02 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyI apologize deeply for my "gibberish" Please, don't let me stop you from doing your calculations....1. No known boundaries:
So just estimate the mass of the observable universe; problem solved.Black holes: Calculating the mass of a large number of vacuums with no known size is impossible without conventional points of reference.
You are talking gibberish. Mass is something that may or may not be contained within ...[text shortened]... massive amount, ...[/quote]
their estimate is unlikely to be off by a 'massive' amount.
02 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasOf course I do, but that wasn't his original position.
And you don't?
02 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarno, it was never my position that you can calculate the volume of the entire universe i.e. including beyond the observable universe. I challenge you to show where I said the contrary.
Of course I do, but that wasn't his original position.
02 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humyIsn't this thread about calculating the volume of the Universe?
no, it was never my position that you can calculate the volume of the entire universe i.e. including beyond the observable universe. I challenge you to show where I said the contrary.
Originally posted by @eladar"observable universe" ≠ "entire universe"
It says the mass of the universe. The universe is the universe, not the known universe. Do you think the universe is only the known universe?
and
"our universe" ≠ "all universes"
For obvious reasons, when physicists talk about "estimating the mass of the universe", they always mean the observable universe else that wouldn't make any sense as they all KNOW we don't know the size of the entire universe (as in including beyond the observable) thus, without that critical piece of info of size, cannot possibly estimate its mass. This is obvious.
03 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyThe distinction of ours vs all was made.
"observable universe" ≠ "entire universe"
and
"our universe" ≠ "all universes"
The distinction between known and entire was not.
But it is OK, I was asking for clarification and you gave it. You gave ot in a defensive rrsponse, but it was there.
03 Oct 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @eladarthe "entire universe", unless that is said as "entire observable universe", is generally by default meant to mean all the parts of it we can observe plus all the parts of it we cannot. I have observed cosmologists usually using the term in that way.
The distinction between known and entire was not.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @humySo default is a faulty statement. I understand. We just pretend in science. Got it.
the "entire universe", unless that is said as "entire observable universe", is generally by default meant to mean all the parts of it we can observe plus all the parts of it we cannot. I have observed cosmologists usually using the term in that way.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarIf by 'we' you mean creationists, the you're right. You and alike just pretend science.
So default is a faulty statement. I understand. We just pretend in science. Got it.
Intelligent design is just such pretending, mimicking science.
03 Oct 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseWe know that our universe is *not* infinite in size, right? We know what the mean density of the universe that we see, right? And we know that the universe has a diameter of at least 93 billion light years, then we know the minimum limit of how much mass there is in the universe.
Here is a professional astronomer, Phd, what he said:
"What is the mass of the Universe? (Intermediate)
What is the mass of the Universe? Also how can you prove that this is the true mass of the Universe?
As nobody knows the size of the universe, one cannot really talk about the mass of the universe, though one can talk about the mass of the observabl ...[text shortened]... t the observable universe. And I think he didn't take into account dark matter, not sure though.
Thomas Pilgaard says:
"... the 46 billion light years figure is the current radius of the observable universe (giving it a diameter of ~93 billion light years). 46 billion light years in either direction are objects that are currently at that distance of 46 billion light years away, but whose light has just reached us after being emitted 13.8 billion years ago."
Frank Heile, Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University says
"So, the diameter of 93 billion light years is, at most, a theoretical estimate of the current distance of all the matter that we can NOW see, even if the light we see is 13.8 billion years old."
This is what we know now. I'm sure that we will eventually find out the magnitude of the inflation just after t=0, so the true size of our universe is not at all unknowable, if you ask me.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasHaving a rough day?
If by 'we' you mean creationists, the you're right. You and alike just pretend science.
Intelligent design is just such pretending, mimicking science.
03 Oct 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasIs there a reason the universe can't be infinite?
We know that our universe is *not* infinite in size, right? We know what the mean density of the universe that we see, right? And we know that the universe has a diameter of at least 93 billion light years, then we know the minimum limit of how much mass there is in the universe.
Thomas Pilgaard says:
"... the 46 billion light years figure is the cur ...[text shortened]... lation just after t=0, so the true size of our universe is not at all unknowable, if you ask me.
04 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarBecause from the beginning the universe wasn't infinite, but a point. It was finite right after t=0.
Is there a reason the universe can't be infinite?
If it would be infinite today, then it has, in one point in time, gone from being finite to being infinite. When would that be? See the logical flaw here?