quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I agree with your agreement. Although, again, to be more accurate, the half-life decay isn't about an atom losing energy but rather the actual loss of matter and conversion of mass into energy. That's why a half-life is defined as the length of time for the mass of a given element / isotope to be half of what it was.

And I would like to point out that the calculated age of the universe is yet a third issue different from the previous two (carbon dating and atomic clock accuracy. The age of the universe is based on the distance between us the the farthest edge of the universe that we can see.

Being that the universe is about 28 billion light years end to end and assuming the universe came from the big bang, then the diameter 28 divided by 2 gives us 14 billion light years which means from the time of the big bang to where the edge of the universe is now is 14 billion years which is how we come to the figure "just shy of 15 billion years." But one key assumption in that calculation is that the speed of light has always been constant. There is debate regarding that assumption.

New math - and actually a minor - or not so - correction there - the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs, or well over (and growing) 90 billion light years in diameter (measured). While matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in this particular Universe), expanding spacetime initially did - a lot. Hence the (measured) size of the Universe is greater than it's measured age. I know - spacetime is a rather odd duck, and relativity is a bitch, but there it is, and nothing else fits. Newtonian physics out the window sometimes, but expanding galaxies aren't breaking the speed limit, because spacetime is expanding with them according to the redshift of distant galaxies, so they aren't traveling "through" anything. But travelling really fast. And 90-plus-billion-ish light years is just what we can "see," with everything we can now "see" with. The "Universe" itself continues far beyond that limit, presumably. Very, very far. Perhaps infinitely far. The Creator didn't mess around.

AT this point, I'm simply trying to calibrate with you - not argue or pick nits - as I'm thing to understand the "new math."

1) You say the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs but the screenshot below says 28.5 gigaparsecs.

2) You don't have to explain to me that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But we do agree the expanding space time initially traveled at faster than the current speed of light.

3) What I am going to assimilate and ponder on is what you and the screenshot basically say (you: diameter of universe = 90 billion light year = Screenshot: radius of universe = 46,.5 billion light years) coupled with the age of the universe = 13.8 billion years.

That age and the radius seems to be an acceptance of the idea that light (never mind the rest of the universe even) traveled at faster speeds than currently measured. Reading links similar to the one below, it seems it's commonly accepted today? Where I last left off, it was still a point of discussion as to whether the speed of light had always been a constant.

It's just interesting to me that where I left off, the measurements for the universe appear to have doubled and it wasn't that long ago since I last came across the topic.

Science Explained: How Can the Diameter of the Universe Exceed its Age?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:


I agree with your agreement. Although, again, to be more accurate, the half-life decay isn't about an atom losing energy but rather the actual loss of matter and conversion of mass into energy. That's why a half-life is defined as the length of time for the mass of a given element / isotope to be half of what it was.

And I would like to point out that the calculated age of the universe is yet a third issue different from the previous two (carbon dating and atomic clock accuracy. The age of the universe is based on the distance between us the the farthest edge of the universe that we can see.

Being that the universe is about 28 billion light years end to end and assuming the universe came from the big bang, then the diameter 28 divided by 2 gives us 14 billion light years which means from the time of the big bang to where the edge of the universe is now is 14 billion years which is how we come to the figure "just shy of 15 billion years." But one key assumption in that calculation is that the speed of light has always been constant. There is debate regarding that assumption.

New math - and actually a minor - or not so - correction there - the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs, or well over (and growing) 90 billion light years in diameter (measured). While matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (in this particular Universe), expanding spacetime initially did - a lot. Hence the (measured) size of the Universe is greater than it's measured age. I know - spacetime is a rather odd duck, and relativity is a bitch, but there it is, and nothing else fits. Newtonian physics out the window sometimes, but expanding galaxies aren't breaking the speed limit, because spacetime is expanding with them according to the redshift of distant galaxies, so they aren't traveling "through" anything. But travelling really fast. And 90-plus-billion-ish light years is just what we can "see," with everything we can now "see" with. The "Universe" itself continues far beyond that limit, presumably. Very, very far. Perhaps infinitely far. The Creator didn't mess around.

AT this point, I'm simply trying to calibrate with you - not argue or pick nits - as I'm thing to understand the "new math."

1) You say the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs but the screenshot below says 28.5 gigaparsecs.

2) You don't have to explain to me that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light. But we do agree the expanding space time initially traveled at faster than the current speed of light.

3) What I am going to assimilate and ponder on is what you and the screenshot basically say (you: diameter of universe = 90 billion light year = Screenshot: radius of universe = 46,.5 billion light years) coupled with the age of the universe = 13.8 billion years.

That age and the radius seems to be an acceptance of the idea that light (never mind the rest of the universe even) traveled at faster speeds than currently measured. Reading links similar to the one below, it seems it's commonly accepted today? Where I last left off, it was still a point of discussion as to whether the speed of light had always been a constant.

It's just interesting to me that where I left off, the measurements for the universe appear to have doubled and it wasn't that long ago since I last came across the topic.

Science Explained: How Can the Diameter of the Universe Exceed its Age?

My bad, fast fingers. One gigaparsec is a little over 3 billion light years so correct - radius is just under 30 Gpc. Hard to wrap your head around such vast distances. And as far as we know, no object can exceed the speed of light (relativity and all), however the Universe gets around that by expanding with all the "objects." Measured from where they started (edge to the center), "objects" are seen that are now "traveling" very much faster than "c" in Maxwell's equations, but actually compared to each other in the matrix of spacetime are traveling relatively leisurely. Not even bringing in the subject of "spooky action at a distance," where "something" can apparently travel from one end of the galaxy - and maybe the Universe - instantaneously, or nearly. Ain't physics grand? Which, circling back to the original topic, means if the Universe was created by "Someone" (being fair to all religions and faiths) - and I believe it was - that Someone is a being beyond all our comprehension, scientific and otherwise, now and for the foreseeable future.

quote:

1) You say the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs but the screenshot below says 28.5 gigaparsecs.

Far be it for me to wade in on this cosmic conflict but the screenshot says the diameter is 28.5 gigaparsecs, doesn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

1) You say the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs but the screenshot below says 28.5 gigaparsecs.

Far be it for me to wade in on this cosmic conflict but the screenshot says the diameter is 28.5 gigaparsecs, doesn't it?

Yeah, it's confusion upon confusion. I was checking the claim of the radius of the universe being 50 gigaparsecs which it couldn't be if the diameter is 28.5 gigaparsecs.

I think my confusion came from the article first talking about the radius in so many light years then it switches to diameter in so many gigaparsecs.

I’m 36 years old, so as far as I know, the earth is at least that old.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

1) You say the measured radius of the Universe is almost 50 gigaparsecs but the screenshot below says 28.5 gigaparsecs.

Far be it for me to wade in on this cosmic conflict but the screenshot says the diameter is 28.5 gigaparsecs, doesn't it?

Yeah, it's confusion upon confusion. I was checking the claim of the radius of the universe being 50 gigaparsecs which it couldn't be if the diameter is 28.5 gigaparsecs.

I think my confusion came from the article first talking about the radius in so many light years then it switches to diameter in so many gigaparsecs.

Indeed, and the easiest concept is just to say that the expanding diameter of what we can see is over 90 billion light years (using Earth as the center of the sphere). Further complicated for us humans to understand is that there really is no "center" to the expansion we observe - the current (somewhat simple) concept is to envision the surface of an expanding baloon. From the observation perspective of a dot on the the surface, everything is moving away from it, and IT is the center. And so is every other dot on the surface. Everything is expanding away from everything else, not from some "central" location. This is what we observe. What is actually true, may or may not be what we observe. For one thing, where was this "singularity" that occurred (and we're not exactly sure it did) located, that started this whole expanding thing? Why can't we just trace the trail of say, galaxy X, go backwards and just find where it came from? The fact is, we can't. There may have been no "single" point of origin. The Universe may have popped into existence "everywhere" - a much smaller "everywhere" - but not an infinitesimal one (although a really bright one). What we can measure is the radiation and temperature signatures of energy and matter very far away, and come up with theories that fit based on earthly observations to extrapolate what happened in the past, which could be completely wrong.

What we THINK we know (according to most modern cosmologists), based on what we can currently measure. 1] The Universe is immensely old. Possible over 14 billion years. That's actually the closest thing to truth we have, because we can actually calculate back to (almost) a Time Zero. What we can't say for sure is whether there were Universes before this one. Or in addition to. 2) It is immensely large. Perhaps infinitely large. The farthest objects we can measure are almost 50 billion light years away in any direction. What we can't see is almost certainly beyond this range, and could conceivably go on, literally forever. There is no reason to suppose it doesn't. 3) All the objects we can see appear to be moving away from us. The further they are, the faster they appear to be going. They "appear" to be moving at tremendous speeds, not because they are actually moving but because the matrix of spacetime itself is expanding. We THINK this is true, because we THINK the speed of light is a limiting factor for any wave, particle or "other" in our Universe. And distant objects are apparently, observably, going considerably faster than that. And accelerating. 4) The Universe had a beginning (majority agreement). We can't measure back to that actual, exact beginning, but only fractions of a second after. The (probable) fact that there was a Time Zero origin before that fraction of a second is really an assumption. It could be that physics unrelated to anything we know today came into play. Whether it did is unknowable.

That's it. That's essentially what we know. And it isn't much. There's a lot of complicated, precise, arcane math and science behind these observations - and assumptions. And it could be completely wrong, 50 billion light years away. We are dealing with distances, and time, and concepts that are frankly beyond the comprehension of fuzzy mammals less than a million years old on a third rate rock, orbiting a second rate star, in a backwater galaxy, in an obscure local group far from anything of any importance to anything we can even see with our primitive tools. So we are back, at last, to "faith."

quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

Indeed, and the easiest concept is just to say that the expanding diameter of what we can see is over 90 billion light years (using Earth as the center of the sphere). Further complicated for us humans to understand is that there really is no "center" to the expansion we observe - the current (somewhat simple) concept is to envision the surface of an expanding baloon. So we are back, at last, to "faith."

I am quite familiar with everything that you stated. What was new to me is the supposed size of the universe. As I mentioned before, where I left off was the size of the universe was under 30 light years in diameter with the age of under 15 billion years.

old , very old , super old , extremely old.

all I know is ,
that people are spending tens of millions of dollars, digging up old shit and testing it.

which is fine, for 70 -80 years.

but none of what they have found is solving any ! of the problems that we have today , to go forward.

same with all this flight to mars crap,
billions of dollars , down the porcelain vortex,

trying to "find" something

you can see plain as day what you need to be concerned with , right inside your city limits.

deal with that ! with your 19 million dollars, fix what you can touch , prior to hoping with valuable funds.

( Dear old elon , he spent a shit ton of money ,
looking for stuff , its just too bad he couldn't make any difference at all)