Size of the universe

Someone sent me a link to this site: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

Which shows in graphical form the scale of the universe from the very small (Planck length) to the very large (the size of the universe)

Now for the visible size of the universe it of course states the usual approximately 14 billion light year size we all know of, but then it goes on to the estimated size of the universe as 93 billion light years.

How do they obtain an estimate of what is outside the visible universe if it is unobservable?

Thread copied here from the Size of the universe thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

This Wikipedia article describes what you want to know: Observable Universe:

Wikipedia writes: The age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away [1].

The 93 billion light year figure you cited is the diameter, twice the 46.5 billion light year radius cited by Wikipedia. There's more detail in a later subsection: Size of the observable universe

--Percy

The unmitigated arrogance you secularists engage in not to mention the limited view of our Universe you promote would be embarrassing if it wasn't so incredibly shallow as to be juvenile in its scope. I mean, it was decades ago that Carl Sagan defined the endlessness of Space by stating that we are one of multiple yet potentially unknown millions of Solar Systems within one of multiple yet potentially unknown millions of Galaxies which are within one of potentially multiple yet unknown millions of Universes that make up the full and undefinable expanse of eternity/time and space?

Since the undeniable truth of his statement is supported by all of the absolute UNKNOWNS which it details, 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?

And how typical it is that the observable size of the universe doesn't coincide with the age which your science claims is accurate. 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.

But in usual fashion your pseudo science attempts to marry the two opposing positions and explain them away as rational contradictions. You use the Hubble constant and the expansion of the universe to explain the discrepancy yet the Hubble constant was formulated on observations which had to be explained away in understandable terms so the resulting theory of an ever expanding Universe was created.

Not to put words in your mouth, but you will say that It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, and it is also true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But it does NOT follow that the size of the universe is simply the distance light traveled in 13.5 billion years. You can’t stop there. Why?

Because the universe is expanding, and has been for 13.5 billion years. According to Hubble's Law Everything in the entire universe is flying away from each other at a rate linearly proportional to its distance. That’s Hubble’s Law. The distance that light has to travel over time is continuously getting bigger and you MUST take that into account.

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? Oh wait, your cosmologists never considered that as a viable question to even be asked, have they? So by what standard do you secularists think you have considered all possible scenarios regarding where we are, how old time and space is, how large and expansive it is or how far into it we can see?

Not to put words in your mouth, but you will say that It is true that the universe is 13.5 billion years old, and it is also true that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But it does NOT follow that the size of the universe is simply the distance light traveled in 13.5 billion years. You can’t stop there. Why?

um i think you dont understand the whole speed of light thing things can go faster than the speed of light if they dont have mass like tachyons, and some other particles i forgot their name that act wery strangely sometimes they act like they have mass and on other times they act like they dont have mass

If a laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of light can easily be made to move at a speed greater than c.[34] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c.[35] In neither case does any information travel faster than light.

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? Oh wait, your cosmologists never considered that as a viable question to even be asked, have they? So by what standard do you secularists think you have considered all possible scenarios regarding where we are, how old time and space is, how large and expansive it is or how far into it we can see?

the speed of thought is slow compared to the speed of light one of the reasons you have a 2-3 seconds of safety distance between vehicles

If you're going to directly quote Wikipedia without attribution, at least take the reference numbers out of the text. Bad form Frako. Better yet, acknowledge that you quoted Wikipedia as your source.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

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

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

*

Typical, arrogant condescending and mindless tripe from a self-aggrandizing pseudo intellectual who has just proven that mockery and laughing emoticons is his only weapon because he has no serious rebuttal to offer.

And you just proved you're no more a cosmologist than Captain Kangaroo is because your own lie betrays you. You have the audacity to say this? quite typical actually - we find that in 97.2% of universes, their observable size doesn't coincide with their age. Strange, but true...

So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own? And if we have observed others, why is the multiverse theory just that, a theory? So educate us and tell me how many universes this 97.2% number represents. But before you further embarrass yourself by deepening your lie check out this site which you would normally agree with cuz it would make you sound smarter than you obviously are. http://www.physorg.com/news174921612.html Notice that this is theoretical physics and no other universes have actually been observed at all so your claim that the observable size of any other universes have ever been determined or calculated is totally bogus and reveals the true dishonesty you project because a true cosmologist would never make such an obvious error.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own?

Hmmm, the stupid is strong with this one...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I think there may be help available for that irony impairment you seem to be suffering, Archangel.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

So tell me genius, how many other UNIVERSES have we observed beside our own?

I guess his laughing emoticon failed to deliver the sarcasm blow it was intended to do, which leads to you further embarrassing yourself. Stop now and save face.

- Oni

I guess his laughing emoticon failed to deliver the sarcasm blow it was intended to do

To be honest, I only use the laughing emoticon because I'm physically laughing as I write. I was hoping the text alone was sufficient to deliver the sarcasm blow I'm losing my edge, Oni...

I was hoping the text alone was sufficient to deliver the sarcasm blow I'm losing my edge, Oni...

Never! You're audience fails to recognize your sharp wit. Always blame the audience... that's rule 1.

- Oni

A Thread is born. A grand future can be seen. Such hope.

Three messages, one of them administrivia, then WHAM! The stupid rains.

Percy,

Can you code in some test to be administered to all members to rate the level of stupid they bring in here when they sign up? Something like: Not Too Stupid, Stupid, Intellectually Terminal. Then mods can assign the level of stupid required to participate in a thread upon its promotion. This one should have been restricted to Not Too Stupid. All other ratings would have been barred from participating.

This thread is now irrevocably poisoned. It will need a miracle to cure it. Maybe we can get someone to say grace over it?

Such promise ... wasted.

Please, do note the nice subtitle.

um azp the whole forum would be off limits for creationist then.

i hope i dont get banned i could not help myself