[Unreal Zelta]

The universe (space) is moving rather than us. That's why we cannot exceed the speed of light . In the case of the dimension of the universe, I imagine it to be whatever I wish it to be.

Best regards

Zelta

[MJA]

I don't believe the universe can be defined as open, closed, or flat, but rather
the universe is simply: infinitely immeasurable.

=
MJA

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear MJA and friends,

Anyone could have their own opinion, but if it is different from the mainstream physicists it should have to be clarified. Actually, the universe was thought that it could be possible to be “finite or bound” (closed) type and “infinite or unbound” (open and flat) type. So you think that it is infinite, but is it flat or open?

Sincerely,
Nimit Th.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

Dear MJA and friends,

Anyone could have their own opinion, but if it is different from the mainstream physicists it should have to be clarified. Actually, the universe was thought that it could be possible to be “finite or bound” (closed) type and “infinite or unbound” (open and flat) type. So you think that it is infinite, but is it flat or open?

Sincerely,
Nimit Th.

Good question,

I think the universe as we know it is infinitely boundless until the day we know it's finite boundary. Is the universe open or closed, round or flat; are you asking about it's shape? One would need to measure it first to know. From what I know, nature as well as the universe is immeasurable.
How do you measure the universe?
Is that a better question?

Thanks again,

=
MJA

[mkirkpatrick]

The universe is unfolding from within an intentional willed Idea,that has finished its
involutionary cycle,and is now expanding into its evolutionary cycle.


regards michael.

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear MJA and friends,

Q. - Is the universe open or closed, round or flat; are you asking about it's shape?
R. - According to basic “cosmology”, the universe’s shape was classified by its
curvature; open => negative curve., closed => positive curve. and flat => zero
curve..

Q. - From what I know, nature as well as the universe is immeasurable. How do
you measure the universe?

R. - In short, astronomers could measure the universe’s size indirectly by measuring
Doppler Effect of the moving away galaxies; the red shift.

Q. - Is that a better question?
R. - It seems that you aren’t so familiar with astronomy, cosmology and General
theory of relativity, are you? Thanks.


Cheer,
Nimit Th.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by vacuum-mechanics

Dear MJA and friends,

Q. - Is the universe open or closed, round or flat; are you asking about it's shape?
R. - According to basic “cosmology”, the universe’s shape was classified by its
curvature; open => negative curve., closed => positive curve. and flat => zero
curve..

Q. - From what I know, nature as well as the universe is immeasurable. How do
you measure the universe?

R. - In short, astronomers could measure the universe’s size indirectly by measuring
Doppler Effect of the moving away galaxies; the red shift.

Q. - Is that a better question?
R. - It seems that you aren’t so familiar with astronomy, cosmology and General
theory of relativity, are you? Thanks.


Cheer,
Nimit Th.

Well N T,

I'm glad someone knows science or measure on this forum.

Then if you don't mind a couple of questions I would only ask:

You state that science is capable of measuring the universe, so how big is it?

What would be the dimensions exactly?

Is the measuring tools you prescribe to know theoretical, probable, certain, or truth?

As far as the shape, is it all three of the above as you stated: open, closed, and flat?
Or is the universe Euclidean, spherical, or eliptical as other would say?
Are you sure that shape is the right word?
Is structure a better word, I don't know, do you?

Can one define the shape of anything without knowing it's bounds with absolute certainty?
Or are you only knowledgable and speaking in theories?

Ye must have faith!

Are you sure science can measure the universe?

Thanks for your help,

=
MJA

[vacuum-mechanics]

Dear MJA and friends,

It is nice to talk to you.

Q - You state that science is capable of measuring the universe, so how big is it?What would be the dimensions exactly?
R – Actually we could find this matter in any text book about astronomy or cosmology.
Resent report the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. Please see detail in http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

Q - Is the measuring tools you prescribe to know theoretical, probable, certain, or truth?
R – It is the only one best tool used by all the astronomers in our science world.

Q - As far as the shape, is it all three of the above as you stated: open, closed, and flat?Or is the universe Euclidean, spherical, or eliptical as other would say?
R – For the universe, in short, flat = Euclidean, closed = spherical, and open = hyperbolic (not elliptic).


Q - Are you sure that shape is the right word? Is structure a better word, I don't know, do you?

R – I just follow your quote with the word “shape” which is simple an easy to visualize,formally they used word “geometry”. “Structure” was used when one talking about the composition of the universe.



Q - Can one define the shape of anything without knowing it's bounds with absolute certainty? Or are you only knowledgable and speaking in theories?

R – This is what the professional people (cosmologists) do and it is the best that we
(human) could!

Q - Ye must have faith!
R – I already have faith in science, how about you?

Q - Are you sure science can measure the universe?
R – Yes I am, astronomers tried to do the best that they could, do you have a better way?

Cheer,
Nimit Th.

[Profpat]

Nimit Th;

Thank you for the research on the size of the universe and the URL. I found it most interesting.

Best to all,

Pat

[MJA]

Thanks vm,

I am not a scientist, or cosmologist, or physicist, I would describe myself as simply a truist, or someone who seeks the truth. I find questioning our knowledge the best path to truth. In fact science itself uses the same process of question or challange doesn't it?
That's what brings me here.
I hope you would never find flaw in a question, only that it is the process of truth that we both seek, isn't it?

That said, you state "the universe is 156 billion light-years wide."

More questions: Is 156 true, or just an estimate?
If we sailed a space ship to the edge of the universe, to the edge of measure, would we fall off?
What is beyond our universe, more universe?
Would one not need to know?
Is that the shape question?
Is there a wall like we once thought of at the speed of sound?
Is the universe round like Earth?
If we sent that spaceship to the extent of our universe, would it end up where it started?
Is the Earth round?
Is it not relative to the observer, such as round viewed from a space station, vs none uniform as I see it, you know, mountains and valleys? Or is the Earth flat as once seen by others? Which is true?
Is it best to use a Galileian co-ordinate system?
You state that you have faith in science, then is that the same as to have faith in measure?
Is faith good enough?
Is truth better?
Do you believe in the certainty of measure?
156 million, billion or trillion or gazillion?
Is it only faith, or truth.
I think there is a better way, I have faith in that, what about you?

Thanks again,

=
MJA