It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


How Old Is The Universe And Why

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:47 AM
How old do YOU think the universe is, and why.

Is it 15 billion years old?
6000 years old?
Somewhere in between? And why?

What is the reason for your acceptance of a given date.

Also if citing channelling or other obtruse sources as authority please cite them accurately and by name. Not "the grays told me"... Let's hear names, places, dates.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:54 AM
I don't think time has anything to do with it. The universe is beyond time and beyond age.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:56 AM
According to the WMAP probe and other observations based on cosmic background radiation, around 13.7 billion years.

But this is assuming there was even a big bang... 13.7 billion years seems a little young to me...

There's also the possibility of a multiverse, so really, there's no definite way to tell.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:57 AM
The kind of question that needs to be answered, which that's, "What's outside of the universe?" Now that's a good one...

[edit on 14-1-2008 by TheoOne]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 02:32 AM
I couldn't even begin to guess how old the universe is, but I hope the dating is more consistent and more reliable than some dating on Earth. Some of the assumption made to date certain strata and organic remains is not very convincing. Not to say I think the Earth was made 6000 years ago either... I am happy to be educated and convinced on the real date.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:02 AM
reply to post by DogHead

The 13.7 billion-year figure comes from cosmology and astrophysics. It's a good guess based on what we know and the theories we have come up with, but it is not yet a definitive answer to the question 'how old is the Universe?'

What we do know for certain is that Earth is much older than 6000 years. Evidence from astronomy, geology, paleontology, palynology, archaeology and any number of other 'ologies' make this very clear indeed.

The current best estimates for the age of Earth (rather more accurate than estimates for the age of the Universe) is about 4.5-5 billion years. It's an old planet.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:23 AM
What is an example of how science can estimate the age of the Earth? Other than the always-referenced carbon dating for example... What's a less well known scientific way to get a date on the order of millions and billions (as Carl Sagan would say in Cosmos

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:37 AM
I'm gonna go with 13.7 billion years. But that is based on our current understanding on everything, which will change over time, and we'll see how old the universe is at that level of understanding. We'll probally never know for sure.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by DogHead

I'm going with 13.7 billion years for now, but maybe in a couple years we'll learn it's much older (or younger) but until then, I think the universe is roughly 14 billion years old.

But there could always be other parallel universes that are much much older than ours and parallel universes much much younger than ours too.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by DogHead

They don't use radiocarbon dating for that. What is used is the uranium-lead dating method.

Uranium-lead is one of the oldest and most refined radiometric dating schemes, with a routine age range of about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years, and with routine precisions in the 0.1- 1 percent range. The method relies on the coupled chronometer provided by the decay of 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years. This decay occurs through a series of alpha decays, of which 238 U undergoes seven total alpha decays whereas 235U only experiences six alpha decays. [2]

Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other minerals such as monazite, titanite, and baddeleyite. Zircon incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystalline structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore we can assume that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic.

You can visualize it as an hourglass. The uranium is the sand on top, the lead is the sand below. Calculate the ratio and you get the age.

As for the age of the universe, my thoughts mirror what Astyanax said. It's the current best guess. No way to be absolutely certain.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Beachcoma]


posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:50 PM
I think that the universe is in a constant state of death and rebirth. I don't think the universe is 14-15 billion years old, I think it is MUCH older than that. As for the age of the earth, I have no reason to think 4.5 billion is wrong, we have reliable tests that can determine it's age.

If you think about it, all elements are the result of nuclear reactions. When stars explode, they spread material out and it takes time for it to come together to form planets.

It has to take a long time for hydrogen atoms to collect in a large enough mass to start a nuclear reaction. Then, a sun will burn for billions of years before it dies.

In my opinion, even black holes will eventually explode spreading material all over the universe to start the cycle again.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:13 AM
Far older than 13.7 or 15 billion years.

See The Horse's Head, the Kalapurusha and Duration of a World Age

311.04 trillion Earth years. Of course that is the entire duration, we could still be into the early part of that. I have no idea where, but its in the bright half.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:59 AM
Whether it is correct or not that is an AWESOME number. I think it's cool people at some point have even embraced such thinking, whether accurate or not. How impressive is it that such inspiration even exists!

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:15 AM
Having just re-watched the first episode of Universe, I reckon 15 billion years, give or take a bill sounds about right...

That is based on our measurements of how far away the most distant observable objects are, hence the =/- a billion yrs...


posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:27 AM
The age of the universe is indefinite. A a variable in an equation it would be factored in a + or - 14 billion, thus negating it's use and rendering it's age indefinite.
Time, space and matter are constantly being exchanged by an infinite number of multiple universes, making it impossible to gauge the age of any one universe.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:04 AM
The universe is Infinite aged.

Here is why i know this with absolutely certainty. lol

Ok, lets say the big bang happened 14 billion years ago. Thats fine, because before the big bang there was a singularity of the matter existing in space for who knows how long beforehand. Perhaps countless crunch/bangs occurred, but it doesnt matter.

So 1) even if big bang theory is true - the was singularity in existance before the bang for eternity (otherwise it wouldnt be here right now! lol)
perhaps crunchs/bangs occured during this infinite time scale (eternity)

2) lets say the religious theory is true, well God existed before he created the matter in the universe for an eternity. Where does God exist at? in the universe. Even if god was "above the universe" or "in a different realm than our universe" - Gods special position is included in the "universe" simply because the word "universe " signifys All that is (including God)

SO in summery :::

Despite which theory is true 1)scientific or 2) religous
the universe HAD to have existed for infinite time (eternity) due to the simple fact it wouldnt be here now if it hadnt been in existance before hand.

This is all circular logic hence the denotation of "infinity" and "eternity" which operate similar to a circle. it never ends.

anyhow i know i rambled a bit here, but i hope you get the point of my post. No matter which theory you have to explain the "origin of Matter's existance in the universe" - the universe itself is eternally existant no matter which angle you are coming from.

Thanks for listening , i enjoyed sharing this simple logical fact with everyone.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by MBF

In my opinion, even black holes will eventually explode spreading material all over the universe to start the cycle again.

Heres why your absolutely correct.

The "Big Bang" occured when ALL MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE was combined into 1 single point of singularity.

This is a ultra super massive black hole. Because the pure weight of EVERYTHING in the universe in 1 infinitely small spot would create the greatest gravitational force ever.

Now- How did the biggest black hole ever explode into the universe as we now know it? Thats a good question - but if the BB theory is true at all, there has to be SOME mechanism to establish that sudden decision for the Biggest Black Hole of all time (big bang singularity) to decide to go agianst the gravitational crunch and explode back outwards agian.

keep in mind, big bang singularity includes every spec of dust , gas, star, planet asteroid black hole quasar etc all in one infinitely small point

So it indeed was the greatest gravitational force ever - yet somehow - it exploded back outwards releasing all this gravitational force in the oppisite direction with incredible force.

SO yes, theres been at least 1 black hole that exploded outwards - all the matter in the universe sized black hole.

therefore, i would suggest your theory that black holes can explode is at least partially correct, and is worthy of further investigation and philisophical pondering. simply due to the existance of the big bang /super ultra massive black hole at the beginging of our current universal cycle. (and any possible cycles before ours).

seriously just think about it in these terms for a bit.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:20 AM
i decided to add that , when i spoke with the esteemed Dr Kaku about 8 years ago , and i asked him these questions i had. He also shared such sentiments with me, and softly suggested that perhaps this is the "other side" of the infinitly huge black hole that the big bang originated from.

in a sense - everything crunched down into a point of singularity, and since theres no known mechanism that could account for such a immesurably huge gravitational force to suddenly negate itself in such a way - perhaps all the matter exploded out of the "Other side" of the event horizon of the black hole - thus spilling into this "other universe" and flying outwards at vast speeds into the endless expanses of space.

Really - this is one of my favorite subjects. And I will stand by my statements as even one of earth's Greatest Thinkers , Dr Kaku, did not argue agianst my instinct, yet instead he nudged me on by furthering the speculation and adding more ideas to it helping me further refine this concept.

Of course, its nearly impossible to tell what "really happened" , but we can use Logic to figure the basics out here. Its wonderful speculation, and a excellant exercise for the human mind.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:38 AM
An interesting question...but a ludicrous one at the same time.

It's a "human" condition really. We all cannot fathom things being without a beginning and an end to them.

For there to be an actual "birth" of the universe, and all it's infinite wonders, would it not have to be contained within something else?

Perhaps it just may be that the universe has always been? Always growing. Always shrinking. Always changing.

No beginning, no end. Always, in the truest meaning of the word.

It's something I've thought about often lately. It's been on my mind ever since hearing an NPR interview with UC Davis professor Tony Tyson. Dr. Tyson's new LSST project (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) will be the largest of it's kind and essentially "re-map" the universe. It will be able to see even "beyond the universe", if there is such a thing.

Now there is a question to ponder: when one sees beyond the universe, what may he find looking back at him?

Kinda gives some credibilty to the petry-dish theory. Like maybe our universe is really just existing in a single molecule of a larger lifeform or moon or planet or galaxy? Maybe a 1,000,000,000 years is only a heartbeat in the true scope of time?

Why not?

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:57 AM
Time is a man made construct to assert ourselves from the other dimensions. It is a mental tool to measure the rate of change and as a reference for memory. There is only one state of being, the ever changing present. The past are memories that cannot be experienced, only be remembered and the future is the mind's way of making sense of current patterns.

How old is the (a?) universe? started one moment ago

"Time is just an illusion." -Albert Einstein

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in