@divegeester
We know what the rate of expansion is. So do a thought experiment and reverse the process until the universe shrinks to a singularity; that tells you how long the expansion has been going on.
@sonhouse
It is very exciting news. It means we still have some work to do to understand the universe we live in. My admittedly layman's attitude to discrepancies in measurements is that, given that we're living in an explosion, it should not surprise us that the universe is not expanding uniformly in all directions. It is only to be expected that there would bits expanding faster than other bits, giving rise to regional differences in measurement. Think of the universe having 'lumps' -- not too implausible, really.
@divegeester
I already went over this.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/how-old-is-the-universe.196645
@moonbus saidYour assertions have been disputed.
@divegeester
We know what the rate of expansion is. So do a thought experiment and reverse the process until the universe shrinks to a singularity; that tells you how long the expansion has been going on.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/
@metal-brain saidYup. That’s how science works. Keep looking for better evidence.
Your assertions have been disputed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/
-Removed-I find the most interesting portion of the history of the universe to be the invisible part, the horizon past which our instruments cannot measure, when the very early universe was too hot to propagate photons. This portion is harder to estimate because we have only theory, not observable evidence.
-Removed-I don't know what it would mean for time to be not uniform. Supposing 'time' went sometimes faster or slower, all processes 'in' time would also go faster and slower, including any clocks attempting to measure this -- so everything would still be 'in synch' and no fluctuation would be noticeable.
I don't see any problem with there being 'lumps' in the distribution of matter. There are measurable variances in the cosmic background radiation level, too. My guess is, these average out, in calculating the age of the universe. But that's just a guess. I'm not familiar with the equations astronomers are actually using to calculate the age of the universe.