how arrogant is it to attempt to place any size on the universe based on what we humans are able to observe from our very limited perspective?
Jeez, do you think that may be why we call it the *Observable* Universe? D'ya think?
And how typical it is that the observable size of the universe doesn't coincide with the age which your science claims is accurate.
quite typical actually - we find that in 97.2% of universes, their observable size doesn't coincide with their age. Strange, but true...
In any other REAL/VALID science that contradiction would tell the scientists that their original calculation was in error and they would start over to discover where the discrepancy lies which led to the erroneous outcome.
very true - but us cosmologists don't give a shit about problems and discrepancies in our theories. We just like to make up shit to demonstrate how much more clever we are than plebs like you.
...so the resulting theory of an ever expanding Universe was created.
yep, and to think that there are still idiots out there that think it had something to do with predictions from General Relativity - some people, eh?
Not to put words in your mouth, but you will say that It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old
Certainly looks that way
and it is also true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
Yep, that's how we see it
But it does NOT follow that the size of the universe is simply the distance light traveled in 13.5 billion years.
Yep, you got it. It does not follow.
You can’t stop there. Why?
Oh, don't forget that us cosmologists are a bunch of pseudo-scientific wankers. We're not going to explain this to you - we *want* you to be confused
The distance that light has to travel over time is continuously getting bigger and you MUST take that into account.
Oh my god, you're so right. How could we all be so stupid??? And we've been doing it wrong for nearly a century thank god you are here to put us right
Sorry to throw a wrench in your theory but can you tell me what the speed of thought is compared to the speed of light?
Well, in your case zero compared to lots
I'm sorry, I am being very rude here. Please, don't be offended. Remember, I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you
As I understand, the latest estimates are closer to 150+- bly diameter. This from the measurements of the ever-so-slight curvature we are seeing.
I'm not so sure about this. Do you have a reference? Our estimates of the curvature still straddle zero, so don't help much! As far as I am aware, the figure quoted by Percy is still approximately correct.
But at least you're a consistent liar who will revert to childish mockery and ill-placed arrogance rather than actually producing evidence for what you claim.
You back for more? Really? After demonstrating to everyone what a fuckwit you are? Is that wise?
Listen, son, you turn up here knowing nothing and you make wide-sweeping accusations against whole bodies of professional scientists. Already you're a dick in everyone else's eyes. As I am one of those scientists, I take particular offense.
You then reveal just how unbelievably stupid you are by completely failing to appreciate the nonsense with which I was mocking you. Grow up a bit, say give it ten years to be safe, then come back and try asking a few questions politely, and we may get somewhere.
Being a Christian creationist doesn't automatically mean you have to behave like a jerk - so don't do it, ok?
Do you believe it was 50+ billion light years in size within a second after the Big Bang?
Where do you get this crap? The Observable Universe ended up with a radius of about *10cm* following inflation - nothing remarkable about that until you realise how quickly it achieved that size following the Big Bang itself.
As for the entire Universe, given that we have no idea how big it is, we have no idea how big it was prior to inflation nor post inflation. There is a good chance it is infinite, in which case it was the same size prior and post.
Hint: Jar is entirely correct in pointig out that what you are talking about has little to no meaning. Perhaps if you were to recast your question in terms of scale factors, we may be on to a winner. Consider it a small homework assignment.
The last time I walked through this, the earliest figure after inflation I have for the OU is 3-5 billion light years.
Sure, this is about a second after inflation - looking back on my post I realise I quoted the wrong part of Philip's posts, and I was trying to point out that inflation in no way resulted in a "universe" that big.
As you can see, inflation leaves the Observable Universe with a radius of around 100m, at a time of around 10-33s. At around 1 sec, the radius has *slowly* increased to around 1020m, which is about 10,000 lyrs.
Again, talking about physical distance is largely meaningless and renders the effect of inflation essentially invisiblle. We need to talk about scale factors to appreciate what is going on.
Space/time is neither matter nor energy... ...I have always considered space to be a sort of ‘not a thing’.
Yes, very much the view outside of the physics/mathematics of Relativity: space(-time) is simply the arena in which "things" are located.
This would be a reasonable view if it wasn't for one feature of space-time: distance. Imagine a simple 2d rectangular grid of points as our simplified "space", say 100 by 100 points. If I have a particle at coordinate (7,14) and another at (10, 18), you would conclude that the distance between the two is 5 units (by Pythagoras.) However, reality is much more complex. Distance is not related to the coordinates. The distance between neighbouring points is actually variable...
Imagine that at each point we have a set of four numbers describing the distance to the four neighbouring points: (2,3,1,0) could mean that the point above is 2 units away, the point to the right is 3 units away, the point below is 1 unit away, and the point to the left is actually zero distance away, making it and our point coincident! So our two points mentioned before could be 5 units apart, but they could be zero distance apart, or they could even be an infinite distance apart! It all depends on the individual distance values. You can hopefully see how our boring flat rectangular grid could in fact have some very interesting geometry when we consider these distances - our grid is becoming curved or warped.
Ok, I'm only part way into this but I have to go... will continue later. Feel free to bring up any questions arising so far.
I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to refute anything you guys are saying.
Yes, that is clear. Don't worry, I make it very obvious when I think someone is trying to refute scientific understanding
I went a bit far in my previous reply trying to answer a much larger question than you were asking. The brief version is this: the distances I was describing, these sets of numbers defined at each point in space-time, make up what we call a field.
You are more used to the fields that give rise to the particles: the electrons, photons, quarks, etc. Just about all of physics comes down to interactions between the fields - an electron and an anti-electron annihliating to give two photons is just the eletron field and photon fields exchanging excitations - conservation of "energy" is simply the accounting of the excitations being exchanged.
But those distances form a field which interacts with the particle fields in exactly the same way - we call this the graviton field - and the interactions change the value of the distances, which gives rise to curavture and geometry of space-time. At the fundemental level, fields are just swapping their excitations. At our level, we interpret the particle fields and the graviton field very differently.
So yes, space-time is very much a real "thing", there is a fabric, and it is as fundemental as the particles that make up our everyday experience.