The size of the universe is unknown. Even the latest Hubble telescope deep space images show faint galaxies in the distance. Any boundary would be unobservable. There is no evidence of multiple universes The idea is a wish and not even a valid scientific guess.
There was a time when I wondered if there was the plausibility of other universes, realms etc. based upon writings in Saint Paul having a dream if my recollection is correct at this moment in seeing what Saint Paul termed as a seventh heaven. I realize that such is only speculative thinking in folly. Not all mysteries of existence in God’s creation are shown to us because in truth we greatly lack the wisdom of understanding of this world and for the most part our own inner being. At any rate it becomes useless in idle discussion because it would gain us nothing even if we had know. I for one am quite content with the following words. Ecclesiasticus Chapter 3 Verses 20-26 drbo.org/chapter/26003.htm
Perhaps, but the Big Bang Theory is just a theory. We don’t know for sure what’s happening, where the “boundaries” are of the universe or if there ever are any boundaries. We humans will never know.
Interesting I think you have a point; human science in particular regarding physics and mathematics when it comes to the act of measurement is always done via linear measurement (eg. the distance between two points). When speaking about the dimensional complexities of space, time and matter traditional linear measurement seems so mundane and limited strictly speaking from a human perspective. To get a real prospective on the size of the universe one would paradoxically need to step outside the box as a manner of speaking where the (“human rules”) and applications of human science, physics and mathematics vitually don’t exist. Sounds crazy yes but humans are bound by the limitations of their thinking processes and its own theoretical science. The complexities and mystery of space, time and matter alone changes the rules of engaging measurement if not at the very least the thinking process of human science itself. Comprehending the universe by the mere human faculty of understanding size has its own limits. Fact is with God any reference of size doesn’t exist bound by human terms of thinking.
It is a theory that has been verified several times over now via experiments (COBE is its biggest supporter). It is not just a theory.Perhaps, but the** Big Bang Theory is just a theory**. We don’t know for sure what’s happening, where the “boundaries” are of the universe or if there ever are any boundaries. We humans will never know.
Not in this life anyway
There is zero evidence that the universe has ever contracted.
Please tell this to: john.c.mather@nasa.gov and gfsmoot@lbl.gov. I am sure they would love to hear your comments on the matter.
And the temperature of something means only this? There is no other possible reason for the temperature measured? Most of space is a vacuum filled with energy of some kind, including gamma rays, photons (which have a dual character) and even X-rays. Of course, there would be some temperature fluctuations: stars are exploding, galaxies are colliding, and the energy related to star formation.
Last I checked, the gamma rays and x-rays are on the far right of the electromagnetic spectrum (signifying high energy) while microwaves are on the far left (signifying low energy). The photons of those higher energy bands could not possibly fit a 2.7 K blackbody curve.
It is not a big deal to doubt dark matter, there are plenty of researchers (not myself) who are investigating what is called “alternative theories of gravity” (such as f(R) gravity). These guys assume that Einstein’s field equations (i.e., the equations of general relativity) are only a first-order approximation (something like f(x)=x is first order) and that higher-ordered terms are necessary (f(x)=xx* is second order, f(x)=xxx is third and so on). With these higher-ordered terms, it is possible to account for things that dark matter is accredited with, such as the flatness of the rotation curve of galaxies at large radii.
I know that this was asked of edwest2.
To answer your question:
again: Thanks!!!
If I am not mistaken, I am technically part of the majority (something like 60% of scientists are theists), but I seem to know more atheistic scientists than theistic ones.