It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# 92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 1
42
share:
+17 more
posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:26 AM
How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?

This is an amazing question, and If the universe began as a singularity and is 13.8 billion years old, how can something be 46 billion light years away? Wouldn't that suggest that the universe expanded at a velocity greater than the speed of light?.......... but, i hear you say "That's impossible, as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!"

And if the universe is flat or has negative curvature then the Big Bang doesn't make much sense. How do you get infinite from something undefined? This has always bothered me. The universe to me cannot have negative curvature and defining it as being flat sounds stupid (the earth is flat idea), but if it is a closed universe, then the universe is massively huge. So much so that for what we can see, it looks flat. Like how the earth would look to an ant. A negatively curved universe can easily expand and would give us a limit as to how far back and away we can see before there is a horizon we cannot see past, like a ship on the ocean. (My head actually hurts now)

As technology has evolved, astronomers are able to look back in time to the moments just after the Big Bang. This might seem to imply that the entire universe lies within our view. But the size of the universe depends on a number of things, including its shape and expansion. Just how big is the universe? The truth is, scientists can't put a number on it.

The observable universe

Astronomers have measured the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old. Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means they can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

But though the sphere appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter, it is far larger. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years. Centering a sphere on Earth's location in space might seem to put mankind in the center of the universe. However, like that same ship in the ocean, we cannot tell where we lie in the enormous span of the universe. Just because we cannot see land does not mean we are in the center of the ocean; just because we cannot see the edge of the universe does not mean we lie in the center of the universe.

The shape of the universe

The size of the universe depends a great deal on its shape. Scientists have predicted the possibility that the universe might be closed like a sphere, infinite and negatively curved like a saddle, or flat and infinite.

A finite universe has a finite size that can be measured; this would be the case in a closed spherical universe. But an infinite universe has no size by definition.

According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). A flat universe is an infinite universe; thus the size of the universe is infinite.

What do my fellow ATS people, think? do you believe there is any truth in this.....

Will Science prove this correct?

(Mind Blown....)

Source
edit on 25/12/15 by Phatdamage because: i'm BATMAN!

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:36 AM

Will Science prove this correct?

If you're speaking about the dimensions of the Universe and its expansion, these are observed facts; the task for science is to explain them. The apparent 'flatness' of space is almost a fact, too, though there is still a small possibility that the metric has inherent curvature. Again, the task for science is really to explain why this is so and how it came about.

+29 more
posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:37 AM
The Big Bang is a Hoax.

The Universe has no shape.

Creation happens on a quantum level. It's a cocktail of Plasma, Ether, Hydrogen, and Dust particles.

Thought expands the Universe. The Universe was never "born", it is REFINED. The materials were always there.

The Soup of Chaos.
edit on 25-12-2015 by trifecta because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:39 AM

These are good questions.

Personally I do not think the universe is any age that we can count. If the big bang happened and sent out information from which the matter of the universe originated then it must have travelled many times faster than the speed of light (how so?). Why, too, only in certain directions? Any explosion will send out particles in every direction unless an opposing force slows it down to any degree.

I don't think there was a big bang. I think the universe goes as far up and down as it does across, infinite in all directions. I think matter and the universe as infinite as each other (though matter could have a source of origin, but even that would be counted as some kind of information from somewhere). The universe does not conform to human notions of beginnings and endings. Time, too, is as equally insignificant; no beginning and no end only an eternity of time and space. The information that swirls throughout I guess must have originated somewhere. How it appears to us and whatever originated it is as different as the results of a computer program and the code that formed it...perhaps, as multi dimensional in relationship, too!

edit on 25-12-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:40 AM

I get what you're saying but you're thinking is slightly wrong.

If the universe started with a Big Bang then that started at the center (in theory). The observable edge is 46bn ly. That would make it roughly 23bn ly from center. Big Bang happened 13.7bn years ago.

That would mean that mass would have had to travel (roughly) twice as fast as the speed of light.

But the the diameter is at most a theoretical estimate so it is likely to be inaccurate. By a factor of 2 seems quite strange. Either it's drastically wrong or the theory that matter can't travel faster than the speed of light is wrong.

That's my take on it anyway.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:44 AM

originally posted by: Astyanax

Will Science prove this correct?

If you're speaking about the dimensions of the Universe and its expansion, these are observed facts; the task for science is to explain them. The apparent 'flatness' of space is almost a fact, too, though there is still a small possibility that the metric has inherent curvature. Again, the task for science is really to explain why this is so and how it came about.

It is not fact at all. Until the end of the universe and matter is found in two opposing directions then this can not be known. Humans have not found an ending in ANY direction as yet. It is a theory and a prediction, that is all.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:47 AM

originally posted by: Revolution9

These are good questions.

Personally I do not think the universe is any age that we can count. If the big bang happened and sent out information from which the matter of the universe originated then it must have travelled many times faster than the speed of light (how so?). Why, too, only in certain directions? Any explosion will send out particles in every direction unless an opposing force slows it down to any degree.

I don't think there was a big bang. I think the universe goes as far up and down as it does across, infinite in all directions. I think matter and the universe as infinite as each other (though matter could have a source of origin). The universe does not conform to human notions of beginnings and endings. Time, too, is as equally insignificant; no beginning and no end only an eternity of time and space. The information that swirls throughout I guess must have originated somewhere. How it appears to us and whatever originated it is as different as the results of a computer program and the code that formed it...perhaps, as multi dimensional in relationship, too!

With the Big Bang theory, in the time of rapid expansion, the entire universe was too energy dense for regular matter and "empty space" to exist. There weren't even any protons, neutrons or hydrogen atoms. Just a big soup of subatomic particles.
Only when all the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other, did everything cool down. Because there was a teeny-tiny imbalance between the two, meant that matter won out - at least in our part of the universe.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:49 AM

I dont think the human brain can comprehend the inner working of space,

and if the big bang did create the universe, the thing that boggles me, is before the big bang, it was the size of an atom!!

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:49 AM

What we believe doesn't matter. Isn't science great?

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:53 AM

Exactly,

Science gave us UFO's, quantum processor computing, Modern Jet Engines and KFC!

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:57 AM

originally posted by: Phatdamage

Exactly,

Science gave us UFO's, quantum processor computing, Modern Jet Engines and KFC!

The Colonel brought us KFC!!!

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:58 AM

originally posted by: Phatdamage
How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?

This is an amazing question, and If the universe began as a singularity and is 13.8 billion years old, how can something be 46 billion light years away? Wouldn't that suggest that the universe expanded at a velocity greater than the speed of light?.......... but, i hear you say "That's impossible, as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!"

And if the universe is flat or has negative curvature then the Big Bang doesn't make much sense. How do you get infinite from something undefined? This has always bothered me. The universe to me cannot have negative curvature and defining it as being flat sounds stupid (the earth is flat idea), but if it is a closed universe, then the universe is massively huge. So much so that for what we can see, it looks flat. Like how the earth would look to an ant. A negatively curved universe can easily expand and would give us a limit as to how far back and away we can see before there is a horizon we cannot see past, like a ship on the ocean. (My head actually hurts now)

As technology has evolved, astronomers are able to look back in time to the moments just after the Big Bang. This might seem to imply that the entire universe lies within our view. But the size of the universe depends on a number of things, including its shape and expansion. Just how big is the universe? The truth is, scientists can't put a number on it.

The observable universe

Astronomers have measured the age of the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old. Because of the connection between distance and the speed of light, this means they can look at a region of space that lies 13.8 billion light-years away. Like a ship in the empty ocean, astronomers on Earth can turn their telescopes to peer 13.8 billion light-years in every direction, which puts Earth inside of an observable sphere with a radius of 13.8 billion light-years. The word "observable" is key; the sphere limits what scientists can see but not what is there.

But though the sphere appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter, it is far larger. Scientists know that the universe is expanding. Thus, while scientists might see a spot that lay 13.8 billion light-years from Earth at the time of the Big Bang, the universe has continued to expand over its lifetime. Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years. Centering a sphere on Earth's location in space might seem to put mankind in the center of the universe. However, like that same ship in the ocean, we cannot tell where we lie in the enormous span of the universe. Just because we cannot see land does not mean we are in the center of the ocean; just because we cannot see the edge of the universe does not mean we lie in the center of the universe.

The shape of the universe

The size of the universe depends a great deal on its shape. Scientists have predicted the possibility that the universe might be closed like a sphere, infinite and negatively curved like a saddle, or flat and infinite.

A finite universe has a finite size that can be measured; this would be the case in a closed spherical universe. But an infinite universe has no size by definition.

According to NASA, scientists know that the universe is flat with only about a 0.4 percent margin of error (as of 2013). A flat universe is an infinite universe; thus the size of the universe is infinite.

What do my fellow ATS people, think? do you believe there is any truth in this.....

Will Science prove this correct?

(Mind Blown....)

Source

hahahahaha i did these calculations years ago. i can probably still dig up the post where i made this assertion that the current model is incorrect. but i didnt stop there. i corrected the model. i possess the true unified field theory. it eliminates dark matter as an existing substrate and replaces it completely with dark energy which can be moudled into an atomic formation of light or matter at a particular frequency. light being the highest manifestable frequency in our physical universe.

as it appears, scientists themselves dont understand the big bang because they have very little practice of visualization conceptualization. this is why they say the universe is flat. which it absolutely is not. but there will exist a space time curvature anomaly that makes it appear infinite and without border.

but the math is clear, and you said it in my own words. matter wouldve had to travel.. FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.. to reach it's current position according to the figures currently accepted. and we know this is not possible for matter to accomplish. thus, the age of the earth, and age of the universe theories are simply BS numbers that start with a flawed and largely inaccurate carbon dating system. science does not know the age of the earth. it does not know the age of the universe. it just has it's.. "BEST GUESS SO FAR"

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:58 AM
Answer the questions about U and you will have found the holy grail! U holds the key to all things! But I fear the answer is as far away as the U size!
The size of the human brain vs the size of the U. How on earth could the brain possibly ever truly understand the U!
Maybe the U is a Brain!
U knows!

+12 more
posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:01 AM
It's all a fake, a hologram, the entire "universe." It's the most intricate simulation that will ever be observed. It only exits because we can observe it.

The real question is why are we here and how can we escape it.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:05 AM

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Answer the questions about U and you will have found the holy grail! U holds the key to all things! But I fear the answer is as far away as the U size!
The size of the human brain vs the size of the U. How on earth could the brain possibly ever truly understand the U!
Maybe the U is a Brain!
U knows!

it can become one with the U. that is to say, tune itself to the same radio station the U is broadcasting from. then you get the key and u dont have to store everything in the brain. when u want to know u just use the key and ask the U. eventually you will understand how the key can be used to interpret everything and u wont really need to ask the U.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:06 AM

originally posted by: Signals
It's all a fake, a hologram, the entire "universe." It's the most intricate simulation that will ever be observed. It only exits because we can observe it.

The real question is why are we here and how can we escape it.

u in prison and u cant escape physically. your spirit is the only means and door out of physicality, it's limits, its pains and sufferings, and of course.. the heat.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:06 AM

I believe you are referencing cosmic inflation which could explain both the rapid expansion as well as the relatively uniform distribution of matter in the universe.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:18 AM

It is not fact at all. Until the end of the universe and matter is found in two opposing directions then this can not be known. Humans have not found an ending in ANY direction as yet. It is a theory and a prediction, that is all.

When we look into the heavens we see the history of the Universe pictured there. We can observe its evolution right back to the appearance of the first galaxies. We can observe its rate of expansion. We can see even further back in time to the cosmic microwave background, which is what is left of the radiation from the Big Bang. Using the data we see, we can calculate the age of the Universe and then, by using the expansion data, we can calculate its geometry and size. The uncertainty in the latter calculation is ±21m years.

Yes, there is a theoretical component; but the theory makes predictions, and they check out.

We shall never see the 'end of the universe' because it is receding from us faster than the speed of light.

edit on 25/12/15 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:18 AM

originally posted by: greencmp

I believe you are referencing cosmic inflation which could explain both the rapid expansion as well as the relatively uniform distribution of matter in the universe.

redshift and field displacement. field displacement being the dodgiest suggestion of the 2. they believe that space itself is expanding.. like the universe is making "dark matter" in between galaxies and thats whats causing them to spread out.

im going to have to dig up the thread where we had this discussion. cuz eventually some science guy is gonna come in here and that's where the discussion is gonna go to. not that im not a science guy too. im just more balanced in my approach and unbiasness to other avenues of data collection and observation let's say.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:19 AM
Who says the speed of light was the same in the early stages of the Big Bang?

new topics

top topics

42