Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 09:50:46
-
I think that if a person was at any reference point in the Universe a human would have a spherical view, this sphere of sight has a radius limit, what is the radius of sight ratio to magnitude of light?
-
I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking how far away a star can be and still be visually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye?
-
I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking how far away a star can be and still be visually bright enough to be seen with the naked eye?
Yes and no, Imagine you are the star, how far can you see by your own light magnitude?
Then the second part, at what distance does vanishing points play a role?
added - I drew my question for you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
And in quantum weirdness, if you was the sun and there was nothing reflecting light or emitting light, you would observe darkness even though you were emitting light.
-
"Vanishing point" is an invention of artists, architects and cartographers. It is also a classic road trip film - to my mind the best ever. It has no meaning in physics.
The human eye can probably detect a single photon, though in practice we could not distinguish it from the background "noise" in our brains, so in principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.
As for your second point, it's nothing to do with quantum weirdness. On a really clear, dry night you can shine a laser into the sky and not see the beam if it's pointing away from you.
-
"Vanishing point" is an invention of artists, architects and cartographers. It is also a classic road trip film - to my mind the best ever. It has no meaning in physics.
A vanishing point has no meaning in physics? I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.
An object moving away from an observer relative decreases in size , does know one think of this?
''As for your second point, it's nothing to do with quantum weirdness. On a really clear, dry night you can shine a laser into the sky and not see the beam if it's pointing away from you. ''
Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?
If you was on the Sun looking away from the sun, and there was no other matter or stars, I assure you that you will observe only darkness. Your Universe would be has high as you could jump.
-
A vanishing point has no meaning in physics? I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.
Vanishing point and perspective have no connection to relativity. Is this a New Theory?
-
Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?
In order to replace your hypothetical absurdity with a practical experiment that is simple enough for a moron to comprehend. I'm sorry you didn't.
-
Why are you changing the natural scenario to observer effect and using a laser?
In order to replace your hypothetical absurdity with a practical experiment that is simple enough for a moron to comprehend. I'm sorry you didn't.
A practical experiment that only a moron would presume is anything like the nature of light. A laser is a linearity where as light from a body is isotropic. You would not see a laser beam unless there was a dense medium.
-
A vanishing point has no meaning in physics? I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.
Vanishing point and perspective have no connection to relativity. Is this a New Theory?
Is this a new theory? No Colin it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.
-
..... it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.
Then it is a new theory, or more likely 'that can't be true', so don't discuss it here
-
..... it is discussing a definition apparently not used in science although it is very relative.
Then it is a new theory, or more likely 'that can't be true', so don't discuss it here
Huh? how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?
You obviously call vanishing points and perspective view something different.
-
Huh? how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?
It is if you try to relate it to relativity, which you were doing.
-
Huh? how is talking about perspective view, vanishing points, and objects relatively look smaller at a distance a new theory?
It is if you try to relate it to relativity, which you were doing.
I am not trying to relate it to relativity, it is an axiom that it is related to relativity, things at a distance relative to the observer look smaller than they actually are.
Things that move away relatively to the observer decrease in visual size.
I am not relating it, it is already related, I miss your point.
-
... it is an axiom that it is related to relativity,
It is not an axiom, and yes you miss my point.
This is not the thread to discuss your theory of relativity and vanishing points.
-
What radius to a human observer does light fail to give an observation?
What is the point of me asking a question if you are not willing to discuss the question?
What radius to a human observer does light fail to give an observation is the question, now if light has failed to give an observation, the objects has vanished relative to the observation, so at that very point, ''the vanishing point'', is very related to the question and not a theory.
-
The question was answered in reply #3. What is the point of asking a question if you intend to disagree with the answer?
-
The question was answered in reply #3. What is the point of asking a question if you intend to disagree with the answer?
The question I asked was not answered, I will rephrase,
What is the radius from a light source where matter fails to reflect enough light to observe the object?
-
The answer remains the same:
In principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.
From the observer's point of view there is no difference between a primary source and a reflector.
-
The answer remains the same:
In principle there is no limit to the distance at which you could detect a single source in an otherwise empty universe, provided you can wait long enough.
From the observer's point of view there is no difference between a primary source and a reflector.
HUh ? I thought light diminishes at a distance in compliance with the inverse square law?
If the light diminishes then surely any matter receiving the diminished light reflects a lesser magnitude?
If the boundary is limitless, why do I need a more powerful flash-light to see further?
-
HUh ? I thought light diminishes at a distance in compliance with the inverse square law?
Exactly. And 1/r2 > 0 for all values of r, so there will always be a photon if you wait long enough.
The devil is in that last detail - if you wait long enough. As I pointed out way back in this discussion, yopu won't be able to distinguish a single photon from noise in the real world, so you need a bigger flashlight to see objects further away in the presence of air, dust, starlight, and the thermal noise in your brain, but you could use an integrating image amplifier (your mobile phone camera set to "night" mode) or a photomultiplier attached to a telescope instead.
-
I am not trying to relate it to relativity, it is an axiom that it is related to relativity, things at a distance relative to the observer look smaller than they actually are.
Things that move away relatively to the observer decrease in visual size.
I am not relating it, it is already related, I miss your point.
The point is that when you say relativity on a science forum it is understood that you are referring to Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity unless you explicitly state otherwise. Ignoring this basic point is at best foolish and at worst deliberately obtuse, hence rude.
-
I am not trying to relate it to relativity, it is an axiom that it is related to relativity, things at a distance relative to the observer look smaller than they actually are.
Things that move away relatively to the observer decrease in visual size.
I am not relating it, it is already related, I miss your point.
The point is that when you say relativity on a science forum it is understood that you are referring to Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity unless you explicitly state otherwise. Ignoring this basic point is at best foolish and at worst deliberately obtuse, hence rude.
Did I even say relativity? I said relatively
''relatively
ˈrɛlətɪvli/Submit
adverb
in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else.
"they were very poor, but, relatively speaking, they had been lucky"
regarded in comparison with something else rather than absolutely; quite.''
added- yes I did say relativity but I mean the relativity of something.
-
HUh ? I thought light diminishes at a distance in compliance with the inverse square law?
Exactly. And 1/r2 > 0 for all values of r, so there will always be a photon if you wait long enough.
The devil is in that last detail - if you wait long enough. As I pointed out way back in this discussion, yopu won't be able to distinguish a single photon from noise in the real world, so you need a bigger flashlight to see objects further away in the presence of air, dust, starlight, and the thermal noise in your brain, but you could use an integrating image amplifier (your mobile phone camera set to "night" mode) or a photomultiplier attached to a telescope instead.
You always elude the actually question and reply with seemingly irrelevant answers to the actual question.
-
Are you talking about light cones?
-
Are you talking about light cones?
I am asking about light ''spheres'' that diminish at a distance from an ''inside'' observers perspective.
Putting the question a different way.
Hello science , I go night fishing, which means I go fishing in the dark, I use a head lamp, however my vision is limited to the wattage of the bulb, I can only observe so far then all things fade out , I can not see the other side of the lake, I can not see my friend who is on the next fishing spot along the bank side, he assures me though he can see me and my head lamp, I can see my rods reflecting light, why can't I see my friend reflecting light, why does this happen?
-
A vanishing point has no meaning in physics? I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.
As Orphiolite pointed out relativity has a very specific meaning in physics, misuse it and you will be misunderstood.
You always elude the actually question and reply with seemingly irrelevant answers to the actual question.
Alan is not eluding anything, his reply is very relevant to the question.
-
A vanishing point has no meaning in physics? I find that very strange when it is a fundamental aspect of relativity.
As Orphiolite pointed out relativity has a very specific meaning in physics, misuse it and you will be misunderstood.
You always elude the actually question and reply with seemingly irrelevant answers to the actual question.
Alan is not eluding anything, his reply is very relevant to the question.
Then I do not understand Alan's post or answers relevance.
Can you please answer the fishing question Colin?
-
humans see by the light reflected from the objects around them. The fishing light casts a light and objects close by reflect light back and they can be seen. Objects further away are dimmer as the reflected light spreads and so fades until the far away objects are not discernable. the radius of the "light sphere would depend on the circumstance.
-
I can not see my friend who is on the next fishing spot along the bank side, he assures me though he can see me and my head lamp
This is because the light from your headlamp obeys the "inverse square law". The light is dimmer by the time it reaches your friend on the other side of the lake, but it is still bright enough for him to perceive it.
However, for you to see your friend by the light of your headlamp, the light undergoes an inverse square law to reach your friend. Then any light reflected from your friend undergoes another inverse square law before it reaches you. This is an "inverse fourth law", and it means that you can't see your friend by the light of your headlamp, even though he can see your headlamp.
- It is not helped by the fact that you are partly dazzled by the bright light reflecting off nearby objects, so your eyes can't see dim things (like your friend)
This applies in a number of areas:
- Weather radar, Police radar or laser speed checks follow this inverse fourth law
- This problem is overcome for commercial aircraft by having an electronic transponder on the aircraft. When it is interrogated by a radar pulse (inverse square law), the transponder responds with a message describing its location and heading (subject to an inverse square law). This gives the radar much greater range than a radar with the same transmit power, relying on passive reflection (inverse fourth law).
-
I can not see my friend who is on the next fishing spot along the bank side, he assures me though he can see me and my head lamp
This is because the light from your headlamp obeys the "inverse square law". The light is dimmer by the time it reaches your friend on the other side of the lake, but it is still bright enough for him to perceive it.
However, for you to see your friend by the light of your headlamp, the light undergoes an inverse square law to reach your friend. Then any light reflected from your friend undergoes another inverse square law before it reaches you. This is an "inverse fourth law", and it means that you can't see your friend by the light of your headlamp, even though he can see your headlamp.
- It is not helped by the fact that you are partly dazzled by the bright light reflecting off nearby objects, so your eyes can't see dim things (like your friend)
This applies in a number of areas:
- Weather radar, Police radar or laser speed checks follow this inverse fourth law
- This problem is overcome for commercial aircraft by having an electronic transponder on the aircraft. When it is interrogated by a radar pulse (inverse square law), the transponder responds with a message describing its location and heading (subject to an inverse square law). This gives the radar much greater range than a radar with the same transmit power, relying on passive reflection (inverse fourth law).
Thank you Evan for confirming my understanding, Do we know a radius limit of observation compared to the wattage of the light?
-
humans see by the light reflected from the objects around them. The fishing light casts a light and objects close by reflect light back and they can be seen. Objects further away are dimmer as the reflected light spreads and so fades until the far away objects are not discernable. the radius of the "light sphere would depend on the circumstance.
Thank you Arnie, so are you saying that any objects beyond a certain distance, could be there but not observed dependent to the light?
-
No, he is just restating reply #3.
-
No, he is just restating reply #3.
Alan please think about what I am asking with some genuine interest and thought and not just reply based on your knowledge. I know you are not stupid and have a good mind, I would really appreciate your own input without the knowledge you recall.
Let us discuss an analogy,
Let us take A and B divided by a length of space.
We can imagine a train track and both observers are standing on the same track a length apart.
r=X
A...................................................................B
It is daylight , (A) can see (B) and (B) can see (A)
(B) moves away from (A) while (A) remains in a fixed position,
A..................................................................→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→B
Can you or anybody please describe in your own words what (A) observes of (B) as (B) moves way?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
This is NOT a new theory , it is a discussion between us, if we make a new theory by the end between us, that is another story.
-
Can you or anybody please describe in your own words what (A) observes of (B) as (B) moves way?
In daylight:
- Let us say that the distance to B has doubled.
- That means that the apparent "area" of B (as seen by A) has dropped by a factor of 4.
- The angular resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye#Basic_accuracies) of the human eye is about 1 arcminute, ie it is impossible to recognize B as human beyond about 1 km (although you might be able to recognize him by the way he walks).
If the only illumination is at A, then the illumination of B will drop by a factor of 4 (as seen by B).
- If A is trying to see B, he will see the brightness of B will drop by a factor of 16.
-
Can you or anybody please describe in your own words what (A) observes of (B) as (B) moves way?
In daylight:
- Let us say that the distance to B has doubled.
- That means that the apparent "area" of B (as seen by A) has dropped by a factor of 4.
- The angular resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_eye#Basic_accuracies) of the human eye is about 1 arcminute, ie it is impossible to recognize B as human beyond about 1 km (although you might be able to recognize him by the way he walks).
If the only illumination is at A, then the illumination of B will drop by a factor of 4 (as seen by B).
- If A is trying to see B, he will see the brightness of B will drop by a factor of 16.
Thank you Evan I would shake your hand if I was there your brilliant.
Yes indeed the area of (B) contacts relative to (A)'s perspective but also the area of (A) contracts relative to (B)'s perspective. Relatively both (A) and (B) contract to the factor of 4.
So at what radius apart would the factor decrease cause more than it is impossible to recognize B as human, it would be impossible to even see (B) was even there?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
So at what radius apart would the factor decrease cause more than it is impossible to recognize B as human, it would be impossible to even see (B) was even there?
You can work it out from info Evan gave "The angular resolution of the human eye is about 1 arcminute". Make it easy by assuming the human is 2m tall - not quite accurate because the theory assumes a disc/point source. Remember resolution assumes adequate contrast and illumination eg human dressed in white against a black background or black against white, reduced contract will reduce the resolving power.
As you can see from all of this, there is no set sphere or radius of observation, it depends on size, reflection (albedo) and illumination of the objects you are viewing and as Alan has pointed out it is different for a light source.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perspective-book.com%2Fimages%2Fdraw-tutorial-one-point-perspective.png&hash=7ff403a5a1868a952dfdd24ca3f0ea1d)
The relationship between distance and apparent height of objects is an inverse-linear function:
h=a\d where h is the apparent height, d is the distance of the object, and a is the actual size of the object. if we solve this for d we get d=a/h
Say we can detect one photon per cm of height (or width). The source light emits X photons/cm of height (or width). As the light moves away the brightness gets less and less; d=X.
A one light year distance, is 9.461 x10 17 cm.
The source will need this same light density of photons/cm height to be seen from earth.
-
I think the limiting factor would be the speed of light. I can see the light from the stars that outline the big dipper and they are many light years away. They are within the light cone from my vantage point. Any light signals outside my light cone would appear dark. The farther away the light source the wider the field of vision.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perspective-book.com%2Fimages%2Fdraw-tutorial-one-point-perspective.png&hash=7ff403a5a1868a952dfdd24ca3f0ea1d)
The relationship between distance and apparent height of objects is an inverse-linear function:
h=a\d where h is the apparent height, d is the distance of the object, and a is the actual size of the object. if we solve this for d we get d=a/h
Say we can detect one photon per cm of height (or width). The source light emits X photons/cm of height (or width). As the light moves away the brightness gets less and less; d=X.
A one light year distance, is 9.461 x10 17 cm.
The source will need this same light density of photons/cm height to be seen from earth.
Thank you Puppy, I think sometimes when we get to discussing the technical aspect and fine details I get lost as the knowledge I don't always know.
Your diagram only looks at one perspective view, the view is mirrored relatively, what I mean by this is that (A) and (B) both experience the contraction perspective of each other to a point where neither exist to each other because the light is ''narrowed'' to a ''vanishing'' point.
Do you account for this?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I think the limiting factor would be the speed of light. I can see the light from the stars that outline the big dipper and they are many light years away. They are within the light cone from my vantage point. Any light signals outside my light cone would appear dark. The farther away the light source the wider the field of vision.
The farther away the source the narrower the field of vision?
-
I would if the event was in the past. Now that you mention it the light from stars is often very old and so is in the past so maybe that is the correct view, that the field of vision narrows for light signals received. The fact that we have no access to the past except through records may make that a moot point. The only light signals that can be experienced are in the now. It is possible that each observation needs to be accompanied by a Lorentz frame.
-
I would if the event was in the past. Now that you mention it the light from stars is often very old and so is in the past so maybe that is the correct view, that the field of vision narrows for light signals received. The fact that we have no access to the past except through records may make that a moot point. The only light signals that can be experienced are in the now. It is possible that each observation needs to be accompanied by a Lorentz frame.
Well, I can't go into simultaneity or the thread will be removed to new theories, So I can only really discuss the actual question although simultaneity is relative the question in my opinion.
-
Can you or anybody please describe in your own words what (A) observes of (B) as (B) moves way?
B subtends a smaller angle at A as he moves away. At some distance the angle will be less than the angular resolution of A's equipment so A will not be able to determine the size or shape of B (by direct observation, but there are indirect methods of estimating the mass of B at any distance) but if he is emitting or reflecting light he will always appear at least as a point source of photons.
-
Can you or anybody please describe in your own words what (A) observes of (B) as (B) moves way?
B subtends a smaller angle at A as he moves away. At some distance the angle will be less than the angular resolution of A's equipment so A will not be able to determine the size or shape of B (by direct observation, but there are indirect methods of estimating the mass of B at any distance) but if he is emitting or reflecting light he will always appear at least as a point source of photons.
You say he will always appear as a point source of photons, what do you mean by will always and point source ?
-
My words have their usual meanings to those familiar with English, which has succeeded Latin as the principal means of communication between scientists and businessmen on Earth. What planet are you from? And do the words "at least" not figure in your mathematics?
-
My words have their usual meanings to those familiar with English, which has succeeded Latin as the principal means of communication between scientists and businessmen on Earth. What planet are you from? And do the words "at least" not figure in your mathematics?
Will always means like indefinitely, infinite, forever, several thing.
Point source means bugger all.
-
Point source means bugger all.
It means precisely what it says.
Imagine you blackout a room by covering the windows with lightproof black paper, now take a pin and make the smallest hole you can in the paper. Point source. You can in theory make it as small as you like eg one atom.
What's so difficult about that.
-
Point source means bugger all.
It means precisely what it says.
Imagine you blackout a room by covering the windows with lightproof black paper, now take a pin and make the smallest hole you can in the paper. Point source. You can in theory make it as small as you like eg one atom.
What's so difficult about that.
It is not difficult now you have clarified what Alan meant by point source. It is what I thought he meant, but I wanted to clarify for my understanding we mean the same thing. What is wrong in wanting to be sure?
Now take your paper and point source and move it away from you, you will observe no pin hole after a short distance, what is hard to understand about that?
Move the paper even further away, and you will observe no paper, what is hard to understand about that?
-
Not that difficult to understand, but you are still missing Alan's point [;)]
-
Not that difficult to understand, but you are still missing Alan's point [;)]
Alan made the point of always, I miss no points , it is only distance when we miss points. :)
Can I try some maths on you ?
d=0→σ 4/3 pi ∞0³
which says distance is equal to, zero to a zero infinite sphere
L=r=0→σ0
which says a length or radius is equal to 0 to a variation of 0.
-
You say he will always appear as a point source of photons, what do you mean by will always and point source ?
Like your headlamp on a dark night, your fishing friend can still see the light source (perhaps 2-20mm across) even though he cannot see you.
1. This assumes that the light source is bright enough to be above the random nerve activity in your eyeballs. I have heard that this requires at least 2 photons to strike the same rod cell in your retina within a fairly short time interval.
2. It also requires that the light source be much brighter than the surroundings (ie very dark night, and a very bright light).
But given these conditions, your dim friend can still see your lamp, even though its apparent size might be far less than the resolving power of the human eye. It has become a "point source".
Stars are also "point sources", but we can still see them; the reason they appear to twinkle is that specks of dust in the upper atmosphere get between the star and your eyeball (plus heat haze in the atmosphere diffracts it a bit).
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Let me explain this diagram
Observer A and Observer B are at a central point together, Observer B travels away from observer A who is relatively stationary. Both observers can tell neither who is moving while at a constant speed , both observers always remain a linearity no matter what the velocity. Both observers equally contract following the lorentz transformations and relative to each observation to a length of relative a zero point.
Showing that not only does light fail to give an observation at distance, but also Lorentz contraction causes the object to fail to give an observation at distance.
-
You say he will always appear as a point source of photons, what do you mean by will always and point source ?
Like your headlamp on a dark night, your fishing friend can still see the light source (perhaps 2-20mm across) even though he cannot see you.
1. This assumes that the light source is bright enough to be above the random nerve activity in your eyeballs. I have heard that this requires at least 2 photons to strike the same rod cell in your retina within a fairly short time interval.
2. It also requires that the light source be much brighter than the surroundings (ie very dark night, and a very bright light).
But given these conditions, your dim friend can still see your lamp, even though its apparent size might be far less than the resolving power of the human eye. It has become a "point source".
Stars are also "point sources", but we can still see them; the reason they appear to twinkle is that specks of dust in the upper atmosphere get between the star and your eyeball (plus heat haze in the atmosphere diffracts it a bit).
Yes stars are point sources, what happens to the star point source when they continue down the railway track? 0 diameter I believe?
Which brings me to light limit and red shift, how do we know redshift is not the light limit and stretching of the limit, i.e the furthest away thing we can observe is at a position of its maximum stretch, so hence the light is weaker so we observe redshift, a bit like observing a rainbow effect in space?
For all those who may not understand what we are discussing is this -
We are considering either objects perceived observation of each other and the perceived contraction of each other as in Lorentz transformations relative to the inverse square law of light and spherical radius of the affect on observation.
-
Will always means like indefinitely, infinite, forever, several thing.
correct.
Point source means bugger all.
or, more politely, of negligible or infinitesimal dimension - again, correct.
You see, we do speak the same language, but you just refuse to admit it!
-
Will always means like indefinitely, infinite, forever, several thing.
correct.
Point source means bugger all.
or, more politely, of negligible or infinitesimal dimension - again, correct.
You see, we do speak the same language, but you just refuse to admit it!
Well sometimes my thoughts are before I know anything about the knowledge or what the knowledge is called, I have only just discovered Lorentz contraction and a full read me of relativity and special relativity, I had not read it before. My ideas are from my own thinking and thinking about things but yes I agree we are starting to speak the same language the more I learn from discussion.
I think we should define it for discussion purpose, as a ''zero point source'' to represent that not even a point of visual existence, exists, identifying relative ''empty''distance, then define point sources as objects to define spacial lengths between point sources. Also I feel to express that all objects are in motion relative to each other but are also moving relative to the stationary observed space?
Also to consider in the discussion the ''expansion'', is it the length between point sources that is changing rather than the distance of zero point sources?
It is a part of the question, discussing radius and the affect observed .
-
how do we know redshift is not the light limit and stretching of the limit, i.e the furthest away thing we can observe is at a position of its maximum stretch?
I think that you might be describing the concept of the observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)?
There is a certain distance where, even if there is matter beyond it, we would not be able to observe it, due to the expansion of the
universe. Any light would have been red-shifted away to oblivion.
It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1026 metres or 5.5×1023 miles)
-
how do we know redshift is not the light limit and stretching of the limit, i.e the furthest away thing we can observe is at a position of its maximum stretch?
I think that you might be describing the concept of the observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)?
There is a certain distance where, even if there is matter beyond it, we would not be able to observe it, due to the expansion of the
universe. Any light would have been red-shifted away to oblivion.
It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1026 metres or 5.5×1023 miles)
Thank you, yes I refer to the observable Universe , the observable Universe not being the size of space itself, but ''93 billion light-years'' being a length of space between two observers that takes ''time'' to travel at c.
If you travelled 93 billion ly, you can be assured there after is another 93 bly