3 ms·

Wouldn't the most likely place for it to start be around halfway between us and the most distant observable stars in whatever direction it starts, then? And th

Wouldn't the most likely place for it to start be around halfway between us and the most distant observable stars in whatever direction it starts, then? And then we'd see the sphere of dimming stars increasing in size, while still seeing things behind, in front, or to the sides of the sphere?

jacquesm 12y ago
The part that we can see is so much smaller than what is out there that you'd have to resort to very leaky analogies to try to get the point across. The upper limit to how much larger the universe is compared to the observable (and not the currently observed) universe is somewhere around the 10^20 to 10^25 times larger. Those are hard numbers to grasp but large enough that the chances of an event 'x' taking place outside of the observed universe are larger than inside it.
- furyofantares 12y ago
  Ah, right, the ones that will disappear are furthest-observed, not furthest-observable... you have to already have been observed to disappear from observance! So, it would be an already-large and rapdily growing sphere intersecting with the sphere of observed stars. edit: Wait, actually, I thought you were saying we CAN (theoretically) observe 10^20+ times as far as we HAVE observed. But re-reading your comment, this sounds wrong: > The upper limit to how much larger the universe is compared to the observable Did you mean to say "the upper limit for how much larger the observable universe is compared to the observed universe"? Or are you actually talking about what might be outside of the observable universe? I figured starting points outside the observable universe were not a consideration for this problem, since they are causally unlinked from us and could not expand into the observable universe faster than it becomes causally unlinked from us as well.

3 ms·

Wouldn't the most likely place for it to start be around halfway between us and the most distant observable stars in whatever direction it starts, then? And th

by furyofantares 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago
The part that we can see is so much smaller than what is out there that you'd have to resort to very leaky analogies to try to get the point across. The upper limit to how much larger the universe is compared to the observable (and not the currently observed) universe is somewhere around the 10^20 to 10^25 times larger. Those are hard numbers to grasp but large enough that the chances of an event 'x' taking place outside of the observed universe are larger than inside it.
- furyofantares 12y ago
  Ah, right, the ones that will disappear are furthest-observed, not furthest-observable... you have to already have been observed to disappear from observance! So, it would be an already-large and rapdily growing sphere intersecting with the sphere of observed stars. edit: Wait, actually, I thought you were saying we CAN (theoretically) observe 10^20+ times as far as we HAVE observed. But re-reading your comment, this sounds wrong: > The upper limit to how much larger the universe is compared to the observable Did you mean to say "the upper limit for how much larger the observable universe is compared to the observed universe"? Or are you actually talking about what might be outside of the observable universe? I figured starting points outside the observable universe were not a consideration for this problem, since they are causally unlinked from us and could not expand into the observable universe faster than it becomes causally unlinked from us as well.