20 Trillion x 9² is the end to end distance of the Universe?

[Earth360]

I'm guessing in miles that the distance from end to end of the Universe is 20 Trillion X 9 to the second power.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Earth360

 

[eburacum45]

The diameter of the observable universe, measured as the co-moving distance, is approximately 93 billion light years. This is approximately 880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers.

How does that compare with your value?
I'm not sure exactly what yu mean by "20 Trillion X 9 to the second power" miles. If you mean 20 trillion x (9 squared), then that figure is much too small.

If you mean "(20 Trillion x 9) squared", that figure is too big for the observable universe, but the unobservable universe beyond may be that size - no-one knows because it is unobservable.

 

[Earth360]

The diameter of the observable universe, measured as the co-moving distance, is approximately 93 billion light years. This is approximately 880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers.


If you mean "(20 Trillion x 9) squared", that figure is too big for the observable universe, but the unobservable universe beyond may be that size - no-one knows because it is unobservable.

I agree it would be a 324 figure of some large sort, but the equation 20 Trillion x 9² seems more conprehensable then the large answer.

btw: The math is still correct at 20 Trillion x 9 then squared = a 324 figure. Or, if you do 20 Trillion x 9 (squared) = 1620 but, if you times 1620 x 2 it is still a 324 figure.

I am curious where and who measured the 880 figure at 93 Billion light years? Do you know where this came from?

Earth360

 

[MeteorWayne]

First of all, you have never stated 20 trillion X 10^9^2 what. miles? inches? meters? barleycorns? furlongs? fathoms? fods? gnat's eyes? hair breaths? German zoll? Swiss zoll?

Edit Correction:
Apparently I was blinded by the meaningless numbers and missed the miles in the statement. I apologize, sorry bout that!
Wayne

Second, how the heck is 1620 x 2 = 324????

 

[3488]

Hi Wayne,

I agree, it looks like basic arithmetic lessons are needed here. :mrgreen: :shock:

Andrew Brown.

 

[Shpaget]

Also do you mean a trillion as in 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million) or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million)?

I guess you mean the first one, but both are called trillion :?

Anyway, why not 1,6 quadrillion?

 

[trumptor]

It is too confusing and can result in an engineering mistake at some point that could do real damage to have two different definitions of trillion. I know that my relatives from Europe use milliard after million and then billion and trillion and in the US we move billions and trillions over by 3 places! You would think that this disparity would have been dealt with before we invented the telephone and not still have it into the 21st century.

While I'm at it, we also need to do away with x and q! There is no reason we couldn't write without them. You'd think we would start to do things more logically as time goes by.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think since the point of the topic is Unexplained, perhaps it belongs there....

 

[Earth360]

I think since the point of the topic is Unexplained, perhaps it belongs there....

Incorrect. The topic was clearly explained in the answer: 20 Trillion x 9² is the end to end distance of the Universe.
The question was to clearify the answer. We have come to a conclusion that 20 Trillion x 9² is the end to end distance of the Universe and that 880........,......,....... and 93 Billion light years is incorrect.

If the question is unclear please revert to the 20T92 answer.

many thanks!

Earth360

 

[origin]

We have come to a conclusion that 20 Trillion x 9² is the end to end distance of the Universe and that 880........,......,....... and 93 Billion light years is incorrect.

If the question is unclear please revert to the 20T92 answer.

many thanks!

Earth360

No you are not correct. YOU have come to the conclusion that 20 trillion X 81 unspecified somethings is the end to end distance of the universe. You have aparently come up with that meaningless number out of nothing. The question is unclear, the results are unclear, the method you arrived at that is unclear and the logic is unclear.

Maybe you could go a bit more into depth as to what idea you are trying to get across.

 

[Earth360]

No you are not correct. YOU have come to the conclusion that 20 trillion X 81 unspecified somethings is the end to end distance of the universe. You have aparently come up with that meaningless number out of nothing. The question is unclear, the results are unclear, the method you arrived at that is unclear and the logic is unclear.

Maybe you could go a bit more into depth as to what idea you are trying to get across.

May I ask, where do you find me incorrect? What is your basis other then disagreement? Apparently, you find it easier to disagree then to make sense out of the findings. I do not understand, as your conclusions and disagreements sound frivilous and vexatious. I cannot accept them.

Earth360

 

[Shpaget]

While I'm at it, we also need to do away with x and q! There is no reason we couldn't write without them. You'd think we would start to do things more logically as time goes by.

I'm guessing that by x you mean the sign for multiplication. We in Croatia for example use a dot -> 3 · 4 = 12 (it's not ., it's "superscript" ·)
But what is q?

May I ask, where do you find me incorrect? What is your basis other then disagreement? Apparently, you find it easier to disagree then to make sense out of the findings. I do not understand, as your conclusions and disagreements sound frivilous and vexatious. I cannot accept them.

Let me try to explain.
You come here with some number that is written in a nonstandard form, you don't explain where did you get that number from, you "guess" that it is in miles (nautical, statute, metric, Irish, Scots, Roman?) and than you mention "360 astronomical figures" which doesn't mean anything.

So, why don't you convert your numbers and measurements to the good old SI and start writing your big numbers using scientific notation (exponents of 10), and than you can expect some help here.

 

[trumptor]

We do the same in Serbia

But I was referring to the latin letters x and q. In Serbo-Croatian we take for granted that everything is phoentic (even the word "phoenetic" isn't phoenetic in English), but in English there are whole letters that have no reason to exist. That is what I was referring to. The letter 'c' has no use either unless it is coupled with 'h' to produce the 'ch' sound.

But I'm getting away from the topic now. The letters may have a somewhat French ancestry charm to them that people won't let go, but the difference in billion and miliarda? This isn't as trivial to me as letters or other silly traditions. This can have serious reprecussions in interpretation.

 

[Earth360]

Is there any evidence that the diameter of the observable universe, measured as the co-moving distance, is approximately 93 billion light years. This is approximately 880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers. Or, would this be misleading the public?

If this a U.S. finding, are there other assumtions out there in other countries? Russia, Germany, Canada maybe?

We are better off asking the church. :lol:

Earth360

 

[1of6Billion]

Well.... Since no unit is given we may as well use "1".
The end-to-end distance of the observable universe = 1 OU (Observable Universe) :mrgreen:
seems fair :lol:

 

[SpeedFreek]

I think a lot of people are overlooking the words I have bolded in the original post.

I'm guessing in miles that the distance from end to end of the Universe is 20 Trillion X 9 to the second power.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Earth360 has always been talking about miles, since the first post.

The observable universe is 93 billion light-years across. 93 billion light-years = 5.467x10^23 miles

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=93 ... s+in+miles

Is there any evidence that the diameter of the observable universe, measured as the co-moving distance, is approximately 93 billion light years. This is approximately 880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers. Or, would this be misleading the public?

If this a U.S. finding, are there other assumtions out there in other countries? Russia, Germany, Canada maybe?

We are better off asking the church. :lol:

Earth360

It comes from WMAP. It is a NASA project involving an international group of scientists.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Apparently, I missed the miles in the first post...blinded by the unorthodox numbers I guess. I edited my post reflecting that. My bad.

However, that doesn't change much in the alleged point of the thread....

 

[origin]

No you are not correct. YOU have come to the conclusion that 20 trillion X 81 unspecified somethings is the end to end distance of the universe. You have aparently come up with that meaningless number out of nothing. The question is unclear, the results are unclear, the method you arrived at that is unclear and the logic is unclear.

Maybe you could go a bit more into depth as to what idea you are trying to get across.

May I ask, where do you find me incorrect? What is your basis other then disagreement? Apparently, you find it easier to disagree then to make sense out of the findings. I do not understand, as your conclusions and disagreements sound frivilous and vexatious. I cannot accept them.

Earth360

I'll be I missed that the OP was in miles also, my bad also. I was refering to your statement, "WE have come to a conclusion that 20 Trillion x 9²", as being wrong, if by "we" you meant the people here, if it is you and the mouse in your pocket that is fine.

 

[nailpounder]

I'm guessing in miles that the distance from end to end of the Universe is 20 Trillion X 9 to the second power.

If I am correct, what would the number be? Hint: 360 astronomical figures.

And what do you want to call this astronomical figure?

Earth360

I believe your question is misunderstood by some of the members of this community. Although I agree that standard scientific notation should be used when expressing numbers this large, those who are intollerant to your way of expression are without imagination. What I believe you are asking is how freak'in big is the observable universe in miles.
Well I don't have a clue and neither does anyone else on the face of this planet, those who confess to knowing this are jacka__es, ( remember, 100 yrs. ago the Milky Way was the only known galaxy ). However, that said, there is a basic calculation that can be made to describe the size of what is believed to be, as of this time , the size of the universe in miles.

Our most powerful telescopes, and the persons who use them, tell us that we can look back roughly 14 billion light years. ASSUMING that Earth is located in the center, ( that's a big freak'in leap of faith here), and we could see another 14 billion light years in the the opposite direction, that gives us a diameter of 28 billion light years, ASSUMING the universe is roughly spherical.

186,000 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 x 28,000,000,000 = 164,239,488,000,000,000,000,000 miles.
Your number could be stated as: one hundred sixty-four sextillion,two hundred thirty-nine quintillion,four hundred eighty-eight quadrillion miles.

Anyone who tells you that there are more than one type of 'trillion' is not worth listening to. I am a carpenter , and even I know that 10^12 IS NOT = to 10^15.

In my seventh grade algebra class, I did a report on large numbers, they are as follows:

Million =1,000,000=10^6
Billion =1,000,000,000=10^9
Trillion =1,000,000,000,000=10^12
Quadrillion=1,000,000,000,000,000=10^15
Quintillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^18
Sextillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^21
Septillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^24
Octillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^27
Nonillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^30
Decillion =1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10^33
Googol WAS equal to any number followed by 30 or more zeroes, however, in the 30+ yrs. since the seventh grade, inexplicably the definition has been changed to a hundred zeroes................Al

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually you are wrong, so maybe you are not worth listening to Billion and trillion mean different things in the US and the UK

Billion may refer to:

In numbers:

Long and short scales
1,000,000,000 (number), one thousand million, 109, in the commonly used short scale
1,000,000,000,000 (number), one million million, 1012, in the long scale

Trillion:

Either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):

1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; 1012; SI prefix: tera-) - for all short scale countries - increasingly common meaning in English language usage.
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million; 1018; SI prefix: exa-) - for all long scale countries - increasingly rare meaning in English language usage but frequent in many other languages.

One of the many hazards of not using the metric system

 

[Shpaget]

Anyone who tells you that there are more than one type of 'trillion' is not worth listening to. I am a carpenter , and even I know that 10^12 IS NOT = to 10^15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion

In my seventh grade algebra class, I did a report on large numbers...

Of course, seventh grade algebra is without doubt the right class to learn about universe.
What I meant in my post somewhere above (and I believe it is quite clear), in different parts of the world the word "trillion" has different meanings.


edit, beaten to it by MW
yep, long live SI

 

[trossachs]

Here's a conundrum. If the observable Universe is 93 billion light years across but the age of the Universe is just 14 billion years, how can the Universe be that size? If it all started from a singularity, exploded in the big bang and matter moved away in all directions at the speed of light, then wouldn't it be 28 billion light years across? Or maybe you can tell me that simple maths doesn't work at this level. :geek:

 

[nailpounder]

Actually you are wrong, so maybe you are not worth listening to Billion and trillion mean different things in the US and the UK

Billion may refer to:

In numbers:

Long and short scales
1,000,000,000 (number), one thousand million, 109, in the commonly used short scale
1,000,000,000,000 (number), one million million, 1012, in the long scale

Trillion:

Either of the two numbers (see long and short scales for more detail):

1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; 1012; SI prefix: tera-) - for all short scale countries - increasingly common meaning in English language usage.
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million; 1018; SI prefix: exa-) - for all long scale countries - increasingly rare meaning in English language usage but frequent in many other languages.

One of the many hazards of not using the metric system

Since the poster originally asked for a specific unit of measurement,"miles", I assumed he was an US citizen. Had he asked for kilometers or nautical miles or some other form of measurement, I would not made this assumption. I certainly
did not wish to offend any of my foreign brethren, and do formally appologize for my ignorance and bad taste. And you are certainly correct in saying that I am not worth listening to, but I had a lot of fun with that post, and I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last nite....don't the brits drive on the wrong side of the road? ............Al

 

[nailpounder]

Anyone who tells you that there are more than one type of 'trillion' is not worth listening to. I am a carpenter , and even I know that 10^12 IS NOT = to 10^15.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion

In my seventh grade algebra class, I did a report on large numbers...

Of course, seventh grade algebra is without doubt the right class to learn about universe.
What I meant in my post somewhere above (and I believe it is quite clear), in different parts of the world the word "trillion" has different meanings.


edit, beaten to it by MW
yep, long live SI

It was for extra credit, so I didn't have to try very hard. Again, I appologize for my ignorance. I certainly do not claim to be an expert in international physics or mathematical jargon, I'm a carpenter in the USA, feet and inches baby. My post was not meant to hurt anyone's feelings, it was but a short and now becoming painful trip down memory lane. But to my credit, I at least tried to answer the poster's question, whilst several others', only scoffed......so kill the messenger!
Al

"other persons opinion of me are certainly none of my buisiness"

 

[napajnibor]

I have read the Space.com article about the universe being " at least 156 billion light years across". And occasionally something else in this area. This 20 trillion number does, at first blush, appear to be cooked up out of thin air. That said, I can appreciate the idea that space is also being created and expanding, which might explain the size being larger than the 13 billion or so light years that can be observed. But I am puzzled by a few speculations of my own. If space itself is an emptiness or nothingness, therefore its expansion at greater than the speed of light being possible - why are real dimensions used to express it? distance, length, etc. are features of real objects and the terrain between them. Further, if time/space can be bent or curved, by gravity for example, then isn't a something being bent or curved, not a nothing?

Lastly, if space is a nothing, and it is expanding, what is the nothing that was outside the sphere of expansion before the space got to be there?

It's just speculation, but what the heck, isn't that what most of this stuff is?

napajnibor