Size of the Universe 43 replies

Please wait...

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#11 11 years ago
You're right. It'd mean there'd be an infinite number of chances for a direct clone of you. Or a planet just like earth, also called earth, with a solar system just like this one.

I don't think so, either. Space may be big, but it's not infinite. Because if it were infinite, then that would imply that it is also static. And physicists disproved the static version of the universe quite a long time ago.

I believe in the theory is spherical like Earth. If you were to set off in a straight line in the Universe, you would end where you once began. PONDER THAT!

I have. And I have a question. In which dimension is the universe inscribed on the inside of a sphere?




Tanith

Lovely weather here

50 XP

27th September 2006

0 Uploads

820 Posts

0 Threads

#12 11 years ago
Serio;4846256You're right. It'd mean there'd be an infinite number of chances for a direct clone of you. Or a planet just like earth, also called earth, with a solar system just like this one.

I believe that's possible in regards to the Multiverse theory but very unlikely for within this one Universe.




Nemmerle Forum Moderator

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,101 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,202 Posts

6 Threads

#13 11 years ago
Serio;4845894While looking at the Hubble Deep Field image earlier, I came to think of the actual size of the universe, or at least the area where the galaxies are located. The further we can see, the longer back in time we see, right? So what if we were able to see the very edge of the cluster of galaxies and such. Wouldn't everything beyond that point pretty much be darkness, where light is non-existant? I'm not talking about the edge of the universe, just the edge of the galaxies.

Light would still be out there, radiating away from the galaxies, it's just that there wouldn't be anything for the light to reflect off of so you wouldn't see it coming back to you.




Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#14 11 years ago
'LIGHTNING [NL;4846353']Here you make a mistake. We accept the universe as being homogenous and isotropic.[/quote] Then you are accepting an untruth. Not everything is perfectly the same throughout. For example, stars burn at different temperatures from each other. The entire universe would be a single temperature if it were uniform.
This means there is no area where there are no galaxies. All matter is evenly distributed among the universe.
There's area where there isn't a galaxy. Between the galaxies is space that is nigh empty of matter. In addition, matter is not evenly distributed. If such were true, everything would likely have a direct opposite. So far I have yet to see this.
Like I said, there is no 'edge' in our 3 spatial dimensions. There is however an 'edge' in time. If you can look back 13.3 billion lightyears then you will see the 'dark age' that followed the big bang. In this period the matter in the universe had not yet clumped together to form stars and galaxies. Here you will see nothing but darkness.
On what do you base this? To my knowledge we can't "see" the edge of the universe, and therefore we do not know precisely what it would look like.
If you look even further back than that you can see the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radation). This is the radation from the period following the big bang in which all matter was highly compressed and very hot.
Again, if this were true, everything would be of an identical temperature. Baseless.
Does the universe have an edge? I don't think it does.
It's likely that it only has an "edge" where physical matter ends. [quote=Nemmerle;4846514]Light would still be out there, radiating away from the galaxies, it's just that there wouldn't be anything for the light to reflect off of so you wouldn't see it coming back to you.

This.




LIGHTNING [NL]

FH2 Developer

50 XP

30th May 2003

0 Uploads

9,811 Posts

0 Threads

#15 11 years ago

Penguin_Unit;4846578Then you are accepting an untruth. Not everything is perfectly the same throughout. For example, stars burn at different temperatures from each other. The entire universe would be a single temperature if it were uniform.[/QUOTE] If it were perfectly homogenous you and I would not exist. That being obviously not the case, I thought it was clear I meant that the universe is generally homogenous and isotropic. This is called the Cosmological Principle and it is supported by observations.

[QUOTE=Penguin_Unit;4846578]On what do you base this? To my knowledge we can't "see" the edge of the universe, and therefore we do not know precisely what it would look like.

We base this on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). It is the same in all directions, meaning we are either the centre of the universe (extremely unlikely (Copernian Principle)) or everywhere is the centre of the universe (as in a point on a sphere (which is a lot more likely)).




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#16 11 years ago

I'm personally not a fan of trying to use mathematics to prove anything about the universe we cannot tangibly study. It assumes that all of the laws of the universe are actually laws of the universe and not simply laws of what we happen to be able to have studied so far. There's no reason that somehow things couldn't be different somewhere in the universe. It seems like the best we can do is make some well thought out guesses.

For the idea that the Universe somehow inhabits the inside of a sphere (or outside) what would the diameter of the sphere be? No matter what shape we think of it has to have measurable dimensions, unless it is amorphous and goes on infinitely in all directions.




The Body Popper

KHAN!

50 XP

14th February 2006

0 Uploads

2,275 Posts

0 Threads

#17 11 years ago
Afterburner;4846626I'm personally not a fan of trying to use mathematics to prove anything about the universe we cannot tangibly study.

Win.

I've always wondered why astrobiologists look for only water and oxygen when searching for extraterrestrial life. There's nothing saying that something couldn't breath methane, drink sulfuric acid and shit gold. Just because we humans need oxygen and water, not everything else does.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#18 11 years ago

So, if all the shit we see at night is hundreds or thousands or millions of light years old,....all that shit could be gone and it could be all new shit? Like stars that spell out song lyrics in perfect constaillations could replace orion and such?




Nemmerle Forum Moderator

Voice of joy and sunshine

299,101 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,202 Posts

6 Threads

#19 11 years ago

Given the average lifecycle of a star of that type and that we know the conditions at least one of the stars in that constellation were in a few centuries ago it's extremely unlikely. But since the nearest star in the constellation of Orion is Betelgeuse if they had been somehow magically replaced we wouldn't know about it for four hundred and twenty something years.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#20 11 years ago

Wouldnt it be sweet to see Twinkle Twinkle Little Star written out with stars?