flynn23 wrote:
] ] If you've ever wondered how big the universe is, you're
] ] not alone. Astronomers have long pondered this, too, and
] ] they've had a hard time figuring it out. Now an estimate
] ] has been made, and it's a whopper.
] ]
] ] The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide.
]
] And you thought it was a long walk to the grocery store. -LB

Ok the universe must be predomiantly male, I don't know any female admitting to being 156 Billion light-years wide ;)

flynn23 wrote:
] If you've ever wondered how big the universe is, you're
] not alone. Astronomers have long pondered this, too, and
] they've had a hard time figuring it out. Now an estimate
] has been made, and it's a whopper.
]
] The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide.

Um, isn't it constantly expanding at an accelerating rate in every direction? This would make measurement of it pretty irrelevent fairly quickly, no?

milque wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
] If you've ever wondered how big the universe is, you're
] not alone. Astronomers have long pondered this, too, and
] they've had a hard time figuring it out. Now an estimate
] has been made, and it's a whopper.
]
] The universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide.

Um, isn't it constantly expanding at an accelerating rate in every direction? This would make measurement of it pretty irrelevent fairly quickly, no?

Actually there's competing theories as to whether it's expanding, static, or contracting. Even if it was expanding, it may not be expanding congruently at the boundary. Most models of both expanding and contracting universes assume non-spherical shapes. That's actually where the controversy comes in between these competing theories because the expanding theory assumes that dark matter has a stronger gravitational impact than the contracting theory. In any case, the estimated width serves more to be a benchmark and not an exact figure. It attempts to prove the age of the universe as well as the amount of energy needed to create it.