Current size of universe

[BigDon]

Oh howdy Sargon.

If you are not a sock puppet, welcome to BAUT.

[Jeff Root]

I don't understand how anyone can confidently place a size or age
on the universe when we don't have the ability to see the end of it.
We could only be in a small portion of it that happens to be expanding
because of some other cataclysm besides the big bang.

If there parts of the Universe that we can't see which are not
expanding along with everything we can see, we aren't ever going
to know about it because those parts will forever be unobservable.
We know the age of the Universe because everything we can see is
moving apart. Tracing that motion back in time, it was all crammed
together 13.7 billion years ago. Whatever got that expansion started
is called the Big Bang. If there have been greater or lesser Bangs
elsewhere in the Cosmos beyond the Universe we can see, we will
never be able to know of them, so all we can talk about is the Universe
which began in the Big Bang. And that is what we are talking about.

We have no idea how large the Universe is, except that it is larger
than what we can see. We have a pretty good idea how far we can
see, but distance measurements are less precise than age.

I think it is the height of hubris to theorize on such a grand scale.

Why? I don't think it is even a teeny tiny bit hubrissy.

Every generation produces a new paradigm on this kind of subject.
What makes us think we're better?

We can see more, we have better measurements, we have better
mathematical tools, and we've thought about the questions more.
Our theories are built on the theories of previous generations. Our
theories could not exist without them, and those theories of previous
generations could not have existed without the theories of generations
which preceeded them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[sargon]

I realize that my introductory post is a bit awkward and would tend to drift off topic. My comment about hubris is more of a generalization about treating theory as fact. I have observed a tendency historically for scientists to do this. Of course, it is through the debate of opposing viewpoints that we often grow nearer the truth. By following some of the threads here, and occasionally interjecting, I hope to learn some new things. I have a few screwy ideas of my own and like to get feedback. I've come to grudgingly accept that I won't get all the answers I want in my lifetime, but I keep hoping.

[Neverfly]

I realize that my introductory post is a bit awkward and would tend to drift off topic. My comment about hubris is more of a generalization about treating theory as fact. I have observed a tendency historically for scientists to do this. Of course, it is through the debate of opposing viewpoints that we often grow nearer the truth. By following some of the threads here, and occasionally interjecting, I hope to learn some new things. I have a few screwy ideas of my own and like to get feedback. I've come to grudgingly accept that I won't get all the answers I want in my lifetime, but I keep hoping.

Someone around here has the sig line, "Do you think you have the right to go through life unoffended?"

Welcome to BAUT Sargon. I hope that in posting here, you also see the difference between a scientist standing by the Theories- and a Hardhead refusing to let go of one.
There is a very big difference, yet many scientists get accused of being hardheads. Usually by other hardheads.

So I wouldn't sweat whether or not you offended anyone- because we don't have the right to go through life unoffended But you might consider looking very hard at just how scientists support their theories with confidence.

[speedfreek]

Wow, you know him? What a Heroic photon! I would like to meet that photon...

I see him every time my TV is tuned to a dead channel...

[Jeff Root]

speedfreak,

When I first read your post #22, I was thinking about asking you to edit it
to change the singular "photon" in the first two paragraphs to the plural
"photons". I'm a perfectionist.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[nokton]

Would you care to define this "null spacetime"?

Grant Hutchison

Yes, Grant. Spacetime is an idea, and a concept. Gravity is a concept, but without
a concept of antigravity, falls apart. Null spacetime is where gravity and antigravity
meet, and a cancellation occurs.
Peter

[speedfreek]

When I edited this post, somehow I managed to reproduce it two posts below, so I am removing this double post. Sorry for any inconvenience!

[grant hutchison]

Yes, Grant. Spacetime is an idea, and a concept. Gravity is a concept, but without
a concept of antigravity, falls apart. Null spacetime is where gravity and antigravity
meet, and a cancellation occurs.

I think it would be fair to characterize that as a significant divergence from mainstream thinking.
So perhaps you could keep it out of the Q&A section?

Grant Hutchison

[speedfreek]

When I first read your post #22, I was thinking about asking you to edit it to change the singular "photon" in the first two paragraphs to the plural "photons". I'm a perfectionist.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Actually, I gave that some consideration when I wrote it, but decided (perhaps erroneously) that it got the message across better, the way I put it.

I don't want to edit that post now, as it will confuse the subsequent comments, but I will clarify the point here instead and clarify it a little further.

The observable universe is defined by the distance that the oldest photons we have detected have travelled. The way you measure this distance depends on if you are interested in where the photons were to begin with, interested in where the place they were to begin with is now, or interested in how far the photons themselves have travelled.

[BigDon]

Yes, Grant. Spacetime is an idea, and a concept. Gravity is a concept, but without
a concept of antigravity, falls apart. Null spacetime is where gravity and antigravity
meet, and a cancellation occurs.
Peter

Actually, Mr. Grant there is no reason to get testy.

Nokton, your statement about antigravity is pure mental fluff. Any hint of real antigravity negates so much of proven relativity as to make the phrase "anti-gravity" a nonsense statement. I believe you will learn alot by hanging out here. Heck, I'm a brain damaged furniture mover and I learned that here. It was Mr. Hillman or Mr. Mendenhall who mentioned that I believe.

[grant hutchison]

Actually, Mr. Grant there is no reason to get testy.

Are you talkin' to ME?
Seriously: Read my post in a tone of weariness, rather than testiness.

I'd maintain that any declarative statement of the form "The universe is expanding into <something or other>", such as nokton made, has no place in Q&A. Nokton doesn't know, because no-one knows, and it's difficult to imagine how anyone could know. But I just thought I'd check whether "null spacetime" wasn't some sort of curious jargon for "I don't know". (As in, "I'm sorry, but that topic is complete null spacetime to me.")

Grant Hutchison

[BigDon]

Mr. Hutchson!

Peace!

All I meant was maybe Nokton is simply young and ignorant.

Both of those can be cured by time! A hostile greeting might push him in with the bad crowd. I've seen it happen.

Mr. Hutchenson I know your not a knukclehead! Look at my post count, I damn near live here! I know what you're about, rock on, but get some rest!

[grant hutchison]

Don, I took no offence: likewise, I know what you're about.

But nokton is an old hand here, although he's been gone for a year and a half. Check out his joining date, and look back at some of his previous posts.

Grant Hutchison

[mugaliens]

I dunno, somehow it all fit together for a laugh inside my head, but now I can't figure out why.

I think John Mendenhall's rubber band can bridge the two concepts.

Providing there's an ant on it.

[mugaliens]

Mr. Hutchenson I know your not a knukclehead! Look at my post count, I damn near live here!

Well, if post counts mean anything, Mr. Hutchenson does live here, I live here and like it, and Neverfly was born here and refuses to leave, Chrissy was his mother, Antoniseb was his father, and ToSeek is the supreme creator.

But hey, that's just post counts, which we all know merely reflect how much time we waste (er..., "invest") here, rather than actual familial relationships.

[Jeff Root]

Don,

Grant may be vicious, but he's never testy.

Nokton, your statement about antigravity is pure mental fluff. Any hint of
real antigravity negates so much of proven relativity as to make the phrase
"anti-gravity" a nonsense statement.

Dark energy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[grant hutchison]

Grant may be vicious ...

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Of persons: Addicted to vice or immorality; of depraved habits; profligate, wicked.

Falling short of, or varying from, what is morally or practically commendable; reprehensible, blameworthy, mischievous.

Full of malice or spite; malignantly bitter or severe.

Impaired or spoiled by some fault or blemish, or defect; faulty, defective, imperfect, bad; corrupt, impure, debased.

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

From the Oxford English Dictionary: ...

Is that the definition of 'Grant' or of 'vicious'?

[grant hutchison]

Is that the definition of 'Grant' or of 'vicious'?

Opinion varies, it seems.

Grant Hutchison

[BigDon]

Don,

Grant may be vicious, but he's never testy.


Dark energy.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Hot air balloons.

Your point?

(Above statement certified non-hostile, just curious)

[cosmocrazy]

I'm guessing that's "superluminally" (faster than light) rather than "subliminally" (undetectable by consciousness)?

Grant Hutchison

Yes thanks Grant while i was on my way to work i realized my error.

[cosmocrazy]

Although Neverfly was correct when he said both apply! My little boy is only 3yrs old and he swipes my car keys FTL already!!

[Jeff Root]

Don,

Hot air balloons just have less gravity force acting on them than the
air below them which buoys them up. Dark energy appears to be a real
antigravity force. Which doesn't contradict relativity theory.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Luka351]

So many scientists say that universe is almost 94 billion light years. New formula says that universe is 150 sexstilion time bigger

[antoniseb]

So many scientists say that universe is almost 94 billion light years. New formula says that universe is 150 sexstilion time bigger

The 94 billion LY value is the current size of the visible universe. The larger numbers are about the entire universe, which we only have loose ways to guess at, but it must be much bigger than 94 billion LY.