It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Could the Universe Be Older Than We Think? New Findings Point That Way

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
www.dailygalaxy.com...


Quote from source:
Could the Universe be much older than we think? Early on its life it appears that our Universe was a place of puzzling extremes and seeming contradictions. That’s the conclusion scientists are drawing from new infrared observations of a very distant, unusually bright and massive elliptical galaxy.

This galaxy [in the white square above] was spotted 10 billion light years away, and gives us a glimpse of what the Universe looked like when it was only about one-quarter of its current age.

Measurements show that the galaxy is as large and equally dense as elliptical galaxies that can be found much closer to us. Coupled with recent observations by a different research team - which found a very compact and extremely dense elliptical galaxy in the early Universe - the findings deepen the puzzle over how ‘fully grown’ galaxies can exist alongside seemingly ‘immature’ compact galaxies in the young Universe.

‘What our observations show is that alongside these compact galaxies were other ellipticals that were anything up to 100 times less dense and between two and five times larger - essentially ‘fully grown’ - and much more like the ellipticals we see in the local Universe around us,’ explains Michele Cappellari of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, an author of a report of the research in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.





Also, using ISAAC near- infrared instrument aboard ESO's Very Large Telescope(VLT), and the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, a team of French and Swiss astronomers using Very Large Telescope (VLT) of the European Southern Observatory, have identified an extremely faint galaxy, Abell 1835 (image left).

According to interpretations, Abell 1835 must have formed just 460 million years after the universe was born, during the "Dark Age" when the first stars and galaxies were supposedly being born More recently, fully formed galaxies were discovered which are at a greater distance, over 13.1 billion light years (American Astronomical Society 2010), and which may have already been billions of years in age, over 13 billion years ago .


Hmm interesting findings here...

I looked around for this and couldn't find it on here so my apologies if it has been posted already.

I was thinking about this the other day.

If we can see 13.7 bly away from us, in all directions, then on the opposite side of the universe it would be the same thing. So if we can see 13.7 bly in all directions, 13.7 bly x 2 would be 27.4 bly, then on the other side of the universe it would be the same. Wouldn't that be 54.8 bly's?

I don't know I was trying to figure this out more in depth, but interesting concept nonetheless.

Any thoughts?

Pred...




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Einstein said "The only thing incomprehensible about the universe is that it is so comprehensible." My thought the first time I read that: Yeah.... maybe to YOU!

You are right about the 1/2 distance bit. IIRC, it is put forth that no matter where in the universe you happened to be it would be thus. Like the surface of an inflated balloon, but the same even in the "balloon's interior" of what is our universe.

I suppose, or so I tell myself, that it's no more a matter of high strangeness than a universe where light is both a wave and a particle... but not really... or not really at the same time anyway.

Just too much for my two brain cells.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
BTW: Meant to say:

Thanks for the great post!! Fascinating.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
lets clear up the misunderstanding.. the universe didn't pop out of a big bang, and just because we can only see 14 billion light years out doesn't mean its only 14 billion years old.. its far far bigger, no end in fact. there is far more information that the big bang is a big bunch of bullS--t than anything else.

the fact is we have no idea, the best minds on the planet will tell you we haven't even scratched the surface and what we think is just that, a thought.

so on to the good stuff like civil war...

pewb was here..



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Pewbert
 


Far bigger? I suppose you've measured it?

Actually, there is not really a "size" as we [or maybe just I] understand.

I don't believe we will ever find the edge of the universe cos it just curves around, like my balloon example above, *and* expands... *creating* space to expand into, again, not unlike the balloon.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Pewbert
 


Far bigger? I suppose you've measured it?

Actually, there is not really a "size" as we [or maybe just I] understand.

I don't believe we will ever find the edge of the universe cos it just curves around, like my balloon example above, *and* expands... *creating* space to expand into, again, not unlike the balloon.


There has to be some sort of size or else it would be infinite, which, at this time we believe not to be possible. But, here's the screwed up thing what would be at the end of it? There would be no space...

It is weird to think about that.


I also think the majority of science also believes the universe to be flat or else time travel would be possible. Another weird one I know.


Pred...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The funny bit is the way we calculate the possible age of the universe, assuming we are the CENTER of it !
Still does not look like we leaned very much since Copernicus?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
How could something without a border have an age?

Second line.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
We don't really know the real age of the universe.

WE only know when the first light beams started.But if you think about it it raises questions.

How long did it take for the objects to light up? How long did it take them to get there?How long have they been objects?

Those are just to name a few things.And a few other things the op mentioned.

(I'm sorry if the link posted had that i didn't check)



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
How could something without a border have an age?

Second line.


That's an interesting question. But how can anything be infinite? It's hard for people to even understand the concept.

If the universe was infinite, then our night sky would be lit up brighter than daytime because starlight would be at every angle of the sky.

Pred...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
We don't really know the real age of the universe.

WE only know when the first light beams started.But if you think about it it raises questions.

How long did it take for the objects to light up? How long did it take them to get there?How long have they been objects?

Those are just to name a few things.And a few other things the op mentioned.

(I'm sorry if the link posted had that i didn't check)


Another question is what of the event horizon of light? There would have to be one or else we would be able to see the other side of 'big bang'.


Pred...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Getting more than a little outside of my realm, but I believe a lot of theoretical physicists are entertaining the concept that time travel is possible, at least on a purely theoretical basis. Nothing in the laws of physics precludes it. At least, nothing in the laws as we currently understand them. But then, we seem to be continually making tiny edits to those laws with a certain regularity.

I am unfamiliar with a scientific consensus (where have I heard that term before
) stating the universe is most likely flat. Maybe a little scientific scavenger hunt for me this weekend is in order.

I was just born too soon!!



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


That is what I am saying though. The universe is considered to be flat or time travel would go from theoretically possible to being possible. It would be a big jump in science if the universe were considered to be curved.

Pred...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Hummm... wondering if we are using the same terms to mean different things.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe
 


A possibility...


Explain yourself a little better and maybe we will be on the same page.

Pred...



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Because when you see the end of the light, or the end of the universe, it becomes void.

its not like there is a wall, its just void. so they are measuring the end of the light? thats not the end of the universe.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


There would be no end of light because we could never reach the end. Even if we travelled at the speed of light to the end the light would always beat us there so we could never find or 'see' the end because there is not one.

So that would mean that the universe is expanding at the speed if light in all directions. So if there was an end to it we would never be able to find it.


Pred...



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
~ahem~ Light has a decay point, where it eventually becomes lesser and lesser in energy. So at some point it decays off. If the universe is infinite, it doesn't mean the sky would be solid white with light.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxe
 


What it the decay point? Is it not longer than the universe has been in existence? I believed it was as we are seeing with in hundreds of millions of years after the big bang. We see 'baby' galaxies because they emit some form of light (technically everything is light, but anyway) and we can view them.

So, could the decay of light be associated with the age of the universe?


Pred...

edit for speeling...


[edit on 11-6-2010 by predator0187]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 

I must say that I believe that the big bang never happened. The very concept is in violation of relativity and the known laws of physics. In order for the big bang to have occurred we must first remove the laws of physics for an arbitrarily amount of time to explain this theoretical phenomena. But by doing this we then remove the mechanism that is said to have caused the creation in the first place.

reply to post by predator0187
 


That's an interesting question. But how can anything be infinite? It's hard for people to even understand the concept.

Finite and infinite are easy to define. Finite is simply the ability to measure, it has boundaries and exists for a given period of time. Infinite is beyond measure, has no bounds nor occupies any given (measurable) amount of time.

A circle is a finite shape that can be measured yet one could theoretically divide this circle an infinite amount of times thus creating an infinite amount of pieces. This does not make the circle infinite and in this same way nor does it make the Universe infinite neither.


[edit on 6/11/2010 by Devino]




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join