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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:40 PM
Im not sure how old our universe is, ill say thats its young and that weve seen nothing yet.


posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

Kinda like this?

New Theory: Universe Was Born in a Black Hole

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by Beachcoma

Though it's not clear to me why it matters how old the Universe is, I much prefer the 'brane theory'. That is, the 'big bang' occurred when two branes 'touched' each other at a point. Thus there is no need to have a 'where was the Universe "before" it existed'. The answer is that it existed only "potentially" as a point on a brane that would randomly touch another brane.

So, in a sense, the real question lies in 'what are the "branes", how did they exist, and what are they made of'.

Of course, we may not have the language or concepts to answer this because it is 'outside' of our paradigm.

Much the same a 2-D being can't know what 'up' is, we can only hazard a very vague notion about such things.

Another feature of brane theory, or brane cosmology is that it gives a possible explanation of Gravity and takes into account the strength of that field.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:37 PM
Edit: nevermind... I'm sleepy and am not thinking straight.. apples.. oranges... maybe apples and pears... or bananas to pigeons...

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Beachcoma]

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:46 PM

Originally posted by DogHead
How old do YOU think the universe is, and why.

I kind of agree that the Universe is approximately 14 billion years old, based on the data relating to cosmic background radiation and expansion rates. Although when you dig into the very first "seconds" of the Big Bang, time and space are so torn up in multiple dimensions that ordinary measurements of time would no longer apply, and so the question becomes moot.

However, I also like to toy with the idea that the Universe is as old as we can consciously perceive it, since it is our consciousness interacting with the Universe that makes it real instead of virtual to begin with. Therefore, while we currently perceive it to be around 14 billion years old, as we gather additional information and expand our theories about it, I expect it to get much older. In fact, the Universe has been "aging" at a fairly steady rate for the last century as we gather new data and come up with new theories.

And we probably shouldn't forget that while we're seeing the Universe expand forward into time, there's also a reasonable notion out there that it is expanding equally fast backwards in time, so whatever figure we might come up with can essentially be doubled.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:03 PM
How can we even guess when we don't even know what time is?

Time and space are the same thing, matter affects space-time. Time is not constant, so our perspective means nothing.

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by ProTo Fire Fox

We are the young ones, the Johnnys-come-latelys, a sprig on the tree of life. Early in the history of the universe, the first galaxies, the protogalaxies, were formed in what I call the Shroud of Darkness, a state of nonionized space. There, past the 15 billion LY limit is Immeasurable Space, for one can measure it only with light.

Scientists make the presumptuous claim the Shroud is only a billion LYs across, but how can they know? How do the laws of physics work when the lights are out? We see in quantum physics it is precisely light that communicates the state of a particle to its observer, and when the lights are out all bets are off.

Also when measuring the universe, light is not the most accurate measuring rod. Just taking into account cosmic acceleration will drastically change the outcomes, and for those who rely on the aging of elements, those ages will vary under the influence of differing gravitational gradients.

So the upshot is we really don't have a clue. For me, I will settle with the number of the Awakened One, at most before deceleration begins should be 155.52 trillion years.l

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:52 AM
The current Universe is about 25 years old.... I created the Matrix then and its been running fine since... A few bugs to iron out but not bad... Took me about 6 months... (hey it was a first attempt gimme a break
) That other dude the Bible talks about took six day s ( but do we know how long his days were?)

"Reality is merely an illusion... albeit a persistent one" Albert Einstein

Oh yeah? Prove me wrong then....

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:53 AM
Until fairly recently the Universe was calculated to be 26 billion years old based on celestial observations of the visible spectra of certain elements whose decay rates were known then a scientist (I think her name was Friedman) used different kinds of observations and calculations and arrived at the lower age now being accepted. One problem they are having with that is that the new age would make the Universe younger than at least some of its components which is impossible.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by michaelanteski...the new age would make the Universe younger than at least some of its components which is impossible.

You mean like this ?

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:32 PM
All I can really say is that it's old, as for how old, well, it's older than the Earth. Seeing as how people can't even really agree on that, then it's older than humans can really comprehend. It'll be an interesting fact when it's nailed down, but really kinda of pointless.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 06:14 AM
As I grew up I thought scientists knew it all.

Now that I'm actually part of the scientific community (I work on Genetics) I do look at problems differently.

How can we evaluate the Universe?

We still don't know what matter is.

Not a long time ago the fastest possible speed was the one achieved when riding a horse and now we say light is the ultimate possible speed.

If we talk about time there is no way for us to acknowledge Universe's age.

First we don't know what time is and second I do not believe there is ONE universe.

We only know a few dimensions. There is too much "free space" and our small brains cannot understand there is no such thing.

Our conception of empty is really the result of our limited senses.

It is a pity we have to dye without being able to understand anything

Maybe THIS universe we "know" is 13-15 Billion Years old. So what?

That doesn't tell us anything about Big Bang's existence.

Are there other dimensions'

Is "our universe" going to expand "forever?

Are we waiting for the big crunch?

I feel stupid

[edit on 27-1-2008 by novrod]

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:23 AM
I have no idea how old or large the universe is, or what its properties might be. The "Scientists" that claim to have these answers have to change them on a yearly basis, yet every time these revisions are made they claim-"ok- that last bunch of guys had it ALL wrong- but this time WE are certain WE have it ALL right". Just look at what mainstream astrophysicists claim about the extent and age of the Universe. They claim that we can see everything, and that if we cant see it, then it surely cannot exist. This is circular logic i.e. something that uses itself to define itself :"What is the Universe? The Universe is everything we can see. What can we see? We can see the Universe. What is the Universe? The Universe is everything we can see. etc. etc. " It doesnt necessarily mean the assumptions are wrong, but that they are not provable and therefore are worthless musings not Science. Using this same "logic" every fish in an aquarium also has the "Universe" figured out. They then go on to say that the age and starting point of the Universe can be calculated by looking at "Everything" and tracing it in reverse from its present apparent position and motion. There is absolutely no proof that the universe does not go on much farther than we can percieve- maybe even forever. One thing is certain : The present model of the Universe is WRONG

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by Roland Deschain

Good call buddy.

I think the universe is more than a time, I think that... its a period.

It exists but only with us.

Just a random thought...

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 09:16 AM
Let's see...

If you assume there is a period there must be a beginning and an end.

In a matter of fact I do not think there is ONE universe.

I find the multiple universes theory more probable. The "foam" where each bubble is ONE universe is rather attractive and as plausibly as the theories we have today.

This theory also considers the possibility of different universes fusion. Or, and now I'm just speculating, how can we say TWO separate universes can't be on the same place at the same time? If you consider many different dimensions maybe a multidimensional "galaxy of universes" may even sustain our universe to be already overlapping many others.

Is it possible to conceive the so called Planet X to belong to one of this "invisible" universes?

[edit on 02/11/2008 by novrod]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in