It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Math Question I need your help!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hollywoodbaby
.........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??


your right it has to be a local constant

because at a black hole "light cannot escape" supposedly...

maybe theres a way to calculate all the mass in the known galaxy and possibly find a way to combine that with the theory of speed of light as a local constant and determine a more accurate size?

im thinking this will need a good computer - lol

[edit on 17-1-2008 by muzzleflash]




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Sorry, but the equasion would be wrong even if you find the answer. The universe has no size.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Well you got 100,000 goin into a million 10 times, a million goin into a billion 1000 times, already you got 10,000 galaxies multiply that by 13.5 which gives you 135,000 galaxies, all in a "straight line" now you have to multiply that by 13.5 billion and you got your answer, think of it as a grid, where the first 13.5 billion is only one line of 13.5 billion lines!as in it stretches 13.5 billion light years in every direction not just one plane! oh just re-read the post and its only the the radius so multiply whatever answer you get by 2 to give you a rough estimation as to how many galaxies there are!

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Fada126]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by shiman
 

i have to slightly agree with this comment.

if the universe did have a size, then its finite. also meaning its within a container, and if it has a size "limit" then there is something outside it; as in when you get to the edge of the universe you can traverse somewhere else.
anything with a measurable size [depth, volume, diameter] must reside within something else. other wise it cannot be measured.

so if you say you can measure the size of the universe, you need to explain what lies beyond its edge or what is outside of it.

and it cant be "nothing"



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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.

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?


Scientists only guess at the size of the entire universe at this point. The numbers you give are one-dimensional, too, where space is 3-dimensional, at least, and may have an odd shape to it or etc. And you can only measure the universe by measuring the objects you see in the universe, right? That's how they define it, and not by all the black empty space around it, which may be infinite as far as anybody knows.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
We must also take into account that the theory of an expanding universe depends on the interpritation of redshifts...

However theese interpritations may be wrong...

public.lanl.gov

Scientists have long believed that only the Doppler effect or Gravity as described by Einstein could account for wavelength shifts in the spectrum of light as it travels through space....

Thus the assumption that quasars—beamed electromagnetic radiators with large redshifts—are part of the "Hubble flow" of an expanding universe could be wrong. This effect should also apply to normal galaxies, most of whose matter is in the plasma state.


www.cs.unc.edu

The fact that red shifts appear to be quantized has interesting implications for the study of the universe. This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or a decrease in the speed of light through discrete levels. Maybe there is some other explanation


Plasma cosmology have alot to think about and some regarding redshift can be found here: thunderbolts.info

The funny thing is this Quote from Mr. Hubble himself:



"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
(Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947)


good luck



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Your government does not know the answer to that one.

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Furthermore:

hypertextbook.com...

Call ET:
www.journaloftheoretics.com...

arxiv.org...

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

www.christoph-schultheiss.de...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Nope, I guess from what I seen that you are only talking about the Age of the Universe, which must have nothing to do with the Size of the Universe.

I do not know, I guess you will have to find some advanced spacealien to find out the answer to your question. It seems to be Bigger than the both of us though!



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Sorry, but you all are confusing yourselves. Let's start with the basics.

The universe is infinite.
The universe is homogeneous.
c (speed of light) is constant at 300,000,000 m/s

So at one point all matter was contained in a single small seething point of infinite heat and density. The big bang occurs and the universe instantly stretches to infinity and begins to cool.

Now, the universe isn't just 14.5 bn light years, it's 14.5 bn years old. We know this because the farthest galaxies that we can possible see are ~14bn light years away, and assuming the top 3 are true puts the age~14bn years. Think of it this way. We are at the center of a circle who's radius increments (or expands) by 1 light year/year, so at 14bn years our radius is 14bn light years. So each year the light signatures from our solar system (galaxy, planet, etc) can be seen from a distance 1 light year farther than the year before. Now due to the constant of light and space all visible light/matter that we can possibly see will be enveloped within this bubble that's growing around us at a speed of 1 light year/ year.

Basically it takes just as long for our light signature to reach a planet as it does for that planets light signature to reach us. And our bubble and every other planets bubbles are increasing at the speed of light (which is slow on the scale of the universe).

So, basically you can fit an infinite number of galaxies in our universe. Because assuming the above three caveats are law, there are already an infinite number of galaxies that are just like ours (homogeneity) in this infinite space we call the universe and we still can overcrowd it. Now, knowing all this, I ask you why in the hell can't I find a parking spot closer to work?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Very interesting thread!!!

My question to this is: If the universe is really expanding and that also
faster and faster or even the other theory that says that the universe
has no size. Where is the energy coming from? Everything moves and is
rotating in the universe. To the laws of physics there should be a origin
and a constant supply of energy. We have a lot of energy types in the universe. All the radiation in the universe, huge magnetic fields, matter, gravity etc etc. The energy that exists in the universe is getting convertet over and over.

So the universe must also have a constant energy supply, right?.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
An interesting question. There is probably no way we will ever be able to tell because we see such a small patch of everything there is (going back to the bubble). Some theories that I've come up with are:

Suppose the universe is rotating around a single point somwhere in space in all 3 dimensions (now this would ruin one of my three caveats from my previous post, we would no longer be able to say the universe is homogenous because there is 1 single special point). Now this would exert a centrifugal force on all objects of F = -m w^2 r. Where r is your distance from this special point, m is your mass, and w^2 is your rotational speed squared. This would seem to push all things away from each other at different rates.

Another theory is maybe we aren't taking into account the energy exerted on everything from all the Electromagnetic waves (light, radio, gamma,....) in the universe. Maybe all these EM waves bombarding everything are exerting enough force to push everything away from everything else.... not really plausable because, due to homogeneity we should be bombarded on all sides pretty evenly....

Keep in mind, we are not moving farther away from one single point. We are moving away from everything in the universe. All galaxies are speeding away from us that we can possibly see... interesting huh. And this phenomenon only seems to affect very very very very empty places in the universe. Again, the expansion is only occuring in the most empty places in the universe. Otherwise our solar system and galaxy would be slowing moving apart.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hereticalmind
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?


The universe is not 14.5 billion light years across...it's 93 billion light years across. The universe is 14.5 light years old.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
So the universe must also have a constant energy supply, right?.
Nice question! What about the potential and kinetic energies of galaxies? id imagine those numbers are beyond imagination! maybe it's just one big perpetual motion machine that got it's kick start from the big bang!


[edit on 17-1-2008 by Fada126]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
The universe is not 14.5 billion light years across...it's 93 billion light years across. The universe is 14.5 light years old.

I read that one aswell and what i dont get is that according to how they explained it, it should only be double the 14.5 billion light years! two objects speeding away from eachother at 1 light year a year equals 2 light years traveled, which gives a grand total of 29 billion light years!



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Physicsrus
Sorry, but you all are confusing yourselves. Let's start with the basics.

The universe is infinite.
The universe is homogeneous.
c (speed of light) is constant at 300,000,000 m/s


i would like to know where/how/prove/why the universe is 1) finite


[edit on 17-1-2008 by GavCg]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fada126

Originally posted by masterp
The universe is not 14.5 billion light years across...it's 93 billion light years across. The universe is 14.5 light years old.

I read that one aswell and what i dont get is that according to how they explained it, it should only be double the 14.5 billion light years! two objects speeding away from eachother at 1 light year a year equals 2 light years traveled, which gives a grand total of 29 billion light years!


The law of relativity does not work for the universe as a whole. When the universe expanded, its edges travelled away from each other at a speed greater than C. But it was not actually matter that moved, but spacetime itself.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GavCg

Originally posted by Physicsrus
Sorry, but you all are confusing yourselves. Let's start with the basics.

The universe is infinite.
The universe is homogeneous.
c (speed of light) is constant at 300,000,000 m/s


i would like to know where/how/prove/why the universe is 1) finite


[edit on 17-1-2008 by GavCg]


If it was infinite, then the cosmic background radiation would not exist. Since CBR exists, then there was a big bang, therefore the universe is finite.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
To quantify the universe is an attempt at an (at this time) impossibility. The fact is, you might learn more by asking philosophical questions about it. There is no way of knowing how far the deep dark expanse of space goes. There was no big bang, there was no omnipotent being, these are all attempts at a truth that would we couldn't understand anyway.

A more interesting question is, what if all that space is on the tip of a needle in some other universe sewing a patch in a pair of torn underwear?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
This may seem like a bit of a daft question, but how does dark matter fit into all of this?

If the universe is expanding, is more dark matter being created to hold it all together, or is there a finite amount of the stuff and as it spreads out, galaxies will begin to fly apart?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Honest to # lads, we need to get an astro-physicist on line pronto, the questions that are being asked here are the very ones that they are trying to answer! And wether or not the universe is infinite is not a point anyone has been making(as far as i no, prob wrong) most people assume the universe to be the space occupied and in between galaxies, not the space that they might move into in a million years!



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hereticalmind
 


2 things. I disagree with the understandings of 14.5b light years. However even if that were the case you're thinking 2D not 3D.

The Universe is blob or sphier shaped. Where the Galaxiy is a Disk.

you see?

If the universe is only 14.5B light years point to point, those points would range in every direction rather then on a flat plain.

I'm thinking your mistake is in assuming we are 14.5B light years from the nearest "light wall" that is assumed to be residual light from the "big bang" but that theory is wrong anyway.




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join