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.

 

How old is our Universe?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Science tell us that our Universe is 12,5 billion years old and started with a Big Bang.
It did grow since the Big Bang.

I have another idea to contemplate.
Suppose there was a first Big Bang, and than another.
The Universe tried to expand, it was difficult because space was a bit "tense".
What happened that moment, was that part of the mass in the Universe was still to close together and gravity pulled this part together again. So another Big Bang happened, this one was different from the first one.

Atoms already had formed during the first Big Bang so the second Big Bang could fuse them on a massive scale.
If you fuse elements, you get heavier elements and energy is released. This can go on until Iron is made, after that it is only fission that generates energy. Fusion of elements heavier then Iron costs a lot of energy.
These processes go on now in our Universe in suns, especially in exploding suns (Nova and super-nova), but the scale is to small.

The second Big Bang is why we have so much heavier elements in our Universe, more than expected.

I have the idea our universe is older than 12,5 billion years.
It would not surprise me if it is 18,5 billion years old.

I would like to hear your opinion on this one.




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 



this question is like asking, how long is a piece of string?

no one knows for sure, we can make an estimate on what we have learned so far but in reality it is just speculation..



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
My guess is that the whitenoise that is all around us & the universe would reflect 2 big bangs, even in quick succession.

Interesting theory though, this is something that has made me curious for many many years.

I still remember reading about the big bang in a book about the universe when I was about 8 or 9. Endlessly fascinated ever since.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
My opinion involves a bunch of doubt, mainly because I don't think the Big Bang Theory is correct at all. But we'll someday know for sure, or maybe not. In all honesty this could go on forever. There could have been way more bangs, possibly 10, 20, maybe even 100 considering the size of the Universe. But like I said, I'm doubtful on this subject. If I were to even consider your guess I'd say it's more probable than just one Bang.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 


Thanks, BTW years ago the estimated lifespan of the Universe was much lower, like 8,5 billion years total.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


reply to post by Pokoia
 


I remember re-reading some of the books I read as a kid and realised how much data has been updated & revised in just over a decade!

As far as I know the age of the universe is estimated using the red-shift that Hubble discovered, which is rather accurate.

Another questions. We "know" where the center of our universe is by looking at where the galaxies & stars move away from thus "pointing" to the origin of it all.

In your, I shall coin the term "multiple-bang theory" ( hihi), the question is did the 2 bangs happen in the same location? If not then the movement of the galaxies and stars away from the "bang" should reflect wether it was just one bang or multiple bangs.

Also if there were multiple explosions wouldnt the universe expand at different rates at different locations? What I mean the first bang might have accelerated the expansion of the youngest parts of the universe more.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Some say our universe is almost 14 million years old. say that on the Big Bang Theory them. 14 million.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 


You asked: the question is did the 2 bangs happen in the same location?

My idea is that it was the same location.
The difference was that matter was already formed and space more expanded.
So the expansion of the matter involved in the second Big Bang had a longer acceleration and must have travelled beyond the mass that was expelled first.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Who says that, 14 million years?
You really mean million years, not billion of years?
edit on 1/12/11 by Pokoia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


Don't you think that this would reflect in the red-shift somehow? I know that the further we look into the universe the more intense the redshift effect becomes. Wouldnt 2 bangs mean that we should see an abrupt change in red-shift at a very specific point?

Very interesting theory indeed!



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
What has got me wondering is we can see back in time using the hubble space telescope to around 13.2 billion years here...
articles.cnn.com...:TECH
an amazing photo the deep field photo and it prove's that galaxy's were about at that time.
So my question is if we made a bigger better space telescope could we go back in time enough to see the big bang?
Now back to your question I always thought anything heavier than boron are made from stars exploding, so they were not made in the big bang here is a link. (I may be wrong Iam a bit thick
)
physicsworld.com...
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swizzy
reply to post by Pokoia
 


Don't you think that this would reflect in the red-shift somehow? I know that the further we look into the universe the more intense the redshift effect becomes. Wouldnt 2 bangs mean that we should see an abrupt change in red-shift at a very specific point?

Very interesting theory indeed!


It should reflect in the red-shift.
On the other hand I am convinced that the speed of light is not as fixed as generally believed.
Large collections of mass must generate a lower light speed, locally.
I have no idea if this is taken in consideration now, apart from gravity lenses.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
What has got me wondering is we can see back in time using the hubble space telescope to around 13.2 billion years here...
articles.cnn.com...:TECH
an amazing photo the deep field photo and it prove's that galaxy's were about at that time.
So my question is if we made a bigger better space telescope could we go back in time enough to see the big bang?
Now back to your question I always thought anything heavier than boron are made from stars exploding, so they were not made in the big bang here is a link. (I may be wrong Iam a bit thick
)
physicsworld.com...
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Interesting idea.
Suppose for now we could say it will be possible one day.
If so than we can see if my theory has any value at all.
Because if you came close to the second Big Bang you would see a lot of the heavier elements.
Go back in time further and suddenly there would be far less heavier elements.

thanks



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pokoia
reply to post by mandroids
 


Who says that, 14 million years?
You really mean million years, not billion of years?
edit on 1/12/11 by Pokoia because: (no reason given)


Youtube the theme to the sitcome The big Bang Theory. it clearly says 14 million...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


It SOUNDS like 14 million, totally agree. I checked lyrics on multiple sites and they all say "14 billion". Might just be a slight pronunciation issue.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 


I hope it is, otherwise this gets complicated!



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


Indeed! I know they usually have a couple of "egg heads" on set to make sure everything goes according to science so I think they would have noticed such a blatant error in the theme tune! Having done recording studio work before I would have definitely re-recorded that part of the song, pronunciation is something that has to be done right from the start, very hard to fix post-recording.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pokoia
 


Explanation: S&F!

The universe is not homgenous in age ... this is down to GRAVITY ..which via black holes clear affects the passage of TIME!

From OUR limited point of view the universe we see is 13.7 billion yrs old.

But around a supermassive blackhole created early on in the universes growth .. the time has almost come to a standstill and for them the universal age might only be a few billion years!


Conversely the huge massive voids, where there is very little gravity, time is not restricted by gravity and so has a rate way faster than what we ourselves percieve! From the center of one of these voids the age of the universe is 18+ to 20+ billion yrs [simulated].

























Personal Disclosure: I hope that answers the basic questions raised by this thread's OP!

P.S. The rate of time experienced in the voids is clearly why the expansion of the universe is speeding up!



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 


I really like this series, good humour and good science statements.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Just as I expected; "Conversely the huge massive voids, where there is very little gravity, time is not restricted by gravity and so has a rate way faster than what we ourselves percieve! From the center of one of these voids the age of the universe is 18+ to 20+ billion yrs [simulated]. "

I thought this for more then the last 30 years.

Is this state of the art science, or are these numbers just your expectations?

BTW I did not understand: "P.S. The rate of time experienced in the voids is clearly why the expansion of the universe is speeding up! "
Would you be so kind and try to explain this to me, a layman.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join