I have another theory… That the more right someone is about something, the more opposition to that idea he will receive. Read about Pasteur and his suggestions that surgeons boil their instruments in water before operating. They said he was an idiot!
Very good indication someone is on the right track in my book! (Look at how much resistance there was to the idea the earth was round.)
(I might add my ex-wife ALWAYS gave wrong directions. Based on that, if I did not know which way to go when driving, I would simply ask her which way to go, then go the opposite direction! It was always the right way to go.)
Further proof comes not from science, rather from psychology and the term “anthropomorphic fallacy”…
No shit. I don’t even understand the argument there, other then, “Hey, look, these two arbitrary words happen to appear in this obscure book together.”
That isn’t “another theory”, it’s the same one you presented the first time, and it goes like this: “I don’t understand the expansion of the universe or the evidence on which it’s based, so I conclude it isn’t true”. This is content-free nonsense that adds nothing to the discussion. It’s a waste of time.
Your three links are not “further proof” – they are simply incoherent. The first one links to a description of anthropomorphism, which is irrelevant to the topic. We know what anthropomorphism is. The problem at hand is that you don’t know what science is, or how it’s conducted.
The other two links are just sources in which your search words happen to appear in completely unrelated random contexts. The first one is actually a list of astronomical terms, and if you scroll down to the "E"s you’ll find an entry for “Expansion of the universe”. Start your education there.
Your comments remind me of when a global warming discussion is invaded by someone whose basic thesis is, “I know nothing about the subject, I just know it isn’t true”.
That said, there is a mathematical model of the universe first proposed by Hawking in which the universe can be regarded as finite, unbounded, and timeless, but it requires us to view the geometry of spacetime as Euclidian, replacing the time dimension with “imaginary time” that can be tracked as a spatial dimension. In this model the Big Bang and all other moments in the evolution of the universe are just coordinates in Euclidian spacetime. However, in terms of the observable universe, no one today seriously doubts that its chronological evolution can be traced to within billionths of a second after the Big Bang, with speculative theories going back to the Planck time and the creation of time itself. The further forward we go, the more concrete the actual observational evidence.
There hasn’t been any scholarly opposition to the idea that the earth is spherical for over 2000 years. That’s just a story that Washington Irving invented in the 19th century.
On the other hand, there’s a lot of opposition today to the idea that the earth is flat. Does that make you think flat-earth believers are on the right track?
Ideas are not right because they’re hotly opposed. Rather, we learn that they are right by virtue of them being hotly opposed, and withstanding the opposition.
Actually, the modern estimate age of the universe is derived (in part) from looking at the temperature and distribution of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). By looking at this background radiation, which is an echo from the first point at which the universe became transparent (prior to this, the energy density and temperature was so great that individual photons could not travel freely) at about 380 kyr after the Planck epoch (basically, as far back as any theories based on conventional physics can go, just after the hypothesized singularity started to expand). We’ve been able to estimate this using space probes like the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and more recently the appropriately named ESA Planck space observatory. By looking at primordial CMB anisotropies (e.g. differences in the CMB background) astronomers and cosmologists can look at how the universe evolved, estimate the initial structure at first light and beyond must have looked like, and how long expansion has been going on at various rates. This, combined with theories of high energy physics going back prior to first light, and looking at various ratios of elements from early stellar fusion and later supernova nucleosynthesis gives a better history of the evolution of the universe than the fossil record does of life on Earth.
The observation of quasars gives us a good estimate of the extent of the visible universe, which due to expansion of the intervening space is about 46 Bly distant from the observer. We cannot say how much larger the universe is beyond our limits of observation; it may, in fact, go on forever (to infinity, unbound), or it may be bounded and wrapped around upon itself, although our most extensive surveys have failed to show any sign of this, so the universe is at least as large as what we can observe.
The light has travelled 14 Bly, but the distance of the object from which it was originally omitted is much more distant because of the metric expansion of space, which is why light from distant objects is redshifted, e.g. not because they are moving in relative space but because space itself is ballooning. It is like being an ant on the surface of an inflating spherical balloon; another ant a couple of inches away will appear to be increasing in distance even though it may not be walking, and the further away it is the faster it appears to be going, eventually disappearing completely over the horizon. Cosmic expansion is very similar, except in three dimensions instead of the two dimensions (mapped onto the surface of a spherical balloon) in this example.
Yeah, that’s kind of inevitable because most of the CMB is heavily redshifted since most of the universe is far away from us and fleeing ever faster. We can use the relatve obseved spectra to estimate how deep the visible universe is, even beyond the distance of the farthest visible galaxies, which are found largely by observing Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae out to about 30 Bly proper diatance (~13.1 Bly light travel distance). By current estimates, first light is around 46 Bly proper distance (~13.8 Bly light travel distance).
My dictionary says they were used interchangeably as adverbs for most of their history but it suggests using further if there is no element of “spatial, temporal, or metaphorical distance” involved. Since this discussion involves spatial and temporal distance, farther would seem to be the modern preference but further isn’t exactly wrong.