If a Milky way is 120 000 light years in diameter, and the Universe is approximatelly 13 billion light years wide, that means that you could fit only 108 000 Milky way galaxies side by side across the whole Universe.
So how come the scientists say that there are over 300 billion galaxies in the Universe? How can they all fit inside the Universe?
Other urls found in this thread:
arxiv.org
science.sciencemag.org
businessinsider.com
space.com
businessinsider.com
atlasoftheuniverse.com
atlasoftheuniverse.com
atlasoftheuniverse.com
twitter.com
universe is 3D. galaxy is flat. so you can stack them like pankakes
You are thinking of a line rather than a 3D. If you take the volume of the universe and divide by the volume of the milky way. That would answer how many milky way you can fit in the universe.
Can some mathematitian calculate how many Milky ways would fit inside the Universe if there's approximatelly 10 million light years distance between the galaxies? I woul really like to know that.
The observable Universe is 96 billion ly across, not 13. That's 800 000 Milky Way galaxies. But that's only what's observable. The edge of what we can see is called the 'cosmic horizon'. And if you were to go to the edge, there's be a whole new cosmic horizon and you'd be able to see even further. The Universe could potentially be infinite.
Not only that, but 800 000 Milky Way galaxies is only one dimension. The Universe is (roughly) a 3 dimensional sphere.
So you'd have to calculate the volume of the Universe and divide that by the volume of the Milky Way and then try your argument again.
>The universe is (roughly) a 3 dimensional sphere
How would you know that?
Easy-peasy:
1; find volume of the observable universe.
2: divide by the volume of the Milky way.
Answer is 42... give or take
42? That sounds like a small number
I'm not claiming for certain to know the overall shape of the Universe, but for the purposes of this discussion, it's a 3D sphere.
We can look in every direction and the cosmic horizon is the same distance, hence we're in the center of the observable Universe. Basically, the cosmic horizon is a sphere and we're in the center.
And to clarify, I'm not saying we're in the center of the Universe. But rather that every point in the Universe has it's own cosmic horizon.
I said "give or take"... I might be off by a couple of billions
because the universe is not 13 billion light years wide or 1 dimensional.
updated to 90 billion across now
Yeah, but you sort of did.
Could have just thrown in an "observable" at the start.
I see where you have a bit of confusion, and other anons have pointed it out in this thread. The Universe may be roughly, like you say, 13 billion years old, but that doesn't mean it's 13 billion light years wide. It's much wider across! It doesn't break the Light speed limit because this happened during the Inflationary epoch of the Big Bang when everything was expanding super super fast.
If you mean 10 million lightyears in all 3 directions, the volume of the galaxies themself would be negligible.
So you cube the 10 mill ly.
(10^6*9,46*10^15)^3 = 8.46E65 m^3
This is the volume "taken" by each galaxy.
The volume of the observable universe is 4E80 according to wiki.
Volume of universe/volume req. per galaxy
4E80/8.46E65 = (4/8.46)E15
So basically 4 730 000 000 000 000 galaxies can fit inside the universe if they are spread 10 million ly apart in all directions.
Yea my wording was confusing there and I should have read it again before posting but I was trying not to sound like a geocentrist lmao. We're in the center of the 'observable' Universe but the overall Universe has no center.
Universe is infinite man. Those numbers are only based by shit math based on a Newtonian model of physics. Gravity doesn’t determine the universe like they think it does. The universe is electric. Those redshift measurements aren’t what they seem. Redshift isn’t a true measurement of speed when you’re only basing the universe with gravity alone. Same goes for the cosmic microwave background maps. It’s old science that’s why they can’t figure it out. Things like black holes, Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, gravitational lensing are all based on gravity only. Some of these things are made up mathematics to try to make sense of what they are seeing. You know there is an equation that has to be added when the redshift measurement is faster than the speed of light? Same nonsense is done when they find galaxies older than the alleged Big Bang.
How would you know that?
I've speculate the AGE of light creates a red shift. not the expansion
Then why does the andromeda galaxy have a blue shift?
Then what is blue shift exactly?
But "Infinite" and "finite" has a meaning only in a 3D Universe.
If what surrounds our Universe is a 1D or a 0D, then our Universe could be "infinitelly small" just as it could be "infinitelly big".
What is a meaning of a size when there's no dimensions?
Haven't figured that out yet, perhaps it is closer,
Or it is on a collision course
It’s coming at us
The observable universe is what we have to work with. When it comes to science we should back it up with empirical evidence. Obviously, some of the theories like "String theory" can not be validated through empirical evidence, therefore it is not really science.
THE PAST IS A MEMOrY AT WORST. IT MIGHT AS WELL BE THE FUTURE. GET DIMENSIONS NYIGGUH!
Then what are you about "age of the light"? If I understand you correctly you mean that we get redshift in the wavelength of light as it gets older. Well, how the fuck do we get blue shift then?
It’s a fractal like everything else in nature. Fractals are real and they are infinite. Don’t get hung up on extra dimensions. They are only added to give more freedom to bad mathematics. Why do you thing general relativity and quantum physics don’t mix? Relativity is based on gravity only. They don’t consider the strongest force in the universe at all stronger than gravity 10 to the 36 power stronger. Why they don’t include such if force is probably because they only study math in school.
Younger
Nor the speed. You’re a genius user. Good work. Do you favor the EU model?
Ok, either retarded or trolling. Or both.
How old is a rainbow?
Electric and or Plasma
______over____________
Dark Matter & Energy
Yea
42 is the answer to life, the Universe and everything
any given length/beam , wave partical streach, out or drag out dependent on color?
Red moves faster than yellow, blue faster than green, not sure the order of spectrum.
The varience on speed tween colors is nminute until it travels a great way
rainbows are illusions, in the eye, lens
>You know there is an equation that has to be added when the redshift measurement is faster than the speed of light?
There is no such thing. You cannot get a redshift faster than the speed of light. That's like saying, "What was the force of impact from the car that didn't hit her?" If you can measure a redshift, then that means you've measured the light, which means it isn't faster than light.
>Red moves faster than yellow
Not only is this wrong in the traditional sense, it's wrong if you say that redshift is the age of light for things moving away from us.
>not sure the order of spectrum
You just gave an order. Red, Yellow, Blue, Green. Which makes absolutely no sense.
So if I shine a real light through a real prism, it's all in my head?
To be fair, you can get a measurement of redshift corresponding to an object moving faster than light
In other words, if the object which is emitting the light is moving away from you faster than the speed of light. The light wouldn't have reached you.
This is why we talk about the observable universe. We can't look outside the observable universe because the light from there hasn't reached us.
Of course you can, in theory. But you can't actually measure it in reality. That would be impossible.
nope, I speculate there is no expansion, that the red shift indicating it is false. the red shift is age,
sorry my brillance is not up to your speed,
Nope, the spectrum of light is real,
Rainbows are the spectrum generated by the eyes lens. What is the illusion is that it is far off in the distance
Don't question science.
Well we can in fact measure objects with recessional velocities larger than c
Dude.. if "the red shift is age", then again, what is blue shift?
ps I admitted I don not know the order of the spectrum,
I do know the order of trolling a post
Read, think, shad up
the observable universe is ~96 billion light years in diameter, not 13.
And how exactly can we do that?
>sorry my brillance is not up to your speed
Yeah, it took several billion years for your genius to catch up to me on account of the great distance between our intellects.
>I speculate there is no expansion
You failed to employ reading comprehension. I said that it would be wrong, if. I am specifically including expansion of the universe, it does not have to be something that you said previously- which isn't an issue, considering you just typed
>until it travels a great way
indicating that light has to travel a great way in order to do what you're saying it does.
>Rainbows are the spectrum generated by the eyes lens
I don't emit rainbows from my eyes.
>What is the illusion is that it is far off in the distance
Make up your mind. Does distance exist, or not?
>I admitted I don not know the order of the spectrum
But you were able to rank the wavelengths, from fastest to slowest.
If the light from the object reaches a region of space where the recession is lower than c
Because that’s how we define the observable universe
I thought we were supposed to use parsecs to measure distances at universe scales?
A parsec is just 3.26 light years, you can express it however you want
>It doesn't break the Light speed limit because this happened during the Inflationary epoch of the Big Bang when everything was expanding super super fast.
And that’s assuming light speed has been the same constant speed since the Big Bang.
We can’t know.
Liu Cixin‘s Three Body Problem trilogy has been right all along.
I was asking about the center. How do you know there is none?
Because expansion is happening at every point basically
I see what you are saying.
So? If the sun gets bigger equally all around, would the center move?
because the universe isn't a skinny tube... it got 13 billion light years in every possible direction and in every one of those directions it's growing at almost the speed of light
Boy, as in Sonny, You really can't read.
I stated the difference between the speed of blue , red is different, and it can not be noticed untill the light has travled and aged a great distance.
ie
a flash of light that was generated for 1 second will be 2 second in duration a billion years ago,
emitting rainbows would be cool However the lens focus is into, not out/from of the eye.
No, ranking had a WHATEVER included, With RED being fasted because it arrives first, ahead of the others,.
We can only observe the universe from our point of view. "The observable universe". We don't know what is the center.
This
not a billion ago, a billion from now
In a vacuum, there is no difference in speed between wavelength, only when light travels through a medium
That's not how red/blue shift works at all.
Actually none of what you just posted is remotely accurate. I'm almost impressed at how thoroughly incorrect that post is.
You still haven't answered why we get blueshift if redshift is due the age of light
There is a measurable curvature of 0.3 degrees from level. Which makes the circumference (massive) like seriously beyond our comprehension.
Some thing like 10 billion light years = 0.3 degrees pi r 2
Very big. If its a complete sphere.
If u can imagine billions of blackholes sucking space into an infinitely small space (sub space) if u will. Once all those black holes fill up a (subspace area) pop = big bang scenario?
>I stated the difference between the speed of blue
You have a ranking system to differentiate the wavelengths based on their speeds over a great distance. Your entire proposed model relies on this system, because you have referenced it numerous times to make your incomplete and inconsistent case.
>a flash of light that was generated for 1 second will be 2 second in duration a billion years ago
A flash of light generated for 1 second will appear to exist for 2 seconds, a billion years ago... randomly. There are no problems with this statement. Who needs causality?
>However the lens focus is into
Then rainbows are not generated by the eyes, or their lenses.
>ranking had a WHATEVER included
>Red moves faster than yellow
>blue faster than green
Nope.
>With RED being fasted because it arrives first
Missing: an explanation as to why red light would even be the fastest wavelength of light to exist, given that it's also supposed to be the "oldest" wavelength.
That still doesn't make any sense. How is the light from your screen reaching your eye in less than a billion years?
You have never measured a single beam of light both when generated and when its aged a billon years
Look up at the sky.
Congratulations, you're observing light that's billions of years old.
>How is the light from your screen reaching your eye in less than a billion years?
I admitted it was speculation, and I haven't figured it all out yet.
But if you say that there is a difference in speed between wavelength as well as light gets shifted to the red end of the spectrum solely due to its age, does that mean that light gets faster the older it is?
Funny you say that because the constant fluctuates. Nobody talks about it though but adjustments are made so everyone’s math works out the same. The problem with Big Bang is it’s a creational suggestion. “Everything came from nothing all at once but just this one time and never again” these are still dogmatic religious views. Matter cannot be created and destroyed into nothing “except that one time in the beginning” because they need something to start off their bad mathematics based solely on gravity. Then they create more nonsense to explain why the universe is bigger than the speed of light. Age of the universe is down to 11 billion according to new CMB measurements. It’s really putting a pinch on them and you’ll see this said everywhere. New physics is needed to explain everything.
I'm using his logic. If you generate light for a full second, it's supposed to be twice as long, a billion years from now. So the story goes.
Even though it was already said that light was generated for 1 second and 1 second only, indicating that there's a point at which light is no longer being generated- the end of a full second. Even when taking into account that, for some reason, this full second that just finished happening is supposed to then appear to happen a billion years from now for twice as long. With no mention of distance.
>the Universe is approximatelly 13 billion light years wide
The expansion of the universe is not limited to the speed of light
How can any one know what age does to light?
How can we measure todays light shift from our sun a billion years from now?
is red shift ONLY caused by expansion/moving a way?
can there be other causes for the effect observed?
I hold science is not absolute, it has many flaws and changes.
Just cause science says so is not good enough,
>Age of the universe is down to 11 billion
Where did you get this?
Should have referenced
It’s more like distance than speed nor age. Funny thing is it’s not an exact science. Hubble himself did not believe that it was speed being measured. He was against that idea and wanted to further research that but died and as a slap to the face they named it after him. The mathematical correction to slow down the galaxy just enough so it does violate the constant. It’s a big circle jerk of science
Just relocation
Fuck me I'm tired, read that wrong, I guess I'm going to bed
Did you forget we live in a 3 dimensional universe? Your calculations are based on a plane, not 3D.
No in actuality they’ve been observing and measuring galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light so they created an equation to correct it so it doesn’t appear that way. The Hubble constant. Cause they only believe it’s measuring speed and nothing else. They never researched it beyond that. They settled the science and that’s not science. Science needs to evolve and change all the time.
>if I throw out the framework of experimentally verified data then I can make up whatever I want
>and I'm right because arbitrarily selected examples of absurdly extreme criteria
Why can't matter be impossible to create or destroy, after the event that sets the rules for all matter in existence? I don't see what's inconsistent here. There was an event that created the matter and energy to begin with, and in order to create or destroy matter, you would need to operate on the level at which matter was created- or destroyed. Which would most likely revolve around the nature of the Big Bang.
>Age of the universe is down to 11 billion according to new CMB measurements
And it's liable to change again, because the measurements are in flux for a plethora of reasons not disclosed in this single sentence. Prescribing to this new factoid, alone, makes you as bad as the people you decry. Furthermore... when was science decided? When did we determine that we had it all figured out?
If we discover something new, it's not as if we won't develop new physics and new models to make sense of it. That's like suggesting we were never to invent a catalog for the elements, or not embracing any technological or social advancement since we lived in caves.
And, are you aware that the Big Bang wasn't proposed to have been literally nothing?
What is the Hubble constant Alex?
This is exactly what happened they made measurements and found galaxies doing exactly this. Insert new equation to slow it down and there you have it. Bad science
You are on the path to enlightenment then. Welcome to the future of science.
Red-/blushift measures speed, if it measured distance why do we see blueshift at different distances?
The reason why we can connect redshift to distance is because we know that the expansion grows with distance, so from redshift we get recessional speed, and from that we can infer the distance
>and so I choose to believe whatever random fiction I prefer
The universe HAS to be older than 11 billion. They do the age of the universe based on the oldest stars they find.
The oldest star is around 14.5 billion yeas old HE 1523-0901
r = 46 000 000 000
V = 43πr3 = 4.07720083×10^32
4.07720083×10^32/100000000E+21 = 407 720 083 000
It’s not slowing though is it? Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are headed towards each other so...
>The oldest star is around 14.5 billion yeas old HE 1523-0901
arxiv.org
Title:
"Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium"
From the abstract:
"The weighted average age of HE 1523-0901 is 13.2 Gyr"
So?
>Universe is 46 billion light years in radius.
Universe is not a circle my friend.
Sorry, it's not V = 43πr3 = 4.07720083×10^32
It's V = 4/3πr3 = 4.07720083×10^32
The rest of the calculation is correct.
You are describing the phenomenon leading to blueshift mate
observations are not always what they seem.
Two hippies on a cruise ship smoking a blunt by the rail, one remarks, Look at all that water>
The other one replies; yea and to think, that's just the top of it.
Definitely 42.
Oh yea hmmmm wonder why that happened. I’m sure they’ll come up with an equation to correct the bad math based on theory that the universe even has an age or a beginning. See how these things happen. If you don’t understand one thing correctly then everything else that follows is shit. Constant work arounds. Age of the universe base on cosmic microwave background data. They say it’s the leftover from the big band, what if it wasn’t. What if it was coming from something else? Well if they believe what they believe and won’t change that or go in another direction then really you get nowhere, right?
r/b measures direction of travel and speed in these cases
If you just make shit up you to can be an astrophysicist.
And what did I say that contradicts that?
It's funny you can spell "astrophysicist" but can't choose the correct option out of to/too/two.
Have you heard about the Hubble constant? The correction made so galaxies that are measured going faster than C will slow down based on its distance so it won’t go past their control window of what they think they know. Has anyone ever studied what plasma and the electromagnetic force in the universe does to redshift? Or the phenomenon known as “gravitational” lensing? There is an entire force in nature that is stronger than gravity not being considered in any bit. That’s a problem.
Bang*
Black ho's.
>Age of the universe base on cosmic microwave background data
That's not the only way of determining the age of the universe.
>They say it’s the leftover from the big band
>what if it wasn’t
Where would it come from? What is the purpose, why is it there? What would you be referring to if you point to
>cosmic microwave background radiation
provided it has nothing to do with the age of the universe?
>Or the phenomenon known as “gravitational” lensing
Fun fact. 11 billion years was determined using gravitational lensing. In fact, gravitational lensing has been used for a lot of the nonsense you're spouting and misconstruing.
And gravity is considered a weak force. The weakest fundamental force, of all of the known fundamental forces.
kek
What if it’s actually measuring age or interference from the electromagnetic force. Thing is they really can’t explain it with gravity alone nor general relativity. That’s why mathematical corrections are made to this. They don’t have a clue what it means so they just stick with speed, then hit a brick wall know as the C of their own doing. More like blow right by it. Well that doesn’t work does it
Do you understand what the Hubble constant is? It connects speed to distance, since we know, through observation, that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion grows with distance from us.
Plasma does not affect the wavelength of light traveling through it, it does however scatter electromagnetic radiation, that is a pretty thoroughly studied field.
Gravitational lensing bends light.
>>Age of the universe base on cosmic microwave background data
>That's not the only way of determining the age of the universe
But this IS the one they’ve been using
science.sciencemag.org
I'll just wait a billion years for you to reconcile with this information.
They pointed a telescope at a dark bit of space and did a long exposure shot to collect the light from distant galaxies. Then they just counted the number of galaxies in the picture. They know the percentage of the night's sky that their picture captured. So they just multiply the number of galaxies in their picture by the appropriate percentage to include the entire night's sky and that's where that number comes from. It's based on the assumption that the density of galaxies is going to be about the same no matter where they point their telescope which is a fair assumptions.
And the universe isn't 13 billion light years wide. It's 93 billion light years wide. And that's the observable universe. Anything further out than the edge of the observable universe we can't see because the light hasn't reached us yet. It may be there but just unobservable.
>>They say it’s the leftover from the big band
>>what if it wasn’t
>Where would it come from? What is the purpose, why is it there? What would you be referring to if you point to
>>cosmic microwave background radiation
>provided it has nothing to do with the age of the universe?
Exactly my point, this is where new research should begin.
Why do you need the "what if" though? This is an established science, we know wtf we are talking about, we have studied electromagnetism for quite a while now
Your point completely reduces the majority of things we use to explain even the immediate space around us.
>>Or the phenomenon known as “gravitational” lensing
>Fun fact. 11 billion years was determined using gravitational lensing. In fact, gravitational lensing has been used for a lot of the nonsense you're spouting and misconstruing.
>And gravity is considered a weak force. The weakest fundamental force, of all of the known fundamental forces
Well that’s my point gravity is too weak but strong enough to be a black hole? That’s nonsense
Gravitational lensing is a guess they made why that phenomenon occurs. Not an actual science. I can only imagine what kind of things the strongest force in the universe can do. But it’s gravity and nothing else. Have you ever seen light being bent by an electromagnetic force? Are you convinced enough to say it can’t?
See this
It's not possible that there are 300 billion galaxies in the observable Universe.
There can only be 407 billion galaxies in the Universe of a 92 billion light years in diameter.
And that is if the average distance from galaxy to galaxy is 10 million light years. And we know there's a lot bigger distance than that.
And also, you are wrong. Visible/observable Universe is 13,7 billion light years in all directions.
Also why would you use something you don’t understand to measure anything? That a lot of fuckary if you ask me.
Are you saying an electromagnetic force that is 10 to the 36 power stronger than gravity can not? It’s not just plasma
I'm sorry, what were you saying?
The Hubble constant was to correct the speed of galaxies traveling faster than C. That is exactly what it is and nothing else no matter how you word it.
If your scientific knowledge peaked in Jr high school....keep posting! This shit is fucking hilarious!
The universe is more like 22 dimensions folded down into roughly 4 dimensions.
Not 3 dimensions.
I don't think you fully understand general relativity. So the shape of space is affected by mass, if enough mass is collected at one point, space is bending so much that in the region that nothing can move away from it, i.e. now even light can "escape".
Yes gravity is a weak force, but mass (energy) bends space, light travels in space, thus gravity can form a black hole.
>Gravitational lensing is a guess they made why that phenomenon occurs. Not an actual science
Again this is just general relativity, I think you need to read up on that
You need to read more.
That went right over your head
Can not what?
What shape then?
Look man. Use your brain. If the Universe is 13,7 billion light years old, that means that we can see what the light has traveled in 13,7 billion years. And that is 13,7 billion light years radius.
Are you kinda slow?
>The Hubble constant was to correct the speed of galaxies traveling faster than C.
No, it's from measuring objects which we know have a specific brightness, and comparing their redshifts, from which we can infer recessional velocity, to their distance.
It’s even worse that they are using lensing as a measurement of the universe when in fact they haven’t got a clue as to what’s causing. What if it wasn’t gravity. Then what? How does their precious dark matter and dark energy come into play. “Help! We need more unknown phenomenons to explain why gravity isn’t working” keep reading articles when it’s based on garbage in garbage out unresolved science.
By all means do elaborate then
Do you not understand they were finding galaxies traveling faster that C? Did you not know this happened?
If you actually tried reading a book for once you'd know just how wrong you got that reference
Gravity is too weak to affect individual atoms, proportionally. It is a fundamental force whose effects manifest on the macroscopic scale. So, yes, black holes. Because the mass of a black hole is incredibly large. If you aggregate enough of a small thing, even common sense will dictate that the combined result will be magnitudes greater. Gravity is proportional to mass. "1 mass" isn't enough gravity to do much, with respect to abjectly and routinely referring to a universe with things like black holes. Several billion masses equals several billion times the effect of "1 gravity".
>Gravitational lensing is a guess they made why that phenomenon occurs.
Oh, you motherfucker. The Hubble constant is wrong, all the conventional understands of light are wrong, all of these things are wrong, but there must be some other alternative explanation for things. Oh, what's this? You can be unconventional, and use other means to arrive at a conclusion? Sure, why not. But, wait. Because the unconventional doesn't then automatically support the crazy, fallacious bullshit you're spouting, and very nearly manages to invalidate said bullshit while establishing how it manages to come up with it's self-admittedly tenuous Hubble constant, it's suddenly guess work and also wrong.
Not an actually science anymore! Nope, nada. Not anymore, not since it was demonstrated to make a whole other plethora of sense that didn't validate the bullshit you were spewing.
Motherfucker.
>Have you ever seen light being bent by an electromagnetic force
No, I have never seen or heard of light being affected by the Earth's magnetic field around its true north pole. Nobody has. It doesn't exist and it definitely isn't part of our modern culture.
Fuckary off.
That would be true if the universe wasn't expanding.
When you take that into account the furthest light could have traveled since the big bang is about 46 billion light years.
If you think the universe isn't expanding then you shouldn't talk about the age of the universe because that's calculated from the expansion rate.
Also
>13,7 billion light years old
>light years old
Are you slightly retarded?
Hitchhikers Guide ...the ultimate question? Answer is 42....ringing any bells there my illiterate little friend?
you really don't understand math or 3 dimensions.
You’re living in a simulation man! Time to wake up! Drink the bleach! It will wake you up from your nightmare
With that logic we should be seeing everything that lit up 13 billion years ago at the beginning since it all expanded from a singularity. Insert dark energy to push the universe apart so this doesn’t happen. Insert dark matter to come up with enough gravity to hold together the galaxies cause we can’t explain why they’re not flying apart because the universe is an empty vacuum.
Do you have a source?
Stuff moving away from you shifts into the red end of the spectrum. Stuff moving towards you compresses into the blue end of the spectrum.
Same reason a train or semi trucks hitting it's horn makes that sound that changes pitch as it passes you but with light
Universe made of nothing, infinite, forever. done. Go sleep.
Look at who I was responding to maybe?
Why does it have to be a shape? Can’t understand any other concept except for the one where gravity dictates it to be so
Bend light. Checked trips
I wonder if you've actually read the books.
Here's a quick test.
Arthur Dent gets marooned on a planet without access to space travel. What profession does he take up in a small village that subsists on "perfectly normal beasts"?
That's not how it works though, mass and energy bends space, which to us looks like the light is bending, not "force"
>the Universe is approximately 13 billion light years wide
nope
businessinsider.com
space.com
Bro. Observable Universe is 13,7 billion light years in radius. That is the distance the light has traveled in 13,7 ly. Everything out of that radius we can and will never see.
We're in a realm of form, what else would you end up with?
Shapeless shape is still a shape.
To correct this typo:
>That is the distance the light has traveled in 13,7
I meant to say:
That is the distance the light has traveled in 13,7 billion years.
Literally means not a shape. Are you autistic?
Screen capped from your own fucking link.
Ey Tone?
From businessinsider.com
"If you're trying to calculate the size of the cosmos, the speed of light — the fastest anything can go — is a tempting place to begin and end. You'd reason that since the Big Bang happened some 13.8 billion years ago, there's a 13.8-billion-light-year radius marking the edge of what mere mortals could see.
Not so.
...
If you take expansion, recombination, and other variables into account, as physicist J. Richard Gott III and several of his colleagues did in 2003, you get an observable universe that's roughly 45.66 billion light-years in radius — or 91.32 billion light-years wide (if diameter is your thing)."
>that's roughly 45.66 billion light-years in radius
Wtf man?
Yes.
Humans are human shaped but objectively, pretty shapeless.
Are you not autistic?
You need to understand what you're reading.
The light you see is 13,7 billion years old. Where is that "spot" today after 13,7 billion years that is traveled to us, that is another question. And THAT light we will never be able to see. How can you not understand that?
Please read this
Thank you.
the universe isn't just a flat thing with one orientation of objects, it's expanding in all directions, 108,000 can fit inside a 2 dimensional line, 300 billion can fit inside a 3 dimensional sphere
That does not mean that the observable universe is 13,7 billion ly in radius..
It seems like you don't really understand what they're saying
You claimed the observable universe is 13,7 billion light years in radius. You posted a link at me that supposedly backs up your claim. I read the link and it literally says you're wrong because the universe is expanding. Which is exactly what I fucking said.
Strings
Okay guys, think about that like this.
Ask yourself a question: does the light travels faster than the speed of light?
After you answer yourselves that question, think again about your posts. And if you still will be not able to understand why the observable Universe is 13,7 ly in radius, then I can't help you. Sorry.
Because we are crashing into it.
The space the light is traveling through is expanding The light travels through 13.7 light years of space, but ends up 46 light years from its original position because the space expanded.
infinity is just stupid. it's just a theory that infinity is even possible. it's not a value, it's giving up on finding a value. there are serious limits beyond light speed which is really just maxwell's theoretical limit of the electromagnetic spectrum and has been measured to be pretty accurate to what he calculated.
there are planck values like plack length, which is the smallest theoretically possible length in the universe, and planck temperature, which is highest theoretically possible temperature, beyond which the laws of physics don't make sense.
in fact, some believe that if you could get below absolute zero, it would suddenly be planck temperature like imagine freezing something so much it suddenly turns to fire. these sound like pretty fucking hard FINITE limits. to just say it's infinite is like believing the sun orbits the earth because it's easy to believe that.
Man it doesn't matter that the space is expanding. The final result will be that the light that started from a spot that is 7 billion light years away, it will come to us after ~13,7 billion years.
Be aware that the light speed is a constant. It can not all of a sudden travel more than a 300K kilometers per second just because the space is expanding.
Observable Universe is 13,7 billion ly in radius.
>some believe
Laser cooling exists. You're either misunderstanding or poorly explaining why dropping something to absolute zero could result in that thing spontaneously heating up to an incredible temperature.
And besides, you're talking about theoretical, possible values. Not absolute, proven limits.
>Man it doesn't matter that the space is expanding
Light needs space to travel. Space is expanding. Connect the dots.
Are you a troll? It's okay if you are. I'm not mad at you.
Explain what part of that post is bait.
I've explained why you're wrong. I showed you that scientists believe you're wrong. Your own fucking reference material says that you're wrong.
At this point I think you're arguing just to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong. I hope when this thread is over you can be honest with yourself, change your mind, and not be wrong in the future.
Can you at least understand this simple concept:
Look if you're so confident about this go publish your research paper on it and win a nobel prize.
Until then I'm just gonna call you a faggot.
Can you understand this simple sentence:
atlasoftheuniverse.com
This is the problem of defining a distance in an expanding universe: Two galaxies are near to each other when the universe is only 1 billion years old. The first galaxy emits a pulse of light. The second galaxy does not receive the pulse until the universe is 14 billion years old. By this time, the galaxies are separated by about 26 billion light years; the pulse of light has been travelling for 13 billion years; and the view the people receive in the second galaxy is an image of the first galaxy when it was only 1 billion years old and when it was only about 2 billion light years away.
Funny. I had similar links at the ready, in case the pretending to be retarded ever went there.
atlasoftheuniverse.com
Bro, I'm not telling you nothing new. It's a known fact that the observable Universe is 13,7 billion ly in radius. It's just that you have completelly misunderstood the articles you're reading on the internet.
I was so uninterested in working with your ass-pull logic, but now I want to point something out.
2 galaxies are next to one another when the universe is 1 billion years old. The first galaxy emits a pulse of light. The second galaxy will not receive the pulse until the universe is 14 billion years old. That would mean that the galaxies are approximately 13 billion light years away from one another. When the universe is 14 billion years old, the expansion of the universe will have caused the distance between the galaxies to be approximately 26 billion light years across. The pulse of light from galaxy A has been traveling for 13 billion years, and was it was already said that the pulse would reach galaxy B when the universe is 14 billion years old.
13 billion years have to pass. 13 billion years pass. The light has been traveling for 13 billion years. It reached galaxy B. Galaxy B received the pulse of light from Galaxy A. It only took 13 billion years for that to happen. The galaxies are 26 billion light years apart by the time the pulse reaches galaxy B, at 14 billion years.
There's no inconsistency here, and that's what your bait keeps fuddling up.
>the Universe is approximately 13 billion light-years wide
Astronomy professor here;
The universe is 13.6 billion years old, not 13 billion light-years wide.
The observable universe is around 93 billion light-years across and the rest is thought to be around 15 million times larger than this, so the Universe is approximately 23 trillion light-years in diameter.
In conclusion, OP is a retarded fag.
I would like to slap yo ass like the Pope is slappin these bitches.
The impulse of light started when the galaxy A was 7 light years away from the galaxy B.
After 13,7 billion years the impulse has reached galaxy B and the galaxy A is now 13,7 light years away from the galaxy B.
But the light you're seeing is the light from the galaxy A that was 7 billion years old.
Light would reach galaxy B when galaxy A was 1 billion years old, 13 billion years after the pulse of light actually happened. At that point, Galaxy A is no longer where it was in relation to galaxy B. It's nearly double the distance away in terms of light years. That means that any pulses of light emitted by either galaxy are no longer observable by either galaxy- they're beyond the cosmological event horizon.
In a universe that is expanding to the point where 13 billion years turns 13 billion light years into 26 billion light years, light stops reaching either galaxy when they're separated by a large enough distance. It's safe to say that when they're 26 billion light years apart, neither of the galaxies will be able to see each other anymore. And everyone has been explaining this in a number of ways. All the way to the purely technical and specifically accurate.
The view the people receive in galaxy B when the universe is 14 billion years old is strictly the view of galaxy A when it is 1 billion years old. Not when it was 2 billion light years away. It's impossible for that to happen, because the galaxies were separated by 13 billion light years when the first pulse of light was emitted. If the galaxies were present at the time, and were in fact 2 billion light years apart at one point, within the 1 billion years of the universe existing, the pulse of light wouldn't be scheduled to happen for another 11 billion years. At which, the galaxies would be separated by 13 billion light years.
If the impulse of light started when galaxy A was 7 light years away from galaxy B, then you can go fuck yourself.