Quote:
Originally Posted by Talented_Amateur
My mistake. I, foolishly, was under the assumption that no one actually knew the true nature of the universe. According to most of you however, who assume must have a degree in theoretical physics, the universe has been mapped out in it's entirety by a bunch of hairless apes who until recently thought the world was flat and the center of everything.
As for my choice of words, such as cluster, I must apologize to all of you. By cluster, I simply meant group...such as a group of stars rotating together and making up a galaxy.
The truth is we don't know anything. Stephen Hawking has suggested that instead of a "big bang," the universe may have bubbled out, producing a universe full of galaxies governed by their own laws of physics. If someone like Hawking isn't sure of the what's out there, then what makes someone like senior member 01101001 think he knows the truth? I might only be in first year and my passions tend to cause me to run at the mouth, but at least I think for myself instead of reciting other people's theories.
|
No one here claims to know how the universe started, and that is what Hawking was talking about. What we DO know is a fair amount of detail since then. Now, if you are trying to claim that the universe is unknowable, why are you proposing a way to describe it?
What
01101001 has said to you is carefully worded and basically a short form of the mainstream view of what is out there now... and it doesn't involve spirals on every scale of existence.
We often get new members who think they have a nice way to describe the universe by allegory, or extension. By saying you are wrong, I mean no slight against you. In fact some of our best and most thoughtful members showed up with very wrong ideas. Welcome to the BAUT forum. I think you'll fit in here quite well.