The diameter of the known universe
-
-
Transcript!
Okay Google, what is the diameter of the known universe?
Its diameter is 29 feet.
Okay Google, repeat that please.
I said, "its diameter is 29 feet."
Okay Google, I would like to offer some feedback.
To report a problem or recommend features, say "send feedback."
Okay Google, send feedback.
No problem; tell me what needs to be improved.
The observable universe is not 29 feet in diameter!
-
Found the problem.
-
is using feet and inches in this context. Or meters FWIW.
-
@cvi I'm sure you need some sort of measuring device :pendantrolleybus:
-
@kazitor I occasionally enjoy using the american spelling of SI units. The ironing is delicious, or something.
-
@pie_flavor said in The diameter of the known universe:
Found the problem.
So, a foot is about 10^-26 gigaparsec?
Can we therefore replace a foot by "10 attoparsec"?
-
@kazitor said in The diameter of the known universe:
The observable universe is not 29 feet in diameter!
Well, from the Google Listening Device's point of view it might be.
-
-
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084073425371151/unknown.png
Ah...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084325033541642/unknown.png
-
@cvi said in The diameter of the known universe:
is using feet and inches in this context. Or meters FWIW.Using meters with scientific notation (instead of AUs or parsec or whatever) seems fine, but I've never seen feet used that way.
-
@topspin It's not even scientific notation, else it'd be "2.9 × 1027 feet." But of course feet and inches are incompatible with such metric ideas of "powers of ten"…
-
@topspin It’s (probably) Google doing automatic unit conversion for the Muricans. Here’s what I get if I try googling for “observable universe” from the Netherlands with a browser set to Dutch:
It takes the 8.8 to be metres and converts that to 29 feet 0 inches; my calculator makes it 28.87 and a bit feet, so I think they’re at least trying to get the significant digits right,
-
The original Wikipedia source says
{{val|8.8|e=26|u=m}}. The formatted version (in the UK locale) says8.8×1026 m. This fail is Google's own…
-
FTR, Alexa says that estimates put the diameter of the universe at 10B light years to 156B light years.
-
@boomzilla said in The diameter of the known universe:
FTR, Alexa says that estimates put the diameter of the universe at 10B light years to 156B light years.
10 billion light years is way too small for the observable universe
the universe is expanding and has been for more than 13 billion years
that means the radius should be above 13 billion light years
-
If you stand still (v = 0), you "move" at the speed of light in the time axis.
Indeed, you always move through space-time at the speed of light. That's what causes those weird relativistic effects, as you trade speed in one axis for speed the another.
-
Silly Google. Everybody knows that the universe is a spheroid region, 705 meters in diameter
-
@jnz Welcome back, lurker!
-
@remi said in The diameter of the known universe:
So, a foot is about 10^-26 gigaparsec?
Can we therefore replace a foot by "10 attoparsec"?Almost. It is 9.878 apc.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The diameter of the known universe:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084073425371151/unknown.png
Ah...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084325033541642/unknown.pngThe formatting is also totally brain-damaged in the first place. It is still part of the value, so putting it in parenthesis makes no sense whatsoever.
-
@Bulb said in The diameter of the known universe:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The diameter of the known universe:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084073425371151/unknown.png
Ah...
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/123174732320210946/565084325033541642/unknown.pngThe formatting is also totally brain-damaged in the first place. It is still part of the value, so putting it in parenthesis makes no sense whatsoever.
Do you expect Google engineers to be the ones reviewing feedback that this would make sense to them?
-
@Tsaukpaetra I don't expect anybody at Google to review feedback, ever, at all.
-
@Bulb said in The diameter of the known universe:
@Tsaukpaetra I don't expect anybody at Google to review feedback.
Then it doesn't really matter what I left for feedback, does it?
-
Contents: Ordinary (baryonic) matter (4.9%)
Duran Duran - Ordinary World [album version - HQ] – 05:42
— CHUPACHIEP
-
@Bulb said in The diameter of the known universe:
@remi said in The diameter of the known universe:
So, a foot is about 10^-26 gigaparsec?
Can we therefore replace a foot by "10 attoparsec"?Almost. It is 9.878 apc.
Even better, that's almost the value of g!
From now on I will use "g apc" instead of "ft". It doesn't make sense, but that's no worse than using feet in the first place!
-
@ben_lubar you asked known universe or observable universe? Maybe it never adventured itself farther than 29", and that is impressive for something without legs or wheels.
-
@remi
E_UNIT_ERROR(now g apc m-1 s2, that's fine)
-
@ben_lubar said in The diameter of the known universe:
@boomzilla said in The diameter of the known universe:
FTR, Alexa says that estimates put the diameter of the universe at 10B light years to 156B light years.
10 billion light years is way too small for the observable universe
the universe is expanding and has been for more than 13 billion years
that means the radius should be above 13 billion light years
Yes, I noticed that, too. It's still a lot closer than 29 feet. I have no idea where that estimate bound came from.
-
@boomzilla said in The diameter of the known universe:
It's still a lot closer than 29 feet.
Or they've got the Slowest. Light. Ever.
-
@kazitor said in The diameter of the known universe:
@remi
E_UNIT_ERRORWell yes, if you're using foot, that's a unit error.
Also, the actual unit error was what I implied by "it doesn't make sense".
-
@remi said in The diameter of the known universe:
@Bulb said in The diameter of the known universe:
@remi said in The diameter of the known universe:
So, a foot is about 10^-26 gigaparsec?
Can we therefore replace a foot by "10 attoparsec"?Almost. It is 9.878 apc.
Even better, that's almost the value of g!
From now on I will use "g apc" instead of "ft". It doesn't make sense, but that's no worse than using feet in the first place!
Except that the value of g in feet per second squared is a little more than 32.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic That doesn't make sense. Since a foot is equal to g (in apc), there is no way g itself can be expressed in feet per second. Whether your seconds are squares or circles doesn't change that.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic You can easily find the freezing point of water using the conversion factor of 1°Fs^2/ft
-
Doesn't surprise me in the least that the Assistant got that wrong. I still remember how that thing added a second
o'clockto any German times and then promptly plonked that second one into the subject of any appointment you wanted to create.It also wasn't terribly efficient at getting AM and PM right (i.e. you tell it "15:00h" and you get "03:00h")
