that the rest of the ocean don't give a damn about the pebble and is doing its own thing. We can't talk about logic when there's some extraordinary causal event breaking the chain of logical inference. Deducing the temperature of a room is one thing because we can compare it to other stuff that we know, like the temperature of the room we are currently in. When the theory in question is supposed to explain the literal beginning of the universe, you can't really do that because we don't have anything to compare it to at that scale. What if the "big" bang was just a relatively small bang in a much larger universe? We're using what we know about our observable universe and applying it to the universe at large, despite the fact that we're the outlier. That's not logical at all, at least in my mind. Again, maybe there's some badass sciencey equation that makes sense of all this that I've never seen --- #FeelTheBern http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1