the size of the universe

[L]

i think there is a figure of how big the universe is, but i don't believe that we could calculate that at our intelligence level. we can only calculate what we can see, which is a very tiny amount. they say the universe is expanding, but i believe what is expanding is only the tiny spec of the universe that we can see, and the rest is made up of endless other 'tiny' specs, that could be spinning, impressing or breaking apart or anything.

if your not really interested in what i think about the size of the universe, just tell us all about what you think about it. :rolleyes: even if you don't care what i think, i care what you think!:P

i guess if your still reading then you are interested so...I believe time and space are endless, and within both, everything possible (within the laws of physics) has happened, will happen and is happening all at the same time. in other words, everything that could happen, (not only things relating to earth) has happened somewhere in space. everything that could happen, IS happening somewhere in space right now. and everything that could happen will happen in the future.

you could find that confusing and it may not make sense, (or you could understand totally:D) so i'd like to explain that my theory is based on the idea that if the universe is endless, then that means everything has to be in it. if time is endless, that means everything will/has happened. because the only thing that can fill endlessness is everything. or thats what i think anyway.

i'd love to have comments/constructive criticism on my theory, or your oppinion on the size of the universe.:D oh, and comments/constructive criticism on other peoples theory's, to keep people talking.

[sebbie]

I cant even comprehend the size of the universe, who knows what is true and how big it is. I mean just looking at the picture below :eek:

http://kilo.naurunappula.com/nn/0/162/165/353424.jpg

[ThatCanadianGuy]

The edge of the "observable" universe is 46.5 billion light years away. That's all I have to add at the moment.

[punkjake]

i don't want to sound crazy but i think it NEVER ends,even though some science can prove it doesn't,doesn't really make it true,because they never made over there

[INFERNO]

i don't want to sound crazy but i think it NEVER ends,even though some science can prove it doesn't,doesn't really make it true,because they never made over there

They cant prove it to be true or false due to the nature of scientific theories, which has been defined many times on these forums already.

The issue I have with the idea that the universe is indeed endless is what is the overall shape of it then? Does it at some point fold back on itself? If it is continuous, then what happens with black holes as they suck in pretty much everything? Is it the idea that infinity-1 = infinity?

I've heard the idea that the universe is accelerating or expanding but one question I have with that is, according to current physical laws, what is providing the resources for it to continue expanding?

To the OP, your view seems to be as though time is ring-shaped and the universe may or may not also be ring-shaped. One issue or flaw with your theory is what happens when a planet collides with something and produces another planet or something else? Let's say you have planet A, B and C. They are in some galaxy, doesn't matter which one, pick a galaxy you want it to be in. Now, you have planet A and B and somehow, they collide. As a result, planet C is produced. So, according to your theory, at some point in time, the same planet A and the same planet B will collide yet again to produce the same planet C. Logic tells us that this is not possible since after the first collision, planets A and B are different. To make it seem clear because my explanations sometimes are wonky:

A1 + B1 --> C1 (A1 and B1 are changed as a result)
A2 + B2 --> C1

Alternatively, for C1 to be replicated twice, somehow A1 and B1 manage to "heal" after the collision which probably is not a happening thing assuming some alien life-force is not intervening.

That, or I've completely misunderstood you.

[Perseus]

Well, I semi-believe that the universe could possibly be a multiverse. But, I barely believe that. And if I were to say the universe is not endless, the question will arise,"where does it end and what is on the other side." So if you think about that, you can't really say that it isn't endless, but it could be endless. For now, til proven otherwise, it is ever expanding and infintely large.

[INFERNO]

Crap, I re-read my post and I realized that I sounded like a moron. I won't edit it as it may have been what the OP intended and I'll let it be that way but I wasn't thinking mathematically about it, which may actually have rendered the part of the A1, A2, B1, B2, etc... wrong.

[foof1]

the EVER-EXPANDING universe

[chazzrox2]

U raise an amazing point bout evrfin including 'future' events being within d universe... I imagine someone will right a no. 1 bestseller based on dat theory lol

[L]

To the OP, your view seems to be as though time is ring-shaped and the universe may or may not also be ring-shaped. One issue or flaw with your theory is what happens when a planet collides with something and produces another planet or something else? Let's say you have planet A, B and C. They are in some galaxy, doesn't matter which one, pick a galaxy you want it to be in. Now, you have planet A and B and somehow, they collide. As a result, planet C is produced. So, according to your theory, at some point in time, the same planet A and the same planet B will collide yet again to produce the same planet C. Logic tells us that this is not possible since after the first collision, planets A and B are different. To make it seem clear because my explanations sometimes are wonky:

A1 + B1 --> C1 (A1 and B1 are changed as a result)
A2 + B2 --> C1

Alternatively, for C1 to be replicated twice, somehow A1 and B1 manage to "heal" after the collision which probably is not a happening thing assuming some alien life-force is not intervening.

That, or I've completely misunderstood you.

yeah, you kind of misunderstood. planet a and b do collide, making c. but because they have collided they have broken down and really are no longer planet a and b anymore, so therefor they cannot make planet c if they collide again. its more like within infinite space, there has to be infinite everything. therefor there are infinite planet a's and b's colliding constantly, somewhere.

[punkjake]

Crap, I re-read my post and I realized that I sounded like a moron. I won't edit it as it may have been what the OP intended and I'll let it be that way but I wasn't thinking mathematically about it, which may actually have rendered the part of the A1, A2, B1, B2, etc... wrong.

don't sweat it :lol: but I like theroy of it growing every second,but if it does what happens if it "eats" another universe or the the other way around

[Commander Thor]

don't sweat it :lol: but I like theroy of it growing every second,but if it does what happens if it "eats" another universe or the the other way around

Then it wouldn't be a universe.
It is impossible for there to be more than one universe.

But, if we live in a multiverse, and two multiversi collided, then it would probably look something like when two galaxies collide.
Bunch of things getting thrown all over the place.

The series 'The Universe' had a show on Multiversi.

[INFERNO]

yeah, you kind of misunderstood. planet a and b do collide, making c. but because they have collided they have broken down and really are no longer planet a and b anymore, so therefor they cannot make planet c if they collide again. its more like within infinite space, there has to be infinite everything. therefor there are infinite planet a's and b's colliding constantly, somewhere.

But the part of a and b colliding is where I said I went mathematically wrong. There's a thing called the Banach-Tarski Paradox (or theorem) whereby it states that one solid 3-d ball can be taken apart into non-overlapping pieces and product two balls identical to the first. It's in theoretic geometry and that is why I said I went mathematically wrong. Planets a1 and b1 can collide to make c1 but according to this paradox, c1 can form multiple copies of itself, as can the edited a1 and edited b1.

don't sweat it :lol: but I like theroy of it growing every second,but if it does what happens if it "eats" another universe or the the other way around

If two universes managed to come close enough to each other, then assuming they are the same size, the gravitational forces within each universe and planet could go hay-wire. If they're different sizes, then both will still go hay-wire, however, some of the planets and possibly galaxies may be drawn towards parts of the bigger planet.

[Reality]

I think the universe is infinite, and if it's not really that then there's just absolutely nothing at the "end" of it.. because if there is, wouldn't that too be part of the universe?

[Camazotz]

If the universe is expanding, there must be an edge. However, what is at this edge we will probably never know. I doubt we will ever be able to see the edge of the universe.

[L]

I think the universe is infinite, and if it's not really that then there's just absolutely nothing at the "end" of it.. because if there is, wouldn't that too be part of the universe?

i agree. believing in the idea that the universe has an end is just like believing in the possibility that beyond the universe is nothing (no space, time or matter) which sounds ridiculous that me, what is there, a wall around the universe that no one can pass? no, endlessness makes more sense to me.

[L]

But the part of a and b colliding is where I said I went mathematically wrong. There's a thing called the Banach-Tarski Paradox (or theorem) whereby it states that one solid 3-d ball can be taken apart into non-overlapping pieces and product two balls identical to the first. It's in theoretic geometry and that is why I said I went mathematically wrong. Planets a1 and b1 can collide to make c1 but according to this paradox, c1 can form multiple copies of itself, as can the edited a1 and edited b1.

wow, thats way above me. from your description, i can't really understand how thats possible, but hey, when i was 6, i couldn't understand how the tooth fairy all ways knew when i had lost a tooth. so, unless you can explain it, i may have to wait a few more years.



sorry for double post, i made the other one first and i don't know how to edit in quotes.

[INFERNO]

wow, thats way above me. from your description, i can't really understand how thats possible, but hey, when i was 6, i couldn't understand how the tooth fairy all ways knew when i had lost a tooth. so, unless you can explain it, i may have to wait a few more years.


You'll probably have to wait a few more years to grasp it but if you want, here is the proof of it: HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_Paradox).

I'm teaching myself multivariable calculus (or trying to at least :lol:), so I can try to smooth out some bumps you may have. Read the stuff below as the link doesn't define the terminology (it's assumed you're at a level where you don't need it defined for you).

If you're reading it, then I suggest you don't try to get your head around generators. They're part of abstract algebra and you'll probably get a big headache.

They also use "U", which in math and stats means or. Mathematical or is different from every-day or. In mathematics, if we have a and b, then U means a OR b OR both. You can have a string of aUbUcUdU.... and each U means mathematical "or". We don't say "and" because that means something else. In math and stats, and is represented by upside-down U. For a and b, and means both a and b. That is different from mathematical or.

Step two may seem a bit wonky to you and if you have a good imagination, then you can probably understand it. When it says rotate, it means turn the 2-D X-Y graph into a 3-D X-Y-Z graph. Consequently, arccos(1/3) gets turned into 3-D also. The 1/3 is a unit in radians but if you don't like it, then convert it to degrees (using a calculator) using the equation,

unit radians = unit degrees (pi/180), so
1/3 = unit degrees (pi/180)
unit degrees = (1/3)(180/pi) = 19.4 (approx.)

Arccos is a fancy math way of saying the inverse of cos, that is the inverse of y = cos(x). To get the inverse, we have x and y swap places so we get x = cos(y). Normally, we'd use some basic algebra to solve for x but in this case we don't need to. So, y = arccos(x) means the inverse x = cos(y).

[punkjake]

wow, thats way above me. from your description, i can't really understand how thats possible, but hey, when i was 6, i couldn't understand how the tooth fairy all ways knew when i had lost a tooth. so, unless you can explain it, i may have to wait a few more years.



sorry for double post, i made the other one first and i don't know how to edit in quotes.

me too O.o i know a little bit,like how black holes form and work

[L]

You'll probably have to wait a few more years to grasp it but if you want, here is the proof of it: HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach-Tarski_Paradox).

I'm teaching myself multivariable calculus (or trying to at least :lol:), so I can try to smooth out some bumps you may have. Read the stuff below as the link doesn't define the terminology (it's assumed you're at a level where you don't need it defined for you).

If you're reading it, then I suggest you don't try to get your head around generators. They're part of abstract algebra and you'll probably get a big headache.

They also use "U", which in math and stats means or. Mathematical or is different from every-day or. In mathematics, if we have a and b, then U means a OR b OR both. You can have a string of aUbUcUdU.... and each U means mathematical "or". We don't say "and" because that means something else. In math and stats, and is represented by upside-down U. For a and b, and means both a and b. That is different from mathematical or.

Step two may seem a bit wonky to you and if you have a good imagination, then you can probably understand it. When it says rotate, it means turn the 2-D X-Y graph into a 3-D X-Y-Z graph. Consequently, arccos(1/3) gets turned into 3-D also. The 1/3 is a unit in radians but if you don't like it, then convert it to degrees (using a calculator) using the equation,

unit radians = unit degrees (pi/180), so
1/3 = unit degrees (pi/180)
unit degrees = (1/3)(180/pi) = 19.4 (approx.)

Arccos is a fancy math way of saying the inverse of cos, that is the inverse of y = cos(x). To get the inverse, we have x and y swap places so we get x = cos(y). Normally, we'd use some basic algebra to solve for x but in this case we don't need to. So, y = arccos(x) means the inverse x = cos(y).

eh, i'll wait a few years. your explanation is at assuming i'm at a higher level too, so i really have no chance at the real thing. :P

[HelloWorld123456]

well i think we can actually but ... then again ... the univers expans at 400 m/s ... so ... it is very hard to find an actual figure

[charlie w]

'two things are infinite in this world, the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the universe.'
excuse the quote but science can only tell us so much at the moment as all the facts given to us, is only about the universe we can see, so some of them are guesses. who knows what we might discover in the future. if you think about it in terms of the time humans we have been on this planet, they thought the world was flat a short while ago.

[L]

'two things are infinite in this world, the universe and human stupidity, and i'm not sure about the universe.'
excuse the quote but science can only tell us so much at the moment as all the facts given to us, is only about the universe we can see, so some of them are guesses. who knows what we might discover in the future. if you think about it in terms of the time humans we have been on this planet, they thought the world was flat a short while ago.

i agree. humans tend to believe what they can see and never stop to think about it. never stop to think about what they can't see. humans are stupid. sure am glad i'm not one. :rolleyes:

[Antares]

The edge of the "observable" universe is 46.5 billion light years away. That's all I have to add at the moment.

What he said.

I mean, there is no size conceptual to us because the universe is infinite.

So that figure must be

Universe=Forever

[L]

What he said.

I mean, there is no size conceptual to us because the universe is infinite.

So that figure must be

Universe=Forever

exactly.