[Halc]

I've forgotten how to post images (I'm getting old )

It looks like the death star:

"That's no moon. Oh wait, it's a moon"

I would say that it looks like it covers about 25% of the diameter of the Mimas

Close enough. I get 30% of the diameter, or about 10% of the circumference, which makes it cover maybe 3% of the surface, a slight reduction of my prior estimate.

... as seen from Saturn.

Although most images including the one I posted are not from Saturn. Most are as seen from Earth, as evidenced by the fact that we see most of the daylight side.

Probably much smaller than the diameter of the impact crater of our dinosaur killing asteroid ...?

The Mimas crater is about 130 km across, whereas the Chicxulub crater (Yucatan) is about 150 km across, larger, but not much larger. It's the second largest crater on Earth, with Vredefort being a bit bigger, in South Africa.

There's no trace of the Theia impact structure since that was a melt-the-whole-thing-and-start-over sort of deal. It would not be meaningful to say 'here's the spot where it hit'.

But how come the Search Information says Confirmed vs Provisional?

The provisional ones have not had their sightings or orbits yet confirmed. They might just be a passing object and not in orbit at all.

So WE still aren't Sure how many exact Moons they have?

No, they're really far away and it's awful dark out there, and some of these things are pretty tiny. There must be a threshold of what constitutes a moon vs just a small pebble that happens to be in orbit about something.

Juno & Voyager did take a closer look, Right?

Yes, and they found/confirmed a bunch, but the didn't linger long enough to do a thorough scan of the area. Juno didn't make it to Saturn either.

Thanx Hal for setting me straight...Again!

OK, so setting you even more straight, I'm Halc (rhymes with 'false'). There is another user (occasional poster) on this site whose ID is Hal. I'm not him.

Roger Penrose imagined a Cyclical Universe, isn't it?  So why'd he do dat?

Try something different? Hard to say what he suggests, but it seems like it is playing with conformal time. The view requires infinite time to pass as measured by one bang before the next one happens, and it is unclear if it allows the bang to have any energy associated with it. The bangs still happen everywhere, which is the same as nowhere given infinite time and spacetime becomes singular in a way.

[Zer0]

To Post an Image...

I first search for it Online.
(make sure it's a free pass n has no copyrights on it)

Then i download the Image.
(sometimes if the download site seems eerily funny, i click a screenshot)

Then right below this typing box i go to " Attachments and other options "
(Click the ➕ box mark & it opens n expands)

Then click " Choose File " option & choose the latest downloaded image or screenshot from my system.

Then setting back the Cursor into the typing box, wherever i would like the Image to be placed...
Then just click "(Insert Attachment 0)"
& Finally Post.

P.S. - Thnx 4 d info Halc.
As straight as SLAC!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-dart-mission-impact-changed-asteroid-s-motion-in-space

It looks like the DART mission was successful. We now can be more confident that we can alter the path of an asteroid that is on a collision course with Earth; that is good to know! However, I think there is talk of using atomic weapons if needed to alter the course of bigger astroids. That method seems to have a whole different set of possible repercussions.




Aside:
Obviously the dinosaurs didn't have a space program, lol.




176747,176829

[Zer0]

Aside:
Obviously the dinosaurs didn't have a space program, lol.

176747,176829

Yep!
& They did not have underground bunkers or long term food storage facilities, not sure if they were a global species, like spread out all over the planet like humans.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Yep!
& They did not have underground bunkers or long term food storage facilities, not sure if they were a global species, like spread out all over the planet like humans.

There is this "dinosaur world dive"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp-5KL5eP8AhVJmYQIHYlhBtsQFnoECB8QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdinosaurworldlive.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fdinosaur-fossils-where-have-the-most-fossils-been-found&usg=AOvVaw2bSVglvc12Hl8AwlvS2ryJ



I remember driving out into the high dessert from Las Vegas back in the 70's and coming to petrified bones sticking out of the side of the rocks. I found a rock just lying there that looks like a fragment of a skull bone. I put it in my suitcase and to this day it is sitting in my yard in Florida. I hope my yard doesn't get mistaken as an original dinosaur habitat someday, lol. I should probably use Zero's picture posting instructions and post a picture of it, but compared to what anyone can Google, my Dino pic would be very unremarkable


177560,

[Zer0]

Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?

So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?

If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?

P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?

I'm not sure ...

So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?

I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?

If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?

I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory. But speculation can be fun, lol.

P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)

I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.

[Halc]

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?

The size (radius say) of the observable universe is growing at a proper rate of a bit over 3c, and accelerating.

So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?

It just plain doesn't make sense for a big bang to occur at a location.  Also, there is no meaningful edge of the universe. I cannot think of a viable model that has one.

If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?

By many definitions of 'is real', correct. Careful, since there is a distinction between measuring something and knowing about it. The latter implies nothing can be real without something that can 'know' about it. The measurement definition is simply any interaction between two systems.

I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory.

That you do, but a definition of 'real' isn't a theory, it's just a definition. The whole concept of 'real' is a metaphyscial one, so I don't think it is possible to produce conclusive evidence for a metaphysical conjecture. If one could, it would be a theory and cease to be metaphysics.

[Zer0]

Then what happens if there are really " Multiple Universes " but no way for Us to observe, measure or obtain any evidence for Them?

P.S. - Sorry to have sounded Metaphysical...
I won't go there again.
👻
(ghost emoji)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Then what happens if there are really " Multiple Universes " but no way for Us to observe, measure or obtain any evidence for Them?

...

Then we'd never know; but going with the idea that there is just one, infinite, eternal universe solves that problem,     Now on to the next problem ... What if there is just one infinite universe?

We'd never be able to stop looking and probing deeper into space because it seems to be human nature to keep trying to find the limits of things.



178866,

[Zer0]

Returning back to the Original flavour of this OP...

The Observable Edge of the Universe is drifting away FTL, Correct?

I'm not sure ...

I've read that in Alot of places.
(FTL - Faster Than Light)
Halc mentioned 3c.
(c - speed of light in a vacuum)

So if there ever was to be a new BB at the Farthest Edge of the Universe, how would/could We Observe it?

I was thinking that one possible sign of a distant BB might be a gamma ray burst.?

But Gamma Rays would travel at (c) speed.
If the distance between Us & Gamma Rays was increasing FTL, then how would They ever reach Us?

If WE cannot Observe/Measure it & there ain't no Data/Evidence for it, does it then mean it's Not Real?

I'd say no, though you do need some evidence to support a theory. But speculation can be fun, lol.

Yes Indeed!
Speculating is Amusing.
Assuming higher dimensions exist, Guessing gravity penetrates thru all of em, using all sorts of calculations to derive an equation which could predict future results with a very high rate of accuracy is quite interesting.
I mean, if it works, then why not!

P.S. - i wonder if the Universe is what We make off of it, based on Our species potential & capacity of Understanding.
🧠
(human brain emoji)

I guess it is what we make of it, but maybe if we were more brainy we could make more sense of it.

Yep!
Humans are considered to be at the pinnacle of intellectual intelligence, but that's in comparison to the other species around Us...I'm assuming We are Clever, but not the Cleverest.

P.S. - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
A.E.

[Zer0]

The " New Theories " section limits Us to be inside the bounds Logical Reasoning & Critical Thinking...

Maybe, U should create a New OP in the " Just Chat " section..

& name it ' Wild Speculative Imagination '.

P.S. - lol
😇
(angel smiles emoji)

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The " New Theories " section limits Us to be inside the bounds Logical Reasoning & Critical Thinking...

Maybe, U should create a New OP in the " Just Chat " section..

& name it ' Wild Speculative Imagination '.

P.S. - lol
😇
(angel smiles emoji)

Maybe "New Theories" does limit us to some reasonable logic, but we are posting in the "On the Lighter Side" sub-form, which by its name, seems to summons some degree of speculation and maybe limited flights of imagination. I think this thread is within the forum guidelines, but whether my thinking overall would be considered logical probably calls for a subjective conclusion.



180,000.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The three infinities that I predict as part of my layman view of cosmology (which I call the Infinite Spongy Universe model) are "space, time, and energy", making my  layman model inconsistent with the current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expanding, and doing so at an accelerating rate.


My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?


Or, as space is created by expansion, is it consistent to predict that  anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe? Any thoughts?




180016,

[Halc]

current Standard Cosmology, which I understand depicts finite space to be expanding

Current models do not posit finite space, but neither do they require infinite space. Most models presume space to be infinite.

My question is, does the BB model refer to the action going on at the expanding boundary of the universe as creating space and matter out of nothingness?

No viable model posits a boundary to space, not even the ones with finite space.

is it consistent to predict that  anti-space or negative space, and anti-matter are building up and exist beyond that expanding universe, in a sort of anti or negative universe?

There is no meaningful 'beyond space'. There might be other universes, but there wouldn't be a meaningful say direction in which they might be. If there was, it would just be a different but distant part of the same space. A type-1 multiverse is exactly that: Just locations in our space too distant to measure from Earth.

[Dave Lev]

Most models presume space to be infinite.

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

[Kryptid]

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

It didn't. The assumption of the Big Bang is that the Universe started off at infinite size at the Big Bang, but in an incredibly hot, dense state everywhere. Then, as it expanded, it cooled off until we have what we see today. The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.

The idea that all matter in existence was once crammed into a single point of zero size is a something of a pop-sci myth. It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe. The word "singularity" is more of a reference to the fact that the Universe approaches infinite density and temperature as you go back through time and approach the moment of the Big Bang.

[Dave Lev]

If the space is infinite then how the space could expand to the infinity in only 13.8BY?

The size of the observable universe is finite in part because light has only been able to travel for 13.8 billion years and in part because objects beyond a certain distance are recessing away from us too fast to ever be seen.

Dear Kryptid

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?
I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

It's true that you can trace all the matter in our observable universe back to a tiny space, but that doesn't include all the matter that would be outside our observable universe.

We first must understand the size of our entire space/universe (yes even all the matter outside our observable universe) and just then try to explain it all with one and single theory.
Therefore, if Halc is correct, and "Most models presume space to be infinite" then it is our obligation to explain that infinite space.
Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)
If you don't like those questions, then please let me know and I would stop.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Because that's what the evidence says.

[Kryptid]

Don't you agree that our mission is to explain the entire space/universe and not just the part/section that we observe/see which is called observable universe?

We have no choice. We can't explain what we can't observe.

I would like to remind you that there was a time when people on earth thought that our planet is flat and if you cross the horizon, you might fall into the open space.
Hence, what we see is not good enough - not for today and not for the past.

The laws of physics weren't preventing people from accessing those unseen parts of the Earth. It was just a lack of know-how and trying. It's a rather different story for the observable universe (unless faster-than-light travel proves to be possible some day).

Hence, as the real space is infinite then why can't we assume that the real universe is also infinite.

The Big Bang theory generally does assume that.

Therefore, why do we insist on 13.8BY as some magic number?

Because that's how long ago the Big Bang happened.

Why do we refuse to accept the simple understanding that infinite space & Universe could exist if the time is also infinite or at least much bigger than this friction of moment (comparing to the infinity)

I already explained that the Big Bang theory already assumes an infinite Universe and it does so without any need for infinite time because it was already infinite in size at the very first moment of time.