How old is the universe?

[vandivx]

you talk about expansion and some finite age of universe<br /><br />if the universe is not going to contract but will just go on expanding, why was it before smaller, in some contracted size relative to present time to begin with? what made it smaller in order that it can go from there to bigger extent as of current age whatever it is? I must say I don't like that idea of one time 'supernatural like occurences'.<br /> I say supernatural because anything that happens once and never again is pretty well halfway there (to qualify as supernatural).<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>my guess is that the universe is well over a trillion years in age. Its expansion is continuous at the periphery through a combination of gravity and electromagnetic forces<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't think you have any idea how those electromagnetic forces in combination with gravitation are causing the expansion so why not make them responsible for contraction also <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> and have oscillating universe that doesn't have to approach the denseness of BB singularity (which I have already said is nonsense) <br /><br />as to universe being open system (problem of entropy in open system), I think universe would qualify as closed system as I don't see what it would be open into, I don't believe that universe within universes idea<br /><br />universe that goes on like you say would potentially allow a human civilization to go on uninterrupted for eons (once their star burns up, they move to another) and that opens up the possibility of them eventually figuring out all the secrets of the universe and then what, wouldn't that be weird if there wouldn't be progress anymore for them, how awfull even to think that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />I like much better that idea that everything is inescapably remelted and new people then have to start inventing the wheel again<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<i>that opens up the possibility of them eventually figuring out all the secrets of the universe and then what, wouldn't that be weird if there wouldn't be progress anymore for them, how awfull even to think that <br />I like much better that idea that everything is inescapably remelted and new people then have to start inventing the wheel again </i><br /><br />I think opposite, actually. In an occilating Universe you are stuck knowing that all progress you make will all be for naught. The alternative is knowing that progress can potentially go on forever... I highly doubt that, no matter how long our species survives, we can know everything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alkalin]

<font color="yellow">I don't think you have any idea how those electromagnetic forces in combination with gravitation are causing the expansion so why not make them responsible for contraction also and have oscillating universe that doesn't have to approach the denseness of BB singularity (which I have already said is nonsense) </font><br /><br />Electromagnetic and gravity forces are observed. That’s more than I can say for expansion and inflation. But you have a point about singularities that only exist in imaginary math.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">as to universe being open system (problem of entropy in open system), I think universe would qualify as closed system as I don't see what it would be open into, I don't believe that universe within universes idea </font><br /><br />Some studies I believe indicate the universe is open, so there is little likelihood of it oscillating. Universes within universes? Now that is a very good idea. It certainly would give us a real challenge to eventually understand the whole thing. It is a false belief that we are very close to understanding it all now, which some cosmologist recently alluded to again, something they are always saying. But reality keeps on giving them even more complexity and mystery.<br />

 

[alkalin]

Here is a thought of fancy: Suppose over long periods of time we gain very significant knowledge about the forces of nature, much more than we currently have. We can eventually travel space easily and we become planet builders, terraforming planets, until they not only develop and support species of their own, but us as well. <br /><br />Don’t stop there, because with enough knowledge of the natural laws, we become solar system builders beginning with the very stars that can support such activity of the planets. Why should we stop with this, when there are galaxies to build? Or even universes?<br /><br />The importance here is that we become more of what we are, builders, not destroyers. This might even be a clue as to where on earth did we come from. The oscillating short term universe idea would not allow time for this.<br />

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Some studies I believe indicate the universe is open, so there is little likelihood of it oscillating.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />I think we are talking at cross purposses, you mean here 'open' as in that universe will go on expanding (hence you say 'little likelihood of it oscillating')<br /><br />I meant by universe being closed system that there cannot be outside influences coming to bear on what happens in universe qua 'system', there not being other universes outside of it to come into equation so to speak, I have probably misunderstood what you said there about entropy<br /><br />of course, some studies indicate that, other ones indicate something else, funny how when they go your way you recognize them as pointers, I am sure BB theory has behind its belt many studies in its favour, thought I would point that out<br /><br />vanDivX<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The oscillating short term universe idea would not allow time for this.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think that gives plenty of time for anything, really<br /><br />you almost convince me that you don't grasp the scale of such things, you sound like sci-fi fans for whom universe is like coffee table across which they imagine people zipping from one end to another <br /><br />I find sci-fi projections of future to be way off from what eventually happens, it is good we cannot wake up say five thousands years later to check on what will be then because we would likely be dissapointed, there would be cries 'what, no colony on Mars?? you guys must be joking...' on the other hand we would find things that we just didn't quite even think of<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

you're right, I said that tongue in cheek, though not entirely <br /><br />so what if one day all will be for naught, one day we will all die and we can't think that what we do now will all be for naught from our perspective, you might talk about future generations but they will all die just as surely, same as all past generations did, ultimately we do things to better OUR lives while we live, to satisfy OUR curiosity how the world is made up while we live, it is ok that future generations will benefit but that is not why we do what we do and so it is for all generations, past present and future<br /><br />if past generations didn't discover electricity for example, than that might be what we would work on now and we would be just as satisfied with that as with coming up with what we did come up with, it is all relative<br /><br />I would also agree that there will be plenty of scope for progress no matter how long mankind survives, that was pure tongue in cheek what I said there<br /><br />however that said, nothing is guaranteed for humans, some big asteroid may wipe us out one day before we could do anything about it and that might be it, we won't even have to wait for the world to shrink on the way to be reborn from ashes, in meantime life elsewhere will rise and go on and universe couldn't care less if it shouldn't be ours but of somebody elses somewhere else in universe, that's realistic view for you, I don't think you like that view and I can't say I like it myself, however reality doesn't care what we like or not or about us if we live or not<br /><br />so far reality has turned out nice and stable, else we wouldn't be here, still we can't rule out sudden ending, same as generations of ants may die of old age or at least most of them but one day a forest fire wipes them all out and that's that (I know that's just local happening but if a meteorite should fall squarely on my head tomorrow, I can't know if it was just me or if the whole earth was wiped out alongside wit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

The only positive you give here is that we really do not know the future. But the future will not become what we want unless we work for that future to occure.