What the universe actually looks like

>astronomy
>>>/x/

>>8260512

Actually, it's cosmology, but I'll give you a pass since you never completed the 9th grade.

>>8260498
maybe this:
https://in-the-sky.org/ngc3d.php?

I also wholeheartedly recommend SpaceEngine. It is free and serves as a speculative map. Known systems are in there as accurate as possible. Other stuff is procedurally generated using known parameters. looks great and at least fun to play around with.

I dont quite get your question, tho. What has the expanding of the universe to do with event horizons?

>>8260512
what?

>>8260535
>No no it's not [buzzword], it's [yet another buzzword]!
kek

>>8260538
>I dont quite get your question, tho. What has the expanding of the universe to do with event horizons?
Suppose the furthest extent of the universe is the furthest distance traveled by light. Beyond this there is no possible interaction. This is known as the cosmic event horizon. Beyond this there are no particles, no forces, no energy, nothing that happens in that region can be observed because nothing happens, until the boundary passes and interactions become possible.


Alternatively, I am toying with the idea that the expansion boundary of the universe is actually composed of minute singularities created during the big bang.

>>8260567
Oh, alright. I know about the concept of the observable universe. But I didnt know, that the "edge" could be refered to as the cosmic event horizon. thanks

So, in that case, I think you cant get close to the event horizon, since the observer is always in the center of the observable universe. The "bubble" surrounding us, is merely an illusion

>>8260607

You can't because the particulate universe expands much slower than C, the further you travel the farther the boundary becomes. Now that I think of it in this way I realize my question was meaningless.

Man, the universe sure has some cool names.

"the end of greatness", how cool is that.

>>>/x/

>>8260498
Astronomy undergrad, studying cosmology postgrad.

First thing you have to remember is that depending on a galaxies distance in lightyears, we're seeing a galaxy as it was that long ago i.e. if a galaxy is 5 billions ly away, we're seeing it as it was 5 billion years ago.

Obviously this is determined by the speed of light and there's fuck all we can do about it, so it's literally impossible to make a map that would show the status of all galaxies at one single moment.

As for the star thing, again we're seeing those stars as they were that long ago. So yes, they could be dead. Same as if the Sun exploded we wouldn't know for 8 minutes, since we're 8 light minutes away from it.

Also, event horizons have to do with black holes. If you're talking about this >>8260567 then its more of a name, not a practical event horizon. It' more the observable universe, which is dependant on where you are in the universe. Wherever you are, it will always seem that you are at the centre of the universe due to the current expansion of the universe.

>>8260955
>it's literally impossible to make a map that would show the status of all galaxies at one single moment.

why? Is it because of the three body problem? You're saying we can't simulate the motion and chemical and atomic reactions to any degree of accuracy?

>Has anyone created a speculative map of the universe encompassing the estimated state of all known galaxies as they would be at this very moment?

You can plot comoving distances instead of redshift which is the distance the object would be measured at today if you could do it instantly. At the low redshifts in your plot (less than 2 billion years in age at the edge of it) of the SDSS main galaxy sample comoving distance is almost exactly linear with redshift so the plot wouldn't really change.

That accounts for expansion but not peculiar velocities which can't really be measured at great distance for normal galaxies. They are quite small however on large scales.

>But the average lifespan of a star is less than that.

It's not actually. The average star is smaller than the Sun and lasts for about 50 billion years. At these distances you're seeing galaxies not individual stars. The galaxies may look quite different now but they will still be there or will have merged but something will be there or close.

>that being close to the event horizon would cause time dilation such that the actual age of object on the periphery is less than we would estimate by light year distances?

You don't estimate ages from light year distances at cosmological distance. The light left these objects long ago when the universe was much smaller and so the distance it is now is not just the time since the light left. Time dilation is included in that calculation.

>>8260955
>First thing you have to remember is that depending on a galaxies distance in lightyears, we're seeing a galaxy as it was that long ago i.e. if a galaxy is 5 billions ly away, we're seeing it as it was 5 billion years ago.

Eh no, 5 Gly distant is z~0.4 which is 4.2 billion years lookback time.

>>8261473
>The light left these objects long ago when the universe was much smaller

Lol I can't believe I made such a simple error. Glad time dilation is still a factor though. I'm not completely retarded.

What's the equation for calculating real distances?