Starship Asterisk*

So Before I write this, I Don't need admins, telling me i have not seen What I just saw in a documentary... So before you come here to blast me, Have your facts at hand !

So they drew A 10 billion light year triangle to see if the Universe is curved. And they found out its not... The Universe is Flat.. " Endless " " Limitless " And we can only see part of it.. If the above it true, Then there must be more to see... Because if the above is true, then the Universe must also be timeless. By Timeless I mean there was no big bang, just an event. Then they went on to talk about bubbles touching other bubbles and looking into WMAP evidence of this. The rest was a bit vague..

So here is my Question : Could there be a few pin pricks of light out there, that are that far away, that we can not comprehend ? Lights that have been there hundreds of billions of years that are that small it would be looking for an atom at a 100 light years ?

The Code wrote:So they drew A 10 billion light year triangle to see if the Universe is curved. And they found out its not... The Universe is Flat.

This experiment has not been conducted. It is a thought experiment, that could potentially be performed in the future. The general consensus that the Universe is flat comes from other evidence, particularly the details of the structure observed in the cosmic microwave background.

. " Endless " " Limitless "

Not necessarily. A flat universe can still be bounded. It is unknown whether the Universe is of finite or infinite size.

And we can only see part of it.. If the above it true, Then there must be more to see... Because if the above is true, then the Universe must also be timeless. By Timeless I mean there was no big bang, just an event.

An infinite universe does not need to be timeless. All the accepted models of the Universe which propose an infinite size still start with the Big Bang. And we will never see that which is outside the observable universe, because that is the part of the Universe which is moving away from us at greater than c.

Then they went on to talk about bubbles touching other bubbles and looking into WMAP evidence of this.

That's a very different thing, the question of multiverses and hyperverses. Whether or not we can ever find observational evidence supporting those hypotheses remains quite uncertain.

So here is my Question : Could there be a few pin pricks of light out there, that are that far away, that we can not comprehend ? Lights that have been there hundreds of billions of years that are that small it would be looking for an atom at a 100 light years ?

No, because nothing in the Universe is older than 13.7 billion years old, and nothing in the observable universe is farther away than 13.7 billion light travel years.

Chris Peterson wrote:

The Code wrote:
So they drew A 10 billion light year triangle to see if the Universe is curved. And they found out its not... The Universe is Flat.

This experiment has not been conducted. It is a thought experiment, that could potentially be performed in the future. The general consensus that the Universe is flat comes from other evidence, particularly the details of the structure observed in the cosmic microwave background.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Then they went on to talk about bubbles touching other bubbles and looking into WMAP evidence of this.

That's a very different thing, the question of multiverses and hyperverses. Whether or not we can ever find observational evidence supporting those hypotheses remains quite uncertain.

So here is my Question : Could there be a few pin pricks of light out there, that are that far away, that we can not comprehend ? Lights that have been there hundreds of billions of years that are that small it would be looking for an atom at a 100 light years ?

No, because nothing in the Universe is older than 13.7 billion years old, and nothing in the observable universe is farther away than 13.7 billion light travel years.

Thanks for your time Chris.... But why are they Looking ? Just over a hundred years ago our Universe was no bigger than 128 thousand Light Years across ! They say this was nothing to do with technology and available observation but comprehension.. If the same is true then, we can expect even more. In the documentary i saw, they stated, their measurements were as close to flat as you can get over that distance. So i must presume I'm afraid... And if I'm Right, there will be pin pricks of light out there, that are far older than you can imagine.. Proving and finding this is another matter.

The Code wrote:Thanks for your time Chris.... But why are they Looking ?

Why is who looking for what?

Just over a hundred years ago our Universe was no bigger than 128 thousand Light Years across !

So? Looking at knowledge in the past to infer future progress is a logical fallacy of the highest order. It assumes that knowledge just drifts along, never getting closer to the truth.

They say this was nothing to do with technology and available observation but comprehension.. If the same is true then, we can expect even more. In the documentary i saw, they stated, their measurements were as close to flat as you can get over that distance.

Either the documentary was wrong, or you misunderstood it. Nobody has performed a long baseline measurement of a triangle to determine the shape of the Universe. The Universe is flat to within a few parts in a thousand, something that was determined by looking at the CMB, not long baseline triangles.

So i must presume I'm afraid... And if I'm Right, there will be pin pricks of light out there, that are far older than you can imagine.. Proving and finding this is another matter.

Do you also presume that there are leprechauns and unicorns. Because I'm afraid the evidence is the same. And without evidence, there's really no reason to make presumptions. And your presumption doesn't follow from knowing that the Universe is flat, in any case. We can still see no farther than the horizon of the observable universe, and that's something that will not change, either with new ideas or new technology. That's a hard physical limit.

Ok Swainy, so you don't agree with Big Bang theory or dark matter. Thanks, you've made your point but this is a mainstream science forum and also your random capitalization of things is driving me insane so I'm going to show you the door, now.