-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
- 166,840
- 75,046
Hmm. So you seem to think that I should reinsert the "observable" part into the 3-A section of the tiering system page?
I also think that a page explaining this would be useful for the wiki, in order to avoid confusion. Perhaps "Universal feats in fiction" would be more inclusive though, as it would also have to include calculations that reach this high, such as for Pre-Crisis Superman, and size, such as for Amitabha.
I also think that a page explaining this would be useful for the wiki, in order to avoid confusion. Perhaps "Universal feats in fiction" would be more inclusive though, as it would also have to include calculations that reach this high, such as for Pre-Crisis Superman, and size, such as for Amitabha.
- 841
- 40
- Thread starter
- #43
@DT
If the Universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the Universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the Universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. Bielewicz et al. claims to establish a lower bound of 27.9 gigaparsecs (91 billion light-years) on the diameter of the last scattering surface (since this is only a lower bound, the paper leaves open the possibility that the whole universe is much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP 7 year data. This approach has been disputed. -From Wikipedia
If the Universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the Universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the Universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different. Bielewicz et al. claims to establish a lower bound of 27.9 gigaparsecs (91 billion light-years) on the diameter of the last scattering surface (since this is only a lower bound, the paper leaves open the possibility that the whole universe is much larger, even infinite). This value is based on matching-circle analysis of the WMAP 7 year data. This approach has been disputed. -From Wikipedia
- 2,512
- 261
@HIT IT: Well, as said I don't study astrophysics or anything, so I can not really do judgement on that matter.
It is not the approach I usually hear of and per your article it seems to be disputed. The axioms involved are also not mentioned or how state of art and established the proposition is. What I can say as a science student though, is that not every hypothesis made by professionals is necessarily worth to consider under normal circumstances.
@Antvasima: given that matter regarding that seem to be thematized a lot recently I should probably write something in that regards and let it be looked over by the staff in order settel this matter for good.
But for now the "observable" part should stay, as that was the last properly established standard.
It is not the approach I usually hear of and per your article it seems to be disputed. The axioms involved are also not mentioned or how state of art and established the proposition is. What I can say as a science student though, is that not every hypothesis made by professionals is necessarily worth to consider under normal circumstances.
@Antvasima: given that matter regarding that seem to be thematized a lot recently I should probably write something in that regards and let it be looked over by the staff in order settel this matter for good.
But for now the "observable" part should stay, as that was the last properly established standard.
