There is a way to know....now!

[space101]

There are two rather simple and straight forward calculations to demonstrate the age of the universe, and possibly disprove some misconceptions

Does anyone want to play?

A good calculator is needed because the numbers are BIG

 

[COLGeek]

You have to give more info than this to get folks serious interest. For instance, where did these calculations come from? And, how have they been vetted?

 

[space101]

Thanks for your reply. The concept of the calculation is this

The radius measurement of the universe agreed to by most astrophysicists and astronomers is widely knowable

The distance of the speed of light is knowable

Andromeda Galaxy is supposed to be moving at 640,000 miles per hour

Recent Futurism publication supposed that universe is expanding at 160,000 miles per hour

Agree so far?

 

[Classical Motion]

An "age" is a summation of equal time durations. So age only applies for constant rates and therefore constant durations of time.

How would one fudge in a coefficient for the changing rates of time? One would need that time change gradient.....thru out time.

We can not find the radius of the universe. We only have a sight line. Only our radius.

The size and age of cosmos can not be determined and never will be. We don't have the grey matter needed. Or the instruments.

I think surveying our solar system should be our first measurement and understanding goal. All else is just eye candy and math theory. I'm sure our system will expose several illusions.

Like the background radiation illusion. It's there(everywhere).......but it's not what we think it is.

 

[space101]

I agree there is no cosmic background radiation

If light speed is a constant, that is the first measurement

If you Google diameter of universe it will return 93 billion light years. Should we believe it?

 

[Classical Motion]

Right now we can only detect light of a certain age. To a certain age. And therefore a certain distance. This is because of the sensitivity of our instruments and the back ground noise level. And the fact that light dissolves with distance.

Light can get so old, that it losses it's direction. The direction loss comes from the density loss. It becomes back ground noise. ORPHAN EM propagation. The source is now black. Only detectable as noise. A slight temperature as the result of continuous fleeting superposition.

How old could light get before it is so thin that it doesn't exist? This cosmos is probably older than that. Much older.

But it's just another guess. If we could see what the present cosmos looks like, we might be shocked. There could be a galactic super nova coming straight at us, only 500 LYs away.

If the MW blew up today, we would not see it or know it till it hit us. 25K years from today.

 

[Gibsense]

There are two rather simple and straightforward calculations to demonstrate the age of the universe, and possibly disprove some misconceptions

Does anyone want to play?

A good calculator is needed because the numbers are BIG

Yeh, I have been banging on about this since 1997. More fool me some say
If you have Excel I can send you a simple worksheet that shows Hubble's Constant for any given "age of the universe" and this calculation relys on the same principle as what follows below.

1. It is based on C=2 Pi.r^2 which is the circumference of a circle (ball or Hypersphere) is related to the radius.
2. That in any calculation distance can be substituted for time (although completely valid it is only sensible on very large distances )
3. The "age of the universe" in years can be used as the radius of the universe in light years (I assert).
4. That the universe may not be a perfect sphere/hypersphere depending perhaps on spin and/or mass distribution
5. An approximate figure is acceptable (If I remember correctly the diameter thus derived is a bit less than the 93 billion light years suggested)

 

[Gibsense]

I should point out that the two ideas of diameter are quite different. In normal perception, the diameter exists in the 3d space of flatland (or gentle curvature). In my example, the diameter is that of a hypersphere and it is impossible to visit any place on the diameter except by going back in time. In the "normal" interpretation it is theoretically possible to (thought experiment) visit anywhere on the diameter. Of course, if the diameter of the "normal" interpretation is on a curvature (surface of a sphere) then the diameter would be somewhat different (larger)

 

[space101]

Yeh, I have been banging on about this since 1997. More fool me some say
If you have Excel I can send you a simple worksheet that shows Hubble's Constant for any given "age of the universe" and this calculation relys on the same principle as what follows below.

1. It is based on C=2 Pi.r^2 which is the circumference of a circle (ball or Hypersphere) is related to the radius.
2. That in any calculation distance can be substituted for time (although completely valid it is only sensible on very large distances )
3. The "age of the universe" in years can be used as the radius of the universe in light years (I assert).
4. That the universe may not be a perfect sphere/hypersphere depending perhaps on spin and/or mass distribution
5. An approximate figure is acceptable (If I remember correctly the diameter thus derived is a bit less than the 93 billion light years suggested)

 

[space101]

To your 3 point, so why aren't stats online reflecting more accurate age of universe of 46 billion years? All I am doing is plugging in numbers published by mainstream astrophysics, and getting very different conclusions than 13.8 billion years old. Doesn't anyone else see that?

 

[Gibsense]

To your 3 point, so why aren't stats online reflecting more accurate age of universe of 46 billion years? All I am doing is plugging in numbers published by mainstream astrophysics, and getting very different conclusions than 13.8 billion years old. Doesn't anyone else see that?

Ah, I see the issue you raise. My answer is this:
The diameter described as 93 billion light years for our observable universe is the assumption of flat space or nearly flat. However, if the universe is a hypersphere (think spreading the flat image over the surface of a sphere so that the 46 billion becomes a distance from the pole to the equator (hypersphere).
Once you imagine this image there are some confusing issues related to the equation for the diameter/circumference on a curved surface (I have not explored the relevance of this beyond highlighting it as a possible solution to some current issues)
Summary-

1. Assumption hypersphere
2. That the 93 billion is calculated assuming a flat space of a spherical observable universe
3. I suggest that this (2) is not reality; that the space is of a hypersphere (A white hole actually but thats another issue)
4. The 3D space of a hypersphere is its surface. Our universe then the surface of a hypersphere
5. The Hypersphere = the observable universe = the universe NB A normal difficulty we have (people have) at this point is the boundary. What is beyond? Briefly, you have to imagine travelling on the spherical surface - you end back where you started - ignoring that it is expanding. Beyond the circumference is Nothing. Or less than nothing if you consider an embedding space to be reality.
6. The point 5 is original ( That the observable universe is the Universe). I am not aware of any previous consideration equivalent)
7. That change of perspective changes the diameter into the circumference of a hemisphere (follow the hypersphere circumference from pole to equator (46 billion light years) where from the perspective of someone at the pole the equator is at time Zero.
8. If we travelled from pole to equator the time zero would appear to recede and be at the same 46 billion light-year distance.
9. The time diameter (13.8) becomes the radius of a hypersphere of the total circumference of 186 billion light-years i.e. two hemispheres which is an apparent contradiction.