michel123456

That has to do with randomness. The question is: are we at a random point in the life of the universe? Some here seem to say (correct me if I am wrong) that the life of the universe is soooo long that yes, we are at a random point of the universe where it happens what we are observing, between a hot dense state & a freezing end. IOW we are lucky. I say that it is not the definition of a random point. A random point should not observe this, because all random points should observe roughly the same thing.

I don't think that the universe behaves like the humans. When humans believed that they were in a central spatial point of the universe, they were wrong. Now we believe that we are in a central point in time between a hot dense state & a freezing end. We must be wrong.

I am really baffled by the fact that you don't recognize the flaw in this statement. To me it is so evident that I struggle to find what kind of evidence is needed. Of course we are not "lucky", and of course we don't live in a "special time". Or at least that shouldn't be a requirement for explaining the Universe. And when this requirement appears, it should ring a bell. Not a bell exactly, something like an atomic bomb.

It was a continuation of post #4 in this same thread but whatever you say.

No, I have no evidence. is this a kind of religious belief? It is that kind of feeling I get when something is wrong. The same feeling that I get when someone lies to me. It is very uncomfortable. I cannot swallow a Universe with exactly the same physics as today but made up of only one galaxy. Simply because it is older. Hopefully, in support of my "belief" we may in the future observe objects insanely older than 13 billion years, and close to us. Something like https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-star-that-s-older-than-the-universe/ar-AAFmyI9 Here again, read this: (bold text enhanced by me) When I read this, I feel as being still in the middle ages. It is HUGE, it is a lie. We cannot laugh at the infantile belief of the Earth as the center of the universe & accept the exact same thing about time. It just cannot be that way.

I don't say that all of physics is wrong. I believe that our understanding is wrong. I believe that all observers, no matter where there are, no matter when they are, will observe a BB happening around 13 BY ago. I believe that our measurements are relative, not absolute.

Yes I know. But that leads to statements like this answer coming from eminent L.Krauss in an interview: from https://www.kcur.org/2012-01-13/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing To me, the "we are lucky to be living in this time in the universe" rings a bell. The bell tells me that it is highly improbable that we are so lucky that we can observe & analyze the universe the way it really is. No, we cannot be that lucky. Something is wrong in this concept. This has been discussed on this same Forum but that didn't help me change my mind. The discussion here:

You have to tick out of the Quote Window before writing your comment. Right click the text you want to quote and a "Quote Selection" window will pop up.

In the article I read it was loosely explained that there is no room for the particles to move at all, which leads to the very low temperature.

What do you mean, that it is not freezing cold? (I posted my question because I have read this info-that it is cold- in a french Science & Avenir).

But then, why have a read several times that the temperature inside a Black Hole is freezing cold? https://phys.org/news/2016-09-cold-black-holes.html https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/are-black-holes-hot-or-cold/

I get it wrong from the start. To me "free fall" is accelerated motion. Not constant motion. I can understand that GR considers free fall as constant motion under the prism of a geodesic in curved spacetime. But what is constant motion then? And what is standing still?

Please explain.

constant velocity?

IIRC I have been told on this same Forum that under time reversal Gravity is still attractive. Which makes some sense I have to admit.

Maybe because Speculation is repulsive?

Nice post. On the same stance: Inside versus Outside: a past light cone spreads always outside. The past is always far away from the observer (The galaxies are several million years in the past) and the more you get closer the more you reach present time (our Moon is only a few seconds in the past. Ultimately, the present will be reached when contacting the observer. The direction of time is from the outside (Past) to the inside (Present) Now maybe you can equate "big" with "outside", I'll have to think about it.

That doesn't look like a disk. It looks like the James Bond logo. That is a view from inside the barrel, the spiral all around is a 3D object, not a flat thing. The closer are around, the farther are in the centrer, like a tornado seen from its axis of rotation. Or is that me?

that seems interesting but it goes far over my head. Could you expand about your "Forget that "tree of life" nonsense."?

Yes, your guess was correct. You are not so bad after all.

I wonder if the spoilers still mean something, I have opened all of them.

And here the (translated by me) answer from the Observatory: In the text below, the word "Mire" means "target" (Retroreflector if I understand correctly)

This is a closer view from Google Earth (3D buildings activated). The fondations of the pillars are slightly visible (in red circles). If I understand your explanation, the telescope was located in the building in the red rectangle. There seems to be 2 openings (sliding roof). So the "wires" are only for visual alignment? And yes it seems to be exactly on N-S axis. Done.