How Old is the Universe

[Robert]

Seems like we're narrowing this down to about 13.7 billion years, based on recent scientific discoveries, but then maybe the assumptions are wrong. Let's talk about it....

[mkirkpatrick]

Good topic Robert,one that I have been thinking about for many years now.
for me the universe is within an endless cycle of birth and death,(obscuration)these cycles for me are from the Bhagavata Gita,which I accept
as the most accurate,and have been known and in print for at least five
thousand years!!One complete cycle is 311,040,000,000,000,years,the in-
breathing and outbreathing of Brama,the outbreathing represents the
manifestation of matter and form=energy,the inbreathing represents the
gradual obscuration of all matter,and is re-absorbed back into the one!


kind regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

Though I did vote for more than 13.7 billion years. I cannot really hold on to that when we say it must begin then time must be 0 but I feel it hard to imagine so I cannot really give any theoritical support.

[Guille]

Though I did vote for more than 13.7 billion years. I cannot really hold on to that when we say it must begin then time must be 0 but I feel it hard to imagine so I cannot really give any theoritical support.

I was in the same problem. I voted for more than 13.7 billion years too, and I believe that there is too much evolution in galaxies, they are too complex, for only 13.7 billiony ears. I tmust be between 25 and 50 billion years, no more no less. I'm not sure, but I believe we'll see how scientists realize by observations that the number is higher than what they believe.

[Omni]

When the question isn't meant as "how long ago was the big bang?", but as "how old is "everything"?" then the answer is "it has always existed".

[Guille]

When the question isn't meant as "how long ago was the big bang?", but as "how old is "everything"?" then the answer is "it has always existed".

Prove this.

[dleviwing]

I would guess it to be about 27 billion years old but 13.7 billion is good enough.
Actually I agree with Omni.

[Omni]

Prove this.

Let's say, for arguments sake, nothing is all there "is". Then it's impossible that there will ever be "something", because "ever" doesn't exist for one and because for something to happen there must be a cause which isn't present and will never be present, because there "is" nothing. For the everything we know now to exist there has to be a cause and that's of course everything, because it can't be nothing and there are no more flavours. Everything isn't a constant thing (nothing "is"), but it has a few constant laws. 1. there's always movement somewhere in everything. 2. everything can never be nothing, because nothing isn't something that can "be". 3. everything can create something out of nothing, but everything as a whole isn't created out of nothing, only partially.
I might have forgotten some laws, but it's late and they can wait...forever if need be...

[subversion]

So Omni, do you think this flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics? For example, you said that everything can create something out of seemingly nothing, a violation of the conservation of matter. Also, you say that everything is always in motion, a violation that motion may not be perpetual. THe other law is about the arrow of time but I don't think you mentioned that one.

just curious, subv

[Omni]

So Omni, do you think this flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics? For example, you said that everything can create something out of seemingly nothing, a violation of the conservation of matter.

(For the answers which now follow I must say i'm not an scientist, so I had to look up what you meant.)
I said "everything can create something out of nothing", I didn't say "everything can create something out of seemingly nothing". First law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. Energy (of everything except space) is just the result of the interaction between the everything there was before the big bang and the created (out of nothing, during the big bang) something. So when after the big bang the something (vacuumspace I call it) "travels" through the "everything there was before the big bang" (space I call it) , the energy the something (vacuumspace) has is just the result of the pressure of space on vacuumspace. Space is "elastic" and it always moves somewhere. It can't be without movement everywhere, because then, the same as with nothing, the cause to move wouldn't be present and never would be present. I don't know if in my model energy is created, I have to think more about it. Now I think no, it's not created. Vacuumspace has no energy and space has the same amount which it allready had, but partially in different form ("In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another"). I see in my mind what I mean, I hope it's clear to you.

"Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter."
The big bang obviously wasn't an ordinary chemical reaction.

Also, you say that everything is always in motion, a violation that motion may not be
perpetual.

I think I already answered that above : "Space is "elastic" and it always moves somewhere. It can't be without movement everywhere, because then, the same as with nothing, the cause to move wouldn't be present and never would be present." I don't know if that answers it enough for you, but don't hesitate to ask me again.

The other law is about the arrow of time but I don't think you
mentioned that one.

You mean if there will be a big crunch or not? Vacuumspace once created is there to stay. If you mean something else then please tell me.