• 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.

Universe level Standards (Continued)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not yet, but Sera can probably create a new staff thread soon, within which we vote for which lower 3-A border that we should use, and plan the practical application of the change.
 
@Upgrade The 251x to 10^23 times refers the length/width on a one dimensional scale; meaning the area would be 251^2 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 251^3 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Made better.
 
This came from a NASA.Gov website. A official website by Nasa, and the article is written by a NASA official. It was written on 1-24-2014


"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." [This is the website it was taken from. An official Nasa website .]


The website used above mentions "Cosmic inflation theory."

"The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper."

"If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent."


Nasa agrees the universe is flat so confidently that they believe to be 99.6% right, and they are seeming to acknowledge "Cosmic inflation" theory as being the more reliable theory of the universe. Which Alan Gurth founded, and he did a math where he believes the universe is 10^23 times greater than the observable universe.
 
Okay, well then the low end is 251x the volume, but the high end is based on the diameter. And I mentioned they don't mean flat as in two dimensional; just that it's more cylinder like that the height is smaller than the length/width.
 
Wait. How is the universe flat? Doesn't this imply a 2-dimensional plane?

Also they then said that the universe being flat indicates that it is infinite, so using 10^23 and a flat universe seems to be contradictory.

Edit: So the flat universe pertains to the flatness or curvature of 3-D space. That makes more sense.
 
Cosmic inflation theory also has strong evidence supporting it, and to answer the questions, it is what Ogbunabali said.


"In an attempt to prove the inflation theory, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) probe was launched in 1992, and its initial results confirmed almost exactly the amount of variation in the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by inflationary theory. In 2003, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) demonstrated the existence of these non-uniformities with even greater precision. As recently as 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that they had detected and mapped "gravitational waves" within the cosmic microwave background radiation, providing further strong evidence for inflation (and for the Big Bang itself), although further peer reivew of these new findings are still ongoing."

[Link to the source is here. Physics of the universe. com ]

Edit: Which those test were also referenced in the Official Nasa link in the comment I made above.
 
DMB 1 said:
Ins't our space-time supposedly "flat-shaped"?
Click to expand...
Reflecting on it more, I think our space-time being "flat-shaped" is only in reference to 4D curvature, and not 3D curvature.

To give an analogy, if our universe was on a 2D piece of paper, it being "flat-shaped" doesn't mean the universe can't be a circle on that piece of paper, it means that the piece of paper isn't bent in any way in 3D space.

The only consequences space being "flat" give us in our reality, are things relating to the speed of inflation, and things related to parallel lines at a distance. It doesn't mean that out universe can't be a sphere.
 
Nice! That puts the universe's radius at 4.65 * 10^33 light years and a diameter at 9.3 * 10^33 light years.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Well the comparison usually made with the observable universe is, go outside and stretch out your arm and do a thumbs up, the nail on your thumb would basically be the observable universe.
 
Side thing but it's not Touhou's universe that's big. The 3-A guy is in Heaven, separate from the "real world" and the characters make a point to say how much bigger than the obserable universe Heaven is. So the Touhou universe would just be "default" sized.
 
You might be a little late, but the comments above posted a scientific study showcasing that 10^23 times the diameter end is the more reasonable one.
 
Ugh, this is going to wank everyone who leaves universes by flying so goddamn much.

I would prefer to keep it the more conservative estimate. Using scientific theories as fact is honestly a huge problem in this website.

We have no authority to just go and say "This is how big the real universe is"
 
I don't think we're using it as fact in this particular instance. I think a majority of us understand there is no way if us knowing how big the universe is with our current technology.


The cosmic inflation theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and has strong scientific evidence supporting it. NASA also seems to be putting a lot of support into it due to some of the scientific studies done to prove the theory right. It's not a scientific law, but it has a lot of support for it from well known organizations, scientist, and even further has a lot of evidence going for it from many scientific studies/research. But.... It also contradicts the 251x calc Because I believe it's based off a closed sphere of the universe, while there is strong, much strong, evidence suggesting the universe is flat.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't call it wank and if anything; using the Observable universe is downplaying. And for all we know, even the 10^23 could be drastically lowballed for all we know as it could be anywhere between that and Infinite. Infinite Speed is what I'd call wank, but the most 100% logical number would just be to say, "An Uncountable number" or "Almost Infinity"; meaning the highest possible finite number that isn't infinity. But it's more fun to have specific calcs, so I like 10^23 times the diameter end.
 
This discussion has almost reached 501 posts, which is the maximum when it is closed automatically. As such, I would appreciate if Sera or some other staff member starts a thread in the staff forum in which we vote which low end to use for 3-A and start to plan how to carry out any required changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
552
ArcaneAbyss
Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
463
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Von Neumann Universe & Grothendieck Universe scaling
Replies
3
Views
426
Laxxius
Laxxius
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
153
Laxxius
Laxxius
Back
Top