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.

 

Calculating the size of our Universe

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
I was wondering to myself. What would happen if we put all the observable mass, including dark matter, and energy into the Schwarzschild equation? As I was thinking about it it sounded more and more likely that we could find out how big the universe actually is.

Those of you who don't know the Schwarzschild equations is the equation used to figure out how much something needs to be compressed to become a black hole.

Anyway I think if we input it in the equation we could tell if we are in a black hole or not. I think it could also tell if where we are if we are inside the black hole.

Care to add a few comments?

I would also like to mention I don't want all the stuff about dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Schwarzschild, and Einstein bashing here please.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I doubt it. Just because we can only see 13.5 billion light years away doesn't mean nothing lies beyond. That is arrogance and so is saying that every direction we look is still 13.5 billion Light years away. Wouldn't that mean WE are at the center of the universe? Weird.... Kinda reminds me of when we thought we were the center of the univer...... oh wait.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
How big is the universe?

The universe is as big as we (probably not just us) imagine it to be.

Food for thought.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
I doubt it. Just because we can only see 13.5 billion light years away doesn't mean nothing lies beyond. That is arrogance and so is saying that every direction we look is still 13.5 billion Light years away. Wouldn't that mean WE are at the center of the universe? Weird.... Kinda reminds me of when we thought we were the center of the univer...... oh wait.


Actually I never said that. WE can only observe about 13.5 billion light years. But I read it is actually between 10^23 to 10^26 times larger.I read that on ATS.

I suggested we put that number into the Schwarzschild equation and see what would happen.

I thought this could help us to see where we can plot ourselves in this massive black hole.

I also thought that we could find that the visible part of our universe just so happens to coincide with where the singularity should be.

This opening would look like a collapsed Einstein-Rosen Bridge.(Collapsed wormhole)


And if you skip to 3:27 you can see a point where it looks like something collapsed there.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Edit: Doh

[edit on 17/6/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 

Hi Gentill

Interesting thought. I get a radius of 1.187x10^10 light years using some rough figures and visible mass only.

It would be approx 20 times this value if it included dark matter and dark energy.

EDIT: Fixed incorrect exponent.



[edit on 17/6/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 

Hi Gentill

Interesting thought. I get a radius of 1.187x10^16 light years using some rough figures and visible mass only.


[edit on 17/6/2010 by LightFantastic]


Interesting I want you to plug in the numbers which I described. Remember 10^23 to 10^26 times what we have now.Why don't we just use 10^24.5 its halfway?

I want to make a prediction. Earth according to that video is located inside the bubble right?

So from the outer layer of that bubble to earth we will label that A. From Earth to the other outer layer of the bubble we will label it B.

A and B together = C.
I think if we divide C by B we will get 1,618 of something. But it will include those numbers in that order.

I also think that we get the center of the sphere that we have in the video to the outer layer of the sphere and label that A.

Then label the end of the sphere to the calculated inner event horizon that we get B.

Then lets label the center of the sphere to the outer layer of the inner event horizon A.

We will now start B as the outer layer of the inner event horizon to the actual calculated event horizon.

When divide B and C again if we get 1,618 of something then this proves that this is a major scientific breakthrough. Wait for my explanation for this please.
I am not joking I am actually quite serious and you will soon see why.


Would someone care to do the math?

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Hi Gentill

I will do the maths if you can give me a better description of what you want. I cannot see the video at the moment.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


" I get a radius of 1.187x10^16 light years"

Layman's terms please?


If possible of course.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   

A and B together = C.
I think if we divide C by B we will get 1,618 of something. But it will include those numbers in that order.


does this figure you refer to (twice in fact) not correlate to the golden ratio

or phi, pi, etc.?

also, if you are using inside/outside the "bubble"...would the barrier of the "bubble" not be more accurately described as in/out of the event horizon?

just asking...not arguing



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


" I get a radius of 1.187x10^16 light years"

Layman's terms please?

If possible of course.


EDIT: Just noticed I entered the speed of light in km/s by accident, so the actual result is 1.187x10^26 metres or 1.187x10^10 light years so I have edited my reply below.

Using the estimated mass of the visible universe I calculated the Schwarzchild radius and it returned 1.187x10^26 metres. This roughly equates to 1.187x10^10 light years, which is 11,870,000,000 light years. As a comparison the radius of the visible universe is approx 46,500,000,000 light years.

The equation is:

Rsch = 2GM / c^2

The equation assumes no force is pushing outwards to prevent collapse.

Hope this helps


[edit on 17/6/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Hi Gentill

I will do the maths if you can give me a better description of what you want. I cannot see the video at the moment.






The center of the universe is the beginning of something that looks collapsed. The earth is more to the side of that.

I said lets label Earth to the outer side of the sphere A. Then label Earth to the other outer side of the sphere B.

When we add A and B we get C. If we divide B into C we should get 1,618 of something.( If what I am thinking is correct.)


For the next one we label Earth to the inner event horizon A. Then the outer edge of the inner event horizon to the calculated outer event horizon B.

We then do the same process B/C, then if my theory proves right we get 1,618 of something.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Thanks to the link for a really good discussion Gentill.


I really do wonder if there is a force that pushes outwards.

And I am not even sure "gravity" is a unique force, as it could very well be a little understood aspect of electromagnetism.

Magnets push away and pull towards each other, depending on polarities.

So this would require an entire revision of the whole concept imho.

And our ideas about black holes will have to address these magnetic properties.

I will try to find a video that talks about gravity that I found rather interesting.

Here, check out what Boyd Bushman has to say.




It's a rather interesting series. They talk about tons of topics, really entertaining at the least.

I wonder if Bushman's information is true? It appears legit, and seems to check out. I have never seen anyone actually disprove the double rock electromagnetism experiment. It could very well be totally true.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Also with electromagnetism being a primary force we will have to start considering the infinite universe size model much more seriously.

EM would allow for infinite size and there would be no collapse variable (possibly?), IMHO.

I don't know. It's really fun speculation though.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
There is this thread by Alaska Man that ratchets up the age of the universe to 150 billion years. I have never been settled on the idea that the whole damned universe is only 14 billion years old, it just makes no sense. There are processes that, when observed as predicted, push the age of the universe further and further back. We've been doing this for generations now.

For Example:

A little while ago they found a Gas Giant planet that is 13 billion years old

These are things that should be challenging modern astronomy and physics, but are ignored as unexplainable anomalies. Now we have dense trans-galactic filaments at what would mark the edge of the known universe that could only be there if they had 138 billion more years than we are prepared to give them.


Edit:
Chew on this....

If the universe is 150 billion years old the odds that intelligent life emerged lived, advanced, and died out or became something else are 100 percent. Given the the amount of time we have been here(less than a blink of an eye 3 million years or so) and at the pace we have advanced just in the last hundred years, then it is statically certain that other similar or FAR MORE advanced species exists and knows we're here.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by Lunatic Pandora]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora
There is this thread by Alaska Man that ratchets up the age of the universe to 150 billion years. I have never been settled on the idea that the whole damned universe is only 14 billion years old, it just makes no sense. There are processes that, when observed as predicted, push the age of the universe further and further back. We've been doing this for generations now.
[edit on 17-6-2010 by Lunatic Pandora]


If the universe originated from an single point that was infinitely dense then anything inside the point would think that the universe was infinitely large. It just shows how complicated it is to calculate the age of the universe.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora. . .then it is statically certain that other similar or FAR MORE advanced species exists and knows we're here.


And don't forget that we do not have to try to communicate with "THEM"
with our present means of comms like radios, or light, microwaves or whatevers.
The simple fact that we "think", IT is broadcasting our presence
in the universe, or the multiverse ! ! !

As I have often said elsewhere:
About UFOs, here are my finds/thoughts, (that I did not invent):

1- Some UFOs come from someWHERE.

2- Some UFOs come from someWHEN !

3- Some travel by moving; entities 1st to 5th density.

4- Some travel by thought; entities 6th and higher density.

5- All in the universe is entangled. [What the BLEEP!? down the rabbit hole].

6- There exist: space/time & time/space,
meaning:
**WE** can move 3 ways in space, in one time line.
**THEY** can move 3 ways in time, in one space. (without moving).

7- One day, science will tell us:
! All universe's matter is made of solid light !

8- The new ***theory of everything*** !
www.ted.com...

9- Some UFOs are build in a factory by 3rd density entities, like us.
Some UFOs are "thought formed" by the 6th density entities !
Some entities don't even need UFOs.

10- There are positive and negative 4th and 5th density entities.
6th & higher density entities are positive only ! Benevolent !
Our mentality, our profoundness, our life's services to others
decide which polarity of 4th and 5th density entities will visit us.

11- and stuff I forgot. . .? B-)

And if I may add : read the Ra material in my signature, and the
[My Favorite Sites] box in my profile, and you will have A LOT more answers !

Blue skies.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamBoon
I doubt it. Just because we can only see 13.5 billion light years away doesn't mean nothing lies beyond.




The age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing travels faster than light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.7 billion light-years.

..

The visible universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28 billion parsecs (about 93 billion light-years).

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Anyway I think if we input it in the equation we could tell if we are in a black hole or not. I think it could also tell if where we are if we are inside the black hole.


I ran across a paper by a PhD who thinks we might be inside a black hole. I don't think we are but you can read his paper and check his math yourself, but it's pretty complicated stuff:

"Radial motion into an Einstein-Rosen bridge" (Poplawski)


Both black hole solutions are mathematically legitimate, and only experiment or observation can reveal the nature of the infalling radial motion of a particle into a physical black hole. Since the two solutions are indistinguishable for distant observers, which can see only the exterior sheet, the nature of the interior of a physical black hole cannot be satisfactorily determined, unless an observer enters or resides in the interior region. This condition would be satisfied if our Universe were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger universe [21].


Do you know calculus and differential equations? He uses a lot of that. I personally don't think being inside a black hole would be quite this pleasant.



[edit on 18-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm actually using this to find out where another habitable planet with life. Its kind of complicated to explain but by using phi I can chart where there might be a habitable planet. If the number is truly used for design than there should be something very significant there.

I have a coordinate on a small scale. I am now trying to change this to a kind of universal gps where I can translate what I have to where it should be in the universe. (including unobservable levels)




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join