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.

# Math Question I need your help!

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:08 AM
I am having a problem figuring out this equation. It is probably very simple maybe someone can help me.

If the milky way galaxy is 100,000 Light yrs in diameter, and the universe is 14.5 billion lights yrs that only leaves room for 145,000 milky way sized galaxies.

I realize most galaxies are probably smaller(some larger) but scientist claim there may be hundreds of billions of galaxies.

Where would they all fit?

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 02:53 AM
I have a non-math answer ( ah, but now I think maybe I'm wrong, but I'll put my foot in it). They say the universe is expanding, that it's like the dots on a deflated balloon, then you blow it up. They say the speed of light is constant ( though I believe that's by definition, I know Rupert Sheldrake questions this, but since the speed of light is like their yardstick, how would they be able to tell if it was growing or shrinking equally in all directions? Anyway-). They say that the rate of expansion is accelerating, like we was in freefall towards some strange attractor. So if the speed of light is constant, but the expansion is accelerating, then the outer edge/perimeter of the universe is pressing on ahead faster/further than we can get light evidence of it back ( because if the speed of light expanded at the same pace as the universe, then we couldn't tell it was expanding, right?), so shouldn't that give some extra room?
All that I've done here is expose my ignorance but I had fun for a second doing it.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by hereticalmind
If the milky way galaxy is 100,000 Light yrs in diameter, and the universe is 14.5 billion lights yrs that only leaves room for 145,000 milky way sized galaxies.

Not quite. You've solved that you could place 145,000 Milky Way sized galaxies side-by-side to stretch across a 14.5 billion light year diameter universe; however, the universe would still have a lot of empty space with only a single chain of "Milky Ways" stretching through it.

The Milky Way's hight is a much shorter distance than its diameter. Think of how many "galaxy chains" you could fit underneath, beside, or on top of that first one.

You've solved for length value, now you just need to take into account the values of the width, and the height.

[edit on 1/17/08 by redmage]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:52 AM

You did much better than my answer, redmage. They say oneline posts are bad, but I don't want to write a whole paragraph about how I'm stupid.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:01 AM
wow, after reading this thread twice....epic, no need to poan some nabs

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:14 AM

Thanks, I was hoping that it was clear enough to get the point across, but not so transparent that it was solving someone's homework assignment for them.

Also, your response wasn't stupid. You presented a valid and interesting theory. I merely highlighted that a few more values need to be taken into account if someone is trying to solve for a volume.

[edit on 1/17/08 by redmage]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
I have a non-math answer ( ah, but now I think maybe I'm wrong, but I'll put my foot in it). They say the universe is expanding, that it's like the dots on a deflated balloon, then you blow it up. They say the speed of light is constant ( though I believe that's by definition, I know Rupert Sheldrake questions this, but since the speed of light is like their yardstick, how would they be able to tell if it was growing or shrinking equally in all directions? Anyway-). They say that the rate of expansion is accelerating, like we was in freefall towards some strange attractor. So if the speed of light is constant, but the expansion is accelerating, then the outer edge/perimeter of the universe is pressing on ahead faster/further than we can get light evidence of it back ( because if the speed of light expanded at the same pace as the universe, then we couldn't tell it was expanding, right?), so shouldn't that give some extra room?
All that I've done here is expose my ignorance but I had fun for a second doing it.

thats a pretty good answer to me actually
in vortex science it is explained like this

waves probagate/grow/accelerate at a proportional rate so the speed could not be a constant.(like you said, expanding and accelerating)

Our entire universe/reality spins and gives off a pulse just like everything else, and produces a wave, as it spins its rate of growth inceases, so
the farther you go the edge, the faster the speed/spin.

a vortex eminates out from the center untill its outer edges reach the
farthest distance in relation to its mass then folds back in on its self to once again emerge from the vortex and continue the process over again constantly, always in a spiral motion.

as this is happening, the resulting Pulse/Note constantly increases.
the faster the spin...the higher the note

this is the natual growth sequence utilizing
the gold mean, the pthagoran musical spiral, Phi,
sacred geometry , Resonant frequency and wave probagation.

the only way to truly solve the riddles that einstein left us
is to look ONLY to the natual laws of nature and the universe.

i hope this helps.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:05 AM
Interesting question... but I think a mistake was made in the calculations. This would assume the information given above is used in conjuction with common theory.

1) Central point of "big bang" is ground 0.
2) Universe is 14.5 billion years old (variable given)
3) FTL (Faster Than Light) is assumed not to be possible.
4) The universe would be 14.5 billion light years radius from ground 0.
5) d=2r, so universe is 29 billion light years width, not 14.5 billion. However, we are calculating volume.
6) V= 4/3(Pi)r^3
7) Volume of universe =4/3(3.14)(14.5 billion)^3
8) Total Lightyears Cubed is approximately 12.77 E+30
9) Volume of Milky Way = 4/3(3.14)(50,000)^3
10) Total Lightyears Cubed is approximately 5.236 E +12.
11) 12.77 E +30 / 5.236 E+12 = 24.89 E+15

Basically, you can fit 24,389,000,000,000,000 in the total universe (as we know it).

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:26 AM
Well, the universe is said to be 14.5 billion light years in RADIUS. That means it's 29 billion light years across. So just taking a theoretical slice straight through a centerline that means you could lay almost 203,500 disc-shaped galaxies of 145,000 in DIAMETER side by side across the centerline of this cross-section. And that's a LARGE galaxy (which the Milk Way is categorized as)...there's a whole bunch of smaller ones mixed in as well.

Since it's a sphere you could also lay about 203,5000 across EVERY diametrical cross-section. But, of course, they are not stacked side by side.

The volume of the universe would be over 1.3 X 10^31 (light years)^3...hello!

Of course, it's understood the galaxies are not packed "side by side" but are separated by relatively "empty" space...but this at least gives you an idea of how many of OUR galaxies could be there.

By the way, all the calculations provided above were not even accurate when I started typing them because the data they are based on is dated. And even if there is a place where I could get the estimated size of the universe in real-time, I would have had to have picked a point in time to do the calculations, and since the universe continued to expand while I was typing this, I have know idea how big the universe is at the time of this period "."

[edit on 1-17-2008 by Valhall]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by TLomon
1) Central point of "big bang" is ground 0.
2) Universe is 14.5 billion years old (variable given)

this could be right , ground 0 is the exact center.
because we are almost definately talking about a wave emination.
a wave will eminate outwards from the center in a spherical shape
and spin .
after that a get lost by the math.... mostly common sense stuff for me....lol

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:18 AM
How about if the universe is not as big as we assume?

LOL thought id throw in the hall of mirrors theory into this thread. Just to see what ripples arise.

just the first google link - i'll look for a few more.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by TLomon
11) 12.77 E +30 / 5.236 E+12 = 24.89 E+15

Basically, you can fit 24,389,000,000,000,000 in the total universe (as we know it).

It'd be quite a bit higher than that.

Originally posted by TLomon
9) Volume of Milky Way = 4/3(3.14)(50,000)^3
10) Total Lightyears Cubed is approximately 5.236 E +12.

You've figured the Milky Way's volume as if it were a 50,000r sphere. It's much more disk/cylinder shaped, and each one would take up far less volume.

[edit on 1/17/08 by redmage]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:35 AM
Well, that would be true, however I was working with the data given. Basically, throw me numbers and I can crunch them.

With regards to how scientists can approximate the number of galaxies (to answer another quest by OP), they look at a section of space, and go, "hmmm... there are 100 galaxies per X cubic light years..." then calculate what that would be across the entire universe.

Another thing that just came to mind... since the universe is expanding... and accelerating...

1) Time slows down the closer you approach C.
2) What happens when galaxies reach C?

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:46 AM

Originally posted by TLomon
1) Time slows down the closer you approach C.
2) What happens when galaxies reach C?

If your point of view was from within this FLT galaxy in question you would not notice anything different.

If you are positioned in such a way that the galaxy is moving away the light would be very stretched - probably no longer light, radiation maybe?

If you happen to be in a position where this FLT galaxy is about to arrive ~ well... fair to say you wouldn't see it coming

[edit on 17/1/2008 by Now_Then]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:49 AM
I was actually referring to our own galaxy, since it would be safe to assume we are moving at a constant accelerated rate as well.

First, what would happen to life as we approached C?

Now, that is something that makes me go hmmmm.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:23 AM
... Think about it this way get a rubber balloon put some spots on it with a pen and then inflate it, as you inflate the the balloon the dots will move outwards as per the expanding universe theory.. but the concept of inflating the balloon is also simulating time obviously....

You're trying to fill the box of the universe with the galaxies but remember that when we talk about 14.5 BN light years we're talking the time it takes light to travel so all the galaxies are expanding on the outer edge or near to the outer edge of the universe... and when we look back down to the center of the universe we're looking at what there many light years ago... well I hope someone can understand a little of what I tried to explain..

Ciao...

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:31 AM
Hi There,

Are we discussing the 'known' universe or the whole universe? The problems (I feel) are in the interpretation of the data given as a base for calculation, for instance...c for the constant speed of light?

Suppose we have a telescope (optical) whose resolution is so good that it can pick up the faintest of photon signals from the very edge of the 'known' universe. Are we to believe that a photon emitted from such a distance and picked up by our telescope, traversed that distance without so much as a single encounter with gas clouds, dust and debris, stars and planets, etc, and did so without interaction of any kind? The way I see it, is that up to a certain distance, assuming light to hold a constant speed is useful, but beyond that certain distance we cannot hold to a constancy of light speed, because the further one goes the less relative becomes one's fixed position, and that includes the base calculation upon which we assume our interpretations.

So, to visit a planet orbiting a star system at the very edge of the 'known' universe, would using the speed constant of light in our calculations enable us to mathematically guage the correct and necessary vectors to arrive there? I think not, as the distance is way beyond the affective range of relativity designated by light speed 'c'.
In order to arrive there to meet the planet in its orbit, we would have to update our data constantly on reaching certain distances. We can calculate vectors to the moon, for instance, because it is within the affective relativity range, but not for something on the edge of the known universe.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:00 AM
.........yes this could be the case in fact it could very well be that C is a local constant after all.. Therefore with this in mind how old is the universe really??

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:27 AM
Ok, the idea that C is a local constant is just... mind blowing. That could completely change everything.

So far, the only constant I have found that I am sure about is that we don't know everything yet. Every year, we find out we know less and less about the universe as a whole, even though we learn something new. It just creates more questions.

C as a local constant... mmmm.... going to give that some serious thought.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:47 AM

new topics

2