1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    30 Sep '11 16:13
    Originally posted by Dasa
    It is impossible to measure the size of the universe unless you know where the edge of the universe stops.
    So in your mind, the universe is like being inside a giant christmas tree ornament, a large sphere with us inside. So when you get to the outer skin, you can open a door and Presto!, you are out of our universe? Is that how you think of it?
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Sep '11 19:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Can you give me at least one reference?
    No, sorry, talking about informal discussions and conversations, not really any records to refer to.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Sep '11 19:35
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    No, sorry, talking about informal discussions and conversations, not really any records to refer to.
    OK. I still think it doesn't make any sense to refer only to the visible universe as 'the universe' even in an informal setting and even when the meaning is understood. But then again, physicists aren't always sensible.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    30 Sep '11 19:58
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    OK. I still think it doesn't make any sense to refer only to the visible universe as 'the universe' even in an informal setting and even when the meaning is understood. But then again, physicists aren't always sensible.
    Physicists don't like to talk about metaphysics.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Sep '11 21:43
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    OK. I still think it doesn't make any sense to refer only to the visible universe as 'the universe' even in an informal setting and even when the meaning is understood. But then again, physicists aren't always sensible.
    As I say it's simply lazy use of language, in the same way that people often use theory instead of hypothesis.
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    30 Sep '11 22:08
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Can you give me at least one reference?
    Without having a dog in this show, I suggest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
  7. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102814
    30 Sep '11 22:21
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Physicists don't like to talk about metaphysics.
    LOL 🙂
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Sep '11 23:23
    Originally posted by JS357
    Without having a dog in this show, I suggest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
    ah, he was asking If I had a reference to a claim I made that didn't really have to do with the main point of the thread.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    01 Oct '11 06:392 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Physicists don't like to talk about metaphysics.
    I am not talking about metaphysics either.

    From Wikipedia:
    In the future the light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so some regions not currently observable will become observable in the future.

    I reject any claim that tomorrows observable universe is metaphysics.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    02 Oct '11 09:421 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am not talking about metaphysics either.

    From Wikipedia:
    In the future the light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so some regions not currently observable will become observable in the future.

    I reject any claim that tomorrows observable universe is metaphysics.
    How could you go from the idea of photons taking the slightly curved path from galaxies on the edge of the observable universe becoming visible to the idea that would be somehow equated with metaphysics anyway? It's just a beam of light, right? Nothing more nothing less.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

    This was not some far away event in time 50 million years ago, this was here and now within modern times. Automobiles were being driven in cities lit up by electricity with people communicating by telephone and airplanes being flown.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 Oct '11 13:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    How could you go from the idea of photons taking the slightly curved path from galaxies on the edge of the observable universe becoming visible to the idea that would be somehow equated with metaphysics anyway? It's just a beam of light, right? Nothing more nothing less.
    Exactly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
    Interesting. I didn't even know that "metaphysics" had a definition other than "The supernatural"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(supernatural)
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    03 Oct '11 00:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Exactly.

    [b]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

    Interesting. I didn't even know that "metaphysics" had a definition other than "The supernatural"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(supernatural)[/b]
    BTW, the last part of my last post was meant for another thread, misplaced it! I was talking to Robbie Carrobie about the space program. Bit of an oops.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree