4 ms·

My main response to this article is essentially the same question. I think the article is presuming some things to come to this conclusion. The main thing that

My main response to this article is essentially the same question. I think the article is presuming some things to come to this conclusion. The main thing that is being presumed is the "big bang". If you proscribe to believing in the big bang, then the entirety of everything we see is an expansion from a single dense explosion of matter. It is still a valid theory but I myself don't understand the physics of what is observed well enough to be convinced this is true. I believe that they are seeing something similar enough that it could be perhaps a "localized bang" or something like that. The main evidence used as "proof" of the big bang is the observed data seeming to show that the everything in the universe is "dispersing" slowly. That is at least what I've heard claimed.

permille42 6y ago
Why in the fuck is sharing some knowledge of what I know about science that leads to people believing there is nothing outside the observable universe downvoted? I can see having a dislike of my opinion and beliefs ( which is not a valid reason to downvote by the way according to what Hackers News itself says... ), but downvoting me when I am attempting to communicate useful information. Come on now.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  It’s because opinions are not equal to science and suggesting your opinion without massive corroborating evidence isn’t going to fly here. It’s the same as suggesting climate change isn’t real and COVID is just like flu... these things are made up, not researched science.
- layer8 6y ago
  I didn’t downvote, but you demonstrated a very poor understanding of the big bang, and put forward equally ill-informed conclusions/suspicions based on that. It is not useful.
- aSockPuppeteer 6y ago
  I think some read some of paragraph 2 and thought it was heading into religious beliefs or far away from the topic. The last consensus I remember is a Big Bang, rapid expansion, and then slower expansion. There are some other theories but not as popular. It’s a fun topic to dive into. The horizon problem, variable speeds of light, and of course string theory.
- antonvs 6y ago
  > ... that leads to people believing there is nothing outside the observable universe No mainstream scientific source says this. The observable universe is purely a limit on the distance we can see - a horizon - due to the speed of light and the age of the universe. > The main evidence used as "proof" of the big bang is the observed data seeming to show that the everything in the universe is "dispersing" slowly. That is at least what I've heard claimed. There is much, much more evidence than this. Wikipedia lists observational evidence in 7 categories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidenc... > If you proscribe to believing in the big bang, then the entirety of everything we see is an expansion from a single dense explosion of matter. This is misleading. The Big Bang is not an "explosion" of the kind we see on Earth, where some matter is pushed apart from a central point by an explosive force. If that were the case, then what we observe would be different. Instead, what we observe has so far only been well explained by the idea that space itself is expanding. In this model, there is no center - there's no location you can point to as where the explosion happened, the expansion happened everywhere equally, it didn't radiate outward from a central point. We have evidence of this omnidirectional expansion, in the form of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, which is radiation from the early universe that comes from all directions in the sky, because the Big Bang similarly occurred in all directions. Again, this is not what we would observe if it was similar to a traditional explosion. > I believe that they are seeing something similar enough that it could be perhaps a "localized bang" or something like that. If you're thinking of something more like a traditional explosion, no, that is ruled out by the observational evidence.
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been doing it repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819408). That's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - permille42 6y ago
    Fuck you
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

permille42 6y ago

Why in the fuck is sharing some knowledge of what I know about science that leads to people believing there is nothing outside the observable universe downvoted? I can see having a dislike of my opinion and beliefs ( which is not a valid reason to downvote by the way according to what Hackers News itself says... ), but downvoting me when I am attempting to communicate useful information. Come on now.

andy_ppp 6y ago
It’s because opinions are not equal to science and suggesting your opinion without massive corroborating evidence isn’t going to fly here. It’s the same as suggesting climate change isn’t real and COVID is just like flu... these things are made up, not researched science.
layer8 6y ago
I didn’t downvote, but you demonstrated a very poor understanding of the big bang, and put forward equally ill-informed conclusions/suspicions based on that. It is not useful.
aSockPuppeteer 6y ago
I think some read some of paragraph 2 and thought it was heading into religious beliefs or far away from the topic. The last consensus I remember is a Big Bang, rapid expansion, and then slower expansion. There are some other theories but not as popular. It’s a fun topic to dive into. The horizon problem, variable speeds of light, and of course string theory.
antonvs 6y ago
> ... that leads to people believing there is nothing outside the observable universe No mainstream scientific source says this. The observable universe is purely a limit on the distance we can see - a horizon - due to the speed of light and the age of the universe. > The main evidence used as "proof" of the big bang is the observed data seeming to show that the everything in the universe is "dispersing" slowly. That is at least what I've heard claimed. There is much, much more evidence than this. Wikipedia lists observational evidence in 7 categories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidenc... > If you proscribe to believing in the big bang, then the entirety of everything we see is an expansion from a single dense explosion of matter. This is misleading. The Big Bang is not an "explosion" of the kind we see on Earth, where some matter is pushed apart from a central point by an explosive force. If that were the case, then what we observe would be different. Instead, what we observe has so far only been well explained by the idea that space itself is expanding. In this model, there is no center - there's no location you can point to as where the explosion happened, the expansion happened everywhere equally, it didn't radiate outward from a central point. We have evidence of this omnidirectional expansion, in the form of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, which is radiation from the early universe that comes from all directions in the sky, because the Big Bang similarly occurred in all directions. Again, this is not what we would observe if it was similar to a traditional explosion. > I believe that they are seeing something similar enough that it could be perhaps a "localized bang" or something like that. If you're thinking of something more like a traditional explosion, no, that is ruled out by the observational evidence.
dang 6y ago
Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been doing it repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819408). That's not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- permille42 6y ago
  Fuck you

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]