The size of the universe - a question.

Post Reply
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 7883
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijk beschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Scot Dutchy » Wed May 02, 2018 5:47 pm

I see great minds think alike:

Stephen Hawking's final theory sheds light on the multiverse
Shortly before he died the eminent physicist completed his final theory of the cosmos, and it’s simpler than we thought

“This paper takes one step towards explaining that mysterious fine tuning,” Hertog added. “It reduces the multiverse down to a more manageable set of universes which all look alike. Stephen would say that, theoretically, it’s almost like the universe had to be like this. It gives us hope that we can arrive at a fully predictive framework of cosmology.”
Joking of course.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 57763
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by JimC » Wed May 02, 2018 10:07 pm

I certainly find the whole thing very hard to get my head around. As someone said earlier, it may be that we will always struggle to have an intuitive understanding of the very big or the very small in the same way as we grasp the actions of throwing a stone, for example.

However, there are multiple lines of evidence, some discussed earlier, which fit a model of an expanding universe that was much hotter and denser in the past (some 13.7 billion years ago). Primarily the bulk motion of the galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, and the ratio of elements observed all point in that direction.

Additionally, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has great internal mathematical consistency, and has passed numerous experimental tests with flying colours. Leaving aside Einstein's attempt to fiddle things to make for a stationary universe (which he regretted) the theory itself actually predicts expansion...

Fully accepting that there are great unknown areas, such as the nature of the initial singularity (if there was one), inflation, dark matter, dark energy et al, it is hard to see there being a cosmological model which does not include a universe that is expanding, whether we hominids can grasp it entirely or not.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18116
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Hermit » Fri May 04, 2018 4:00 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:35 pm
It's basic maths. Imagine if you have something towards the middle of a spherical universe and something towards the outer. We are an observer halfway between the two. The universe then expands by a factor of two. The ratio between the outer to us, and us to the inner remains the same before and after the expansion:

Inner = 2
Observer = 4
Outer = 6

Universe expands x 2

Inner = 4
Observer = 8
Outer = 12.

Ratios are the same before and after. So both the inner and outer thing recede at the same speed from us.
Same ratio. Different distance and therefore different speed.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 4:07 am

Before expansion the inner and outer are both the same distance from us. After expansion they are both the same distance from us. So it's not a different distance. Therefore they both move away from us at the same rate. If they moved away from us at a different rate, the distances from inner->us and us->outer would be different from each other after the expansion. Remember, the reference frame here is the observer, not the centre of the universe (or any other stationary point).
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18116
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Hermit » Fri May 04, 2018 5:20 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:07 am
Before expansion the inner and outer are both the same distance from us. After expansion they are both the same distance from us. So it's not a different distance. Therefore they both move away from us at the same rate. If they moved away from us at a different rate, the distances from inner->us and us->outer would be different from each other after the expansion. Remember, the reference frame here is the observer, not the centre of the universe (or any other stationary point).
Try again, but after naming the units. Let's use AU, but we could use any other.

Inner = 2 AU
Observer = 4 AU
Outer = 6 AU

Universe expands x 2

Inner = 4 AU
Observer = 8 AU
Outer = 12 AU

The distance between Observer and Inner has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU in the same time the distance between Observer and Outer has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU.

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 8003
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Pre-Modernist
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by rainbow » Fri May 04, 2018 5:57 am

Since there is no objective reality, the universe is actually shrinking with my eyesight.
Äitisi nai poroja!

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 6:06 am

Hermit wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:20 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:07 am
Before expansion the inner and outer are both the same distance from us. After expansion they are both the same distance from us. So it's not a different distance. Therefore they both move away from us at the same rate. If they moved away from us at a different rate, the distances from inner->us and us->outer would be different from each other after the expansion. Remember, the reference frame here is the observer, not the centre of the universe (or any other stationary point).
Try again, but after naming the units. Let's use AU, but we could use any other.

Inner = 2 AU
Observer = 4 AU
Outer = 6 AU

Universe expands x 2

Inner = 4 AU
Observer = 8 AU
Outer = 12 AU

The distance between Observer and Inner has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU in the same time the distance between Observer and Outer has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU.
What? No. The observer starts half way between them, and finishes half way between them. You can't have any other situation other than they recede from the observer at the same speed. The fact that the outer is travelling faster than the observer which is travelling faster than the inner, is necessary (because they are all travelling in the same direction relative to the hypothetical centre of the universe), and is what we would observe if the universe had a centre.

And units are irrelevant. The process is the same no matter what you call them.

Your confusion, Hermit, is stemming from the fact that you are using the centre of the universe (or some hypothetical stationary point) as the frame of reference, not the observer (who, remember, is also moving).
Last edited by pErvinalia on Fri May 04, 2018 6:16 am, edited 5 times in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 6:09 am

rainbow wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:57 am
Since there is no objective reality, the universe is actually shrinking with my eyesight.
:lol:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 18116
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Hermit » Fri May 04, 2018 6:50 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:06 am
Hermit wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 5:20 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:07 am
Before expansion the inner and outer are both the same distance from us. After expansion they are both the same distance from us. So it's not a different distance. Therefore they both move away from us at the same rate. If they moved away from us at a different rate, the distances from inner->us and us->outer would be different from each other after the expansion. Remember, the reference frame here is the observer, not the centre of the universe (or any other stationary point).
Try again, but after naming the units. Let's use AU, but we could use any other.

Inner = 2 AU
Observer = 4 AU
Outer = 6 AU

Universe expands x 2

Inner = 4 AU
Observer = 8 AU
Outer = 12 AU

The distance between Observer and Inner has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU in the same time the distance between Observer and Outer has increased from 2 AU to 4 AU.
What? No. The observer starts half way between them, and finishes half way between them. You can't have any other situation other than they recede from the observer at the same speed. The fact that the outer is travelling faster than the observer which is travelling faster than the inner, is necessary (because they are all travelling in the same direction relative to the hypothetical centre of the universe), and is what we would observe if the universe had a centre.

And units are irrelevant. The process is the same no matter what you call them.

Your confusion, Hermit, is stemming from the fact that you are using the centre of the universe (or some hypothetical stationary point) as the frame of reference, not the observer (who, remember, is also moving).
OK, try this scenario:

Inner = 2 AU
Observer = 4 AU
Outer = 8 AU

Universe expands x 2

Inner = 4 AU
Observer = 8 AU
Outer = 16 AU

I think this ties in well with Animavore's post you disagreed with earlier, but Animavore gets support from the discovery in 1998 that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 7:32 am

I can't put it any simpler, man. Look at the initial figures. Before expansion, the observer is halfway between the two. After expansion, the observer is half way between the two. The distance from observer to each from before expansion was 2. After expansion it was 4. Therefore they are moving away from the observer by the same amount over the same time period. Therefore they are moving away at the same rate.

In regards to your new figures, this is an irrelevant addition. It performs exactly as you'd expect under the same conditions as the first one - i.e. closer things move away from you at a slower rate than things further away from you. So in the case of your most recent example, after the expansion the Outer thing (which was further away from the observer than the inner thing initially), moves further away than the inner thing; i.e. at a greater rate. So, there's absolutely no mystery here.
Last edited by pErvinalia on Fri May 04, 2018 7:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 7:35 am

Hermit wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:50 am
I think this ties in well with Animavore's post you disagreed with earlier, but Animavore gets support from the discovery in 1998 that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.
I clearly don't disagree with animavore's post (nor did I at the time :think: ) as it's the exact same principle I'm working from. And it's why your latter example doesn't discount my initial example.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 04, 2018 1:08 pm

The size of the universe is 1.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 8046
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri May 04, 2018 1:16 pm

Space makes no sense, it shouldn't be there. It probably isn't there.












































--I'll be posting my paper on this for review soon :hehe:
St Trump, who art so bigly YUGE, and handsome, like totally a pussy magnet, truly, make me an instrument of your stable genius.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 11682
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 04, 2018 1:31 pm

It has to be there, because there is no such thing as nothing. Since there is no nothing, everything must be something. Nothing does not exist, by definition.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 45056
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The size of the universe - a question.

Post by pErvinalia » Fri May 04, 2018 2:22 pm

It is mind bending stuff. I'm with the Christians. It's far easier to believe that God dunnit.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests