# How old is the universe?

## Science

15 Apr 23

15 Apr 23

@metal-brain said

From 21:22 ..... without the sensationalist presentation

###### I can do that!
16 Apr 23

@metal-brain said
I cannot escape the earth by jumping. That is good evidence.
Then why do they call it a theory?

17 Apr 23

@athousandyoung said
Then why do they call it a theory?
Who is "they"?
I don't know of anyone who called gravity a theory but you.

Perhaps you are confusing the cause of gravity for gravity itself. Nobody disputes gravity, just the cause of gravity. I say gravity is caused by time dilation. What is causing the time dilation from mass? Matter. But why is matter causing time dilation?

###### I can do that!
18 Apr 23

@metal-brain said
Who is "they"?
I don't know of anyone who called gravity a theory but you.

Perhaps you are confusing the cause of gravity for gravity itself. Nobody disputes gravity, just the cause of gravity. I say gravity is caused by time dilation. What is causing the time dilation from mass? Matter. But why is matter causing time dilation?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/newton-theory

Newton's theory of gravity predicts that the gravitational force on any object is proportional to its mass, while his second law of motion predicts that the resulting acceleration is inversely proportional to the object's mass.
From: Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (Third Edition), 2003

###### I can do that!
18 Apr 23

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/research/science-field/einsteins-theory-gravitation

18 Apr 23
1 edit

@suzianne said
I have never (yes, never ) read anything you've posted that is even remotely correct. You are always, always wrong. At first, like some generous people here, I thought you were just trolling, because no one can be 100% wrong 100% of the time. But, no, you actually are. No matter the subject, you can be reliably counted on to be wrong about it. ALL THE TIME. You're like a freak of nature or something; you completely defy natural odds.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I laugh at how he displays his ignorance so proudly.

###### Misfit Queen
19 Apr 23

@metal-brain said
Who is "they"?
I don't know of anyone who called gravity a theory but you.

Perhaps you are confusing the cause of gravity for gravity itself. Nobody disputes gravity, just the cause of gravity. I say gravity is caused by time dilation. What is causing the time dilation from mass? Matter. But why is matter causing time dilation?
You are an idiot, aren't you?

Can't remember a thing about being schooled on this numerous times, can you?

###### Über-Nerd
19 Apr 23
3 edits

@metal-brain said
That is another theory. Some people refer to that as the "big crunch theory". The expansion is accelerating so there is no sign of reversal. For that reason the big crunch theory is not as popular as it used to be.
No, you've missed the point. The point is this: we know what the expansion rate is and we know how far away the most distant visible objects are now. So we extrapolate, mathematically, how long must it have taken those objects to get where they are now, at this expansion rate. Just as measuring the speed of a car and knowing where it is now, we can calculate where it must have been an hour ago or two hours ago (without the car actually going into reverse to get there). In the case of the visible universe, we extrapolate backwards hypothetically (which does not mean that it ever will shrink backwards to a Big Crunch) to a moment of least expansion (an imaginary point) -- and that tells you how old the universe is, or, at any rate, how long it has been expanding. Whether it makes any sense to ask what happened 'before' it started expanding is another kettle of fish.

PS: Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not claim that nothing can go faster than c. What it claims is a) that no particle can be accelerated up to c if it was ever going slower than c. And b) that the possibility of particles which travel faster than c are not ruled out, provided that they stay moving faster than c. And c) that non-particles can at least theoretically move faster than c, and this is what is claimed for spacial (i.e., non-particle) inflation, namely, that space can expand faster than any particle within space.

20 Apr 23

@moonbus said
No, you've missed the point. The point is this: we know what the expansion rate is and we know how far away the most distant visible objects are now. So we extrapolate, mathematically, how long must it have taken those objects to get where they are now, at this expansion rate. Just as measuring the speed of a car and knowing where it is now, we can calculate where it must ha ...[text shortened]... (i.e., non-particle) inflation, namely, that space can expand faster than any particle within space.
"we know what the expansion rate is "

Great! What is it?

###### I can do that!
20 Apr 23

@metal-brain said
Who is "they"?
I don't know of anyone who called gravity a theory but you.

Perhaps you are confusing the cause of gravity for gravity itself. Nobody disputes gravity, just the cause of gravity. I say gravity is caused by time dilation. What is causing the time dilation from mass? Matter. But why is matter causing time dilation?

23 Apr 23

###### Über-Nerd
23 Apr 23

@metal-brain said
"we know what the expansion rate is "

Great! What is it?
The current best estimate (based on analysis of 32 years of Hubble space telescope data) is roughly 45 miles (73 kilometers) per second per megaparsec.

This is not a constant. It is increasing, and not homogeneous throughout the universe; slightly different measurements have been made in different regions. This suggests that the universe has 'lumps'. Not surprising, really, considering we're living in an explosion.

https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-hubble-telescope-measurements

25 Apr 23

@moonbus said
The current best estimate (based on analysis of 32 years of Hubble space telescope data) is roughly 45 miles (73 kilometers) per second per megaparsec.

This is not a constant. It is increasing, and not homogeneous throughout the universe; slightly different measurements have been made in different regions. This suggests that the universe has 'lumps'. Not surprising, really ...[text shortened]... ving in an explosion.

https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-hubble-telescope-measurements
That is outdated information. The Hubble space telescope cannot see galaxies as far away (in the past) as the Webb infrared telescope. The Hubble space telescope is like a near sighted look at the universe.

###### Über-Nerd
26 Apr 23
1 edit

@metal-brain said
That is outdated information. The Hubble space telescope cannot see galaxies as far away (in the past) as the Webb infrared telescope. The Hubble space telescope is like a near sighted look at the universe.
Why is it that everything you post is rubbish and every objection you make to facts is wrong? Not even Duchess was wrong all the time, but somehow you manage it. Remarkable.

Firstly, the Webb telescope has not been in service long enough to gather enough data to make a difference to the question of the age of the universe. As it gathers more data, there may be a revision of the current best estimate; this is to be expected. All scientific findings are subject to revision in light of new evidence. So what? This does not invalidate the current best estimate.

Secondly, the Hubble data have been corroborated by other institutes also working on the question of the age of the universe, including Europe's Planck Institute. See for example:

https://www.livescience.com/how-know-age-of-universe

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.