just found galaxy casts doubt on the age of the universe

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
if im not mistaken ,according to vedas the uiverse is 150 trillion years old and will live to be 300 trillion years.


Yeah just read that up on Wiki.




The later puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa)[6] and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 trillion, 40 billion human years) that represents Brahma's lifespan.



Source




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Explanation: S&F!

Aside from poor forum choice of placement I found the subject had some gravita!


Here is my take on the issue from another similar issue thread ...

How old is our Universe? (thread by Pokoia posted on 1-12-2011 @ 06:27 AM , reply post by OmegaLogos posted on 1-12-2011 @ 07:40 AM) [ATS]


Originally posted by OmegaLogos
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].





[EDIT: REDACTED BY OL to comply with ATS quotation rules. please see linked thread for full story.]

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!


Personal Disclosure: I hope that helps clarify things for everybody!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Explanation: St*rred!


Where does the article or linked paper suggest this discovery has cast doubt on the age of the Universe?

It doesn't.


I agree and this thread should be in skunkworks! :shk:


But to go back to the topic ... the OP does ask some valid questions!

Personal Disclosure: Maybe you might be able to answer them and the topic will be resolved!



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Where does the article or linked paper suggest this discovery has cast doubt on the age of the Universe?

It doesn't.


i ask the question,
"what would happen if we saw a galaxy that WAS older than the current accepted age of the universe"
and intended the op to look into the implications of find one ,using the methods as described in the article to show a "rare" coincedence between grav lense and distance may bring up debates on how to explain it should it be the case after further occourences at this distence frame



Honestly ATS, 3 pages of Einstein was wrong supported individually by some really basic fundamental misconceptions, I guess its not really surprising nobody has bothered to read what was actually said?

This is the most distant yet observed gravitational lensing event, which is still well within possibility under the current theory of 14 billion years.


indeed, it is,
question still is "what would change in the current model of galaxy evolution, or the age of the universe?
if a method such as in the article was used to show a far away galaxy as 20 billion years old?


The OP appears to have made the rest up.


touchy subject huh?


Ironically, as I understand it, this discovery actually supports current cosmological theory by expounding on early galactic cluster formation.


cool but what would happen if a galaxy was found at this distence that lensed something from 20 billion years ago?




This unique system constitutes the most distant cluster known to "host" a giant gravitationally lensed arc. Finding this ancient gravitational arc may yield insight into how, during the first moments after the Big Bang, conditions were set up for the growth of hefty clusters in the early universe.

The arc was spotted in optical images of the cluster taken in 2010 by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. The infrared capabilities of Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 helped provide a precise distance, confirming it to be one of the farthest clusters yet discovered.

"The chance of finding such a gigantic cluster so early in the universe was less than one percent in the small area we surveyed," said team member Mark Brodwin of the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "It shares an evolutionary path with some of the most massive clusters we see today, including the Coma cluster and the recently discovered El Gordo cluster."

An analysis of the arc revealed that the lensed object is a star-forming galaxy that existed 10 billion to 13 billion years ago. The team hopes to use Hubble again to obtain a more accurate distance to the lensed galaxy.


This title linked to the Rare case of gravitational lensing reported article belongs in skunk works or the grey area, not science and technology as it is only the OP's personal interpretation, not what was actually said, implied or discovered.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)


i think that scientists would "speed up galaxy formation rotation curves"
rather than "push back the age of the universe"


care to debate?

xploder
edit on 29-6-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Sorry ive been away from the thread.

Ill clarify abit, Yes im talking M Theory, which is not a proven theory yet .

What i am proposing is that yes there will be negative universes and positive universes, therefore they will attract and repel each other (When a positive universe i born, so must a negative).

So in a higher dimension, an infinite amount of universes float around, atracking and repealing each other. Now collisions might not happen often, just like, even though there are thousands of NEO, barely any of them hit.

However when they do, they will cause immense reactions as negative and positive universes would be touching (Matter and Anti Matter).

It would also explain, why the universe is expanding ever faster in some areas, and being slowed down in others (universes pulling at ours from a higher dimension.

Watch this starting at 6 minutes:



edit on 30/6/12 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/6/12 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
One word answers it all.

Fractals.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
What if...
It's not that galaxies are so far away from each other...just that they get so much smaller...???



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by circlemaker
Just a vague "throwing this out there", so for whatever it's worth...

If our universe is a black hole, then it may be part of a larger universe (or the same one existing at a different point in time... pretty boggling). Anyway what I'm getting at is that perhaps previously existing galaxies were sucked in and became a part of it. Even stranger... maybe when they're sucked in they appear further back in time. Like galaxy A and then galaxy B get sucked in, but now galaxy B is in the past relative to galaxy A.

Anyway... Just having fun theorizing.


or galaxy A is galaxy B but in the past!!! and if it was never sucked in to the black hole i the future then it would never had existed in the past as galaxy A to become galaxy B after being sucked in!!
edit on 30-6-2012 by DARREN1976 because: spelling...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
For some odd reason I have a hard time thinking there is a decimal in the age our universe



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Where does the article or linked paper suggest this discovery has cast doubt on the age of the Universe?

It doesn't.


no but if you re read the op,
you will see it is a what do we do if we find........
a galaxy older than 20 billion years old?


I agree and this thread should be in skunkworks! :shk:


i have done research into this field and you might want to read one of my previous threads for backround

australian student finds the missing matter in the universe


But to go back to the topic ... the OP does ask some valid questions!

Personal Disclosure: Maybe you might be able to answer them and the topic will be resolved!



i have a unique understanding of the gravitational lensing phenomonon

a universe full of bubble shapped lenses

if you want to have a read,
you will see my favourite subject is gravitational lensing,

and i am interested in the question,
can a well positioned foreground lense allow for magnification of backround galaxies and enable us to see 20 billion years into the past,

and what would it mean to the hubbles constant if we CAN see a galaxy that should be receding away from us at a speed faster than light,

and

if an object was 20 billion light years away,
how can the universe be 16.4 billion years old?

could we push the age out to 20 billion years old or do we speed up galaxy evolution rates?

it poses a few questions of interest

xploder


edit on 30-6-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DARREN1976
 



or galaxy A is galaxy B but in the past!!! and if it was never sucked in to the black hole i the future then it would never had existed in the past as galaxy A to become galaxy B after being sucked in!!

are you trying to crash my brain?,
talk about logic loops

interesting
the recycling universe theory

lol

xploder



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by DARREN1976
 



or galaxy A is galaxy B but in the past!!! and if it was never sucked in to the black hole i the future then it would never had existed in the past as galaxy A to become galaxy B after being sucked in!!

are you trying to crash my brain?,
talk about logic loops

interesting
the recycling universe theory

lol

xploder


And why not/
If you believe in an infinite universe then why not infinite possibilities!!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


XPLodER, I know gravitational lensing is an interest of yours. I have read quite a few of your threads and have learned a lot of great stuff in the process


My belief is that in this particular instance your represetation of the content from the linked article was disingenuous. The reader is left with the perception that the research team who made the discovery were implying that it challenged the currently accepted age of the universe when in truth, that is your personal opinion.

The phys.org article clearly articulates the belief that this newest find will allow further refinement of existing theory, not overturn the foundations of cosmology.

I realise this is ATS however, IMHO, the intellectual sleight of hand doesn't belong in the science forum.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by XPLodER
 


XPLodER, I know gravitational lensing is an interest of yours. I have read quite a few of your threads and have learned a lot of great stuff in the process


thanks




My belief is that in this particular instance your represetation of the content from the linked article was disingenuous. The reader is left with the perception that the research team who made the discovery were implying that it challenged the currently accepted age of the universe when in truth, that is your personal opinion.


it is my personal opinion that using this exact technique, someday, their will be found a galaxy that requires us to re access the age and or the evolution of galaxies.
while this example is at 10 billion light years away/ago,
i believe that we will find gravity/density lenses at 12-13 billion years ago/away that will be in the correct range to lense objects or galaxies from the 16-20 billions years ago/away.

i had no intention of being disingenuous, i am sorry if the tittle mislead you.


The phys.org article clearly articulates the belief that this newest find will allow further refinement of existing theory, not overturn the foundations of cosmology.


on to the question,
are they going to alter the evolution rate for early galaxies, or the age of the universe?
note the shift and spectra from the background galaxy has yet to be reliably tested and understood,

a galaxy in this distance range should be moving away from us at 3-4 of the speed of light

while i believe this galaxy will only shift the evolution boundaries slightly,
i does raise the question,
what happens if we image a galaxy that is 20 billion light years away from?
if the spectra shows a shift at or approaching the speed of light?


I realise this is ATS however, IMHO, the intellectual sleight of hand doesn't belong in the science forum.




im sad to here you feel that way,
i felt the possibilities should be explored freely
and a what if debate could bring some interesting points to the problem from members.

for the record,
everyone and anyone is free to join in on my threads,
all ideas are welcome
as is the right to criticise

i will ensure any further tittles are clearly labelled as though experiments


xploder



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
If you look at the effects of relativity on the passage of time, like how it slows down due to gravity in the presence of black holes, then it seems to me like there should be no universal standard for the passage of time. Keeping that in regard, there could be regions of space much older than the one we inhabit, but based on current theory would appear much younger. And vice versa.

In other words, the speed of light is tied to the clock somehow, and in a gravitational field that speeds light up and slows it down allowing it to be lensed it's not just light but also the "clock" that's being messed with. If somebody can prove that time in the observable universe is far from being uniform, there might be a better theory to understand what's going on here.

Although it's sci-fi fantasy, the joke about "wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" in Dr. Who might have a little ring of truth to it.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pauljs75
If you look at the effects of relativity on the passage of time, like how it slows down due to gravity in the presence of black holes, then it seems to me like there should be no universal standard for the passage of time. Keeping that in regard, there could be regions of space much older than the one we inhabit, but based on current theory would appear much younger. And vice versa.

In other words, the speed of light is tied to the clock somehow, and in a gravitational field that speeds light up and slows it down allowing it to be lensed it's not just light but also the "clock" that's being messed with. If somebody can prove that time in the observable universe is far from being uniform, there might be a better theory to understand what's going on here.

Although it's sci-fi fantasy, the joke about "wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff" in Dr. Who might have a little ring of truth to it.


or conversly you could speed up the perceived rate of formation time for galaxies or stars and planets ect


it only took 100 million years instead of 1000 million years lol


when you can adjust your ruler by changing the evolution time frame,
it matters not if the time changers faster or slower,
only if we observe it that way



The researchers explored several different explanations for how such a large quantity of dust could disappear so rapidly, and each of their explanations challenges conventional thinking about planet formation.


physorg

our ruler is subjective

lol


xploder
edit on 4-7-2012 by XPLodER because: add link





new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join