How Old is our Universe?

We know its age and size are two sides to the same coin.(relative) We
know one way to find its age is to measure the decay of its radioactive
elements.,and this gives a very good measurement of the oldest earth
rocks.. They are 3.8 billion years old. dating our solar system we have
meteorites that are 4.6 billion years old. We really have to start
guessing when trying to measure the age of nebula,and old stars. read
the oldest stars might have a life span of 12 billion years I think if
we could find stars with very little or no heavy elements immerged in
them they would have to be created out of hydrogen and helium the only
stuff around,and to start up their fusion core would be a longer time
processes. Posted it would be great if we could find a white dwarf that
was nearing its end and ready to shut of its light. Have a gut feeling
my guessing the universe's age at 22 billion years kind of fits
Go figure bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
We know its age and size are two sides to the same coin.(relative) We
know one way to find its age is to measure the decay of its radioactive
elements.,and this gives a very good measurement of the oldest earth
rocks.. They are 3.8 billion years old. dating our solar system we have
meteorites that are 4.6 billion years old. We really have to start
guessing when trying to measure the age of nebula,and old stars. read
the oldest stars might have a life span of 12 billion years I think if
we could find stars with very little or no heavy elements immerged in
them they would have to be created out of hydrogen and helium the only
stuff around,and to start up their fusion core would be a longer time
processes. Posted it would be great if we could find a white dwarf that
was nearing its end and ready to shut of its light. Have a gut feeling
my guessing the universe's age at 22 billion years kind of fits
Go figure bert


The current data supports a value just less than 14 billion years. That
age is sufficient to encompass observations made so far.

As to white dwarfs ready to shut off their light, estimates are on the
order of 100 billion years, so even in your 22 billion year guess, that
would be a long way off.

The current data supports a value just less than 14 billion years. That
age is sufficient to encompass observations made so far.

Is those 14 billion years calculated with regard to the effects of
gravity and curved spacetime upon the lightspeed?

You do know that even the light is subjected to the effects of
gravity? Einstein even said so himself.

You don't need any mass to be subjected, if the spacetime continuum
itself is curved.

wrote:
The current data supports a value just less than 14 billion years. That
age is sufficient to encompass observations made so far.


Is those 14 billion years calculated with regard to the effects of
gravity and curved spacetime upon the lightspeed?

You do know that even the light is subjected to the effects of
gravity? Einstein even said so himself.

You don't need any mass to be subjected, if the spacetime continuum
itself is curved.


The value is derived from observations by people more knowledgeable in
this stuff than you can even approach.

The value is derived from observations by people more knowledgeable in
this stuff than you can even approach.

That is not an answer to my questions. I have never seen any
difference is the measurment of the lightspeed due to gravitational
influence by your scientists.

But I have seen what your scientists claim to be empirical proof on
that time flows slower with increased gravitational influence.

If that is true, then the lightspeed must also decrease with
increased gravitational influence.

On Jun 17, 5:17 am, wrote:
The value is derived from observations by people more knowledgeable in
this stuff than you can even approach.

That is not an answer to my questions. I have never seen any
difference is the measurment of the lightspeed due to gravitational
influence by your scientists.

But I have seen what your scientists claim to be empirical proof on
that time flows slower with increased gravitational influence.

If that is true, then the lightspeed must also decrease with
increased gravitational influence.


Yes.

http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Double-A

Zan The speed of photons is 186,282 mps. If they come out of a great
gravitational object this does not alter their speed. It does lengthen
their wave. This does make measuring the red shift for aging tricky.
bert

wrote:
The value is derived from observations by people more knowledgeable in
this stuff than you can even approach.


That is not an answer to my questions. I have never seen any
difference is the measurment of the lightspeed due to gravitational
influence by your scientists.

But I have seen what your scientists claim to be empirical proof on
that time flows slower with increased gravitational influence.

If that is true, then the lightspeed must also decrease with
increased gravitational influence.


More delusional garbage. If you haven't seen it, you simply haven't
been paying attention.

Scott Read this so it must be reality. It gave the universe's age at 15
to 16 billion years,and it could be still off by 4 billion years. Every
time we get better wave detectors the universe gets older and fatter. I
alter my spring scale and calendar to keep me slim and young It gives
me an approximation. bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott Read this so it must be reality. It gave the universe's age at 15
to 16 billion years,and it could be still off by 4 billion years. Every
time we get better wave detectors the universe gets older and fatter. I
alter my spring scale and calendar to keep me slim and young It gives
me an approximation. bert


The WMAP data is as good as it gets right now, and the value for the age
of the universe is less than 14 billion years. The error bars on the
data are quite tight too.