"Mike Schwab" wrote in message
...
There were two groups studying Supernova to refine the Hubble
(in)Constant and how far away galaxies are and their rate of change.
Everyone was expecting the universe to be expanding at a slower rate as
time passed by. But both groups kept studying and studying and
studying, long after other groups expected them to publish. Finally one
group published, and the other group quickly confirmed, the results of
their studys.

Exactly the opposite of everyones expectations. After the initial big
bang, the furthermost galaxies slowed their expansion, then started
increasing their expansion rate, which is still increasing. So, instead
of just looking for dark matter to hold galaxies together, people are
looking for dark energy that pushes the galaxies apart. And these
revised ages make the universe barely older than the oldest stars.

But weren't the oldest stars supposed to be in the 20 billion year range,
while the universe was supposed to be in the 12-15 billion year range? Has
the date of the oldest stars been revised downwards to make them younger?

Yousuf Khan