Size of the universe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 12:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 12:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  So rather than a tap filling up from a central point and the volume of space expanding, its more like an ever expanding shower head, with the size of the holes remaining constant so as it expands more holes pour in more space?
Consider
It's... kind of, er, nothing like either.

We can visualize a two-dimensional universe expanding in every direction. There's not really a way to extend that to three dimensions.

(02-07-2013 12:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  The one thing is if the universe is still expanding does that mean the big bang is still happening now?

Just so.

(02-07-2013 12:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Lastly, big bang seems like a woefully inexact if not misleading thing to call it.

Everlasting ooze seems to fit better.

At this point we're probably stuck with it.

But 'bang' is a way cooler term than 'ooze'. What kind of self-respecting theory uses the word 'ooze'?

Well "Big Bang" was the name the theory was called to deride it by opponents and it stuck.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 12:24 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well "Big Bang" was the name the theory was called to deride it by opponents and it stuck.

Right! Which is why it is not really very descriptive of the actual content of the theory.

But it is catchy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Size of the universe
Thoughts on the Big Bang and a White Hole being synonymous?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 12:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 08:01 AM)Logisch Wrote:  I think you may be fundamentally misunderstanding sort of how the universe is from a larger perspective. I think people imagine the big bang happening from a central point, and then everything sort of stems out specifically from this central point. This is easy to do because we're used to learning that things revolve around other things, or seeing things stemming out from the center of other things.

The big bang should really be called "the big expansion" because it wasn't an explosion and then matter just spattered out from that central point. Instead, it was a very rapid and exponential expansion of space itself. Since it was an expansion of space, it continues expanding everywhere. So really, the center is an irrelevant thing to contemplate Wink





Does your brain hurt yet? I know mine did when I started contemplating this stuff.

So rather than a tap filling up from a central point and the volume of space expanding, its more like an ever expanding shower head, with the size of the holes remaining constant so as it expands more holes pour in more space?

The one thing is if the universe is still expanding does that mean the big bang is still happening now?

Lastly, big bang seems like a woefully inexact if not misleading thing to call it.

Everlasting ooze seems to fit better.

The term "Big Bang" was coined by an adversary to the theory (Fred Hoyle) to ridicule it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 11:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 07:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  Try this page.

Thx Chas, thats a baby step forward in my understanding. One question, I have the observable universe is limited by age and C, so 14 10x9 LYs. Is the universe we've currently observed that size in radius or has occlusion or some other factor limited the distance we've observed?

We can only observe the observable universe. Yes We've actually observed less than that because the universe was opaque for some time after the big bang.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 07:18 PM by Humakt.)
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 11:52 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Thx Chas, thats a baby step forward in my understanding. One question, I have the observable universe is limited by age and C, so 14 10x9 LYs. Is the universe we've currently observed that size in radius or has occlusion or some other factor limited the distance we've observed?

We can only observe the observable universe. Yes We've actually observed less than that because the universe was opaque for some time after the big bang.

That's kinda what I meant, not sure I get what you mean by opaque for some time after, I mean I know what opaque is, but not sure what you mean in this context.

What I meant was I think I heard somewhere that there is only much we can see because there comes a point were every visible bit of sky has stuff in it we cant see past, like stars, dust etc. So there comes a point were LOS is blocked totally and obviously we cant see beyond that. I guess that sounds like it might be the case, but as I cant remember were I heard it I cant be sure on it.

I said a while back in a post I was long past being surprised by physics and how wacky it is, I think I was misunderstood in that, this is kinda what I meant. I'm not surprised at all by the new stuff I find out about as Ive gotten used to the wacky nature of things by learning previous wacky stuff. The more you, or rather I learn about science the more I am unsurprised by the awesome nature of it. It makes the simplistic view of religion seem trivial when contrasted by the awesome complexity and elegance of reality as we (as species) understand it. More so, as opposed to religion that "answers" all the questions, the continuation of scientific investigation, promises and continues to deliver more and more awesome there is a magnificence in a view of reality that seeks to ask more and more questions in the hope of finding errors in current assumptions that religion misses out on very much to its detriment.

Anywhoo thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 07:20 PM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 07:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  That's kinda what I meant, not sure I get what you mean by opaque for some time after, I mean I know what opaque is, but not sure what you mean in this context.

Too dense for light to pass through, essentially. Just too much pesky matter lying around.

(02-07-2013 07:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  What I meant was I think I heard somewhere that there is only much we can see because there comes a point were every visible bit of sky has stuff in it we cant see past, like stars, dust etc. So there comes a point were LOS is blocked totally and obviously we cant see beyond that. I guess that sounds like it might be the case, but as I cant remember were I heard it I cant be sure on it.

That's kind of true; we can't see the far side of our galaxy, for example, because the rest of it blocks it out!

The deep field images would seem to indicate that, in most directions, we can see pretty much as far (back and/or away) as it is possible to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: Size of the universe
(02-07-2013 07:20 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(02-07-2013 07:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  That's kinda what I meant, not sure I get what you mean by opaque for some time after, I mean I know what opaque is, but not sure what you mean in this context.

Too dense for light to pass through, essentially. Just too much pesky matter lying around.

(02-07-2013 07:05 PM)Humakt Wrote:  What I meant was I think I heard somewhere that there is only much we can see because there comes a point were every visible bit of sky has stuff in it we cant see past, like stars, dust etc. So there comes a point were LOS is blocked totally and obviously we cant see beyond that. I guess that sounds like it might be the case, but as I cant remember were I heard it I cant be sure on it.

That's kind of true; we can't see the far side of our galaxy, for example, because the rest of it blocks it out!

The deep field images would seem to indicate that, in most directions, we can see pretty much as far (back and/or away) as it is possible to.

By as far as it is possible, I take it you mean 14 billion light years approx?

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 06:19 AM
RE: Size of the universe
This came up on today's fb...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...487&type=1

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 08:10 AM
RE: Size of the universe
Boom. Well, there goes my head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: