Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid you have mistaken the Observable Universe with the Universe. The Wikipedia article you link to describes the observable universe, and even itself says this:

Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth.

By definition we are only observing the observable universe. The fact that it is a perfect sphere around any point in the universe which is both homogeneous and isotropic is pretty solid evidence that the observable universe is a subset of a larger "unobserved" universe of which we have no idea the size... or if it has an edge.

Even should our telescopes become good enough to see all the way back to the big bang... there is no guaruntee that we would be seeing the outer edge as well. That the universe even has a center or inflated from a single point (as per Guth and company) is not assured... and even still, there is no reason to believe that the universe couldn't have an inflationary center and still be infinite.

I put it to you, though, that if the point of inflation or the spot of the big bang was within the the observable universe... we would not see an homogeneous, isotropic universe in every direction as far as we can see. The only way that could be the case, would be if we were the exact center. The fact we see no evidence of the Earth being the source of the big bang leads us to assume that the origin of the expansion does in fact lie outside the observable universe... thus poking a major hole in the idea of an actual edge we will ever be privy to, if it does in fact exist.

As far as Citta's suggestion to get back on topic... I'm game. I suppose a mod could move the tangential discussion to a new thread somewhere and leave a link here. On the other hand, I don't particularly care. The original discussion, while fascinating in its own right is much more about semantics. In a previous post I mentioned that we need to define the basic terms being bandied about the same way to reach any kind of consensus there.

<blockquote data-quote="Hyperspace Fool" data-source="post: 3474258" data-attributes="member: 10791">Don&#039;t take this the wrong way, but I&#039;m afraid you have mistaken the Observable Universe with the Universe.&nbsp; The Wikipedia article you link to describes the observable universe, and even itself says this:Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth.By definition we are only observing the observable universe. The fact that it is a perfect sphere around any point in the universe which is both homogeneous and isotropic is pretty solid evidence that the observable universe is a subset of a larger &quot;unobserved&quot; universe of which we have no idea the size... or if it has an edge.Even should our telescopes become good enough to see all the way back to the big bang... there is no guaruntee that we would be seeing the outer edge as well.&nbsp; That the universe even has a center or inflated from a single point (as per Guth and company) is not assured... and even still, there is no reason to believe that the universe couldn&#039;t have an inflationary center and still be infinite.&nbsp; I put it to you, though, that if the point of inflation or the spot of the big bang was within the the observable universe... we would not see an homogeneous, isotropic universe in every direction as far as we can see.&nbsp; The only way that could be the case, would be if we were the exact center.&nbsp; The fact we see no evidence of the Earth being the source of the big bang leads us to assume that the origin of the expansion does in fact lie outside the observable universe... thus poking a major hole in the idea of an actual edge we will ever be privy to, if it does in fact exist.As far as Citta&#039;s suggestion to get back on topic... I&#039;m game.&nbsp; I suppose a mod could move the tangential discussion to a new thread somewhere and leave a link here.&nbsp; On the other hand, I don&#039;t particularly care.&nbsp; The original discussion, while fascinating in its own right is much more about semantics.&nbsp; In a previous post I mentioned that we need to define the basic terms being bandied about the same way to reach any kind of consensus there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hyperspace Fool, post: 3474258, member: 10791"] Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm afraid you have mistaken the Observable Universe with the Universe. The Wikipedia article you link to describes the observable universe, and even itself says this: [center][i]Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the[b] edge of the observable universe[/b] is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth.[/i][/center] By definition we are only observing the observable universe. The fact that it is a perfect sphere around any point in the universe which is both homogeneous and isotropic is pretty solid evidence that the observable universe is a subset of a larger "unobserved" universe of which we have no idea the size... or if it has an edge. Even should our telescopes become good enough to see all the way back to the big bang... there is no guaruntee that we would be seeing the outer edge as well. That the universe even has a center or inflated from a single point (as per Guth and company) is not assured... and even still, there is no reason to believe that the universe couldn't have an inflationary center and still be infinite. I put it to you, though, that if the point of inflation or the spot of the big bang was within the the observable universe... we would not see an homogeneous, isotropic universe in every direction as far as we can see. The only way that could be the case, would be if we were the exact center. The fact we see no evidence of the Earth being the source of the big bang leads us to assume that the origin of the expansion does in fact lie outside the observable universe... thus poking a major hole in the idea of an actual edge we will ever be privy to, if it does in fact exist. As far as Citta's suggestion to get back on topic... I'm game. I suppose a mod could move the tangential discussion to a new thread somewhere and leave a link here. On the other hand, I don't particularly care. The original discussion, while fascinating in its own right is much more about semantics. In a previous post I mentioned that we need to define the basic terms being bandied about the same way to reach any kind of consensus there. [/QUOTE]