Sciency Guys: What is the volume of the universe?

[GoPackGo]

We are all being maintained in static warp core shell.

 

[destrekor]

The edge of the universe is a kind of holographic storage of all the information in the universe. As are the surfaces of black holes.

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=3189
http://spatialtheory.wordpress.com/...gram-projected-from-the-edge-of-the-universe/
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/01/our-holographic-universe.html

Just linked some random stuff on the subject. I saw it in "Through the Wormhole", docu hosten by Morgan Freeman (gotta love his voice).

I don't find the premise of us existing on the surface of the edge of the universe far fetched at all. In fact, it's how I now see the universe. What all this means is not something I'm going to speculate on.

EDIT: It's possible the "size" of the universe doesn't even exist. The human concept that is size may be complete bull.

It's the only way the Universe could possibly be a flat plane. If it's indeed a flat plane, either truly flat or spherical (say, so massive we can't see past the "horizon" of the universe, like a hollow sphere with everything only on the surface. If we are not a flat universe, I don't buy the holographic theory... and there is a lot of the scientific community that does indeed debate such theory, and quite strongly.
The more specific the theories of the cosmos, the more they are debated and indeed lacking in hard evidence.

But if we are flat, I imagine we are merely see around us our neighborhood projections, like nothing in the universe can actually see anything else in the universe the way they actually are (as in, nowhere inside the universe can you see the non-projected matter.

And such a theory, in a flat universe, definitely kind of helps explain the phenomenon of gravity on a flat plane of space-time. Rather mind-blowing stuff if it indeed proves true, but no one is certain of the actual geometric shape (if there even is a shape.. try to think that one over)... and in my limited understanding of the different complexities of the universe, I don't think the holographic theory holds for a non-flat universe.

 

[zinfamous]

There isn't any method to make an appropriate guess. We don't know enough nor have the capability of making any kind of informed guess at such a thing.

you've been touched, haven't you?

 

[Inferno0032]

The answer is in the Bible

/Trole

 

[Malak]

you've been touched, haven't you?

Sometimes I'm actually being serious. This is one of those times. When it comes to the size, shape, or scope of the universe, there is only speculation.

 

[Sea Moose]

only oldsmoboat knows for sure

 

[911paramedic]

Is this a trick question? If not I believe somebody said "infinite".

 

[DrPizza]

Sometimes I'm actually being serious. This is one of those times. When it comes to the size, shape, or scope of the universe, there is only speculation.

You're routinely an anti-science troll. There are multiple methods for estimating (not speculating) what the actual radius of the universe is. - our 13.75 billion year old universe. (note: the 1, 3, and 7 are certain, the uncertainty is in the 5; might be 6, might be 4.)

Your statement that "there isn't any method to make an appropriate guess" is incorrect. What you really mean is that you deny that any method will lead to an approximate estimate of the age and size of the universe. Either that, or you mean that you're too ignorant to know of methods.

In response to your anticipated "durrrr, well then, what are the methods?" The answer is LOOK IT UP YOURSELF before making ignorant statements such as "there isn't any method..." It's not too hard to do. Go to scholar dot google dot com and search for the radius of the universe.

Of course, you'll probably realize that all the scholars whose papers are published are all idiots, because their date doesn't agree with your 6000 year age of the universe.

 

[Fenixgoon]

just ask the hubble telescope..

 

[surfsatwerk]

just ask the hubble telescope..

That just pisses me off.

 

[RavenSEAL]

...infinte?

 

[silverpig]

We are all being maintained in static warp core shell.

I just saw that episode yesterday (not the final one... "Remember Me") and thought of all the stupid shit that little prick Wesley caused.

 

[bfdd]

God seems like he a guy that likes the volume at 11

for some reason this shit made me lol rather good

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

You're routinely an anti-science troll. There are multiple methods for estimating (not speculating) what the actual radius of the universe is. - our 13.75 billion year old universe. (note: the 1, 3, and 7 are certain, the uncertainty is in the 5; might be 6, might be 4.)

Your statement that "there isn't any method to make an appropriate guess" is incorrect. What you really mean is that you deny that any method will lead to an approximate estimate of the age and size of the universe. Either that, or you mean that you're too ignorant to know of methods.

In response to your anticipated "durrrr, well then, what are the methods?" The answer is LOOK IT UP YOURSELF before making ignorant statements such as "there isn't any method..." It's not too hard to do. Go to scholar dot google dot com and search for the radius of the universe.

Of course, you'll probably realize that all the scholars whose papers are published are all idiots, because their date doesn't agree with your 6000 year age of the universe.

Publishing a paper doesn't make you a scholar nor does it make you right.

Quite a few "scientific" papers have turned out to be fabrications.

The appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

 

[sandorski]

Publishing a paper doesn't make you a scholar nor does it make you right.

Quite a few "scientific" papers have turned out to be fabrications.

The appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

Indeed. I submit the Bible as Exhibit A.

 

[silverpig]

You're routinely an anti-science troll. There are multiple methods for estimating (not speculating) what the actual radius of the universe is. - our 13.75 billion year old universe. (note: the 1, 3, and 7 are certain, the uncertainty is in the 5; might be 6, might be 4.)

Your statement that "there isn't any method to make an appropriate guess" is incorrect. What you really mean is that you deny that any method will lead to an approximate estimate of the age and size of the universe. Either that, or you mean that you're too ignorant to know of methods.

In response to your anticipated "durrrr, well then, what are the methods?" The answer is LOOK IT UP YOURSELF before making ignorant statements such as "there isn't any method..." It's not too hard to do. Go to scholar dot google dot com and search for the radius of the universe.

Of course, you'll probably realize that all the scholars whose papers are published are all idiots, because their date doesn't agree with your 6000 year age of the universe.

Actually he's kind of right. All the numbers you're finding quote the size of the visible universe. We can see back to the surface of last scattering and go from there, but there may be plenty more beyond that (and there certainly is, because the surface of last scattering is receding from us).

The shape is relatively well pinned down, or so we think. The universe is flat. Not a sphere, not a saddle, not a torus.

But he's still being a bit of a dick.

 

[disappoint]

Publishing a paper doesn't make you a scholar nor does it make you right.

Quite a few "scientific" papers have turned out to be fabrications.

The appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

Speaking of relativity were your parents? You know....related?

 

[Paratus]

PJW seems to be an appeal to ignorance kinda guy.

 

[Mo0o]

Publishing a paper doesn't make you a scholar nor does it make you right.

Quite a few "scientific" papers have turned out to be fabrications.

The appeal to authority doesn't cut it.

But then how do you personally trust the integrity of any scientific result? Do you go back and re-perform the experiments yourself? At a certain point, you have to trust the scientific process at work to produce reliable, peer-reviewed, results that provides the best concept of the observable universe. No one is saying with 100% certainty the universe is as described. We're simply painting the best picture we can with the information we have and scientists are constantly working to improve that image.

It seems interesting that people are very much willing to accept the benefits of the scientific process when it comes to medicine, engineering etc, but when it starts to encroach on religion, they toss all that out the window.

 

[disappoint]

The volume of the universe...is 0

In empty space, no one really can hear you scream. Or blast your stereo.....no matter what volume you turn it up to.

Of course there is no such thing as empty space. But we can overlook that fact. Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.

 

[IcePickFreak]

It stopped expanding?

 

[Cogman]

Greater than 0. Do I get a cookie?

 

[Pardus]

Your Answer

 

[amdhunter]

The Universe is flat, moron.

 

[alkemyst]

as a fissekcyct I am the proper person to respond.

I am still working the details out but it's either....

cheesepie*42^9000

or

cheesecake*9000^43