Epic Discovery: Our Colossal Universe -"250 Times Bigger than What We See"

Thanks xploder, fun and exciting thread s+f

From what i can gather from your information the universe is not only big but old too.

reply to post by DomCheetham


I think that's pretty obvious. I have never, even as a kid, felt that man understand nearly a little bit about the universe. I've never agreed with their ideas/theories of how big it really is; I think it's a lot bigger, probably billions of light years bigger than what you can imagine. Even the idea of a big bang being the sole purpose of this doesn't sit well with me, something that friggin huge can have several big bangs(as theorised) throughout it's life time and in different parts of itself. I'd quicker put my money on several big bangs happening right at this very moment as I type this, than saying there was only one...and maybe, there may be another one. People imagine the universe as if it's a park with a big wall around it...and after the wall, you get...? Guess what, it's not a park with a big wall around it. It's not based on what you observe; the universe doesn't need your definition of it to observe, it doesn't need your curiousity. It expands infinitely. Space is emptiness...emptiness doesn't disappear my friend...it is "disappearance." Space doesn't end...and the objects that occupy that space may never end as well. Yes, some of them are converted into different forms of energy...some of them are finite, but it's absurd for me to think that all that inifinite emptiness may one day be filled with absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by Cuervo
- If space-time were infinite, then there would be an infinite number of parallel universes.

This is a bit of an assumption. An infinite space-time could simply be one infinite universe. Parallel universes are fringe science, no matter what String Theorists tell you.

I guess I have to allow for the possibility of there being no parallel universe since, considering there are infinite parallel realities, there would be at least one where there wouldn't be parallel universes. Hah!

I just posted this to facebook. Great find man.

reply to post by Cuervo


You may have just discovered the Cuervo Paradox

I am pretty much sold on the simulated universe concept. As technology exponentially expands it will not be too long before we discover that we can simulate very crude simulations of consciousness.

If this happens we will most likely be in a post-human stage at this point. We are just a simulation of a simulation of a simulation -> ∞. It starts to make a whole hell of a lot of sense if you really think about it.

I didn't come up with this, but there is a lot of reading on the internet pertaining to this. One of the better explanations (IMO) can be found here.

There is also the Bostrom paper here that many reference. This probably deserves a thread of its own, I am guessing there has been at one point.

I can't wrap my brain around the "fact" that the universe actually has an age, because that means that there is a limited amount of space. To me that kind of thinking doesn't make sense, because the universe encompasses everything.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by smurfy

 

The effect of the expansion of the universe on light is the stretching (redshift) of its wavelength. This is known as Cosmological redshift and is what is used to "date" objects in the observable universe.

As far as that expansion also leading to the physical expansion of everything in it, this is prevented by gravity. (Again, theoretically) gravity is the inward warping of space-time, and, in the immediate vicinity of a gravity well, it effectively counteracts the outward expansion. This allows objects to hold themselves together while the space around them stretches.

No no, you misunderstand me in my reference to light. The property of light itself is not properly understood, and is by default an unknown. Known wavelengths are a tool to be sure. Also, I was thinking in your terms of inflation, not expansion.

reply to post by smurfy


I understood you, I was just saying what effect we know expansion has on it, for the sake being thorough. But, you're right, the fundamental nature of light is rather elusive.
And, inflation is just really rapid expansion, so the two have the same result. Are you thinking of some specific difference between the two that I'm missing?

]reply to post by sdrawkcabII


I think that true understanding of it will take some time.

If i may, i also find it fascinating that films, books, and computer games predict the future better and more accurately than we think.

Back to the Future 2 predicted that by 2015 we would have flying cars and skateboards. At the moment it would seem impossible to consider but 2012 is around the corner and the goverments may roll out anti gravity machines. Would't that be amazing.

Here are two examples of films predicting correctly:

Blade Runner (1982) predicted giant, animated billboards and Short Circuit (1986) predicted War-bots that can think for themselves on the battlefield.

Source: Total Film

reply to post by XPLodER


Great thread.......really makes you think about how little we really know.

nice read. thanks for posting.

i always knew it was bigger than "they" say it is..

Why do people jump up and down with every new discovery about the universe when it's bigger than 'discovered' now and was stated that it's stretched out 17 times in an old book most choose to ignore. I d chueckle when things are 'discovered' that arealready common knowledge in the Bible.

It's like transfer of diseases that were only 'discovered' in modern times yet the Torah had ritualistic precautions that came from God that prevented disease. Now if no one knew was caused these things, yet they had precautions given to them, what does that tell you?

Science is really only catching up.

based on current acceleration of the expansion of the universe,
if you scale it back to zero, it actually takes over 6 septilion years.

that's 6*10^24

I think that gives enough time for geometry, to evolve into the complex shapes we see today, such as planets.

In the Gita it says

If you travel at the speed of mind, for a Billion Years, you will still know nothing of the Creator.

I always thought if you taveled at Twice the speed of mind, for a Trillion Years, you might know something, it seems with these new figures, it may take longer, though.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I can't wrap my brain around the "fact" that the universe actually has an age, because that means that there is a limited amount of space. To me that kind of thinking doesn't make sense, because the universe encompasses everything.

I'll give this one a whirl although CLPrime is doing a great explaining some very complicated ideas in a common language.

Our current understanding is that space and time are inseparable because time is influenced by velocity and mass, hence the single word contraction in Einstens theory of special relativity.... spacetime.

You cant have one without the other so without space there is no time.

Without complicating things with Mtheory and the multiverse, if the universe is finite as most currently believe then three dimensional space should be curved. Unfortunately for theoretical physics, as mentioned in the OP's post, if it is curved then so far it has eluded all efforts to quantify through scientific observation.

If three dimensional space is "flat" and does not curve back to itself a lot of modern theory is wrong but spacetime could be both eternal and infinite. I'm not sure but people much smarter and better educated than myself on the subject don't believe a "flat", infinite universe will be the reality.

A previous poster had a graphic attempting to simply illustrate the main possibilities which made sense to me, I'll repost below.




I think it is important to remember that there is a lot of math and 1000 years of combined discovery driving the current theories regarding the universe.

These ideas shouldn't be scoffed at because they are counter intuitive to what we see in our day to day existence. Mankind has a long way to go but our current ideas seem sound enough that they probably wont be abandoned like the 19th century theory of luminiferous aether. Classical newtonian physics were expounded upon rather than contradicted by special relativity. I believe that special relativity is solid enough ( as borne out by time dilation in the GPS satellite constellation, gravitational lensing of astronomical observation and the atom bomb).

Einstein's universe will survive the next big revelation in our understanding the ways of the universe, modified and expanded upon but not likely to be contradicted and shelved.

The universe is infinitely old...It didn't have a beginning, it was always there. But until people can see through the space then it doesn't exist; well that's just damn stupid and completely wrong.There was no big bang, not as people imagine it would be, like an explosion...What happened was in the VERY beginning, there were only dark space, and white light space; there was no space between them and no matter. Now darkness represents infinitive coldness and slowness in motion, almost like a resiliance (like a shield); and white light the complete opposite, infinite heat and speed and like a penetrative bullet. Now imagine the worlds most powerful bullet being shot through the worlds most resiliant shield, ask what woud happen?

Would the bullet and shield eventually have to "give in" to each other? I am giving a bad example of what I am trying to put across...I think what i'm trying to say is because it was only light and dark at the start and they were "fighting for space", light eventually started leaking into the dark space and probably vice versa and this created matter and mass...Because I think as as a photon passed through to the dark space it would have been isolated and cooled into a solid, physical body, possibly a comet...but if several photon passed through and stayed relatively close they would have also taken solid shape, but would have been stars because they could survive off each others energy, if any of that makes sense.

I'm not syaing I am right, it's just what iv'e always pondered because I don't think the big bang explains everything...I also have problems with the black hole theory too, as I think it has more relevance to the very beginning of our visible universe than we think; Maybe it is when the opposite happens and dark space filters through to the white light space? I don't know, I just love this topic though.

PS Can someone tell me what s & f on this site? I notice everyone has a scorecard for them lol

Originally posted by lowki
based on current acceleration of the expansion of the universe,
if you scale it back to zero, it actually takes over 6 septilion years.

that's 6*10^24

I think that gives enough time for geometry, to evolve into the complex shapes we see today, such as planets.

Yes, very interesting.

A circle only has one side, or so it seems. A cirle must of been the first three dimisions object to appear, or something near a circle, but it also seems it would have never not of been, reguardless as to size.

If you speak to some the Universe still sits, unmoved as the Singularity, then all would be illussion.

If this is all a big Hollow gram Who's paying the electric bill.

What about those tetrahedrels, my spell checker is broken, 4 sided geometric shape.

Nothing lives in 2 dimensional space, you need 3 dimensions to exist, time 4th dimension to move thru a 3 dimensional space.

This is a silly if Universe is so big ,what about the Nothing it is Expanting into, and just how big is it I need Numbers, I mean are we going to run out of Nothing.

reply to post by Chipkin9
Star if you like post, Flag it if you like Thread.
I think that's how it works, just star me everytime you see my name, i'll let you know what happens.

reply to post by googolplex


Thx mate, that was helpful, although you'll just be getting one S & F for now. hehe