How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

[SpiritualBeing]

If you knew you would die of astonishment. The human brain on this earth will never be able to comprehend the vastness of this universe.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you knew you would die of astonishment. The human brain on this earth will never be able to comprehend the vastness of this universe.

Not unless God means us to...

God Bless!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Totally unknowable!!!!!!

There is no way to determine distance nor age that is accurate being our true velocity through space is unknown....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Pic of the known universe around us:

This pic is 93 billion Light years across, 46.5 billion in either direction... The "known", or currently knowable, or seeable, or "observable universe" (right now)... It is "as far as we can see" right now and probably will be for awhile...

See all the dark areas, they are all pushing outward "equally"... The clusters and strings "normal matter" (us)... Now imagine what would happen or try to see what would happen if these dark pockets ever got to or met at an edge to it, with it, or of it (hence my water glass/air Bubble example explained in more detail a couple posts ago)...

Imagine and/or try to see this "in motion" with the dark areas pushing outward and moving outward but all each equally (on everything else and each other) (and "maybe" from a center, or single point of origin, "maybe") (However there is absolutely no way to prove and/or test that, and may never be, for reasons explained earlier in this thread)...

Anyway, Imagine and/or try to see this "in motion" with the dark areas pushing outward and moving outward but all each equally, and gravity in a direct and equal counterbalance or proportion to the other force of gravity trying to make it all collect together and/or gather and/or collapse back in, (on a center possibly), (or "eventually" if it were not for the other force pushing out from the dark areas or pockets)...

The balance of these two forces could make it nigh perpetual and possibly infinite, and makes you really wonder and seriously begin to question the Big Bang Theory and the supposed age of the universe as well...

And, again, it all appears as if "we are the center", but we are not... For from everywhere and anywhere in it, it would "always "look" that way", no matter where you were at or in it (also talked about earlier) due to the equal expansion happening everywhere (also talked about earlier)...

Also, if we were seeing very much of it "at all nearly", at all, (the universe) if we were seeing very much of the whole of it at all, we should be able to see, (if the Big Bang is correct), we should be able to see some kind of "different pattern of dispersal", that would indicate very clearly a single point of origin... Unless we are "just not seeing very much of the whole of it", because then, we would not be able to see that yet... Which would make the universe so huge, that the age of it all must be incorrect, "even if", "even if" it did actually happen from a "big bang", ro whatever, which it may or may not have, and what I'm trying to say is we have absolutely no way of knowing that, and/or especially "proving it" at this point, or at any point possibly (talked about earlier) which would, and does, and should, bring "it all" (a lot of our current theories about it that have been accepted as fact for a long time now) into some serious question and doubt(s)... (as I also tried to explain earlier)...?

This should be simple and easy, but, maybe it is not, IDK...?

God Bless!

Look at that picture and it’s clear concentric rings. You don’t really believe any more than I do that the universe would look the same if you were situated on one of those further galaxies.

You can tell yourself you believe that, but if true there would be no concentric rings observable from our position, because from another position those rings would still be there, just not pointing to you as the center, but to this galaxy......

 

[Neogaia777]

Look at that picture and it’s clear concentric rings. You don’t really believe any more than I do that the universe would look the same if you were situated on one of those further galaxies.

Yes I do, I think it is pretty much the same almost anywhere in it, and I'm pretty sure I am right...

You can tell yourself you believe that, but if true there would be no concentric rings observable from our position, because from another position those rings would still be there, just not pointing to you as the center, but to this galaxy......

I don't see any concentric rings, or that they or it (the normal and not normal matter or material) is laid out in a set of concentric rings and or pattern either or whatsoever...?

It would look much the same from almost anywhere you were in it, you would always appear to be the center no matter what, even as if, or if you were to travel through it even...

I explained in much greater detail in some of my prior posts, with many more reasons and very logical proofs of how this is, how it works, all that, ect... Maybe you should go back and read and/or look at them maybe...?

God Bless!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes I do, I think it is pretty much the same almost anywhere in it, and I'm pretty sure I am right...

That’s what everyone has said despite the fact what we believe to be true changes about every 200 years.

I don't see any concentric rings, or that they or it (the normal and not normal matter or material) is laid out in a set of concentric rings and or pattern either or whatsoever...?

Sure you do, that’s why you said it appears we are at the center, then dismissed what you saw.....

It would look much the same from almost anywhere you were in it, you would always appear to be the center no matter what, even as if, or if you were to travel through it even...

That’s what they say without any actual proof. In fact observations show vast voids and collections of galaxies against their claims.

I explained in much greater detail in some of my prior posts, with many more reasons and very logical proofs of how this is, how it works, all that, ect... Maybe you should go back and read and/or look at them maybe...?

God Bless!

Why? It would be like telling me GR is 99.8% correct, without Fairie Dust, then adding 95% Fairie Dust to it because you couldn’t make what you just claimed was 99.8% correct work without it.

So what Fairie Dust am I supposed to swallow because the “highly correct” theory without it can’t be made to work without it?

 

[ianw16]

So what Fairie Dust am I supposed to swallow because the “highly correct” theory without it can’t be made to work without it?

Well, one thing is for sure - you haven't got any ideas, have you? Nothing, except for a mixture of faith-based nonsense, EU woo and word salad.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In current models of the universe there isn't an edge - and lesliedellow gave a reason.

The universe is either modelled as infinite or as finite but unbounded, i.e. the 3D version of the surface of a sphere (the surface of a large enough sphere is ~2D locally), such as a 3-sphere.

In this topology, if you travel anywhere in a straight line you eventually arrive back at your starting point (assuming, for simplicity, it's all static).

I can't make sense of your soda in a glass analogy; the whole universe is expanding - even if there was an edge with a 'dark bubble' near it, it would get further away with time as the space between them expanded.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... our true velocity through space is unknown....

'True' velocity with respect to what?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, one thing is for sure - you haven't got any ideas, have you? Nothing, except for a mixture of faith-based nonsense, EU woo and word salad.

And yet you couldn’t back up your stance with science. Instead avoided everything....

And then will appeal to unknown things to defend your beliefs.....

While I on the other hand appeal to no unknown science, just a universe 99.9% plasma.....

You won’t even accept the correctness of the theory you claim to follow. Instead you all give lip service to how correct it is, then ignore it and add 95% Fairie Dust to it even if it was 99.8% correct without it. And don’t even bat an eye....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

'True' velocity with respect to what?

With a stationary point.

And yes, since the universe is claimed to have started from a dense state and expanded outward, such a thing once existed.

So again, since we can not determine our true velocity through space, the age of the universe or it’s size can never be known...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In current models of the universe there isn't an edge - and lesliedellow gave a reason.

The universe is either modelled as infinite or as finite but unbounded, i.e. the 3D version of the surface of a sphere (the surface of a large enough sphere is ~2D locally), such as a 3-sphere.

In this topology, if you travel anywhere in a straight line you eventually arrive back at your starting point (assuming, for simplicity, it's all static).

Is that like a flat earth belief where every direction merely takes you back to your starting point?

Except only one flaw with the sphere belief. Only mass curves spacetime. Therefore at this fabled edge there would be no mass, and hence no curvature.....

Now people can fantasize of curvature without mass, and surfaces without surfaces, but reality does not a fantasy make.

I can't make sense of your soda in a glass analogy; the whole universe is expanding - even if there was an edge with a 'dark bubble' near it, it would get further away with time as the space between them expanded.

Then you would also never get back to your starting point as your starting point got further and further away with time as space expanded.

Which implies space is expanding into something that already exists.

If space is expanding in every direction, then it is also expanding toward us. But you haven’t adequately explained what this nothing is that is expanding and capable of causing galaxies to separate, is capable of bending and of accelerating????

Or we take the observations for what we observe, and realize space is simply being stretched away from a center point, which your balloon analogy also implies.

Because to be expanding in every direction, then your balloon surface must also be collapsing inwards at the same time. Since there are no voids towards a center, all objects can not be on this alleged surface that doesn’t exist.....

 

[Neogaia777]

Ok, let's take this from the beginning and/or top, K...?

Is this picture of the known or observable universe (below) and "accurate" one...?

Does it account for all every factor and/or factors that might make this picture "false" or in error at all or not...?

Yes or No...? Does it or doesn't it...? Is it accurate and not in error in any way...?

Yes or No...?

And, if that answer is "Yes", is it all expanding equally everywhere, would be my next question...?

Yes or No...?

Then, if yes to that, now account for gravity that would try to "pull it all back in together", (in it) all along with the, (what I think is) equal and opposite to the other force (gravity) equally everywhere expansion...

Now, what would a picture of that "in motion" or "alive" look like...? If it were a short video with these two forces and all "this" all "in motion" or moving, "look like"...?

Then, what would happen if there were, or are, or is, or was, and outer "edge to it" anywhere at all...? Especially if the two forces were in equal and opposite "balance" with one another...? What would happen and/or be happening and what would it/that "look like"...?

Then imagine if you could travel or move through it, would the picture ever really change at all...? Or would it always appear as if you are the center of it, no matter what...? (As long as you were not near to the "edge of it" or could see an edge to or with it, if it has an edge, that is) (because that would or might be the only exception to this "picture" I am trying to "paint" of it all)

And/but and/or because due the equal expansion everywhere, and nothing is really "moving any faster (or slower) than anything else" (Because it's all "relative" to position (where you at in it) and motion (or speed) in it), Anyway, because of the equal expansion everywhere, is anything, really even "moving", technically "at all" or even "in motion at all" at any point or not, or are those just only "relative terms" only...?

And, then, is there really even a "center" or single point of origin at all (or any future collapsing point at all, in or at "any future point" at all) (due to these things also, that I am trying to pain of it (all)) or is that all "relative", basically, also...?

And then, if it were a "big bang that started it all", or if it ever had one single center point of origin, ever, why do we not see any evidence of any kind of "dispersal pattern" that would indicate such or that to be so...?

Is it because were "just not seeing enough of it", or what...?

Yes or No...?

Then, consider, (hopefully with this picture I am trying to paint of it (all) in mind), (and also the possible or probable "size" of it (all)) Then, consider the probable or possible "age" of it (all) and does that age have to be much, possibly, much, much, "longer" or "very much more older", than just 13.8 billion years old... When you consider the possible diameter of the "entire thing" (the entire universe) could be multiples upon multiples of possibly trillions or hundreds of trillions (or more) light years across, and/or in diameter...

How old is it or would it have to be, or might it be, considering all of "this"...?

Older than we (most of us) currently think...? Or not...? Yes or No...?

God Bless!

 

[ianw16]

And yet you couldn’t back up your stance with science. Instead avoided everything....

And then will appeal to unknown things to defend your beliefs.....

While I on the other hand appeal to no unknown science, just a universe 99.9% plasma.....

You won’t even accept the correctness of the theory you claim to follow. Instead you all give lip service to how correct it is, then ignore it and add 95% Fairie Dust to it even if it was 99.8% correct without it. And don’t even bat an eye....

Don't you get bored repeating the same old tired dogma? When was Earth orbiting Saturn, woo boy? When did Venus come flying out of Jupiter? You have a bunch of fairy stories that you believe in, and accuse real science of not knowing what its doing? Dear me. Try to come up with some real science as an alternative, otherwise you are just another EU crank, believing in impossible rubbish. And all the evidence I need is within the scientific literature. It is not up to me to linlk to it all here. Go take a look.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With a stationary point.

Stationary with respect to what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is that like a flat earth belief where every direction merely takes you back to your starting point?

That wouldn't happen on a flat Earth - you mean like on the surface of a sphere?

Except only one flaw with the sphere belief. Only mass curves spacetime. Therefore at this fabled edge there would be no mass, and hence no curvature.....

You missed the point, there is no edge, just as there is no centre. But if the universe is spatially finite, its overall curvature is determined by the mass it contains; current measures show it is very flat indeed, suggesting it's extremely large, or even infinite.

Then you would also never get back to your starting point as your starting point got further and further away with time as space expanded.

You must have missed where I said, "assuming, for simplicity, it's all static".

Which implies space is expanding into something that already exists.

That doesn't follow. If it's infinite, it's all there is. If it's finite but unbounded there are no edges with anything else. Even spawned from a metaverse it could be 'pinched' off, occupying no space in the metaverse.

If space is expanding in every direction, then it is also expanding toward us.

Not really. We're 'embedded' in space, so as it expands, we move with it (rather than through it). Like the analogous balloon surface when it is blown up, every point becomes further away from every other point. The gravity of matter concentrations, e.g. galaxies, tends to hold them together against local expansion.

But you haven’t adequately explained what this nothing is that is expanding and capable of causing galaxies to separate...????

It's not nothing, it's Einsteinian space-time undergoing scalar expansion.

Or we take the observations for what we observe, and realize space is simply being stretched away from a center point, which your balloon analogy also implies.

There is no centre point - you may be confusing the idea that the observable universe was once very small with that somehow being a centre, but the observable universe is only a very small part of the whole universe, and however small the whole universe was at the big bang (and it may have been infinite), it was still the whole universe - there was no centre. The balloon analogy only relates to the way every point can become increasingly separated from every other point.

... to be expanding in every direction, then your balloon surface must also be collapsing inwards at the same time. Since there are no voids towards a center, all objects can not be on this alleged surface that doesn’t exist.....

That's just nonsense. What part of an expanding balloon is collapsing inwards? Remember that the balloon analogy only relates to the way every point can become increasingly separated from every other point. A raisin bread analogy is sometimes used for 3D expansion - as the dough expands when the bread rises, every raisin in the bulk becomes further separated from every other raisin; again, this analogy is limited just to separations in the expanding bulk (both analogies have been criticised because of the distractions of irrelevant surfaces & edges, inside & outsides).

You may be getting confused about these dynamic topological ideas because they run counter to everyday intuition. It's necessary to become familiar with the principles of the physics involved to understand it (particularly relativity in this context), it's no good just picking up isolated physics factoids and expecting to apply them coherently.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Not unless God means us to...

God Bless!

Not while we are on this earth.

 

[Neogaia777]

Not while we are on this earth.

Maybe, but, also, Maybe not...?

God Bless!

 

[mark kennedy]

Simple question(s):

How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...?

Discussion...?

God Bless!

Probably in the billions and how ever big it is, it's getting bigger. We know for a fact that everything is moving away from everything else, Hubble proved that one.

 

[Neogaia777]

Probably in the billions and how ever big it is, it's getting bigger. We know for a fact that everything is moving away from everything else, Hubble proved that one.

It's both moving away, and coming back in at the same time, in a proportional balance, that it could make it, or perhaps has always been, "perpetual" or nigh perpetual in nature...

Which would make it much, much older than 13.8 billion years old, and it is definitely, or has to be, "very much more and way bigger" than we thought it was...

It is definitely much, much older than 13.8 billion years old, and has been around much, much longer than that...

God Bless!