• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.

Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Parsimony said:
Not really perfect, just to the extent that our data can tell. It's always possible that the universe has a finite size but is so mind-numbingly big that our instruments are unable to detect any curvature.
Click to expand...
Whats your opinion on it being "flat"?
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Parsimony said:
It certainly could be, but in my mind, I find it hard to reconcile a universe starting at finite size (the Big Bang singularity) becoming infinite in size in a finite amount of time.
Click to expand...
Enternalism is hard to get wrapped around. To me the universe itself seems to had a finate start admist an enternal space time continuum. But I get the condumdrum that comes from trying to piece it together while envisioning what seems hopelessly paradoxal.
 
beenherebeforeagain

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
The article--and the press release it was written from--kinda oversells things here. Looking through the article, it's about using a particular method (measuring properties of the distribution of galaxies) that builds on prior work (by the same group and others) out to about 5.6 billion years old, or about 7.1 billion light years away. Mainly, it builds on the idea that sound waves in the very early universe are detectable in the way galaxies are distributed. WMAP and Planck missions have already measured the flatness of the universe to about 0.4 percent...And Hubble (and other telescopes) have detected objects much farther away--but that isn't the point: this is the first time that the data and modeling from the BOSS program have been used to confirm that the universe is flat to this degree, that the Hubble constant is what other programs have estimated, and other nuances of the current Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory of the universe.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Nowhere Man said:
Those were my thoughts as well. I can just think of a scenario where, in the far far future one could hear, "Way back in the year 2016, scientists thought that the universe was flat!" *grin*
Click to expand...
Way back in 2015, scientists thought the universe was round!
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
"I read the news today oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
I'd love to turn you on."

from: – 'A Day In The Life', by The Beatles
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/beatles/a+day+in+the+life_10026556.html

Maybe you will get a clue as to why the Buddha discouraged such investigations, and instead pointed to what is inside of man.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Nowhere Man said:
Scientists actually do know everything about the universe.
Click to expand...
Wow! Ain't they amazing? :)

At least in size and the universe is flat.
.................................................Perfect accuracy! Almost.. .
Click to expand...
At least? Almost?
Now you've spoilt it! :)

In fact, physicists, mathematicians and astronomers are mostly in professional contention about mostly everything to do with our Universe and beyond.
Scientists certainly won't all be describing our Universe as (technicaly) 'flat'. :)
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
Nowhere Man said:
At least in size and the universe is flat.

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articl...ed-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm



Perfect accuracy! Almost.. .
Click to expand...

If it were truly accurate, science would be able to tell us what the Universe actually IS, but it cannot. It can only give us the facts and data ABOUT the Universe, but cannot tell us what it's NATURE is. To know what the nature of the Universe is, we must go beyond mere facts and data, and strike to the heart of the matter. To do so requires the cessation of all concepts and ideas ABOUT the Universe so that we can see directly into the nature of Reality itself.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
The facts and data must be seen within the context of Reality, and not the other way 'round.

"Oh do not ask 'what is it?'...
let us go and make our visit"
TS Elliot
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Parsimony said:
Not really perfect, just to the extent that our data can tell. It's always possible that the universe has a finite size but is so mind-numbingly big that our instruments are unable to detect any curvature.
Click to expand...
So for the universe to be finite...what are the conditions at the edge?
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Parsimony said:
It certainly could be, but in my mind, I find it hard to reconcile a universe starting at finite size (the Big Bang singularity) becoming infinite in size in a finite amount of time.
Click to expand...
It says it supports the theory that the universe is eternal.....no beginning?
 
P

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
ben d said:
So for the universe to be finite...what are the conditions at the edge?
Click to expand...
A closed universe of finite size has no edge. It's rather like living on a racetrack or being embedded in the surface of a sphere: you go far enough and you'll return to your starting point.
It says it supports the theory that the universe is eternal.....no beginning?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The Big Bang still happened at a finite point in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top