Dear Yousuf Khan:

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
oups.com...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Are there parts of space so far
away from us that it's expanding away from us *faster* than
the speed of light?

We expect so, yes.

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?

How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

Isn't it possible that given only what we can observe, we
will always come up with a finite age for the universe, and
it will always be the same age limit no matter when we
do the calculation?

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a billion
years younger.

In fact, wasn't there an observation made at one time, that
some of the oldest stars seem to be older than the age of
the universe itself? I'm not sure if that's been resolved or
not.

There is always someone who wants to look for the "unfinished
edges". What we don't have is a lot of stuff suddenly entering
our light cone from "somewhere else".

but just the curtain around
a part of the universe that is now out of contact with us.
An
endlessly expanding universe sure, but one that never had
a beginning?

It is also expected to have had a beginning. The current
distribution of matter around us is not pure iron, which an
inifnite Universe would produce. Nor are there iron to
hydrogen
conversion engines predicted or observable, with anywhere near
the amounts required.

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?

The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad helium.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.

Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter (iron,
hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including
neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which somehow migrate
out into
the halo over time?

These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron stars
and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT consuming the
dust and producing the ever-present X-rays? Like their
counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of gravity
are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws that
we will eventually discover?

Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

As for an iron to hydrogen conversion engine, why do we need
one?

Because stars make it, and there isn't much of it around in the
stars.

Doesn't matter just pop up out of nowhere in the vacuum?

Not unless it converted back to energy and disappears again.

Near a
blackhole its anti-particles could get swallowed while the
particles would get boosted right out of the blackhole's
vicinity in the jet.

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a workable
hypothesis.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".

There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our ticket
is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the boonies...
no matter how large or old the Universe is.

David A. Smith