The size of the observable universe is approximately 92 billion light-years in diameter, based on observations and calculations of cosmic expansion. However, the total size of the universe could be much larger, possibly even infinite. Scientists estimate that the universe is at least 250 times larger than the observable universe, suggesting a minimum size of about 7 trillion light-years across. The exact size remains a subject of ongoing research and debate in the field of astronomy.
>>16542595who gives a shit? what industry does this matter to?
>>16542595The room I'm in is about 5 meter across. So that's the minimal size of the universe. After that I'd be speculating.But I could imagine that if you're one of those fancy "scientists(paid by Soros)" you could afford a room that's 7 trillion light-years across.
>>16542599You like, live within it. Aren't you at least a bit curious about what it is and how it works?
>>16542606why would i be? when i die i know i'm going to get rewarded for fighting against the scientism cult
>>1654260692 billion light-years in diameter, and not a single thing worth seeing
>>16542612Your mom is quite a sight
>>16542599>what industry does this matter to?Hospitality
>suppose an observer with equivalent technology to our own 92 billion + 1 lightyears away>they live in a parallel universe
>>16542608I'm sorry to hear you're throwing away your one and only life. Oh well.
>>16542836>heh, life on earth, who needs that, lets waste our time on LITERALLY BLACK SPACE FULL OF NOTHING
>>16542843Projecting? Interesting
>>16542846indeed, you're projecting instead of enjoying earth, you are wasting your time
>>16542615I don't think so even though she probably weighs 100 billion solar masses
>>16542595>Scientists estimate that the universe is at least 250 times larger What is the basis of that number?
>>16542595Is this the new standard for threads? Just posting extracts from wikipedia pages?
>>16542821Does a bear shit in the woods?
>>16543539Space curvature I think
In my head I'm just like>Scientist A: You know how the observable universe is approximately 92 billion light-years in diameter?>Scientist B: Yeah?>Scientist A: Well, I think the whole universe could be infinite.>Scientist B: Wow! That's gotta be at least 250 times bigger than 92 billion light-years!>Scientist A: It sure is, Bob. It sure is.Scientist B's name is Bob. B is for Bob.
>>16543554A static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars would be incredibly bright—so much so that it leads to a famous paradox known as Olbers' Paradox. Olbers' Paradox:1. Infinite Stars in Infinite Space: In a static universe, if stars are distributed evenly across infinite space, then every line of sight would eventually hit the surface of a star.2. No Dimming Over Distance: While the light from distant stars becomes dimmer with distance (inverse square law), there would be so many stars at every distance that their cumulative light would sum up to make the night sky as bright as the surface of an average star.3. Constant Illumination: In such a universe, there would be no "darkness" between stars because every direction would contain overlapping starlight.
>>16542821Technically in a parallel observable universe. Arguably not even that since they'd be able to observe a large chunk of our universe and vice versa.
>>16543555>1. Infinite Stars in Infinite Space: In a static universe, if stars are distributed evenly across infinite space, then every line of sight would eventually hit the surface of a star.This objectively isn't true. As an example, there are infinite rational numbers evenly distributed on the infinite number line and yet there is a 100% chance a random number isn't rational.Since photons are *points* and assuming distance is quantized such that anything which could emit a photon is at one of countably infinite angles from the observer, every line of sight would miss a star past a large enough distance.>2/3See aboveSomething something orchards and trees.
>>16543563>This objectively isn't true. False. It is textbook physics problem. It's like saying you've disproved Pythagoras.If you want you can integrate the solid angle on the sky covered by stars as a function of distance. The solid angle of a star decreases with it's distance squared, the number of stars per volume increases with radius squared. And so the fraction of the sky covered by stars in shells is constant with distance. If you account for overlaps it coverges to covering the full sky. >As an example, there are infinite rational numbers evenly distributed Completely irrelevant. Why not consider the actual problem.>every line of sight would miss a star past a large enough distance.Missing a single star is not the question. There are an infinite number.
>>16543784>Why not consider the actual problem.The actual problem, as phrased, was that infinitely many stars means there would definitely be no viewing angles wherein you are not looking at a star.That is demonstrably false, as explained. You would need an uncountably infinite number of point sources of light (which is all stars are at great enough distances) to fill you vision, but all that was assumed for the paradox is that stars would be *at least countably infinite*.>The solid angle of a star decreases with it's distance squaredThis is false past a point. The solid angle doesn't infinitely decrease without reaching 0. It literally becomes 0 at great enough distance. That's the problem with the paradox.
>>16543808>You would need an uncountably infinite number of point sources of light (which is all stars are at great enough distances) They aren't points, they have a size. No you cannot just ignore that. If you ignore the size of the stars then the flux doesn't converge, you get infinite light. That doesn't happen because the stars have a finite size and can obscure one another. If you treat the stars as points then none of them have surfaces, so the question makes no sense under your assumption. Saying something is a point source is an empirical term, it depends on the resolution of the telescope, it doesn't mean the source has zero size. That size just isn't resolved by the telescope.>This is false past a point. The solid angle doesn't infinitely decrease without reaching 0. It literally becomes 0 at great enough distance. That's the problem with the paradox.It does not become zero. It tends to zero as the distance goes to infinity. At any finite distance it is not zero. And when you add up the solid angle of all the other stars, you find the number in the increasing volume cancels out the decrease.
>>16543834>It does not become zeroIt does though?
>>16543873Why are you asking a question? Make an argument. No it doesn't. The angular radius of a star is tan(theta)=s/D. Which approximates to theta=s/D using the small angle approximation. So the angular size (and hence solid angle) doesn't go to zero at any finite distance (D).
>dude omg i know everything about the entire universe!!! >i'm sooo smart!!!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusionswhy are grandiose delusions of intellectual achievement such a popular coping mechanism amongst the denizens of /sci/?
>>16543555>point 2>inverse square law>immediately thrown out because muh infiniteEach distance shell has a maximum carrying capacity. Hubble's deep field makes this entire "paradox" look like rambling retardation.
>>16543784>number of stars per volume increases with radius squaredNo it fucking doesn't. "Stars per volume" would be decreasing. Volume increases with radius cubed. Fucking geometry, man.
>>16543555Light is a quantum and relativistic interaction. At some point you don't get to divide up the energy any more--you actually get zero photons reaching earth from some locations. And from other locations the light is so red-shifted that it can't be separated from background noise.
>>16543992>Each distance shell has a maximum carrying capacity. Based on what? The assumption is a constant density.>Hubble's deep field makes this entire "paradox" look like rambling retardation.Olber's Paradox is obviously wrong. The whole sky isn't as bright as the Sun. The question is why not. Christ. It is like Nero's paradox. Of course it's wrong.
>>16543997>No it fucking doesn't. "Stars per volume" would be decreasing. Volume increases with radius cubed.That's if you consider the whole sphere. I was talking about shells, which is how and integral works. Shells are more useful because the stars have a fixed distance from the observer, and so you can easily calculate the solid angle/flux. But when considering whole spheres you have to do an integral to work that out. >>16544007It has nothing to do with light being quantized. If it was true there would be no shortage of photons as the sky would be as bright as the Sun. >And from other locations the light is so red-shifted that it can't be separated from background noise.Redshift is not part of the original paradox, as it predates it. Redshift and/or the finite age of the universe is enough to break the assumptions of the paradox.
>>16544036>based on whatBased on the shell having a fucking measurement.>the question is why notYes, just dismiss my comment because you don't want to understand. The fuck. I didn't even tell you about stars clustering yet.>>16544042>you have to...Once again, POINT 2. Inappropriate, deliberate ignorance of a stated function. Sitting there staring at the literal why, asking why.4r^2 vs 1/r^2. FIgure it the fuck out.
>>16543873No idea what the fuck you guys are saying but it kinda sounds like this >>16543934 Anon is intellectually mogging you.
What about interstellar gas clouds and dust blocking line of sight?We cant even see most of our own galactic center even though we can stare directly at it in the direction of Sagittarius.Afaik there are is also a tenuous but vast amount amount of intergalactic gas. Cumulatively this could also block visible light at extreme distances.
So, to summarize the specific brand of stupid contained in this thread, the question is not "why" or "why not." The question is "at what stellar density."You are only seeing a paradox because your question is fucking shit.
>>16543934>Why are you asking a question?That's a tonal question mark reflecting confusion. I take it you are autistic?
>>16544007>>16544042>so red-shifted that it can't be separated from background noise.>Redshift and/or the finite age of the universe is enough to break the assumptions of the paradox.You'd be forgiven for thinking this, but if you actually read the literature they state the current models state that the higher the red shift the more luminous the object. An object at the antipode of a closed universe, for example, would be infinitely bright.
>>16543555LMAO, that paradox was postulated two centuries ago, when next to nothing was know about the universe. The second law of thermodynamics alone destroys all those points since energy is always wasted, there is no perfect transfer, there will be dimming no matter how hard you try.
>>16542595and what happens at the end? is there an end of the universe? or can you just move straight forward until you reach the starting point again?does the universe have a curvature or will it be like in a 2d computer game and you appear left when you leave the picture on the right?the fuck is space? the fuck is time?Im a dog suck my dick Im a dog.
>>16544107You are uptight and angry because either1) You are constipated due to lack of fiber in your diet. In which case you should eat more fruit.or2) You are constipated as a result of a bowel blockage caused by too much anal sex. In which case you should put a lock on your bedroom door to keep your grandfather out.
>>16544257>paradox presents itself when the question asked is wrong>you're just pissyReally, now? Why would you come to that conclusion? What are you projecting, and why does it affect you?
>>16542595Those calculations are wrong.
>>16544068>Based on the shell having a fucking measurement.Great. How specific. >Yes, just dismiss my comment because you don't want to understand. Your comment was stupid. Saying "if we look at data, it's wrong". Of course it's wrong, it was known to be wrong from the beginning.>Once again, POINT 2. Inappropriate, deliberate ignorance of a stated function. Maybe you could eat some mash your hands on the keyboard and make an actual argument.>>16544097Dust doesn't work. If the universe was really infinite in age and extent then the light would heat up the dust, until it was in thermal equilibrium with the star light. At which point the dust would glow like the stars.Also scattering of light doesn't do anything, as it just moves the photons around in angle.
>>16544107>The question is "at what stellar density."Nope. You can scale the density of stars as low as you want, it just scales the problem to larger distances. But the effect is the same in the integral. >>16544113>You'd be forgiven for thinking this, but if you actually read the literature they state the current models state that the higher the red shift the more luminous the object.This has nothing to do with current models.> An object at the antipode of a closed universe, for example, would be infinitely bright.The problem considers a static universe.
>>16544217Yeah. And some retards still believe in a static, infinite, unchanging universe today. So it still comes in handy.
>>16543555>Olbers' Paradox.Shitty argument, from your Earth pov every square inch of the sky is already filled with stars/galaxies/etc yet aren't fullbright
>>16545829>Shitty argument, from your Earth pov every square inch of the sky is already filled with stars/galaxies/etc yet aren't fullbrightIt isn't filled with stars, hence why the sky isn't bright. The question is why not.
>>16544007Redshift wouldn't occur in a static universe.
>>16545840>It isn't filled with starsevery 1 arcsecond of the sky has more stars in it than you can count, yet the sky is completely dark, I wonder why
>>16545870>every 1 arcsecond of the sky has more stars in it than you can countBut not enough to cover every fraction of that square arcsecond with the surface of a star.> wonder whyThat's literally the whole point.
>>16545877>But not enough to cover every fraction of that square arcsecond with the surface of a star.But still enough for the average luminosity to exceed pitch black on your focal point, yet even with all these trillions of flashlights pointing straight at you it's still dark
>>16545738Static universe or not, the point is about high redshift galaxies being highly luminous.>This has nothing to do with current models.This may be correct, although I find it had to believe that the models would retcon something like this. Seems a bit ad hoc.What's your take on the angular distance test versus luminousity tests? Or anyone for that matter. Has the turnover point ever actually been observed?
>>16542595>7 trillion light-years acrossLet's say you could travel at ludicrous speed and go anywhere in the universe in a few minutes. What happens when you travel 7 trillion light years? What do you see? You'd see more universe in front of you stretching out for 7 trillion light years. You go another 7 trillion light years and it's the same thing over and over again. Doesn't this mean that the universe is infinite? Or do you keep passing the same galaxies again and again?
>You'd see more universe in front of you stretching out for 7 trillion light years.Sorry. Scratch that since the 7 trillion ly wouldn't be observable. Anyway, you still couldn't reach the "end" of the universe. Does that mean it's infinite or does it loop back on itself or something?
>>16545845Thank you for your confident asertion that you actually know anything. Please never extrapolate again.
>>16546232>Static universe or not, the point is about high redshift galaxies being highly luminous.In a static universe there isn't even redshift. The problem isn't about the real universe. Static and infinite in age.If you impose redshift via tired light or steady state, then you cannot have the galaxies at high redshift being different. High redshift galaxies being more luminous is one of the things that disproved the steady state cosmology. But it's not really anything to do with Olber's paradox.>This may be correct, although I find it had to believe that the models would retcon something like this. Seems a bit ad hoc.I don't know what you mean. Olber's paradox is a thought experiment describing a simple universe that people imagined, in the pre-cosmology era. >What's your take on the angular distance test versus luminousity tests? Or anyone for that matter. Has the turnover point ever actually been observed?I'm not aware of any such test. Using galaxies for such tests is dubious in standard cosmology, as galaxies evolve with redshift.The only robust angular distance test today is using Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. BAOs were a prediction of standard cosmology and are essentially a preferred scale in galaxy clustering which corresponds to the sound waves in the early universe. But BAOs expand with the universe, they are fixed in comoving scale and not physical. In angular diameter there is no turnaround for a fixed comoving length, but it does flatten. That is detected in BAO data.
>>16546282>In a non-expanding universe, there would not be cosmological redshift in the same sense as we observe in our expanding universe. Redshift in our universe is primarily caused by the stretching of space as it expands, which increases the wavelength of light traveling through it. This is known as cosmological redshift.>If the universe were static (not expanding), light from distant galaxies would not experience this stretching of space. The wavelength of light would not change as it traveled through space, and thus, there wouldn't be a redshift caused by the expansion of space.
>>16546292>infinite in ageHow does that even work?
>>16546297>continues to confidently state a known unknownYou don't know this. They don't know this. This is, at best, conjecture.
>>16546292>In a static universe there isn't even redshift. You miss the point. My point was about high redshift galaxies being more luminous. Nothing to do with static or evolving universes. Also you can have a static universe without redshift, but that is another story.>I don't know what you mean.I misunderstood your previous comment, as it wasn't very clear. I thought you were saying that high redshift galaxies weren't more luminous (hence the point about reconning).>I'm not aware of any such test... BAO.Thanks. Not what I was expecting, but your response was still helpful.
>>16546331Not really, but if you assume some magic process makes new stars and deals with entropy somehow. People felt it was the natural assumption that the universe was infinitely old, hence why Einstein fudged his equations to get a static universe. Bear in mind that this paradox predates the discovery of there being multiple galaxies (and and expanding universe) by at least a century, probably more. Edgar Allan Poe wrote about it. At this time people didn't know how the Sun worked>>16546384>My point was about high redshift galaxies being more luminous. Nothing to do with static or evolving universes. Also you can have a static universe without redshift, but that is another story.If there is no redshift, there are no high redshift galaxies to discuss. Olber's paradox assumes a static, evolving universe, there is no redshift. So it doesn't really make sense to try to fold in this observation, because it contradicts multiple assumptions of the paradox. And it does depend somewhat on the cosmology. Calculating the luminosity depends on the assumed cosmology. We measure fluxes and redshifts, the cosmology calculates the luminosity distance from the redshift.
>>16546453You're just a pedant.
>>16546453You're a special kind of idiot.
>>16542606Yeah, but I don't find it valuable enough to spend billions of dollars on it.Why do you think you can steal other people's money (taxes) to pay for astronomy, when you yourself won't finance the billions it needs?
>>16543539Their funding goals.
>>16546453>natural assumptionIt's not even logical, so I don't see how it's a natural assumption. But I guess there are only two choices. Either existence had a beginning for no reason (had no cause) or it is infinitely old. Both options seem illogical. But for me an infinite past is the least logical.
>>16546453>static, evolving universepick one
>>16543555>if stars are distributed evenly across infinite spaceso it all boils down to evenly distribution? lmaofucking joke
Todd Howard designed the universe.
So the Earth is at the center of the universe, since the cosmological event horizon is equidistant from the earth in all directions>>16546453I've looked into this. Interesting to note that once the universe gets large enough, and thus becoming brighter as a result of Olber's Paradox, the matter in said universe starts getting pushed apart from each other (photons have momentum). This force continues and eventually results in a finitely sized universe because matter that is too far away from each other will continue to redshift with respect to each other until they become too dim to notice each other (brightness never quite reaches zero, but becomes noise-like).Also, this outward pushing seems to continue even after effective finiteness is reached since the information about the infinite volume remains. I can go into more detail here since I didn't explain it well here.Here's a prediction: if the above is true you should expect to see a frozen image of an infinite universe captured on the inside of the Cosmological Event Horizon. The image contains an infinite number of stars that have become redshifted proportional to how far away they were from the center of the universe when it began.>>16542606Don't you believe that you aren't causally connected to anything beyond an event horizon? You know speed of light and all that. So according to you, no you don't live in an infinite universe since anything beyond the cosmological event horizon is physically irrelevant here.Disclaimer to the above anons: I'm a Christian and Jesus is Lord.
>>16548454Would explain goats.
>>16548499>I'm a Christian and [...].Michael Anthony Hoffman II:"Nothing in this study is to be construed as giving aid and comfort to Jew-haters, anti-Semites or pseudo-Christians who direct detestation toward or advocate the oppression of Judaic persons.""this study":https://share.transistor.fm/s/1a3b0418
>>16542595It's an instant IQ test to spot retards. Ask them how large The Universe is. If they say anything but infinite they are brain dead NPC parrots who only say what they are told to say. There is absolutely no evidence or even clues to point to our universe having limits. By basic bitch logic this tells us the only viable assumption is it's never ending until evidence presents itself to say otherwise. NPCs and smooth brains literally can't conceptualize outside what they can see so de facto say only what we can observe is "The Universe" Like I said, a good IQ test to weed out the DEI /sci/ posters from the real autists. Even if you got to the edge of The Observable Universe and it was billions of light years of black nothing after you could eventually run into the expanding boundary of another "Observable Universe(B)". The Universe could be an infinite sea of empty blackness with small pockets of Observable Universes bursting all over but never to meet. This is what happens when you dumb down society and take philosophy out of science. You get a retard factory that doesn't know shit, doesn't do shit.
bump
>>16548499>[...] and Jesus is Lord.The Lords Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
>>16550196I think you might be retarded, and to support this supposition I forward that you don't know what an observable universe is.
>>16550541What did you think Jesus decending to Hell for "3 deis" meant, dunce?You worship minor gods, this is why India is godless hellhole of trash and social malaise.Oh, and this is /sci/, the three gods you mentioned are related to brain Physiology and Cognition, the mods here are stupid and evil, just like you, just like society, and just the gods you worship...STUPID AND EVIL.
>>16550541Oh, and if youre thinking the US is also a godless hellhole...youre right, its "fighting for control of the soul of the nation" between Ayran Kamala and Ayran Trump.So...yeah, I know...the world prefers Satanism and if not forced into Imperial compliance devolves into unimaginable barbarism.
>>16542612I've seen her in lingerie but I have yet to see her naked. It's probably more beautiful than any nebula or cosmological event.
>>16550196u stupid nigga
>>16548499>So the Earth is at the center of the universe, since the cosmological event horizon is equidistant from the earth in all directionsWhatever place you are currently observing from would be the "center of the universe" because the event horizon is defined by where your position. Retard.
>>16553252Post IQ
>>16542606No.
