A New Baseline for 3-A? (backed by actual science, math, and new information that was overlooked)

[TheUnshakableOne]

I did some research, and I learned something very fascinating.

The team that did the math, and calculations to get the size we know of, and use, for the Observable Universe (94 Billion Light Years), is the exact same team that Calculated the "Future Visibility Limit" of the Observable Universe ( 5.86281467386e+26 meters or a Radius of~61.97 billion light years which is an increase of about 33.2459%).

Not only is it the same exact team that calculated this, but it was proposed, posted, and well the entire thing was done on the exact same research paper that proposed, and established, the current Observable Universes size is 94 Billion Light Years in Diameter. They were both done at the exact same time. The current size of todays Observable Universe is done on Page 7, whereas the math for "The Future visibility limit" is done on Page 8.

Under the notes section in wikipedia for "Observable Universe."

1. The comoving distance of the future visibility limit is calculated on p. 8 of Gott et al.'s A Map of the Universe to be 4.50 times the Hubble radius, given as 4.220 billion parsecs (13.76 billion light-years), whereas the current comoving radius of the observable universe is calculated on p. 7 to be 3.38 times the Hubble radius. The number of galaxies in a sphere of a given comoving radius is proportional to the cube of the radius, so as shown on p. 8 the ratio between the number of galaxies observable in the future visibility limit to the number of galaxies observable today would be (4.50/3.38)3 = 2.36.

Observable universe - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The math used to calculate the current size of The Observable Universe also factors in Dark Energy & Dark Matter.

The Future Visibility Limit of The Observable Universe is the same math it is simply different numbers.

To explain what "The future visibility limit" is...

it is the maximum distance we'll ever be able to observe in our local Observable Universe if humanity is given enough time. We will never see anything further than this. Anything beyond this is just hypothesis or theory.

Accepting the current version (93 billion light year diameter) also means we need to accept the other (radius of 61 billion light years) as they are both apart of the same research paper.

Since both are are on the same research paper that established the current size that we see of the Observable Universe, and both use the same exact science and math.


It should be decided which is more acceptable

Which is more acceptable to use from here on out?

A.) Stay with the current Size of 94 billion light year diameter

B.) The Future Visibility limit with a Radius of ~61 billion light years

Please remember that both are from the same exact research paper that established the baseline size we use now/currently. The only difference is "The Future Visibility Limit" is the maximum distance Humanity could reasonably ever see of our observable universe.

references

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/428890/fulltext/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ll-we-someday-be-able-to-see/?sh=5510712f8273

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The future visibility limit should be used, for maximum accuracy

 

[Abu2411]

I agree with the FVL.

 

[KLOL506]

sighs Here we go again.

@Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

An update from 93 billion to 94 billion? This is actually pretty interesting and looking legit. We sadly still can't go all out with the cosmic inflation theory. And most importantly, I am not looking forward to having to update some pages and/or blog posts.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

An update from 93 billion to 94 billion? This is actually pretty interesting and looking legit. We sadly still can't go all out with the cosmic inflation theory. And most importantly, I am not looking forward to having to update some pages and/or blog posts.

i just pulled 94 billion from a quick google search which is the diameters

61 billion would become the new radius (19,000mpc)

Cosmic Times

Cosmic Times

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

sighs Here we go again.

@Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT

The information i presented is from the exact same paper that establishes the current size. Its from the same thing

Same Paper
Same Group of people
Same year
Same math
Same Assumptions used in calculations
Same everything lol

i pulled all this information from the sources linked on "The Observable Universe" on wikipedia.

except forbes part i just did that to get the ~ 61 billion light years.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

sighs Here we go again.

@Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT

I guess I'm confused. Was this specific topic brought up or rejected? Or was it just the title and not the OP?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

i just pulled 94 billion from a quick google search which is the diameters

61 billion would become the new radius (19,000mpc)

Cosmic Times

Cosmic Times

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov

Oh, so 61 billion lightyear radius and 122 billion lightyear diameter. That's a bigger change, but while I still don't mind the change but not looking forward to making big updates. But let's wait for DT or Executor.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I guess I'm confused. Was this specific topic brought up or rejected? Or was it just the title and not the OP?

brought up on a Q&A but i discovered new information that should solidify it as something worth discussing as an actual change.

1st.) DT was under the impression that the Current math/calculation that established the size of the Observable Universe we use now. Did not factor in Dark Energy, or Dark matter. Which i found out was wrong and it does factor that in both of those.

2nd.) I found out that "The Future Visibility Limit" was calculated at the exact same time when the size of the Observable Universe was calculated and both were posted on the same paper that established the size of the currently used Observable Universe's size that we see now when googled, and we use that size now. Both were on the same paper that established that size.


Hopefully my phrasing makes sense...

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Oh, so 61 billion lightyear radius and 122 billion lightyear diameter. That's a bigger change, but while I still don't mind the change but not looking forward to making big updates. But let's wait for DT or Executor.

yes, actually there is a more exact number convert 19,000 Mpc into light years which iirc gives a radius and that gives an exact number

 

[DontTalkDT]

The information i presented is from the exact same paper that establishes the current size. Its from the same thing

Same Paper
Same Group of people
Same year
Same math
Same Assumptions used in calculations
Same everything lol

i pulled all this information from the sources linked on "The Observable Universe" on wikipedia.

except forbes part i just did that to get the ~ 61 billion light years.

Not same math (otherwise you would have the same result), not same assumptions (cause no observation for anything outside observable universe), not same everything. Heck, the paper even mentions additional assumptions explicitly, such as the vacuum state remaining constant.
The same people doing the math of both has no scientific relevance.
Heck, consider what the future visibility limit is and then combine it with the not ruled-out possibility of a Big Crunch. Then the number obviously doesn't hold. (and the vacuum state changes, in my understanding)

For short: You addressed none of my points, so I still reject this.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Not same math (otherwise you would have the same result),
[/QUOTE]
I did say different numbers

not same assumptions (cause no observation for anything outside observable universe), not same everything. Heck, the paper even mentions additional assumptions explicitly,

Those assumptions are also used in their calculations to obtain the size the observable universe we have today.

uch as the vacuum state remaining constant.

Also used to obtain the 94 billion light-years years wr currently use.

The same people doing the math of both has no scientific relevance.

My point is that it uses the same assumptions and same math

On my phone not ob my computer atm so can't go into a lot of detail.

 

[Executor_N0]

I'll just say that just because the same people in the same work said two things and one of them is accepted, doesn't mean that the other will also be accepted under the same standards.
So it being from "the same book by the same people" isn't a reason to accept on its own, the content itself needs to be analyzed on its own to see if there's anything usable for our standards there.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I'll just say that just because the same people in the same work said two things and one of them is accepted, doesn't mean that the other will also be accepted under the same standards.
So it being from "the same book by the same people" isn't a reason to accept on its own, the content itself needs to be analyzed on its own to see if there's anything usable for our standards there.

it was posted in the Astrophysical Journal which peer reviews everything

https://academic-accelerator.com/Review-Speed/The-Astrophysical-Journal

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-%28%23240%29%20AAS.pdf

Instructions for Posting | American Astronomical Society

aas.org

it was also in review for almost 2 years before it was accepted by AAS for publishing

The Astrophysical Journal, 624:463-484, 2005 May 10
© 2005. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.



A Map of the Universe

J. Richard Gott III ,1 Mario Juri

,1 David Schlegel ,1 Fiona Hoyle ,2 Michael Vogeley ,2 Max Tegmark ,3 Neta Bahcall ,1 and Jon Brinkmann 4

Received 2003 November 18; accepted 2005 January 3

 

[KLOL506]

At this point, I wouldn't accept any proposed universe size based on these ambiguous links unless organizations and universities like MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Berkeley, CERN, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. and all the major space agencies of the world like NASA, the ESA, the China National Space Administration, JAXA and the like all come to a unanimous and public agreement regarding the universe's size.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

At this point, I wouldn't accept any proposed universe size based on these ambiguous links unless organizations and universities like MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Berkeley, CERN, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. and all the major space agencies of the world like NASA, the ESA, the China National Space Administration, JAXA and the like all come to a unanimous and public agreement regarding the universe's size.

... the one i posted is a unanimous agreement.. It was accepted at the same time with the 94 billion light years because their in the same research paper..

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Anyways regarding what DT was saying about Assumptions

This is the wording before they say " This calculation assumes that the false vacuum state (cosmological constant) visible today remains unchanged."

14,000 mpc = the current size we use


19,000 = Future visibility limit.

Both are being called to be using the same assumption

edit: In short, the current model we use for 3-A (the size) is also based on assumptions which is directly stated in the original draft that was peer-reviewed and accepted widely by the scientific community.

 

[KLOL506]

... the one i posted is a unanimous agreement.. It was accepted at the same time with the 94 billion light years because their in the same research paper..

Was it accepted by the organizations I mentioned in a public announcement, some of the highest bodies of science? No? Then it means nothing.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Was it accepted by the organizations I mentioned in a public announcement, some of the highest bodies of science? No? Then it means nothing.

Yes, all agencies you listed cite this material (the one i posted in the OP) when listing the size of the observable universe at 94 billion light years.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, all agencies you listed cite this material (the one i posted in the OP) when listing the size of the observable universe at 94 billion light years.

I meant the other bigger size values.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I meant the other bigger size values.

The future visibility limit has been peer reviewed and universally accepted as it was inside of the same document that was submitted in 2003 and there not even 2 paragraphs apart from each other. The only 2 assumptions that is different from the other calculation that says the Observable Universe is 94 billion light years is that it assumes that:

1.) a large amount of time passing

2.) Our technological advancements stay where they are at.

edit: Im going to work so i won't be able to respond at all until tomorrow.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Has this paper been peer reviewed?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Has this paper been peer reviewed?

Yes

https://vsbattles.com/threads/a-new-baseline-for-3-a-backed-by-actual-science-math-and-new-information-that-was-overlooked.150449/post-5543579

 

[Antvasima]

GIven that DontTalk seems to have rejected this revision, should we close this thread?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

GIven that DontTalk seems to have rejected this revision, should we close this thread?

Yeah you can. I started a new job so I don't really have time anymore for this unfortunately..

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so then.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.