3 ms·

So sometimes scientists are just talking out of their ass. They are people after all, so it should be expected sometimes.

tsimionescu 2y ago
Not really, the observable universe is a specific part of the universe we know of. We also know a lot of things about the parts of the universe outside the observable universe. In time, some parts of what is today the observable universe will become unobservable (since they are receding at an accelerating speed because of dark energy). That doesn't mean they will cease to be things we talk about when we say "the universe". Now, is it possible that some day we'll see new stars or something else coming from a completely unexpected direction, and discover that the universe also contains things that did not begin at the big bang? Sure, it's always possible, and our theories will change. But it's absurd to qualify each statement based on the possibility that new knowledge will come along at some point, when the same qualification always applies.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  Observation is a cornerstone of science and theorizing about something you cannot observe is interesting but not science. This is speculation about what might be outside the observable universe and that could lead to science disproving those particular speculations, but speculation is not science, it is philosophy.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Observation is not limited to direct observation. You can take what you're seeing with instruments, and extrapolate based on known laws, and you're still doing science. In fact, this is even more important to science than direct observation, which is extremely limited. By direct observation, I can't even tell if the earth was here yesterday, or at least a thousand years ago, even less so if it will still be here tomorrow. By the same token, when you look at certain characteristics of what you can observe of the universe, and you take the known laws of physics, you can find out a lot about the unobserved, and the un observable, universe.

tsimionescu 2y ago

Not really, the observable universe is a specific part of the universe we know of. We also know a lot of things about the parts of the universe outside the observable universe. In time, some parts of what is today the observable universe will become unobservable (since they are receding at an accelerating speed because of dark energy). That doesn't mean they will cease to be things we talk about when we say "the universe". Now, is it possible that some day we'll see new stars or something else coming from a completely unexpected direction, and discover that the universe also contains things that did not begin at the big bang? Sure, it's always possible, and our theories will change. But it's absurd to qualify each statement based on the possibility that new knowledge will come along at some point, when the same qualification always applies.

eikenberry 2y ago
Observation is a cornerstone of science and theorizing about something you cannot observe is interesting but not science. This is speculation about what might be outside the observable universe and that could lead to science disproving those particular speculations, but speculation is not science, it is philosophy.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Observation is not limited to direct observation. You can take what you're seeing with instruments, and extrapolate based on known laws, and you're still doing science. In fact, this is even more important to science than direct observation, which is extremely limited. By direct observation, I can't even tell if the earth was here yesterday, or at least a thousand years ago, even less so if it will still be here tomorrow. By the same token, when you look at certain characteristics of what you can observe of the universe, and you take the known laws of physics, you can find out a lot about the unobserved, and the un observable, universe.