between3and26characterslon Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs or 93 billion light-years, the entire Universe is likely much bigger. (There is no limit on the rate of expansion so the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than lightspeed.) Thanks (I know) Leads on to a slightly different question which occured to me. Take "a-b-c-d-e-f" as points in space such that a and f are moving away from each other faster than SOL. A photon of light emitted from a towards f and passing through b must be moving towards b at SOL, as it passes b and continues towards f through c it must be moving towards c at the SOL etc... etc... so even though f is moving away from a at faster than SOL a photon emitted from a towards f is still approaching f at the SOL. If the logic is sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) But you replied to that after you said you were ignoring me, which isn't what I stated I would do to you at any point, but rather that you stop commenting to me on that particular subject since all your comments were insidious. LOL - since you replied to me even though you asked me to "stop wasting your time", you seem to need a reminder that it is futile for you to reply to my posts, since I am ignoring them, on your own request. Further on I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL since I agreed to ignore you, except this post directed at me were all I did was reminding you. And everytime I notice that you have directly replied to one of my posts I will continue to remind you of said request. [EDIT] Also in defence of my "insidious comments" I invite other readers to read this thread, where I tried to correct steevey's ignorance of scientific consensus and the Big Bang theory. Thanks (I know) Leads on to a slightly different question which occured to me. Take "a-b-c-d-e-f" as points in space such that a and f are moving away from each other faster than SOL. A photon of light emitted from a towards f and passing through b must be moving towards b at SOL, as it passes b and continues towards f through c it must be moving towards c at the SOL etc... etc... so even though f is moving away from a at faster than SOL a photon emitted from a towards f is still approaching f at the SOL. If the logic is sound. The photon is approaching distant objects with SOL through space but for very distant objects space is expanding faster than light making the distance increase faster than what the photon can travel, leading to the distance still increasing. If the expansion was constant the light would still eventually overcome the distance and reach its goal, but when the expansion is accelerating, as current observations indicate, the photon will never get there and instead will find itself getting farther and farther behind. So even though a photon emitted from a towards f is passing b at the SOL, the distance between the photon and f is still increasing. If the expansion continues to accelerate, distant objects will start to move outside of our visible sphere and photons from them will stop reaching us, in a very far future there will be much less objects in the skies for us to observe. Edited January 19, 2011 by Spyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Thanks (I know) Leads on to a slightly different question which occured to me. Take "a-b-c-d-e-f" as points in space such that a and f are moving away from each other faster than SOL. A photon of light emitted from a towards f and passing through b must be moving towards b at SOL, as it passes b and continues towards f through c it must be moving towards c at the SOL etc... etc... so even though f is moving away from a at faster than SOL a photon emitted from a towards f is still approaching f at the SOL. If the logic is sound. I think I know what your trying to get at, which I think is that we still wouldn't be able to have all the information of whats going or that the scientists shouldn't be able to tell the universe is accelerating, but scientists aren't looking for the direct light, but rather the increments of observing the light. The reason they know the universe is accelerating is because the light emitted a would get weaker or shift to the red part of the spectrum by a larger and larger amount every time. But then again, I could be wrong on what your asking. LOL - since you replied to me even though you asked me to "stop wasting your time", you seem to need a reminder that it is futile for you to reply to my posts, since I am ignoring them, on your own request. Further on I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL since I agreed to ignore you, except this post directed at me were all I did was reminding you. And everytime I notice that you have directly replied to one of my posts I will continue to remind you of said request. [EDIT] Also in defence of my "insidious comments" I invite other readers to read this thread, where I tried to correct steevey's ignorance of scientific consensus and the Big Bang theory. You said you had something to teach me, so I gave in a little. However, instead of gloriously proving me wrong on why I'm completely wrong to think what I think about the universe, you instead started this, which means your sole purpose in this topic is probably just to insult me more. Also if you were truly ignoring my posts, why would you reply to me? --isn't there some rule against trolling?-- Edited January 21, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyman Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You said you had something to teach me, so I gave in a little. However, instead of gloriously proving me wrong on why I'm completely wrong to think what I think about the universe, you instead started this, which means your sole purpose in this topic is probably just to insult me more. I tried to give you links were you could read and learn more in the other thread but you refused to admitt you were wrong and instead continued to argue against scientific consensus, so I asked you if there was any point for me to continuing arguing with you or if it was a waste of time. You replied with: "stop wasting my time", which I think was a clear cut answer that you did not want learn more, at least not from me. So instead of trying to tell you why you are wrong again when you clearly don't want to, I choose to remind you of your own request. You are the one who started this by directly replying to me and you are the one who is continuing this stupid argument and keep on asking me questions about it. My purpose in this topic? - Let me remind you that the threads have a visible history that everyone can go back and read, I posted as number #2 in this thread, thats the very first reply - only second after the OP and close to half a year before you even joined this discussion. I repeat - I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL until you directly replied to me. I am NOT stalking you and I am NOT here to insult you! Also if you were truly ignoring my posts, why would you reply to me? I repeat - I am reminding you of your own request and explaining why I try to avoid arguing with you. --isn't there some rule against trolling?-- Well, either you yourself could stop replying to me now and end this silly rant or you can report my post so a Moderator can come here and end it. I promise you that next post I will, if you continue! Here are the Forum Rules. I suggest YOU read Section 2: Nr.10. "Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) I tried to give you links were you could read and learn more in the other thread but you refused to admitt you were wrong and instead continued to argue against scientific consensus, so I asked you if there was any point for me to continuing arguing with you or if it was a waste of time. You replied with: "stop wasting my time", which I think was a clear cut answer that you did not want learn more, at least not from me. So instead of trying to tell you why you are wrong again when you clearly don't want to, I choose to remind you of your own request. You are the one who started this by directly replying to me and you are the one who is continuing this stupid argument and keep on asking me questions about it. My purpose in this topic? - Let me remind you that the threads have a visible history that everyone can go back and read, I posted as number #2 in this thread, thats the very first reply - only second after the OP and close to half a year before you even joined this discussion. I repeat - I have NOT commented on any of your posts on any subject AT ALL until you directly replied to me. I am NOT stalking you and I am NOT here to insult you! I repeat - I am reminding you of your own request and explaining why I try to avoid arguing with you. Well, either you yourself could stop replying to me now and end this silly rant or you can report my post so a Moderator can come here and end it. I promise you that next post I will, if you continue! Here are the Forum Rules. I suggest YOU read Section 2: Nr.10. "Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking." Well, I want to resolve this. I never requested that you never say anything to me again. You stated that you didn't care to hear what I had to say. I requested that you don't say anything to me UNLESS its not trolling and is instead useful or helpful to me(which obviously wouldn't be a waste of my time). The wave function of the singularity universe is not my own theory (which could explain how the universe could be a single point and still have matter moving in an outward motion and seem to have existed mathematically in only specific areas), but rather a very contemporary theory I heard from a physicist. Edited January 21, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 ! Moderator Note Well isn't this fun.Answer: NO!This thread is closed until either, I'm in a better mood, more awake and can read the posts thoroughly... or another mod comes along and does the right thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 ! Moderator Note On reviewing the thread it's staying closed.If the OP would like to start a new thread on a similar topic that would be appropriate.I'd like all involved to take a few things away from this thread. You should only reply to other peoples threads with the currently accepted mainstream science, this is to reduce confusion. You should not insult individuals. It would be well worth reading up on wavefunctions, and how it is perfectly feasible to confine a wavefunction to a box, even if that box is really rather large... You must be careful when discussing either the universe or the observable universe. The universe is BIG! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts