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

[Neogaia777]

We cannot see past 46.5 billion light years away, because anything past that distance, appears to be or is moving out and away from us at beyond the speed of light past that point or barrier, and that why we can't see more of it...

Now anything between there or that boundary, from us or appearing to be out from us, at say, 10% that distance aprox 4-4.5 billion light years away from us, the way we track or determine where it is or really should really be in relation to our time, is by accounting for the 10% of that in distance of travel between then and there away from us at 10% light speed, so ten percent of 4-4.5 billion light years, is 400 450 million light years of travel or something like that would be accounted for for it's actual position in relation to our time moving away from us and out from us at the center, that would make just a little bit closer, 10% closer, 4-4.5 billion light years subtract 400-450 million light years, to get it's actual position a little closer to us...

Is that what "redshift" is or am I wrong...?

If something were 50% of that distance away from us, we would have account for 50% of that 50% in travel away from us, then at 90% or near that point and as it got nearer to that point, would actually make some of those at the edge or close to 100%... That logic would say that they had to have been close to us and very close to us especially at 100%... After 90, 95 percent they would coming back to you so to speak, and that doesn't make sense...?

But wherever we are is the center, and would appear that way even if you were able to move or travel through it, as you traveled and moved through it, so is anything moving of any kind, at any kind of, actual faster or further way from us, specifically...? But instead is maybe everything everywhere at one constant or sustained speed or maybe even no speed at all because is really or is anything even really moving or really in motion at all, or is that all relative to distance or perspective or point of view...?

I think of it being rolled out like a carpet or a scroll, the universe, fabric of space(time), ect...

God Bless!

 

[dad]

We cannot see past 46.5 billion light years away, because anything past that distance, appears to be or is moving out and away from us at beyond the speed of light past that point or barrier, and that why we can't see more of it...

Now anything between there or that boundary, from us or appearing to be out from us, at say, 10% that distance aprox 4-4.5 billion light years away from us, the way we track or determine where it is or really should really be in relation to our time, is by accounting for the 10% of that in distance of travel between then and there away from us at 10% light speed, so ten percent of 4-4.5 billion light years, is 400 450 million light years of travel or something like that would be accounted for for it's actual position in relation to our time moving away from us and out from us at the center, that would make just a little bit closer, 10% closer, 4-4.5 billion light years subtract 400-450 million light years, to get it's actual position a little closer to us..

Now if only we knew light speed was the same out there. Do you...if so..how...who clocked it out there?

But wherever we are is the center, and would appear that way even if you were able to move or travel through it, as you traveled and moved through it, so is anything moving of any kind, at any kind of, actual faster or further way from us, specifically...? But instead is maybe everything everywhere at one constant or sustained speed or maybe even no speed at all because is really or is anything even really moving or really in motion at all, or is that all relative to distance or perspective or point of view...?

I think they claim that space itself is expanding, rather than the objects moving? Now if we ask them what space is...well then the fun begins.

 

[SelfSim]

Not all light has to be fishbowl light.

Its not 'light' so you should stop using the term!
Choose you own word, because it ain't 'light' you're talking about.

Why would we expect ignorant people to tell us what the unknown is like in far space?

I agree .. scientists are anything but 'ignorant' when it comes to talking about observations of the universe because time is well defined and used in science.

We can make our own stuff up thanks!

Yep .. that's generally what ignorance produces .. which is also how those who choose 'to find out' are distinguished from those who refuse to do that.

So, unless we project your religion onto the far universe it is fantasy. Got it.

You don't seem to understand that raw observational data has no religion in it. Tell me how raw numerical measurements (which define say, a spectrum), contain religious dogma?

Sorry if I exposed your little train thought experiment as ridiculously inept to cover deep space! Then YOU call others juvenile??

Do I really have to point out to you that that the train is an analogy and not literal? Do you draw such fundamental distinctions as this?

If something takes less or more or different time to do something you have no way to know it was disturbed!

Your word 'disturbed' implies a concept which differs from the normal concept of time (aka: 'disturbed time').

Please restate your point in a way which excludes the normal concept of time making clear what you mean by 'disturbed time' (in order to make your point).

It looks normal to you in the fishbowl.

How would you know if you can't exclude normal time from your thinking?

Strawman. You have no way of knowing what time is involved in deep space. Pretending something would appear 'disturbed' if it did not involve fishbowl time is disturbingly narrow minded.

Science's 'time' is made useful by using it as a fundamental dimension of the universe. This is done so our minds can make sense of what we perceive (and observe). You are trying to discard this in your fantasy. You can hardly then expect science to disregard it, just because of your misguided tantrums about that(?)

How could we alter the unknown,

You are trying to eliminate a basic dimension invoked by science in order to make sense of the universe, and in so doing, you are creating nonsense.
Science can examine what wasn't known previously precisely because that very phrase invokes the concept of the past, which requires the measurable concept of time.

Your notion however, attempts to eliminate science's definition of time, so I don't understand what you mean by altering something that was previously 'unknown' because 'unknown' invokes the concept of the past which requires the measurable concept of time and you eliminated that.

Relax, we all live in this fishbowl. FYI the fishbowl is not the universe though! No more than your little train set goes round and round the stars!!!!

The laws of Physics in this universe are well defined and well tested, and time is defined as being a dimension of that universe. This qualifies science to speak about previous unknowns which may be observed in the present.

Your elimination of normal time however means you cannot observe nor interpret the universe. In fact, you can't even perceive it because your mind also requires the normal concept of time.

People who rightly point out that you do not know what you are talking about in the discussion of space and time and the spiritual and creation in deep space are not trolls. They are sane.

No .. they are talking nonsense especially when they discard science's measurable definition of time and its use of time as a dimension of the universe we perceive.

 

[Neogaia777]

@SelfSim Is time only relative to motion and or or speed and or is time made similar or relative in relation to what...? (would you think...?) Can the speed of light, or light, "carry" "time" with it, so to speak...? Or not, or what...?

Or what is time as a dimension...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

We cannot see past 46.5 billion light years away, because anything past that distance, appears to be or is moving out and away from us at beyond the speed of light past that point or barrier, and that why we can't see more of it...

Now anything between there or that boundary, from us or appearing to be out from us, at say, 10% that distance aprox 4-4.5 billion light years away from us, the way we track or determine where it is or really should really be in relation to our time, is by accounting for the 10% of that in distance of travel between then and there away from us at 10% light speed, so ten percent of 4-4.5 billion light years, is 400 450 million light years of travel or something like that would be accounted for for it's actual position in relation to our time moving away from us and out from us at the center, that would make just a little bit closer, 10% closer, 4-4.5 billion light years subtract 400-450 million light years, to get it's actual position a little closer to us...

Is that what "redshift" is or am I wrong...?

If something were 50% of that distance away from us, we would have account for 50% of that 50% in travel away from us, then at 90% or near that point and as it got nearer to that point, would actually make some of those at the edge or close to 100%... That logic would say that they had to have been close to us and very close to us especially at 100%... After 90, 95 percent they would coming back to you so to speak, and that doesn't make sense...?

But wherever we are is the center, and would appear that way even if you were able to move or travel through it, as you traveled and moved through it, so is anything moving of any kind, at any kind of, actual faster or further way from us, specifically...? But instead is maybe everything everywhere at one constant or sustained speed or maybe even no speed at all because is really or is anything even really moving or really in motion at all, or is that all relative to distance or perspective or point of view...?

I think of it being rolled out like a carpet or a scroll, the universe, fabric of space(time), ect...

God Bless!

I mean a galaxy or whatever was 46.5 billion light years away from you, (100%) and in order to account for 46.5 Billion light years of travel at 100% or light speed, it would have to have had to originated back in the opposite direction that far... Or, IOW's pointing right back at you, at 100%, 46.5 Billion light years away going at light speed away from you, would appear to have to be, in our time, or in real time with us (and define that) Anyway, in real time with us, would need to be right where we are at, right on top of us, so to speak...

There should be a name for that/this...? Is there a term for it or for that boundary at 46.5 billion light years away, where past things things appear to moving away from us at past the speed of light beyond that, ect... Is there a name for that...? The 100% line...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

@SelfSim Is time only relative to motion and or or speed and or is time made similar or relative in relation to what...? (would you think...?) Can the speed of light, or light, "carry" "time" with it, so to speak...? Or not, or what...?

Or what is time as a dimension...?

God Bless!

Time is one of the seven physical base quantities:

Base quantities are those quantities which are distinct in nature and cannot be defined by other quantities.

Base quantities are also quantities on which other related quantities can thence be expressed (provided those relationships are known).

Time is one of the four dimensions of spacetime (3 spatial, 1 temporal) which can be taken collectively, as enabling one to specify the events and locations of a point within the universe. The measurements of events and locations are all relative to where the chosen observer is, (which can also be expressed in terms of these same dimensional quantities).

For example, velocity is a quantity derived from the relationship between the base quantitites of length (direction and magnitude) travelled, and elapsed time. The length (direction/magnitude) travelled and elapsed time are measured from an arbitrarily chosen starting point (sometimes taken as being the observer's own set of dimensional quantities, but not always).

 

[Neogaia777]

Time is one of the seven physical base quantities:
Base quantities are also quantities on which other related quantities can thence be expressed (provided those relationships are known).

Time is one of the four dimensions of spacetime (3 spatial, 1 temporal) which can be taken collectively, as enabling one to specify the events and locations of a point within the universe. The measurements of events and locations are all relative to where the chosen observer is, (which can also be expressed in terms of these same dimensional quantities).

For example, velocity is a quantity derived from the relationship between the base quantitites of length (direction and magnitude) travelled, and elapsed time. The length (direction/magnitude) travelled and elapsed time are measured from an arbitrarily chosen starting point (sometimes taken as being the observer's own set of dimensional quantities, but not always).

What if that starting point always appears to be wherever you are at in it...? Hence, "arbitrarily" maybe...?

Is the speed of light and or light in any kind of relationship with time...? We know motion plays a part right...? Are there others...?

Thanks,

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

What if that starting point always appears to be wherever you are at in it...? Hence, "arbitrarily" maybe...?

Any point can be chosen as a starting point .. including where you are at .. and it can be changed at will also .. it doesn't matter .. and different effects may be observed depending on that decision, too.

Is the speed of light and or light in any kind of relationship with time...? We know motion plays a part right...? Are there others...?

The speed of light is taken as being a fundamental physical constant in the universe. It is usually expressed in terms of the base quantities of time and length (or distance) and is related by the expression: l/t.

 

[trophy33]

I have always wondered. If we cannot see ends of the Universe, why is everybody saying that our planet is not the center of the Universe?

Is everything running away from us in all direction? Or are galaxies "to the left" moving faster from us than galaxies "to the right"? Or what is the reasoning there?

 

[SelfSim]

I have always wondered. If we cannot see ends of the Universe, why is everybody saying that our planet is not the center of the Universe?

Modern Cosmological models are built on the testable assumption called the Cosmological Principle:

the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.

This is a slightly more general case than its fore-runner, the Copernican Principle which held that our planet and humans occupy no special place in the universe (such as being in the 'center' of it).

However the Cosmological Principle isn't just some arbitrary idea assumed as being 'true', drawn out of a hat for the purpose of building cosmological syllogisms, etc. Every time some prediction of the modern mainstream cosmological model is tested, so too is the Cosmological Principle put to the test (and so far, it has passed just about all of them):

The two testable structural consequences of the cosmological principle are homogeneity and isotropy. Homogeneity means that the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe ("the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample"). Isotropy means that the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe.

Istotropy and homogeneity are closely related also:

The principles are distinct but closely related, because a universe that appears isotropic from any two (for a spherical geometry, three) locations must also be homogeneous.

Is everything running away from us in all direction? Or are galaxies "to the left" moving faster from us than galaxies "to the right"? Or what is the reasoning there?

Depends on what scales you're looking at. Generally, on the large scales, the universe is expanding and accelerating.

 

[ianw16]

So you do want to continue blaspheming the holy people and word of God here rather than pony up some sort of defense of your beliefs. OK.

There is plenty of evidence for what I believe. It is called the scientific literature. On the other hand, you have nothing. Still batting zero.

 

[sjastro]

We cannot see past 46.5 billion light years away, because anything past that distance, appears to be or is moving out and away from us at beyond the speed of light past that point or barrier, and that why we can't see more of it...

Unfortunately this is not correct and the answer is somewhat more complicated.
What you are referring to is known as the Hubble sphere which is not the radius of the observable Universe horizon and has a value of 14 billion light years.
Objects within this sphere recede at less the speed of light; outside the sphere they exceed the speed of light.

The recession velocity of an object can exceed the speed of light and still be visible to the observer.
As I mentioned in a previous post there is a parameter known as the critical density
Ω₀ = Ωm + Ωr + Ωλ.
In our current era Ωr = 0, Ωm = 0.3 which is based on a Universe of 5% visible matter and 25% dark matter and Ωλ = 0.7 the remaining 70% being dark energy.

Using (Ωm, Ωλ) = (0.3, 0.7), it is found for redshifts z ≥1.5, the recession velocity of an object exceeds the speed of light yet galaxies as high as z ≈ 11 have been detected.
The reason why these objects are observable is that while they exceed the speed of light, say v where v is the recession velocity; they emit photons back towards the observer at the speed of light c.
If v-c is less than the velocity of the expanding Hubble sphere, they are visible to the observer.

Is that what "redshift" is or am I wrong...?

As a variation to the expanding balloon analogy imagine drawing a grid pattern on a flexible membrane.
The grid has a particular scale.
If you stretch the membrane in all directions, the scale increases.

In an expanding Universe the scale a(t) increases with time and is defined by the equation:

a(t) = R(t)/R(t₀)

where R(t) is the radius of the Universe for some particular cosmological time t in the past and R(t₀) is the current radius of the Universe at time t₀.
The current scale of the Universe is a(t₀) = R(t₀)/R(t₀) =1

The wavelength of light scales the same way as the Universe hence.

λ /λ₀ = R(t)/R(t₀) = a(t)

where λ is the wavelength of light emitted by the object in its rest frame at cosmological time t in the past, and λ₀ is the wavelength of light as seen in the observer’s frame for the current cosmological time t₀.

The redshift z is determined experimentally from the spectral lines of the receding object (λ) and laboratory spectral lines (λ₀) which correspond to the object’s rest frame.

The redshift z = (λ₀ - λ)/λ = 1/a(t) – 1

(1+z) = 1/a(t)
(1+z) is the expansion factor.
Hence z is explained in terms of expansion and experimentally determined using wavelength.

 

[dad]

Its not 'light' so you should stop using the term!
Choose you own word, because it ain't 'light' you're talking about.

Paaleeeese, don't try to limit all that light can be to your little fishbowl religion!

God says He created great lights in the sky, and stars are said to give light! Just because the light may exist in time and space unlike your little fishbowl also, does not mean it is not light! There is zero chance I would issue you a monopoly on defining all that light is anywhere in time and the universe.

..I agree .. scientists are anything but 'ignorant' when it comes to talking about observations of the universe because time is well defined and used in science. Yep .. that's generally what ignorance produces .. which is also how those who choose 'to find out' are distinguished from those who refuse to do that.

Time is not well defined. They do not even know what it is! Time in the far universe is defined in their little religious paradigms in comically inept ways. They have no option to 'find out' either! They CANNOT come to a knowledge of the truth. No possibility.

You don't seem to understand that raw observational data has no religion in it. Tell me how raw numerical measurements (which define say, a spectrum), contain religious dogma?

Easy. If the light is seen and separated here, then it will be interpreted/defined/seen/exist here.
If I take a prism toy in a playroom of a child and look at it, light will behave a certain way there! That does not mean it is the same all over the created universe.

To look at that separated light that we separate HERE that we see from stars and assume there is nothing else out there but this, is to exercise faith alone. Now if all we do is look at the colors that represent hydrogen and other elements, well, fine. WE probably could say there is hydrogen around the star. (and other detected elements). That does not mean there is space and time there that is identical to here. So it would not mean, for example that the light that streamed in to this solar system area that contained the information, did not move through the unknown space and time! We cannot limit the 'speed' of light in all the universe to the speed that we see light move here. We cannot say that there is no spiritual component to time and space and even objects out there either, just because here in the fishbowl the physical is all we experience/know/can detect!

Apparently God thinks light has a place somewhere out there that may not be something we here are familiar with. Here is the Almighty, Personally speaking and quoted.

Job 38:19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?


38:24 -How is it, the way the light is distributed; and how does the east wind spread itself on the earth?

Do I really have to point out to you that that the train is an analogy and not literal? Do you draw such fundamental distinctions as this?

Do I need to point out the train is on earth?? Therefore time affecting things on this little train is the time here.

Your word 'disturbed' implies a concept which differs from the normal concept of time (aka: 'disturbed time').

However time and space may exist out there in the unknown recesses of deep space, the only time we ever get to see the light from there is here and now.

Please restate your point in a way which excludes the normal concept of time making clear what you mean by 'disturbed time' (in order to make your point).
How would you know if you can't exclude normal time from your thinking?

How would science know? I do not need to know since I a not the one making the claim here. I say they do not know. God made claims too, and I tend to ask what belief based models best fit what He said? If you claim space and time are homogeneous, then prove it.

Science's 'time' is made useful by using it as a fundamental dimension of the universe. This is done so our minds can make sense of what we perceive (and observe). You are trying to discard this in your fantasy. You can hardly then expect science to disregard it, just because of your misguided tantrums about that(?)

Yes we get it that poor little mankind has to try and fit big concepts above his paygrade into his little mind and schemes and belief systems etc. That does not mean time is limited to that. You need to think of and define time a certain way to get it to fit your religion, basically.

You are trying to eliminate a basic dimension invoked by science in order to make sense of the universe, and in so doing, you are creating nonsense.

Or maybe they got it wrong and made their models nonsense as a result.

Science can examine what wasn't known previously precisely because that very phrase invokes the concept of the past, which requires the measurable concept of time.

This they do in the fishbowl and IN fishbowl time. Of course things take time here and take time in a certain measurable way.

Your notion however, attempts to eliminate science's definition of time, so I don't understand what you mean by altering something that was previously 'unknown' because 'unknown' invokes the concept of the past which requires the measurable concept of time and you eliminated that.

Think bigger. Not only the past is involved, but the future, and the far universe...and more! We know time here. Here and in the present time. We do not know (right now as we speak we do not know) what time is like in the ends of the universe. The idea that because light moves a certain way here in our time, that light also must move this way in all the universe has left us with the idea great time is involved in light getting here. However if there was no time as we know it here ..out where stars are....there need not have been any great time involved at all! In fact, for all I know we could be looking at the present or future out there.

The laws of Physics in this universe are well defined and well tested, and time is defined as being a dimension of that universe. This qualifies science to speak about previous unknowns which may be observed in the present.

Not really. Physics invariably involves time and space. Our physics in the fishbowl here involves the space and time we have and know and live in here. Atoms for example, at the present time and nature here on earth may take a certain amount of time to decay. Unless time existed the same in far space, that time we see the atom take to decay here would not represent the time involved out there! So physics may and would seem to us here to be the same!

Your elimination of normal time however means you cannot observe nor interpret the universe. In fact, you can't even perceive it because your mind also requires the normal concept of time.

Yes I can interpret using fishbowl time like the rest of us can. That amounts to a belief when it comes to deep space though.

No .. they are talking nonsense especially when they discard science's measurable definition of time and its use of time as a dimension of the universe we perceive.

Too bad time is not measurable out of the fishbowl eh? Ha

 

[DennisTate]

Simple question(s):

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

Discussion...?

God Bless!

I would guess nearly infinitely older than we tend to imagine..... and I suppose at least a million times larger than we tend to imagine. Google the Near death experience account of Mellen Thomas Benedict for some exceptional information on this.

Aha there it is.....
Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

 

[dad]

There is plenty of evidence for what I believe.

What you believe...indeed. Evidence? Ha. You really should not violate the English language.

 

[dad]

I would guess nearly infinitely older than we tend to imagine....

The 'universe' we know was not created in creation week?

 

[SelfSim]

... The idea that because light moves a certain way here in our time, that light also must move this way in all the universe has left us with the idea great time is involved in light getting here. However if there was no time as we know it here ..out where stars are....there need not have been any great time involved at all! I fat, for all I know we could be looking at the present or future out there.

We could go around the circle many times in discussing this, but I think your conclusion above (underlined and emboldened) clearly demonstrates the utter futility of pursuing your idea about 'different time out there'.

It leads you precisely nowhere .. (and this time, by your own above words .. they are not even mine).

Science adopts lots of philosophies for one purpose and one purpose only .. to be useful.
If science can't test an idea, then it discards it and moves on.

I recommend you do the same.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Our physics in the fishbowl here involves the space and time we have and know and live in here.

.. and yet you appear to continually reject the notion that both the laws of Physics and time itself are both concepts invented by human minds which, (surprise, surprise ..), happen to reside locally on something also named (by human minds) as planet Earth and not a property of something which exists as some 'thing' independently from the minds perceiving these things. All of our perceptions, ideas, concepts, observations, science, laws of physics, everything .. has all been conceived and subsequently described by human minds. There is a hugely abundant humungous pile of objective evidence behind that statement .. and there is exactly zip supporting otherwise.

All measurements of the distant universe are performed by human minds. Have you ever stopped to consider why your 'fishbowl' would appear to relocate itself wherever there is a human mind making an observation of either an instrument (visual sense), ideas/concepts (perceptual sense), hearing (auditory sense), touching, etc? And that's regardless of where that particular mind is physically located in the universe?

The function of time is a fundamental part of the operating system of the human mind. It is a fundamental needed by it, in order to make sense of what we perceive, and if we perceive something orginating from deep space, time is automatically applied by the mind doing the perceiving. It is therefore a constant behind all observations. The idea that time is a property of something which exists 'out there' ie: beyond our minds in the distant universe, is nothing more than a convenient notion adopted for the purposes of simplifying discussions leading towards the ultimate goal making sense of some observation.

 

[dad]

Unfortunately this is not correct and the answer is somewhat more complicated.
What you are referring to is known as the Hubble sphere which is not the radius of the observable Universe horizon and has a value of 14 billion light years.
Objects within this sphere recede at less the speed of light; outside the sphere they exceed the speed of light.

The recession velocity of an object can exceed the speed of light and still be visible to the observer.
As I mentioned in a previous post there is a parameter known as the critical density
Ω₀ = Ωm + Ωr + Ωλ.
In our current era Ωr = 0, Ωm = 0.3 which is based on a Universe of 5% visible matter and 25% dark matter and Ωλ = 0.7 the remaining 70% being dark energy.

Using (Ωm, Ωλ) = (0.3, 0.7), it is found for redshifts z ≥1.5, the recession velocity of an object exceeds the speed of light yet galaxies as high as z ≈ 11 have been detected.
The reason why these objects are observable is that while they exceed the speed of light, say v where v is the recession velocity; they emit photons back towards the observer at the speed of light c.
If v-c is less than the velocity of the expanding Hubble sphere, they are visible to the observer.


As a variation to the expanding balloon analogy imagine drawing a grid pattern on a flexible membrane.
The grid has a particular scale.
If you stretch the membrane in all directions, the scale increases.

In an expanding Universe the scale a(t) increases with time and is defined by the equation:

a(t) = R(t)/R(t₀)

where R(t) is the radius of the Universe for some particular cosmological time t in the past and R(t₀) is the current radius of the Universe at time t₀.
The current scale of the Universe is a(t₀) = R(t₀)/R(t₀) =1

The wavelength of light scales the same way as the Universe hence.

λ /λ₀ = R(t)/R(t₀) = a(t)

where λ is the wavelength of light emitted by the object in its rest frame at cosmological time t in the past, and λ₀ is the wavelength of light as seen in the observer’s frame for the current cosmological time t₀.

The redshift z is determined experimentally from the spectral lines of the receding object (λ) and laboratory spectral lines (λ₀) which correspond to the object’s rest frame.

The redshift z = (λ₀ - λ)/λ = 1/a(t) – 1

(1+z) = 1/a(t)
(1+z) is the expansion factor.
Hence z is explained in terms of expansion and experimentally determined using wavelength.

You know that at the edges of the observable universe light speed is greater...because..?

 

[dad]

We could go around the circle many times in discussing this, but I think your conclusion above (underlined and emboldened) clearly demonstrates the utter futility of pursuing your idea about 'different time out there'.

It leads you precisely nowhere .. (and this time, by your own above words .. they are not even mine).

Science adopts lots of philosophies for one purpose and one purpose only .. to be useful.
If science can't test an idea, then it discards it and moves on.

I recommend you do the same.

Truth be told nothing science adopts about time or space in the far universe is useful. You have a problem with saying 'I don't know' apparently. Too bad, it is the honest thing to do when you do not know.