Age of universe is 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years, claims new study

​

Instead, he proposes a constant that considers the evolution of coupling constants. This adjustment in the cosmological model addresses the puzzle of small galaxy sizes in the early universe, leading to more accurate observations.

 

No surprise. Astrophysics has always been a discipline that necessarily lacks empirical validation, and so is largely stuck with hypotheses.

 

"Time" is not universal throughout Space.
The "Time" that we know is a very local "consideration".
.
.
.

 

Exactly. We have little or no understanding of how time plays out in the universe.

 

Actually I think we've making some progress. It's all a matter of perspective.

Time appears to run five times slower in the early universe

​

A phenomenon called cosmological time dilation means that events taking place in the early universe seem to evolve slower than those today

 

Age of universe is 26.7 — not 13.7 — billion years, claims new study
View attachment 298417​

Hi,

Oh hey that's interesting, cause i did a study too and found that the people that came up with both of those estimates were not 10 to 12 years old they were actually 5 to 6 years old
Well ok, but they do act like that sometimes.

It puzzles me how they come up with answers for places that are so far away we can barely even comprehend the distance. We only barely know what is going on in our own galaxy. They know from experience that you have to send probes out to measure things in order to know for sure what is going on, but we can't send probes out to places so very far away.
Egyptology is something like this too. Varied opinions on the age of the Sphinx for example.
If they can't be sure what happened 5 to 10 thousand years ago, how are they ever going to figure out what happened 14 to 28 billion years ago (or more) or why something happened then.

 

So time t1is a function of time t2. Does that mean that time t2 is itself a function of time t3? ...... and so ad infinitum?

 

how do you find out the age of the universe ?

 

how do you find out the age of the universe ?

Hi,

You look at the calendar, looking for the Universes birthday, then just keep looking back a year at a time for all the birthdays and count as you go.

I think they use the Hubble constant. My question is what if they still can't see something way out there then the estimate is moot. I think we are seeing that now due to the James Webb telescope which can see farther than before.

 

how do you find out the age of the universe ?

All the galaxies we can see are moving apart. The speed depends linearly on the distance between them. Plot their tracks backwards, in time, and about 14 billion years and they in they were all in the same place.

If you accept the premise (which is based on empirical data,) you only need high school geometry to calculate it.

We call the time when they were all together the big bang.

 

how do you find out the age of the universe ?

Tree rings.

 

All the galaxies we can see are moving apart. The speed depends linearly on the distance between them. Plot their tracks backwards, in time, and about 14 billion years and they in they were all in the same place.

If you accept the premise (which is based on empirical data,) you only need high school geometry to calculate it.

We call the time when they were all together the big bang.

Just wonder, when we say "all" the galaxies ,
how far distance can we see, more then the age of the universe would be impossible to see.
so we can see old galixies are moving away form the big bang, but are they at the moment !
also do we know where in the universe the big bang was, if its all expanding , there must be a point we can identify .

 

Just wonder, when we say "all" the galaxies ,
how far distance can we see, more then the age of the universe would be impossible to see.
so we can see old galixies are moving away form the big bang, but are they at the moment !
also do we know where in the universe the big bang was, if its all expanding , there must be a point we can identify .

Yes there's a point we can identify ... it's called "everywhere". Remember that the Universe was initially a point, which has no dimensions, And also that the Universe is not a three dimensional sphere with a two dimensional boundary.

 

Yes there's a point we can identify ... it's called "everywhere". Remember that the Universe was initially a point, which has no dimensions, And also that the Universe is not a three dimensional sphere with a two dimensional boundary.

if universe was every where, how can it be expanding every where, expanding from where ?

 

if universe was every where, how can it be expanding every where, expanding from where ?

Space is being created as it expands

 

Space is being created as it expands

Ok, trouble getting head around this
if the universe is now older than we thought, and as far as I have read, we can see back to "within a few million years " / almost the big bang time,
is the universe now bigger than we thought ?
the I read here, that astrominers can see back 46.5 billion light years,
so they can see past the beginning of the universe if its "only" 27 billion light years wide !
confused,

 

There is no center from which it is expanding. Wherever you are looks like the center. This is a mathematical consequence of what an explosion from a single point looks like. I know it is counter-intuitive, but I studied it and was convinced it is true. Not capable of explaining it in a forum post, though. Look it it up if you want yo know, you will find a far better explanation than I could give.

 

Look it it up if you want yo know, you will find a far better explanation than I could give.

Or could I ... for that matter

 

Ok, trouble getting head around this
if the universe is now older than we thought, and as far as I have read, we can see back to "within a few million years " / almost the big bang time,
is the universe now bigger than we thought ?
the I read here, that astrominers can see back 46.5 billion light years,
so they can see past the beginning of the universe if its "only" 27 billion light years wide !
confused,

If you read contradictory information, both cannot be true. In this case, I believe neither is true. The farthest objects we observe are moving at nearly the speed of light.

Then there is the complication that we believe the expansion is accelerating. But then again, another recent result indicates that nay be incorrect.

You could read for years on this and never come to a solid conclusion.

 

thank you , I feel better that Im not the only one that struggles with this ,