Is the Universe very big?

[xelasnave]

I sometimes sit and wonder about the Universe, not why its here or if it had a start, but just how big it must be...

I read the science and get a mind numbing number which tells me the observable Universe is approx 100 billion light years in diameter.

And although I am never really sure as to what science really says it seems to suggest the Universe may be infinite...

The Universe certainly goes on and past the 100 billion light year diameter maybe forever.

But how can a human mind comprehend such distances...for me I can only think of light speed or distance as going aroind the Earth in a rocket seven times in one second...of course that is impossible because we can not get near the speed of light and at seven times a second we far exceed escape velocity...
But that is my crude ruler that I use to get some idea...
So at that speed or velocity I try and imagine crossing the solar system and our gallaxy, then to M31...a mere two million years at around the Earth at seven times a second...the local group and on and on...even the observable universe seems beyond comprehension...and beyond to infinity...well I guess I ask...do others ever think about things like this and do you have a method to make it somehow managable and are you able to relate to something similar to my rocket orbiting the Earth and using it to grasp something of how big the universe may be.
Alex

[FlashDrive]

Alex .... I think our capacity to try and even consider the expanse of the Universe in distance is incomprehensible to our ' earthly minds ' ....such a ' task ' is too much to understand / comprehend

We use in everyday terms such as klm's and distance traveled by road or Air or Boat ... we can imagine this in our minds quite easily.

No wonder Pro' Brian Cox uses the word ' Vast ' in his documentaries to try and give us a ' grasp ' of how big and how far the Universe extends.

It's beyond my capacity to know how far or big it is.

Col...:)

[LewisM]

I always ask those that claim the cosmos is FINITE to explain what is beyond "The Barrier". No matter what they answer - heaven, another universe etc, I always answer by asking is THAT finite too? Of course they usually look at you blankly like kangaroos in spotlights right before the bullet...

A vast emptiness that created something out of nothing (where did the atoms come from to start with?), and now we are swimming in this sea of matter and anti-matter, energy and dark energy perpetually ad naueum ad infinitum.

I like the idea some have posited before of what if we are the cells of another life-form, and we are simply looking out into inter-cellular/peri-plasmic space... just as a virus would when inside the much larger microscopic cells (look up images of viruses and be amazed how geometric they are, as well as there functional capabilities). And then that larger life-form is inside another life-form and so on for infinity :)

I used to be kept awake at night trying to comprehend the Cosmos (and of course, failing) as a kid - it is what got me interested in astronomy.

And when you think of the complexity of the idea, and try to ponder ALTERNATIVES, you realise that any alternative is just as bewildering and infinite.

[xelasnave]

I must say that when I realise that I cant comprehend the vastness I then find that I can not accept that the big bang could be a realistic model of reality.

Certainly I may not understand exactly what the big bang models but my limited understanding has it that at a point slightly after the point in time we can call the start the Universe was infinetly dense (a term I cant get my head around) and infinitely hot...probably already I have something wrong but to proceed upon my limited understanding...this infinetly dense universe then, according to the theory of inflation grew at such a rate that it grew from the size of a basket ball to at least the size of the observable universe in less than, as Degrasse puts it..in less than a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillonth of a second ...
I guess because I cant get my head around inflation and what it asks us to believe I mentally reject that such a thing could happen.

But then when I think of how big the universe appears to be and realise any grasp will be less than it really is, at that point I then ask how could everything ever fit into the small space the model seems to suggest.
I just dont see how the model could be reality.
But clearly science seems content that the model is somewhat perfect.
Even with its problems, which I am uncertain as to what they really are, the steady state model just seems more credible.
I often feel uncomfortable that the big bang came from a priest who I think first proposed that the Universe started as a cosmic egg...and although the priest was a scientist I cant help but feel his faith and its need for a point of creation in part guided the development of the model.

It seems that to question the big bang model is a sure way to be labled a nut job but really I cant accept inflation or that everything once was apparently confined to a region less than the size of an atom...And although the big bang model does not address what was before it seems speculation is happy with the universe being created from nothing which I also find more worrying than a universe that had always existed.
Is it really wrong to question if the big bang model is realistic?
Alex

[baileys2611]

'Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space'.

I liked the idea posited by someone at some stage that the universe is actually a space created in a finite dimensional space, which is finite for the dimensions we see and feel, but is expanding through the collision of two (or more) 'membranes' of potential energy which exist in multiple dimensions not available to us.

The concept I remember was that membranes of potential energy exist in multiple dimensions and that from time to time these membranes collide and cross each other - like a wave-form in two dimensions colliding with another in different dimensions (but having at least one the same or they wouldn't collide) and that collision changing the potential energy to actual energy.

The expansion theory at the early start can then be explained by the increase in actual energy as the membranes cross over their respective boundaries - like a pencil moving along the edge of a rule except the rule is moving in the opposite direction to the pencil (i.e. the pencil is going right along the edge of the rule, while the rule is going left). So, the point at which the energy first transformed (when the pencil first touched the edge of the rule) is moving away from the 'current' point of energy transformation (where the pencil is at any given time excepting the initial point of touch) at faster than the speed of light, hence being able to expand and move faster than light in our four dimensions.

This gives the appearance of an infinite universe, but with a boundary where potential energy is constantly being created into actual energy.

So, what is beyond the finite border is potential energy in the form of membranes in many dimensions - but depth is a function created by the crossing of two or more membranes and by our perception of those dimensions, that depth would not exist beyond the boundary because it's created only as the membranes collide.

What's beyond the membranes? This theory can't answer that because there is no concept of beyond under this theory, it's potential energy rather than a physical manifestation of that energy.

I'm just a philosopher on this, not trained in any way ;)

[gaseous]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/thisismyjam/i/166f92ffcff686dab4fa203e471a3fbb_39 5.jpg?1369893313
my brain hurts

[xelasnave]

I found this...https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/biblescienceforum.com/2016/09/15/big-bang-birthed-from-cosmic-egg/amp/
Do not I repeat do not be put off by the title...I nearly did not bother to read past "bible" ...I dont know why it is included. ..strange..but dont miss whats in there and comment if you can.
It is a long read and probably worth a second read...the site name threw me but the author seems to have some insite into the mixing of religion and cosmology.
I would love to hear what others think after they have read what the author has to say.

I sortta like it because it seems I am not the only one who wonders if big bang reflects reality or something else.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Wow Simon that is really something.
I have read it twice and now have two different opinions.
I wonder where I will be when I read it a third time?
Here goes.
Alex

[julianh72]

There is a possibility that the Universe is finite but unbounded - similar to the surface of a sphere; e.g. if you shoot off at near-light-speed in a particular direction, in a few trillion years you arrive back at your starting point from the opposite direction. While I can't actually visualise what that "looks like", I can just about comprehend it.

However, when I consider the possibility that the universe might be infinite and unbounded (so no matter which way you head, all you find is more universe) - THAT I simply cannot comprehend - but I have to accept that it might actually be true.

[baileys2611]

Oh dear...sign of a poorly communicated concept?

[xelasnave]

Not at all.
Alex

[gary]

Hi Alex,

Just a correction with regards the inflationary period.

The inflation theory models the universe as only being in the period from
the Big Bang to somewhere between the first 10-to-the-minus-33rd
and 10-to-the-minus-32nd of a second.

We go from the singularity to the "basketball" in that period, labelled
the "inflationary epoch".

After that, the rate of expansion slows down.

During the inflationary epoch, the linear dimensions of the universe increased
by at least a factor of 10-to-the-26.

What I find surprising is that numbers such as the age of the universe aren't
mind-bogglingly large, but in fact humanly finite.

Take the age of the universe, currently at around 13.82 billion
years old.

Not a trillion-trillion-trillion years old. Not even a trillion years old.
Just 13.82 billion years old.

By comparison, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, Forbes says has
a net worth of US72.8 billion dollars.

Though much of that net worth is "on paper" in the form of share holdings
and so on, nevertheless accountants account for it to at least the nearest dollar.

If a dubious accountant tried to abscond with USD59.8 of it leaving only
USD13.82 billion (the current age of the universe), then the accountant
would have a lot more money than Jeff.

If the accountant tried to argue in his defense in court that even 13.82
billion is an impossible number for the human brain to comprehend,
I doubt the argument would have much traction even with the least
numerate member of the jury.

So the real question is, what the hell happened on that day only 13.82 billion years ago?

[AstralTraveller]

Now that I find hard to fathom.

[blindman]

Warning:
Space might not be big as you think

[RB]

Please have some consideration for our members who may suffer from claustrophobia.

RB

[multiweb]

Nothing a glass of port can't fix.

[RB]

Needs to be BIG !!

[raymo]

Alex,
I can understand you finding the idea of inflation, and the Universe
being created from nothing etc: unacceptable, but surely the notion that
the Universe has always been there is equally hard to accept. That would
mean that every solid, gas, and liquid in the Universe was never created.
Surely it is just as crazy to accept that all that "stuff" has existed
infinitely far into the past, and will, presumably continue to do so
infinitely far into the future.
Everything about our Universe is mind boggling in one way or another, whether it be speeds, distances, sizes, densities, temperatures, and so on,
so why is inflation so hard to accept?
raymo

[julianh72]

Yes, on the one hand, "13.8 billion years" is a long time, and not really within human comprehension to envisage, but I am also astounded that the Earth itself is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old (about 1/3 the age of the universe), and the first evidence for life is at least 3.7 billion years ago, possibly as much as 4.2 billion years - that is, "just after" the Earth itself formed.

To have matter other than hydrogen and helium with which to form a solar system, implies that we are formed from the remnants of at least second-generation if not third-generation stars.

So on the one hand, "deep time" is very deep indeed - and yet, the Earth is a significant fraction of the age of the universe, and life on Earth has existed for most of that time.

[xelasnave]

Hi Raymo,
The prospect of it having been here forever is mind bending.
How can a human imagine an eternal Universe.
I try.
Imagining infinite is impossible...but as crqzy as it may be the idea appeals.
When I think about it the problems that inflation sort to fix may have been imagined and I use that term loosley,
but we may find it older...anything to get rid of inflation.
I bet no one read the link ...
I am thinking past the CBR things could have been different...I dont know my point was somewhere back there that its big real big.
Sometimes you get a hint of how small you are...

Hi Gary

Yes I have read the numbers I was dumbing it down for myself admittedly...
And I guess as I said it is really big when it hits you sort of spin at least I do.

Alex

[xelasnave]

I have been thinking.
My questions are for the sake of discussion.
If we took inflation out of the model and allowed an expansion rate at the speed of light would that time be long enought for everything to, as simple as I can put it equalise by internal machinery which would dictate although not related touching whatever could reach a universal equilibrium.
Alex

[OffGrid]

Excellent post Alex

Whilst I have always struggled with size and distances in the universe, I find it much easier to tackle the time side of it.
Almost every physical thing I have encountered or read about in my finite physical life has a beginning and an end, not always first or final though as things can be formed from something ( beginning ) and change to something ( end ) and so on it goes.
The time related to this seems to me to be the the big ticket.
In less than than a week, this Thursday night I drive back to Brisbane to see my new grandchild and then bring my better half back to the coast before this Sunday. It is not the distance that is relevant to me but the time it takes.

If I owned a Lear jet on a property that had an airstrip and likewise the same for my son in Brizzy, I would be there and back every 2nd weekend, with just a few hours each way travel time against 9-10 hrs driving.
What has changed, not the size of distance, but the means that we compress travel time between the two locations.
I spent near 38 years commuting to and from Sydney at a general minimum 3.5 hours door to door per day. What a difference had I been able to step through a portal to work. No distance or size but the time it takes for a step each way.

I have not been able to find it since, but quite a few years ago I read a news paper extract of an article that I think was called ‘ Curtains of Perception ‘

In short and from memory, it goes something like this.
Early in human history a tribe lived in a large valley and knew nothing beyond its ridges. One day one of the tribe walked over the ridge and met an unknown tribe member from the other side.
Their perception of their worlds changed at that point for ever.
We move onto horse, boat, plane and rocket to find out just how big our world is and how small our perception was.
This pails into insignificance though when we discovered the electromagnetic spectrum and the means to read and use and measure it. Newtonian telescope to radio astronomy and computers to master them.

Is the universe very big?, I just am marvelled when each curtain of perception is rolled away to reveal just how big my world really is and how small it really was.
Next curtain!!! gravitational waves perhaps!!! Surprise me.
That’s why I look at the stars and wonder and wonder and wonder.......

[Kunama]

Alex are you talking about this universe that we are in or the billion other universes one of which spawned this one?

My guess is there are 'Big Bang' events going on continually, being spawned by the collapsing of other older universes into singularities and then propagating a new one.....

(Prove my theory wrong, I dare you :lol: )

[blindman]

We haven't apsolved Mercury orbit yet, and big question is why there is NO blueshift recorded.

[xelasnave]

Hi Steve
Thank you for your kind complement.
I have decided to buy a camper van so that I never have to leave home.
A pier inside with a mount under the dining table a scope under the bed.
Have ever heard...it is a wise man who can imagine a stick with no ends...and the answer is not a circle...try thinking about that ...but not while driving.
Alex

[xelasnave]

With respect you have a hypothesis a theory is like set in stone...
However on another site there is a nice chap who posts his hypothesis and that is his approach...he calls it the spongey universe.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Well that is entirely political.. so much is funded by republicans they control the recorded red shift and they dont want any blue shift recorded.
Alex

[RB]

:lol:

[LewisM]

Blue Shift - is that polite speak for BS?

[xelasnave]

Looking into TheTheory of Special Relativity is would seem due to the constant C although there should be a blue shift there wont be any observed blue shift...its all tied back to observers observing C as a constant.The same occurs with Red Shift we dont observe it because of the aformentioned rule applying to observation of light and what we observe is just red dust...its everywhere in the universe all left over from the iron wiskas hypothosis ...why it oxidised we dont know...I am working on it but its not the only thing...and there is that box that the oxeygen goes into..
And that is unprepared...I see a speaking circuit ...
I recon I could spin it with the best of them.
Alex

[LewisM]

Lots of observed blue shift in Canberra.

[doppler]

There can not be any blue shift, because we are at the centre of the universe and everything is moving away. Where else would life form but at the center of the creation of everything?

[LewisM]

Life is infinite and eternal - but a person lives but once.

Carbon based life form indeed.

To continue to believe in the Big Bang singularity in an infinite space is absurd. Perhaps in our observable cosmos, yes, but to assume there are not repeated and continual events such as this gigaparsecs away is denial of the obvious. The Big Bang assumes every single atom condensed at a single point - a point that has no centre, no end...and there was a great attractor to condense them in the first place, which came from... yes, our human brain cannot fathom the Cosmos.

Sorry, Big Bang does not work, but it continues to evolve as our understanding progresses. We will and can NEVER know.

[julianh72]

You can't just leave a statement like that hanging there without explanation:

a) What are the unresolved problems with Mercury's orbit that haven't been addressed yet?

b) What is the problem with a general lack of Blue Shift? (It's not correct to say that there is NO observable blue shift, but red shift is far, far more common, as would be expected in an expanding universe.)

[LewisM]

a) For sure it is Planet X / Nibiru causing fluctuations in Mercury's orbit :screwy:

b) because, somewhere someone considers it a conspiracy, probably perpetuated upon us by NASA :question:

[LewisM]

Well: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219?IR=T

And: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Kx6q_fyqIKYC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=mercury+orbit+irregularities&source=bl&ots=iPIPWw5lGu&sig=F6PnWsrfyqV159PN6sqiTXGyRE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik763z-IDZAhWJx7wKHVg0CjYQ6AEIYDAM#v=onepa ge&q=mercury%20orbit%20irregularities&f=false

Wonder if Mad Mike The Rocketman will launch to try to see the curvature of the universe next...or is that flat too?

[FlashDrive]

Queensland has ' cane toads ' ... New South Wales has ' Cockroaches ' ... and Canberra has ' Politicians ' :D

Col....

[LewisM]

And Deception Bay has Pops :)

[xelasnave]

I think the Universe is described as flat.

Alex

[doppler]

Nearly everything we perceive as being the "solid" part of the universe is just an illusion created by energy fields around impossibly small particles called Nuclei ( Nuclei are around 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they’re housed in). So the universe is pretty much just energy. Here's a strange but different idea about what might be happening. https://io9.gizmodo.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particle?IR=T
What is time anyway, for me it's always just now.

[xelasnave]

Did you read the link I posted?
You would find it interesting and perhaps supportive of conspiracy.

As crazy as folk would see me I dont think the Universe probably is expanding and I recognise I ignore the observations and proceed on the possibility the observations were misinterpreted...so unsupported speculation...
And the background radiation is just the stuff that arrives from very distant parts of the Universe.
Could the observations that suggest the universe is expanding be mis interpreted in any way or is it clear that the universe 200% certain is expanding?
Its funny even though scientists work on all this stuff as a day in day out profession we get folk like me saying ...well I think its probably this way...its curious that we do that...well some of us.

Now if you think about it the great man himself was of the view that the universe was static and solved the obvious problem with the cosmological constant inclusion in his formulas...he thought he was wrong...but was he?
Along comes Hubble and needs to show money spent on a big scope was well spent discovers his law...exlawyer so he should.

Did the great man back down to early and live to see his equations used to prove the reverse of his concept of the universe. That with his equations, including the cosmological constant can possibly be described as the greatest incite not his biggest mistake...the universe is static held in place by a force he could only include as a cosmological constant...
Alex

[blindman]

Won't leave you just like that, but Antonio is right about Mercury and that's
without any doubts.
See for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VyGl_l3w-4

So if you are so smart, give some contra evidence, I mean Evidence.

[LewisM]

Antonio is a con-artist.

He hasn't got an iota of a clue.

[blindman]

Yes, when you are out of any contra evidence, you are attacking low.

[xelasnave]

Can you explain what that guy is talking about I could not follow his evidence or anything really.
What is his point in your words.
Alex

[julianh72]

Well, that's 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back! (No, I didn't watch to the end.) I've no idea what point he was trying to make, but I gave up when he said "I showed where the Milky Way cannot be seen". But I can see the Milky Way, every cloud-free night of the year.

How's that for contra evidence? I mean REAL evidence, obtained with my own unaided eyes, and verified by anybody who cares to look up at the night sky.

[xelasnave]

H

I am so humble I thought it was me but you confirming that his guy is not making sense seems a good call.

Blindman was pulling our legs I guess.
Alex

[blindman]

No I don't xelasnave, but Milky way is not important thing anyhow.
Not sure if we can see it whole year thru.
But doesn't really matter, you have your own doubts enough with Moon landing.
No hard feelings.

[julianh72]

Seriously - if you're not sure whether you can see the Milky Way all year round, then perhaps an amateur astronomy forum like IIS is not the best place to be disseminating your "alternative facts"!

[LewisM]

Ask yourself a few fundamental questions.

1. Why when it is day here, it is night in the northern hemisphere - if the Earth was flat, then why does the Sun not evenly illuminate the flat earth, considering that to be flat means that the entire surface should be exposed to the Sun's illumination simultaneously. Or is the Sun moving in a circular pattern around the Earth, and the Sun is actually tiny, and oh, hell, never mind. To believe in a flat Earth shows 100% non-compos mentis.

2. Why can't we see Polaris EVER from the Southern Hemisphere? Yet the Northern hemisphere can. Or do they have a different set of stars painted on their celestial dome...

Never mind...I get a headache trying to bring myself to the utterly brainless level of a flat earther to try to understand how these imbeciles think. NO concept of science or even fundamental life whatsoever.

[LewisM]

He sold his telescope recently, so not sure he is into "mainstream" science/Astronomy. Maybe he bought the telescope to prove to himself the Earth was flat or giant insects lived on the moon...

[xelasnave]

Moon landing doubts which were simply resolved when my concerns were run by folk who offerred sensible input.

In many respects I am one of the most skeptical people you will ever meet but I listen to reason and perhaps my skeptism does not let me be conned by anything...if the least bit unsure I dont buy it but dont swing to the other side.
I dont particularly like the big bang but I dont run around saying its all wrong...
You need a lot of information before anything should be accepted as 100%...but that does not mean you jump to the other side...
No hard feelings?
I had none so there is no problem.
I was hopeing you could explain what I did not understand...In fact still happy to hear what you are driving at by referencing the vid.
Alex

[Octane]

Obama is a lizardman. And, the Queen is a shapeshifting reptilian, too.

Idiots.

H

[LewisM]

Non-American lizardman, apparently.

Lizzy may just be a lizardwoman... :lol:

[blindman]

Actually, you are right.
Interesting thing though, queen was small and whenshe died coffin was big, so what intrigues me what else was in.

[blindman]

Mainstream - hmmm - you mean NASA Church?
Or maybe space.com, where they write that lost tool box from orbit was followed by some persona with telescope / binoculars or whatever?

[julianh72]

On a recent trip to outback Queensland, I took my telescope for some clear-sky stargazing. Just for the heck of it (and because daytime comes around to ruin the stargazing!) I pointed it at the horizon in daylight, and the Earth was flat all the way to the edge. That's verifiable evidence of a Flat Earth in my books!

(I'm still a bit puzzled why I couldn't see Brisbane or the Pacific Ocean or New Zealand or South America when I looked to the east, though ... :question: )

Oh - and yes, in case you're wondering, the Milky Way was visible!

[julianh72]

What?! The Queen is dead?! Is this another conspiracy? Why weren't we told?!

[LewisM]

I think he's confusing the Queen with The Queen's Mother.

[blindman]

Same family, isn't it?

[LewisM]

Same family perhaps, but different person :lol:.

It's like saying that Flat Earthers have synapses and neurons - sure, they do, but they function like a dead persons.

[xelasnave]

Why would anyone expect a member of the royal family to go for a size appropriate box given they live in a huge palace.

And flat Earthers ...well if they were the only fools we have to include in a modern world that I could manage...but they are out there and we can see them ... its the quiet crazies that are the problem.
Alex

[baileys2611]

Queen died long ago when Freddie passed away.

[Kal]

Like you, I spend alot of time pondering these things :)

The thing to remember about space is that it is tied to time. You can't have time without space, you can't have space without time. So is time infinite? Well, we have a start point for our space and our time 13 odd billion years ago, so I would say no.

My personal belief is that there are multiple spacetimes. Whenever a star goes supernova and creates a black hole, it is creating a unique spacetime. Our universe that we sit in would also be within a larger universe created through some such event. I'm guessing that our universe is expanding as it is still "consuming" energy from the parent universe. Should the opposite happen, and we start decaying more energy into our parent universe, the universe will start contracting. This would explain why our universe has expanded at different rates of speed over time.

The cycle of energy would be infinite. Space and time within this cycle would come and go, and we are in just one bubble :)

[xelasnave]

I wonder about other species.
From simple to complex.
How they govern themselves...hobbies...wars...every thing.
Alex

[cannon_gray]

Well, there are two answers to your question: "Really big" and "We can't actually know."

The first answer is regarding what we call the "observable universe." This is the part of the universe we can see and interact with, and it includes billions and billions of galaxies, each comprising billions and billions of stars, and many of those likely accompanied by some kind of planetary body or bodies.


The second answer is regarding whatever lies beyond the observable universe. Grossly simplified, our current understanding of physics suggests that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. That means everything we can know about lies within two 4-dimensional cones, one pointing into the future and the other pointing into the past. This is called our light cone. We are pretty sure there is more universe beyond our light cone, but we literally cannot say with absolute certainty because that part is beyond what we can observe.
The universe is certainly huge, and it might be infinite, but we can't say for sure.

[xelasnave]

Thank you for offering rather decent input on this matter.

Here is another question.

If we subscribe to The Big Bang Theory which seems to suggest that we are able to trace the evolution of the Universe from a hot dense state with the implication that at this point it was finite...my question..how can we entertain that the Universe could be infinite as clearly we can not double and double etc etc a finite Universe, no matter how large it may become from a doubling up process or any process that seeks to increase the size of something finite to something that is infinite? Can't be done.

I also wonder why folk insist that the Universe came from nothing and say " according to the Big Bang Theory the universe came from nothing when clearly the theory only ever mentions a universe that is very hot and very dense..certainly something as opposed to nothing...and given that reality why do folk consider that space and time started at a point when to say that is clearly an assumption that takes us way past the hot dense state outlined in the theory and which in any event can not be determined because the sums break down such that whatever is there is referred to as a singularity...which again is clearly a "something" and not nothing...why should we then say space and time began just a little before we can suggest by the theory? Nothing in the theory suggest the Universe came from nothing yet people just j7mp to that conclusion with no support and contrary to the theory. Does this not mean the Universe can only be eternal if we can not establish a point where it was nothing?
And ..how long is a piece of string?
Alex