- 10,785
- 1,635
O.U., not u.o.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Made better.DarkDragonMedeus said:@Upgrade The 251x to 10^23 times refers the length/width on a one dimensional scale; meaning the area would be 63001 or 10^46 times and the area of the observable universe on a two dimensional scale. The Observable Universe is assumed to be a sphere, and the universe doesn't really have an official shape, but is generally assumed to be a cylinder with height lower than the radius/diameter.
However, regardless of shape, our AP baseline calculations are based on omnidirectional blasts, meaning the required to oneshot the full universe from the center of the universe would be around 15813251 to 10^69 times the energy required to oneshot the Observable universe from the center of the observable universe depending on which end is accepted.
Reflecting on it more, I think our space-time being "flat-shaped" is only in reference to 4D curvature, and not 3D curvature.DMB 1 said:Ins't our space-time supposedly "flat-shaped"?
Scientifically, yesDarkDragonMedeus said:So the high end is more likely?
That's so genuinely unfathomable. The difference between the observable universe and true universe is massively larger in comparison than a single meter is to a light year.DarkDragonMedeus said:Nice! That puts the universe's radius at 4.65 * 10^33 light years and a diameter at 9.3 * 10^33 light years.
Barely anything changed. Amitabha has so many zeros behind him that almost any change in size of the universe is irrelevant.Andytrenom said:Would Amitabh still be bigger than the universe after this? If so, by how much?