Neogaia777 said:
Let me get this straight, there was an explosion (that came from nothing, anyway...) There was an/this explosion of matter/material/energy from a single center point (of origin) in/of the universe that would be the center of the universe, that everything would be expanding from away from, (in way as would happen as an explosion), if the universe is truly accelerating in that expansion, (and I think it is, but we'll get to that later) approximately 13-14 billion years ago, right...?
The numbers are astounding... The observable universe now, let alone the "entire universe"... There are trillions, or is it hundreds of trillions, I can't remember...? Anyway, at least multiple trillions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars and star systems, and God knows how many planets in what is now the observable universe to us and they've hit a limit, it's as far as we can see with our technology and technological level right now for some reason, the observable universe is 46.5 billion light years around us, still no definable center...
The fact is is that the universe is really not behaving like it originated or is or has originated from a single center point explosion, and it is beginning to look less and less like that, but there is no current explanation for it so, nothing has changed (yet)... The universe "is expanding and seems to be speeding up", but, like I said, it is expanding or appears to be expanding but not like it originated from one single center point of origin... In fact it may be expanding and accelerating in direct counter-force, or in direct proportion to, the force that would cause it all collapse in on itself, and the universe could be perpetual, or nearly perpetual, due to this balance...
Then there is the "vantage point" issue... There is no way to know where the center of the universe, nor even if it even has a center, because from anywhere you are in it, even if it did all come from one single point of origin, and it (the universe) is expanding outward from that, and it is accelerating, if you were a a particle in the in the middle of a wave of particles being exploded from it (the center) (that one single point of origin "only 13-14 billion years old") (get to that in a bit)...
From where you were as the particle, you are in motion with the explosion, and if you were to examine your surroundings, from anywhere you were in the universe, looking at the other particles around you, it would seem that they are all proceeding at equidistant speeds in all directions proportional, all outward and away from you and it always seems as if you are the center, so how do you know if your in the center..? You can't... How do you detect or locate or somehow determine or measure the center...? You can't...
From any vantage point, even if you were truly in the center, it would be just like being anywhere else in it (the universe), so how would you know the difference...? And then like I said, it doesn't seem to be accelerating and expanding outward "FROM A SINGLE POINT OF ORIGIN", yet, and I don't know that it ever will...
Anyway, Then there is the age issue...? If the universe is only 13-14 billion years old, how come we can see 46.5 billion light years away from us in all directions, it would be 46.5 billion years old or from 46.5 billion years ago...? Then, How did all that matter and material get that far away from us if the universe is only 13-14 billion years old...? And that is only the observable universe, many theorize that the there much more, maybe very much more, maybe spanning for trillions light years... But it's all only 13-14 billion years old...? Doesn't make sense at all...?
It would have had to have been traveling or all moving a multiple times the speed of light, and we know it is accelerating and expanding, but not that fast, not by a long shot, so how's that work...? And it's supposed to be moving even faster than that due to accelerating...? What??? How's that work...? Matter cannot travel past the speed of light, let alone multiple times it, it doesn't make sense...?
I think the universe is older, maybe even much older, or very much more older, possibly than we ever thought it was, or maybe even perhaps we ever imagined it to be, and I don't know about it's coming from a single center point of origin, but that's just me...
Then let's not even get into gravitation, time, dimension and how that all comes to play with all of this...
Neogaia777 said:
So, and in considering what is probably the true age of the universe, and also the sheer vastness of it, and the "numbers" in that...?
I conclude that were not the only ones... And we were not always the only ones before this, and we will not always be the only ones after this...
What did the ones before us do...? How far did they get or go...? What happened to and with them...? Where did they go...? And where are they now...?
Neogaia777 said:
I would not answer as if with having my own qualifications for saying how things are known. But I do agree, the mass of all the universe, of what is in range to be viewed, and any of it beyond that which is known, never would have started in a nondimensional point. All the mass would have had all the gravitation with it which with there would be no big bang, if there were to be such beginning for the universe. It would not be just nothing preceding that, either. Without necessary existence which would already be, and with being necessary, not being limited in any way, there would be nothing, and never ever be anything but nothing. So there is always this necessary existence, though we don't see that anything of the universe is that.
The force with which it would collapse is all the gravitation that there is with all the mass of the universe. This force is much greater than any of the most massive super black holes, and there would never have been the big bang, with that. There is another force that is spoken of for explaining the expansion, with which that expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating.
I don't think there is that claim of galaxies seen from 46.5 billion lightyears away. It might be claimed that this is how far away they are now, but what would be seen of them is from the time that the light from those could have traveled here, that not being 46.5 billion years.
I would not claim there were others before that presumed beginning, other than the necessary existence, which always continues.
I have to leave it to explanations from the information scientists have for this, for anything further, that I can't explain from my own knowledge.
How Old is the Universe?
According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding.
The universe cannot be younger than the objects contained inside of it. By determining the ages of the oldest stars, scientists are able to put a limit on the age.
The life cycle of a star is based on its mass. More massive stars burn faster than their lower-mass siblings. A star 10 times as massive as the sun will burn through its fuel supply in 20 million years, while a star with half the sun's mass will last more than 20 billion years. The mass also affects the brightness, or luminosity, of a star; more massive stars are brighter.
Known as Population III stars, the first stars were massive and short-lived. They contained only hydrogen and helium, but through fusion began to create the elements that would help to build the next generation of stars. Scientists have been hunting for traces of the first stars for decades.
"Those stars were the ones that formed the first heavy atoms that ultimately allowed us to be here," David Sobral, an astronomer from the University of Lisbon in Portugal, said in a statement. Sobral was part of a team that identified a bright galaxy with evidence of Population III stars.
"The detection of dust in the early universe provides new information on when the first supernovae exploded and hence the time when the first hot stars bathed the universe in light," ESO officials said in a statement. "Determining the timing of this 'cosmic dawn' is one of the holy grails of modern astronomy, and it can be indirectly probed through the study of early interstellar dust."
Early stars aren't the only way to place limits on the age of the universe. Dense collections of stars known as globular clusters have similar characteristics. The oldest known globular clusters have stars with ages that appear to be between 11 and 18 billion years old. The wide range comes from problems in pinpointing the distances to the clusters, which affects estimates of brightness and thus mass. If the cluster is farther away than scientists have measured, the stars would be brighter, thus more massive, thus younger than calculated.
"Just like archaeologists use fossils to reconstruct the history of the Earth, astronomers use globular clusters to reconstruct the history of the galaxy," Andrea Kunder told Space.com. "There are only about 150 globular clusters known in the Milky Way Galaxy, so each of these globular clusters is an important tracer of the galactic halo and the formation of the Milky Way Galaxy."
The uncertainty still creates a limit to the age of the universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger.
The universe we live in is not flat and unchanging, but constantly expanding. If the expansion rate is known, scientists can work backwards to determine the universe's age. Thus, finding the expansion rate of the universe — a number known as the Hubble constant — is key.
A number of factors determine the value of this constant. The first is the type of matter that dominates the universe. Scientists must determine the proportion of regular and dark matter to dark energy. Density also plays a role. A universe with a low density of matter is older than a matter-dominated one.
To determine the density and composition of the universe, scientists rely on missions such as NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and The European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft. By measuring the thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang, missions such as these are able to determine the density, composition and expansion rate of the universe. The leftover radiation is known as the cosmic microwave background, and both WMAP and Planck have mapped it.
In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number.
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has also contributed to narrowing down the age of the universe by reducing the uncertainty of the Hubble constant. Combined with the WMAP measurements, scientists were able to make independent calculations of the pull of dark energy.
"Just over a decade ago, using the words 'precision' and 'cosmology' in the same sentence was not possible, and the size and age of the universe was not known to better than a factor of two," Wendy Freedman of the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Pasadena, California, said in a statement. Freedman lead the study that used Spitzer to refine the Hubble constant. "Now we are talking about accuracies of a few percent."
Neogaia777 said:
We cannot find or determine a single origin point or center, nor edge... And if it did disperse from a single center in a kind of like an explosion, then we should be able to see some evidence of that, even if we could see just maybe a quarter of the explosion, or just 10% of it, we should see some evidence of that explosion, like being able to discern a center or edge, unless were just not seeing very much and the universe is simply larger than we maybe can imagine, or have imagined... And we, seeing 46.5 billion light years out, may only be seeing a small fraction of the universe in it's entirety...
Then try and do the math...
Then there is the fact that the earth is said to be 4.6 billion years old, and the "entire universe", (anyway), The earth is said to 4.6 billion years old, right...? And what, and how old is our star...? Cause see, I don't know if we have that right, cause it takes a certain amount of time for stars and their systems to form, how long was that...? Say it took 6 billion years (which I think It might have taken longer possibly, anyway), Say it took 6 billion years for this star and it solar system of ours to form... Then that leaves, what? 3 billion years for the universe to have expanded out to us and to have placed us where we are at, right?, for a total (age) of aprox. 13.8 billion years, right?
Not quite, if this solar system including earth is aprox. 10-11 billion years old, then what about stars and star systems that exist both before and after ours, maybe some 5-10 billion years before ours or maybe more, anyway, then how long did it take our galaxy to form so those stars could form...? Or other galaxies before or after ours...?
Then, out further, strings of hundreds of millions of galaxies and clusters of up to billions, for a total of several trillions and that is only as far as we can see 46.5 billion light years out. (which I mentioned might only be a small fraction) Those strings and clusters all seem to pushing out from some dark pockets pretty equally across the board and this is the pattern of the expansion that I was saying about it not being like an explosion or expanding maybe nor originating from a single center... Anyway, all that had to take much longer than 13.8 billion years...
Anyway, the universe has to be so very much older than we think it is, and it may be very much larger as well, and I don't know about it originating from a single center point yet either...!
Indeed it would not have been an explosion out from a single point at the center, that doesn't work for an explanation.
