Comments on: Is the Universe as old as they say it is?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:44:42 +0000

The Big Bang Theory has always troubled me because, its very heart is based on a beginning, and of course a singularity with infinite density. I cannot stand the idea of infinite density or a beginning and therefore couldn’t fully believe the big bang theory. As you may or may not know, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This is reasonably contradictory to what the bang says about where we should be at this point (slowing down right before the “big crunch” starts to happen). I suggest, although could never prove, that the universe is infinitely old. You could see where I’m coming from by thinking about time. If this happened then this happened then this happened, you could assume based on all data received that there are infinite “this” happening before and after the “this” just like you could assume with repeating 6 and 3 in math problems. We have never seen or observed time stop or start, so why do we think it would. If there was a start like the big bang then what was the catalyst doing before it sparked it. The way they date the “known” universe is through many many observations and calculations about estimated distance to stars, health of the stars in relation to neighboring stars and factoring in the acceleration factor I briefly spoke of. These are perhaps the age numbers you saw on TV. One question I would like answered is do they count the new stars as that old as well? Or what about the dead stars? Are they still that old?
Basically all stars emit elements directly based on the mass of the star, ours emits helium. If you can account for every element from them except for hydrogen. If hydrogen is somehow the product of an inherent error in virtual particles much like registry errors on a computer builds up over time, then you don’t need to explain anything else about life. My equation is +1-1=0 see we are the positive one, or the negative one for that matter. The point is we are the equation, and the result is 0. It seems too easy but that is all this is, borrowed space with no value. Sorry to rant but its fun to think about.

By: oklatonola

oklatonola — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:48:53 +0000

As our technology improves, so does the limit of the sphere of our perception. The extent of our sphere of perception is limited, but expanding. The universe may very well be older than 13.7 billion years.

By: eelfins

eelfins — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:01:26 +0000

The age of the universe was actually attained by measuring the expansion rate of the universe. The Hubble telescope was used to identify cepheid variable stars in other galaxies, because their distance can be accuratly measured. Based on their red shifts, the exansion rate could be determined. Afterward it was relatively easy to extrapolate the age. The reason I would not be able to see something 20 billion light years away while you could (because you were closer to it), is that light would take 20 billion years to get from there to here. You would be able to see it from only 10 billiion light years away, but not me because it wasn’t around 20 billion years ago.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:09:51 +0000

there are some things hanging around from the big bang, the only surving materials from it floating through space, we use these as well as looking at how big the universe is know and how far it must of expanded to work out size