It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# 92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 7
42
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:41 PM

originally posted by: Phage

Wiki needs to be updated.
Why? I said, the hubble distance doesn't have much to do with the age of the universe. I should have added though, that it does indicate that the Universe must be at least that old.

Your wiki quote is accurate. Modern measurements do place the initial inflation at 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. Those measurements do not use the hubble distance.

Why update this?

Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"[citation needed]), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).
en.wikipedia.org...

But i allready came to an agreemant with Phage that the universe is NOT 13.7 billion lightyeras old.
Sorry, no agreement.

I'm mot surpised Phage, that we ones would agree about something
.

Come on Phage and admit, wiki clearly states : "13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."

Atleast 13.8 years is totally something different, don't you think ?

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:44 PM

Come on Phage and admit, wiki clearly states : "13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."
Yes, it does. But you asked me if the Hubble distance has something to do with the age of the Universe. It doesn't (except that the Universe must be at least that old).

Atleast 13.8 years is totally something different, don't you think ?
Different from what? 13.7 (which is what you first said)? Relatively speaking, not so much. Different, yes. Totally different, no.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:48 PM
Why don't we add to the wiki page...it's for sure 13.8 billion lightyears...but we can see no further....it can also be 1000 billion lightyears ?
edit on 25-12-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:54 PM

but we can see no further....it can also be 1000 billion lightyears ?
No. Light years is a measure of distance, not time. Could the Universe be 1000 billion light years across? Maybe, if it expanded really, really, really, really fast.

As I (and the wiki page) said. The age of the Universe has not been determined based upon the Hubble distance. The Hubble distance only tells us how far we can see, no more, no less. Other data is used to determine the age of the Universe.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:02 PM

originally posted by: Phage

but we can see no further....it can also be 1000 billion lightyears ?
No. Light years is a measure of distance, not time. Could the Universe be 1000 billion light years across? Maybe, if it expanded really, really, really, really fast.

As I (and the wiki page) said. The age of the Universe has not been determined based upon the Hubble distance. The Hubble distance only tells us how far we can see, no more, no less. Other data is used to determine the age of the Universe.

Like i said Phage, we don't have the slghtest idea how old the universe is. But we think it's atleast 13.8 billion years old.

And i know the difference between time and distance Phage...you don't have to tell me that.
edit on 25-12-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:04 PM

Like i said Phage, we don't have the slghtest idea how old the universe is.

I disagree. I think that the data used to calculate the age of the Universe is substantial and valid.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:18 PM

if we could reach the physical edge.. the spaceship would not be bumping into a brick wall. it could bump into a radiation field that too much to penetrate. we might sent probes and adventurers and none will come back and we'd get no data from it. essentially. all our scouting efforts will fail and every party will die who ventures into the field.

Thats what they used to say about the ocean. Sail too far and you'll fall off the world.

Stuck in the middle ages. Any barrier in your mind must consider what is outside that barrier.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:23 PM
If you can see from every place in the universe with a racial of 13.8 billion lightyears then that goes also from near the end of the universe (from our standpoint).

So there is no way we know the age of the universe.
edit on 25-12-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:25 PM

True. If that distance (the Hubble distance) was what was used to determine the age of the Universe.
It isn't.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:30 PM

originally posted by: Phage

True. If that distance (the Hubble distance) was what was used to determine the age of the Universe.
It isn't.

Thanks we finally agreed (about something)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:30 PM

They don't actually know anything at all. They like to play like they do, but they don't.

That's what's wrong with 'scientists'.... even if they're wrong...they're right. # those guys.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:34 PM

Thanks we finally agreed (about something)

Are you sure?
You seem to think that the Hubble distance is a factor used in determining the age of the Universe. It isn't.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:35 PM
I have a theory that suggests the speed of light is proportional to the density of time space it's currently traveling through. Thus at the point of conception since the universe was so dense, light was able to compound its travel through time space allowing FLT until such a time came where an equilibrium was met and the expansion of
The universe became constant. Condensing space is the key to faster than light travel.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:36 PM
Upon what data do you base your theory?

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:42 PM

originally posted by: Phage

Thanks we finally agreed (about something)

Are you sure?
You seem to think that the Hubble distance is a factor used in determining the age of the Universe. It isn't.

I was thinking you would be going that way...Please bring that other spacial age-counter up Phage. The other feeld i could think of is maybe radioactive decay ?

Let's go back back to the wiki quote "Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is THUS considered the age of the universe."

so the moment of the big bang is directly connected to the age of the universe.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:44 PM

The other feeld i could think of is maybe radioactive decay ?
So, I guess you really haven't made any effort then.

so the moment of the big bang is directly connected to the age of the universe.

Well, yes. Obviously. Just as the time of my birth is directly connected to my age.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with the Hubble distance, the limit at which we can see anything.
edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 06:47 PM

originally posted by: Phage

The other feeld i could think of is maybe radioactive decay ?
So, I guess you really haven't made any effort then.

so the moment of the big bang is directly connected to the age of the universe.

Well, yes. Obviously. Just as the time of my birth is directly connected to my age.

But it doesn't really have anything to do with the Hubble distance, the limit at which we can see anything.

Indeed.

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:16 PM
The circumference of a circle is ∏ X diameter :

so if the fartest distance we can see is 13.8 billion lightyears.

Then if something is stretching for at least half a sphere (what we can see ?) it has a maximum of 3.14 X 27.6 / 2 = 43.322 lightyears (in a direct line) ?

If it's all the way around it would be 86.644 lightyears across.
edit on 25-12-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:19 PM

originally posted by: higherconscience

They don't actually know anything at all. They like to play like they do, but they don't.

That's what's wrong with 'scientists'.... even if they're wrong...they're right. # those guys.

Replace "Scientists" with "Women"...... your statement still hold true!

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:21 PM

originally posted by: webstra
The circumference of a circle is ∏ X diameter :

so if the fartest distance we can see is 13.8 billion lightyears.

Then if something is stretching for at least half a sphere (what we can see ?) it has a maximum of 3.14 X 27.6 / 2 = 43.322 lightyears (in a direct line) ?

If it's all the way around it would be 86.644 lightyears across.

Interesting theory

space boggles minds at its size,

new topics

top topics

42