I fully agree, one knows with certainty, just speculation.
Our known universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years in diameter. At the boundary (if there is one) we may never be able to pass beyond that point. There is now a lot of research going on in an attempt to understand what is going on, a lot directed at the cosmic microwave background.
93 billion years in diameter, yet just 13.8 billion years old. Yes, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of flight. What is cool is that this phenomena does not violate special relativity and the limits imposed by the speed of light.
A point to ponder ⌠what are the dimensions of a photon?
Yes, the Golden age was an age moving away from religion, away from Islam. It took the fanatic butcher Ghazali to crush scientific and philosophical inquiry and return Muslims to their fanatical ways. Fearing the influence of Hellenistic ideas, it just took one man armed with fanaticism and a Quaran to turn the tied of progress and return all of Islam to the ignorance from which it had risen. The Mongols were merely the icing on the cake and saw to it that books were burned, philosophies were destroyed, and science was set aside for a few hundred more years.
Our known universe is calculated to be 93 billion light years in diameter. At the boundary (if there is one) we may never be able to pass beyond that point. There is now a lot of research going on in an attempt to understand what is going on, a lot directed at the cosmic microwave background.
93 billion years in diameter, yet just 13.8 billion years old. Yes, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of flight. What is cool is that this phenomena does not violate special relativity and the limits imposed by the speed of light.
A point to ponder ⌠what are the dimensions of a photon?
Well, if the diameter of the known universe is 93 Billion light years wide, doesnât this mean that the known universe is at least 93 Billion years old?
The Big Bang is 13.8 billion years old, but The Big Bang need not be synonymous with the Natural Universe as a whole, but rather could be just one part of the Natural Universe. Thatâs one way this could make sense.
This has already been figured out. The known universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
Sorry to bother you with cosmology, it appears you are unable to grasp such concepts. Instead, you appear clumsy attempting to shoe-horn your god in where it is not required. You are attempting to solve a mystery by appealing to a much more complex mystery.
What are the dimensions of a light photon? They do not have dimensions. This simple fact obliterates your assertion.
Do you know that your cell phone uses a formula to offset the time lost each day by satellites orbiting the earth. The satellites are on a different time scale out there in space than we are here on the ground. Just to keep the correct time, 7 microseconds a day must be accounted for.
Murtok is spot on. The rate of the passage of time is not the same in all frames of reference.
Einsteinâs Theory of Special Relativity. Is that a good enough source for you?
Einsteinâs work led to some startling results, which today still seem counterintuitive at first glance even though his physics is usually introduced at the high school level.
One of the most famous equations in mathematics comes from special relativity. The equation â E = mc2 â means âenergy equals mass times the speed of light squared.â It shows that energy (E) and mass (m) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. If mass is somehow totally converted into energy, it also shows how much energy would reside inside that mass: quite a lot. (This equation is one of the demonstrations for why an atomic bomb is so powerful, once its mass is converted to an explosion.)
This equation also shows that mass increases with speed, which effectively puts a speed limit on how fast things can move in the universe. Simply put, the speed of light (c) is the fastest velocity at which an object can travel in a vacuum. As an object moves, its mass also increases. Near the speed of light, the mass is so high that it reaches infinity, and would require infinite energy to move it, thus capping how fast an object can move. The only reason light moves at the speed it does is because photons, the quantum particles that make up light, have a mass of zero.
@Raskolnikov Go back to school, this stuff is taught at the high school level.
This has already been figured out. The known universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
Sorry to bother you with cosmology, it appears you are unable to grasp such concepts. Instead, you appear clumsy attempting to shoe-horn your god in where it is not required. You are attempting to solve a mystery by appealing to a much more complex mystery.
You must be mistaking me for Rashkolikov or someone else. I donât believe in any Supernatural God and Iâve spent my whole time on this thread showing Rashkolikov the fallacies of his Aetiological argument. Where you got my Theism is the real mystery.
All this said, an explanation or at least a link on how a 93 billion light year wide Universe fits into 13.8 billion years without refuting Einsteinian Physics would be no bother from my end. You did make the assertion that this was the case correct?
Thatâs the diameter. The Big Bang happened at the center, which means the radius from the event would be around 46 billion years in all directions. The difference between the age and the radius is explained by inflation, which is not limited by the speed of light.
Well thereâs my first challenge, as it contains an innate assumption for ânon physicalâ things. Iâd need to see sufficient objective evidence demonstrated for that.
A tautological contradiction.
See aboveâŚ
All ifs and assumptions sorry, you canât argue anything into existence.
Only if your assumptions about it are true, and you have failed to demonstrate most of your strident assertions.
Of course you can only make assertion about the temporal universe we now observe, you can say nothing about what state if any, the âuniverseâ may or may not have existed in prior to the big bang. Despite all first arguments blatantly making such unevidenced assertions.
Without the existence of time? I think the most you can say is the current physical state of the universe we now observe had a point of origin. The rest is pure assumption.
I disagree, but thatâs an argumentum ad populum fallacy anyway.
Wow, we? You have made multiple unevidenced assumptions, and are now using argument from assertion fallacies again.
I count 3 unevidenced assertions there, but Iâll admit Iâm getting a little punch drunk from the relentless assumptions.
So you end with another string of unevidenced assumptions, this time about the nature of the very thing youâre arguing for, which of course is a begging the question fallacy.
Same old nonsense weâve seen from apologists on here too many times to count. I donât know why they always invoke logic like a soundbite, then proceed to use multiple known common logical fallacies?
Actually, it is a hot debate because no physicist will agree on that statement, only those who do not know physics well enough.
To the best of our knowledge, since the universe is inflating, going backwards in time we see a collapse. That collapse going as far back as to the instant (Planck time) where there was an incredibly tiny object (it gets really weird even then, 10 dimensions collapsing into 4) that carried tremendous heat and energy. But this is where the math breaks down, and before that instant âŚ
WE DO NOT KNOW
What is going on is if someone applied the same scenario to childbirth, the instant the baby pops out someone says âit came out of nowhereâ. Which of course, if you know any medicine, and the reproductive process, is insanely incorrect.
I believe the âlogicâ @Raskolnikov is pushing is keep going back far enough (that appreciation we have for building upon knowledge) AND viola âBronze Age goat herder scienceâ is reliable and inspired!
Hmmm I give the gold star TO drum-roll
Butterflyboy
Your âgenerousâ offer of fairness with this mutton-chop, my SmilingBirdFeed - is unwarranted - HE stated âused todayâ
AND his arrogance in his intelligence requires a humbling so he can âsmarten-upââŚ
GPS satellites are orbiting at around 14,000kph. This causes their clocks to tick slower than clocks on Earth. The low-gravity environment has the opposite effect, causing the clocks to tick faster. The effects donât exactly cancel each other out, so positioning computers have to adjust for this relativistic difference or our navigation systems would veer off by kilometers per day.
If you want evidence of time in different frames of reference, just look at the smartphone in your pocket.
The believers we get here tend be anti reason and anti science. IE having a belief system based on faitht.IE the belief in things not seen.
The effect is such people tend not to understand the most basic concepts of science and reason.
This is because their positions are presuppositional, so invariably fail as arguments. It really does get very tedious.
Well established 80 years ago. An even more shocking result 60 years ago, reached a Lorentz factor of more than 8 (time in one of the frames is passing more than 8 times faster than the other).
I give the gold star 
TO