On 10/5/2024 4:22 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
The evidence you claim which seems to indicate an infinite universe
is, IMO, underwhelming. It seems to indicate a flat universe, and thus
infinite in spatial extent. However, there is a small error in the
measurement, which is what one would expect if the size of the
universe is exceedingly huge and and approximately spherical.
That's a troll's remark. One expects error in any empirical measure.
The best estimate combining various sources in 2013 for the deviation
from flatness was Omega_k=0.002_+_0.009. And the WMAP7 and supernova
data implied -0.12<Omega_k<0.01; so the greater deviation was in the
negative, open infinite universe direction.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3000
Moreover, if we run the clock backward, ostensibly, the observable
universe is smaller in the past than at present,
Bullshit. That's assuming what is to proven. If it's infinite then it
was always infinite. You can't even keep you logical inferences straight.
Brent
and had a beginning as evidenced by the CMBR. Applying the
Cosmological Principle, there's no apriori reason to assume the
unobservable universe behaves differently. That is, smaller and
finite, and will come into view as we go backward in time. OTOH, I do
believe the underlying substratum from which our bubble emerged, is
likely infinite in spatial extent. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/61de9228-da06-4c44-ad1e-5b4c636b10ac%40gmail.com.
