|
Hi Chris
I was aware it was billion not million so that was a case of thinking one thing and typing another.
And thank you so much for taking the time to help as I certainly appreciate you doing so.
It is perhaps impossible to understand without the math but I feel the math must indicate a particular chain of events and surely these must be understandable at some level..even mine.
And I make no bomes about my lack of understanding of the finer points nevertheless the picture that unfolds seems to tell us that the universe came from something incredibly small and grew to something incredibly big and although one can point to physics being something not intuitive, which I can accept, I still find the proposition unacceptable ...and so I demand science make other findings that suits my beliefs☺.
I thought however the observation of the "flatness" suggested the universe "must" be very much larger than the observable universe... and reading about these matters I have formed the impression that it is generally accepted that the universe is much larger than the observable universe...and if you think about it the CBMR is as far as we can observe..that fits the theory but I wonder if there could be another way of interpreting such...
And as I have admitted any arguement from incredulity offends the logical fallacy rules and I know that is where I am coming from...and as I think I may have indicated I simply dont like any universe that requires a starting point...hints too much at creation is my unsupported belief...
And I dont think I would be alone..certainly when the BBT was presented that was the concern of those supporting the steady state model as I understand the history.
Again thanks for your help.
Alex
|