How big is the universe ?

[Jelleb]

who said there is only 1 'universe'?

 

[restin]

^as universe means everything, there cannot be more than one. If we'd realize there was a parallel "world" this would also be part of the universe.

 

[Crimzen]

its exactly 1 Universe accross

LOL didnt see that one before
hahaha

 

[Brugmansia]

Please stop posting links and quoteing things directly . Lets talk about it and not just kill the theme with wikipedia quotes.

The universe is as big as one bean. Guess what our size is.

 

[lucky_lab_rat]

I already know the answerS to what i`ve written .

And that truly scares me :shock:

The best minds in our world have never come up with more then theories so anyone who claims to have an answer is a fool.

Interesting things to think about for sure but...

and I'll edit to say- assuming the theory that universe is constantly expanding (or contracting) there is no right answer because by the time you hit "submit" the universe will have grown (or shrunk)

we have a word for this train of thought- its called "mindfucking" :wink:

 

[GOD]

I`m a fool ?and your as thick as pig shit . How the fuck can you judge me or the answer i have if i havent told you ? You cant . You are makeing a realy stupid asumption . You are asuming that i`m going to give an exact number and even you say / understand that thats not posible . Your a typical dickhead asuming that everyone is even dumber than you .

If you dont insult me again i wont shoot back again . If you forget this post i`ll forget your post and we can continue talking about the subject .

The best and most exact answers so far came fro Mr.Smith and Crimzen .

 

[lucky_lab_rat]

^^ touchy touchy :wink:

I was not, per se, calling you a fool, nor was I insulting you.. I WAS saying that people who think they have the answers scare me.

 

[GOD]

OK , thanks , lets forget it .

Just a thought , you thought you had an answer are you scared of yourself ?

 

[im1badpup]

we would have to understand black holes to be able to calculate the size of the universe wouldnt we?
theyre the missing part of the jigsaw, they swallow everything, matter, time light.. theyd be the reason the universe cant expand as an equal rate as a perfect sphere, for what they dont eat, they can bend and distort.
if we could measure as we see in a physical sense from point a to point b (one side of the universe to another) the distortions from black holes would mean we arent measuring in a straight line at all, i sort of imagine looking at a ball of tangled string,through a load of crystal balls, and we are measuring the string, when we really want the size of the ball. the speed of light, and time would also be affected to complicate it even more.
would you think our laws of physics are incomplete when it comes to this? or fundamentally flawed?
what the fuck do i know... i dont even have a degree haha

 

[Crimzen]

we would have to understand black holes to be able to calculate the size of the universe wouldnt we?
theyre the missing part of the jigsaw, they swallow everything, matter, time light.. theyd be the reason the universe cant expand as an equal rate as a perfect sphere, for what they dont eat, they can bend and distort.
if we could measure as we see in a physical sense from point a to point b (one side of the universe to another) the distortions from black holes would mean we arent measuring in a straight line at all, i sort of imagine looking at a ball of tangled string,through a load of crystal balls, and we are measuring the string, when we really want the size of the ball. the speed of light, and time would also be affected to complicate it even more.
would you think our laws of physics are incomplete when it comes to this? or fundamentally flawed?
what the fuck do i know... i dont even have a degree haha

true
i dont think our laws are fundamentally flawed because if they were we would see more inconsistencies
but if string theory is correct then our picture of the universe is flawed, our inner visualization of it would be incorrect
for example most people envisage 'particles' as dots or spherical, whereas in string theory they are points in a wave of a string
which has lead me to think the all matter is a condensed vibration as i had once suspected

 

[lucky_lab_rat]

Just a thought , you thought you had an answer are you scared of yourself ?

Always its one of the reasons I do psychedelics- to keep myself in check and realize that when I think I have found answers I've simply stopped asking the right questions :wink:

 

[HeartCore]

Its 13.7 billion years old , nothing is faster than the speed of light = its radius can only be 13.7 billion light years .

Not taking in account that the speed with which the universe is expanding, is exponentially increasing.

 

[Psyolopher]

Well I just know that my cock is bigger....

 

[Malaeus]

"read your own first post "

Read it yourself . Theres no theory of mine there .

"since when does something that expands need to have an edge "

An edge , limits , borders . If i t hasnt got one how does one define it and how can one measure growth or movement ?

because maybe we just can not comprehend the method of measurement needed for that observation.

"what do you propose this edge is made of? "

I dont propose anything about what it is made of ? Must it be made of something ? It must have limits and a definition .

it doesnt have an edge, not one that would ever need be experienced. it may have this "edge" you speak of, however it would be a fade out of existence, a very very very long fade out. not just a clear cut line. that is just ignorant to think that the universe would give you a clear edge just so you dont panic.

"you are avoiding my argument "

What argument ?

LEARN TO DEBATE

"the fact that space has no mass means that it is possible for it to expand faster than light "

Light has no mass so haveing no mass isnt an argument for something traveling faster than light .

light DOES have a mass, however any units imagined by this race would fail to compare to the explanation of mass in photons. you must be one of those people who say its impossible for one particle to be in two places at once.

"OK?! simple as that, is it hard to fathom?"

I already know the answerS to what i`ve written .

well, if what you have written "god" is what you know to be the answers then i suggest you go and prove them, then come back to us. this was to my understanding to be an observation point. a debate across all theories regardless of their purpose and conception. however this seems to be too good, i watch the way a great many of you behave on this forum of "psychonauts" and it seems that many are not psychonauts at all, for they blind themselves from the possibility of two right answers. fundamentally christian in that aspect, wherein their faith be proven wrong, they will defend it to their death, for they can not live in a world where their god is dead. without thinking that their god could quite possibly be the same god as everyone elses' they can not accept this possibility, and it is that issue, the issue of humans constantly needing a limit to be pushed, having to have borders and boundaries for us to cross and conflict. mankind truly can not survive without confict. but if out of chaos comes order, then where are we?

by the way. whoever it was that said the model of the universe was a toroid, that is the closest to correct we humans in the 3rd dimension (dementia n, lol) can comprehend. the universe is ever expanding, however across which scale are we doing so? will we run out of space? or will the universe continue to expand outward till it burns itself out? where does it all go? where did it come from? we would need answers to most of those before being able to really truly answer the measurment of the universe, we would also for that matter need... lol matter.... we would need a new unit of measurement, which would inevitably be so subjective it would be sad. a proprietary unit for a tiny race that cant even see under its own oceans. such an arrogant task and mindset. it really is kinda sad...

but anyways, i move that the universe is unmeasurable in any kind of unit with the exception of acceleration, and even so the definition of distance would need to be replaced with time, so it would come out to be time/time which would be theoretically impossible, for it not for the fact that time = space = distance = time. time can be used as a measurement of exactly that, time, or it can be used for distance, however relative it all is, we can assume that by einsteins general relativity that it will always have a relative outcome free to interpretation and naming of any comprehension and physics elsewhere in existance, it would need to truly be universal. to have a single concept that can stand up to every form of physics ever conceptualized. and many that have yet.

i would appreciate some constructive interactive conversational debate.

 

[GOD]

"i would appreciate some constructive interactive conversational debate. "

Then start doing it then and dont post stupid pointless crap like that . If you dont understsand , and you obviously dont , ask questions . And only write in black please .

 

[Malaeus]

wow, what a response. i believe that just confirmed all of my thoughts. you are just a nitwit. absolute refusal to entertain any concepts that challenge your own.

EPIC FAIL

how about some thoughts from anyone else.

anyway, back to the threads purpose, if we are to define the size of the universe, we will first need a unit of measurement, which of the currently used "space" measurements can we use for the purpose of this thread?

"The light year.Which means the distance to which light has to travel inside one year with a speed which equals the speed of light in vacuum.
metres per second 299,792,458 (exact)
km per hour 1,079,252,848.8 (exact)
miles per hour ? 670,616,629.4
miles per second ? 186,282.397

The parsec ("parallax of one arcsecond") equal to just under 31 trillion kilometres (about 19 trillion miles), or about 3.26 light years.

AU (Astronomical Unit) is mainly used within the Solar System and is equal to the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun. It is approximately 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) "

and after that is established, by what scale do we want to start our inference?

 

[GOD]

You havent understood and your projecting your failure to do so on me .

The unit to use is light years .

The word edge doesnt in this case mean a fixed limit , there isnt a brick wall there . No one knows whats "there" , just that theres some sort of boundry between this universe and not this universe .

No one can measure it exactly with a tape measure so it will have to be a between , an estimate . Also as spüace is expanding there can be no definate position between it and not it , its always changeing .

What HC said is right about that we have moved and must add that to the 13.7 ( estimated ) billion light years . So is what Crimzen said about the limits not being limited to the speed of light as the universe isnt moveing in space its expanding .

 

[maxfreakout]

it might not be 13.7 billion years old, that's just speculation

 

[Malaeus]

@god wow you like flipping your sides. im amazed you can get away with jumping to side with the people you were just flaming just to flame someone else. its hilarious.

so, if we are to use light years to measure, assuming light speed is an absolute constant. what is the average size of galaxies that we have observed, measured in light years? for the purpose of this thread, lets assume the average diameter of a said galaxy is 100,000 light years. and it is about 2-5000 light years thick.

we will then need to infer the relative distance between each galaxy in an average cluster. lets assume that is ~50million light years.

with this information we will then need to create a web, using points and lines. each point is an analogue of one galaxy, each line is the same length, representing the distance between galaxy. we will need an average number of galaxies in the observable universe. with 3000 visible galaxies from our observation point. and a computer simulation estimating ~500billion.

if there is someone who enjoys math, have fun with this one for me.

OR

ill just take the fun out of the entire thread by simply answering in the question without having ANY fun with it whatsoever... the universe that we can see at this moment in time is approximately 156 Billion Light Years at its largest diameter. the shape of the unverse is more of a flattened egg with a void at its core (thus rendering the visible "donut" shape previously discussed) in essence it is a torus with a sphere twice the toroid's tube diameter in the middle filling the "hole" in the "donut", and it is expanding at a rate we could never comprehend in terms of area or "space" but has an estimated growth rate of 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc)


*Megaparsec (Mpc) which is equal to 3.26 million light years or 30,800,000,000,000,000,000 km! Thus the units of the Hubble constant are (km/sec)/Mpc.

 

[GOD]

"@god wow you like flipping your sides. im amazed you can get away with jumping to side with the people you were just flaming just to flame someone else. its hilarious. "

If you have nothing sensible to say and only want to insult and acuse shut the fuck up and fuck off . I havent flamed anyone . You came in talking crap and makeing acusations . And i havent changed sides . Grow up and stop trying to cause trouble . If you carry on with it or writeing in colours i wont posst in the thread anymore .

Stop useing diferent coloured print and just write in black . What has the size of a galaxy and / or the distance between galaxys and / or the number of galaxys you claim we can see got to do with the size / diamater of the universe = less than nothing .

" the universe that we can see at this moment in time is approximately 156 Billion Light Years at its largest diameter"

Prove that and the rest of what you say . Give references .

Max we know these numbers are estimates . If you read the thread it says that .