This is weird. I feel like I posted a reply to the observation issue a moment ago but don't see it. Was a long day at work...
Anyway, I think most people who say observation would not mean an estimation of how things were 13 billion years ago. Especially because arriving at those numbers requires applying a lot of other theories. For example the theories of how galaxies formed or how stars produce heavy elements.
Nereid explained it pretty well,
Quote:
|
the Li abundances estimated don't match those predicted, within the relevant error bars. YMMV, but I think this is saying more about the way the primordial 7Li abundance is estimated, from the various observations
|
Spaceman Spiff,
When you talk about the "local" universe's matter and energy content, are you including dark matter or dark energy? And if not, how does one arrive at a matter content for the milky way galaxy?
Correct me if I'm wrong but all we can readily measure is rotational velocities of visible objects. That can tell us about a centripetal force, but it cannot tell us if that force is 100% gravity allowing a conversion to mass.
RobA,
What data could come in tomorrow and blow the theory away? What would that data say? How would it falsify the theory?
Also, you mentioned the hubble deep field and how the movement of those galaxies on the horizon is nearly imperceptible. Is that not true for any stellar object a sufficient distance away? Doesn't that only set a minimum distance and not say much about the particular distance?