ForumsWEPRHow old do you think the universe is?

219 30039
dr_doughnut
offline
dr_doughnut
72 posts
Peasant

I don't personally believe in billions an millions of years, but I want to know what people think.

  • 219 Replies
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

When it come to how old the universe is, I think this website will give a fairly good answer:
[url=http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html]

Let me go a little off-topic now and discuss how old the totality of existence is. I think that is practically (as is not practical) impossible to answer, but alas I'll give it a shot.

Whether you are Christian or Atheist I think this answer would be generally agreed upon (however I may be). It (the totality of existence) is impossible to say because one cannot measure time in the sense as we know it now before the Big Bang Theory or even before (if there is one(s)) god(s) or God created or in the case of the Big Bang Theory expanded to create space and the universe as we know it.

I probably did a poor job of explaining myself, but that is the best I could do, sorry if it was at all unclear

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

(however I may be).

Correction: (however I may be incorrect), oh and I said cannot when I meant can't.

Also, I don't seem to be able to link sites properly =.= I clicked the link tab at the top of this submit box, and copy-pasted the website html into it and yet it isn't coming out as a hyperlink, can anyone explain that to me?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

I don't personally believe in billions an millions of years, but I want to know what people think.


The evidence supports a universe that is roughly 13.75 billion years old.

Link fixed.
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html

Also, I don't seem to be able to link sites properly


two ways
1. click the link button, past the url of the site, click okay, add the text you want to be a link, lick link button again to close link.

2. add text you want to be a link, highlight text you want to be a link, click link button, add url of the site you want linked, click okay.
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
Shepherd

is this just a long way of saying. "we dunno" ?

I suppose it is a long way of saying "we dunno". Although I prefer to say a more professional way not "a long way of saying. we dunno".
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

is impossible to say because one cannot measure time in the sense as we know it now before the Big Bang Theory or even before


One thing about this, time as we know it wouldn't have existed "before" the Big Bang.
Minotaur55
offline
Minotaur55
1,387 posts
Jester

To be honest, I think that it could be eons. For some reason, a billion doesn't seem long enough...

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

I suppose it is a long way of saying "we dunno". Although I prefer to say a more professional way not "a long way of saying. we dunno".

but why make it harder then it is? to sound more interesting?

if you just come to the point you don't have to care that people wont understand.

I probably did a poor job of explaining myself, but that is the best I could do, sorry if it was at all unclear
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

anyway i got my own theory of cycles as i explained a few times already.
so the univers simple has always existed. there is no such thing as "befor the universe / creation".

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

anyway i got my own theory of cycles as i explained a few times already.


Only problem with that is the likely shape of the universe make it unlikely.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Only problem with that is the likely shape of the universe make it unlikely


likely shape of the universe? makes it unlikely?
plz. explain.
Bananas2
offline
Bananas2
4 posts
Farmer

I will go with what scienists predict, and that was like what 5 biljon years? I can't remember.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

likely shape of the universe? makes it unlikely?
plz. explain.


Let's use gum for an analogy.

First take the gum and roll it out flat. It's not going to collapse back in, it's just going to keep spreading out thinner and thinner.

Now try blowing a bubble with the gum. This would be like a spherical universe. Unlike flattening the gum out the bubble eventually will reach a critical point, deflate and collapsing back in on itself. (your cycle)

The third possibility is we flatten the gum out but curve it. So it flattens more in some spots than others. This would result in those thinning areas to become to thin and create wholes, or rip apart.

This would apply to the universe as well. If everything is thinning out the matter can't interact resulting in everything eventually settling and cooling. If everything is expanding in a bubble it will eventually reach critical point where it collapses back on itself. if it's curved there will be an unequal expansion resulting in the universe ripping apart.

Now there is more to consider than that which we don't have all worked out, but from our observations of the universe compared to models of a flat, curves and spherical one it matches a flat universe the best. So we can expect everything to evenly thin out and the matter inside to settle and cool due to lack of interaction.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Now try blowing a bubble with the gum. This would be like a spherical universe. Unlike flattening the gum out the bubble eventually will reach a critical point, deflate and collapsing back in on itself. (your cycle)


not exactly.

my theory was that inside the bubble there is something sucking the gum in. (black holes) until it has sucked up all the gum. and then blows a bubble by itself.

from our observations of the universe compared to models of a flat, curves and spherical one it matches a flat universe the best. So we can expect everything to evenly thin out and the matter inside to settle and cool due to lack of interaction.

and i think there will always be interaction because the black holes will keep going. even when it will be cooled down there will be hot spots whit a working hole. pulling all the matter to 1 dens point and implode.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,109 posts
Grand Duke

But there is only so much matter in the universe (ignoring antimatter since it's not yet quite understood). Your idea about the cycles due to black holes would only work if matter was ubiquitary and more or less evenly spread, which would not work over time if the universe had finite borders.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

Your idea about the cycles due to black holes would only work if matter was ubiquitary and more or less evenly spread,


dunno. science doesn't nearly know anything about black holes. (thats why it's just a theory)
but sofar it seems they suck in just anything. matter, antimatter, energy, emptyness. its hard to explain my view on something that is so little known of.
but if it just keeps going then eventually after a few centillion year i think that it could have attracted everything.

if there is nothing around it. it pulls stuff from further away.
Showing 1-15 of 219