nobody replied to me___________________http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-03/FRL-28Oct08clean.pdf (last pic)
#do people on galaxies which are 13bly away see "first galaxies" when they look towards milky way?#
and do they see that milky way and andromeda are moving away from each other...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-03/FRL-28Oct08clean.pdf (last pic)
#do people on galaxies which are 13bly away see "first galaxies" when they look towards milky way?#
and do they see that milky way and andromeda are moving away from each other and/or away from observer's direction...
1 why is unobservable universe invisible(wikipedia doesn't explain this good enough)?
2 and if observable universe is over 13,75bly then there must be pictures of this area, mostly what i see are pictures concerning age of universe(hubble deep), and maybe confuse this with space distance...
if c was always constant then how it can be consistent with inflation if everything can move only max speed of c?
wouldnt it violate inflation theory?
inflation needs a bigger speed than that of light if its ought to be a different theory than that of standard expansion
ive read...
how much more power had big bang in inflation theory than in standard expansion theory? (if standard expansion big bang = 1 )
i assume it was over-c because of that power
standard expansion would be 18000000 km/min
and inflation... ?
and after how much time did speed of light...
it had something to do with hypercube or something, therefore it was a 3
i said there also that it isn't the biggest number,but its the biggest number which made sense until now, in the sense of trying to find out the biggest number among numbers from 1-9
i started to doubt the result...
i wasnt happy with how grahams number looked and i didnt understand why it was as it is (ends on g64) and i felt to prove a number most logically as possible which would make sense, also motivation was to this is that i have personal issues with numbers, i wanted to publish it long ago. I am...
is this bigger than grahams number, i again "accidentaly" checked grahams number out and felt dumb then lost/forgot innovation for classical progressive/ progressive progressive versions of this model
when somebody takes a sum of 2^3^4^5^6^7^8^9 and then this sum will "^" itself, so much...