Why isn't the universe a uncountable amount of years old?
>>41393671Pointless question because there's no way to know. It's like asking if the universe will end or what there was before the universe supposedly started.
Count to 16 billion Right now
>>41393671the universe is an uncountable amount of years old. We can only see a tiny part of it called the observable universe. Absolutely nobody can definitively say what is going on in the part we cant see so therefore you cannot say the universes age. Of course stupid retards act like they can and pull out numbers like 16 billion and conveniently leave out this is pure guess work because they cant even see the entire universe. Like how the fuck can you claim to know the age of something you cant even see and will never be able to see...
>>41394301There is no reason to assume there'd be something wildly different going on in the parts we can't see, because the parts we can see cover a decently big area and still uniformly follow expectations. For it to be otherwise elsewhere, we'd need to introduce completely new, so far unknown elements, which disregard everything we currently know, and also explain how come the same isn't happening in the regions we see. Which is just not plausible.
>>41393671because you believe what you've been told about its age
>>41394301Most things can have their age determined by sampling one small part.You dont need to see the entire tree to make a core sampling.You dont need to see the entire person to check the telemorase in their DNA.Unless you think the part of the universe we are in somehow began earlier or later than the rest of the universe - and you will need to prove that rather than just argue from ignorance - then the age we can determine here is the age everywhere.
>>41393671A year is when we travel around the sun once. Our planet and sun presumably did not exist when the universe began, we also don’t have any proof the universe didn’t always exist.
>>41393671Everything complex has a beginning.
>>41393671the universe is endless both in time and space
the universe very well could be infinite in every dimension including time, but analysis of the cosmic microwave background which is detectable through all of space suggests at one point 13.8 billion years ago all mater was crammed into an infitesimally small area
>>41393671Because it’s just a baby
>>41393671Because it is. Big bank theory is horseshit that can't explain why galaxies are flying in all random directions instead of uniform directions from a central origins point. It also can't explain how all the matter in the entire universe was concentrated into a single ball other than "just because." I believe the universe's age is infinite, and it's in a state of constantly recycling. Dead blown stars and their star systems they had congeal over time to form new ones, and the process repeats itself ad infinitum. It's easy to see with the way "baby new stars" have been seen inside of nebulae, which are the remnants of ancient blown stars.
>>41395446Where did the laws come from? Who wrote them?
>>41393671it could be.there's no reason to believe in the big bang and it shifts further into pseudoscience each year. penrose will probably be the nail in the coffin for a lot of 20th century scientific hallucinations.
>>41395472Over time matter congealed into enough mass to create gravity. That gravity pulled in more matter until eventually planets and stars were formed.
>>41395478>Over time matter congealedWho specified the laws that determine this 'congelation' process?
>>41395335https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb69yPNgX-Qold science. relearn.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_MdAmkb2M
>>41393671https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
>>41395446>I believe the universe's age is infinite>can't explain how other than "just because."
>>41393671Our Universe is based on 3 dimensions. But there could easily be more that we humans just can't perceive because we never needed to evolve the senses for it. As an example, dont think of the Big Bang as the beginning of everything, but like a splash of paint on a canvas. That canvas is an entire universe, there are like 2D beings living on that paint stain. They can move forward, backward, left, and right across the stain, but we have no concept of "up" or "down" off the canvas itself. The canvas, and the space around it, is something they could never truly grasp. It's just not part of their reality.It makes sense to me that, maybe our universe is just one stain on a multiple dimensional canvas. What the other stains are, or what process is doing the painting... who knows.It's all highly speculative but that's why /X/ is a good place to talk about this stuff. Sagan has a good explanation for higher Dimensionshttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0
>>41396476Adding complexity or more dimensions only takes you farther away from what is fundamental.
>>41396528Ok, Allah created the Earth 7 thousand years ago, so only masturbate at night because he can't see in the dark.Is that simple enough for you Ali?
>>41393671Do you think the Universe started at the big bang?
>>41394802That >assumesthe human data and information on reality is >accurate and that the "laws" of "physics" apply >everywhere >alwaysBut those fantasies are just that Prior anon is right. Nobody knows jack. We drive a car but only see it from the inside and might as well be in an amusement park. The juice lied to us all anyway.
>>41396804Are you saying the special boys with the special instruments might be making it all up?! :O
>>41393671>Why isn't the universe a uncountable amount of years old?Because only the NOW exists.
>>41394378>disregard everything we currently knowyes
>>41393709>>41394301>>41395335This was debooonked by JWST not even a month ago by the way, it's at LEAST 26 billion years old, maybe way older.I think it's really funny how the people who were adamant about it being around 14 billion years old, to the point they would bully people who strayed from that theory out of the field, built a tool to prove their theory, got BTFO'd by it so hard their own theory makes them look like creationists. A lot of>I TOLD YOU SOhave been exchanged in the past few weeks lmao.
>>41396804You thought you had an argument, but actually your words all agree with everything I said.Amazing how everything you thought you knew about words was wrong, and I can just dismiss and tell you what it really is.
>>41397207>However, a complete spectrum from the light of the galaxies was not a part of the study, only images via filters. Consequently, an accurate distance of the galaxies observed could not be determined, but only inferred based on the data, as seen in figure 1 below. The inference of galaxy mass and distance came from using different filters for the light to determine the redshift of each galaxy. This, however, can lead to large errors and uncertainty because there can be large gaps in the wavelengths between the filters used. Unfortunately, the media can take over a story and publish wild headlines, such as the universe being twice the age it is believed to be, from 13.8 billion years to 26.7 billion years old!I love how you can just browse popsci clickbait and find where the "you dont know nuffin!" crowd gets their info.
