The universe must be at least 26 billion years old...

[Natural]

am assuming the big bang didn't start exactly where earth is.

 

but then that leads me to think well if Hubble can see 13.2 billion light years away then surly they can see 13.2billion light years away in the 180 degree opposite, which then would mean the Universe would not be 13.7billion years old but 26.4billion years old and counting.

You are absolutely correct. The universe must be at least 26 billion years old and actually many times that because as you stated we are not at the center looking outward. So it is simple observation to know that if we can see 13 + 13 we are seeing 26 billion years of expansion from our point of view. (because we are looking into the past) But also we are seeing how far the universe had expanded 26 billion years ago which would indicate that it would positively have to be much older than 26 billion years. Because it would have been expanding for 26 billion years farther than we are able to see until the light reaches us.

:)

[Natural]

You are absolutely correct. The universe must be at least 26 billion years old and actually many times that because as you stated we are not at the center looking outward. So it is simple observation to know that if we can see 13 + 13 we are seeing 26 billion years of expansion from our point of view. (because we are looking into the past) But also we are seeing how far the universe had expanded 26 billion years ago which would indicate that it would positively have to be much older than 26 billion years. Because it would have been expanding for 26 billion years farther than we are able to see until the light reaches us.

:)

I would like to protest the move of my reply to the "strange claim forum". My assertion is MUCH more observational evidence of the facts than any other claim to the contrary.

Just as 2 + 2 = 4... if you can observe light coming from galaxies 13 billion light years away in one direction and can also see light coming from another galaxy 13 billion light years away in the opposite direction then mathematics requires 13 + 13 to equal 26 billion light years. Especially because of the fact that those galaxies are BOTH moving away from the observer.

Just because someone "in charge" thinks that to go against something they have "learned" in the cloistered halls of conventional physics dogma is forbidden, doesn't mean that their opinion might not be wrong. Especially when those conventional theories are based on NO scientific evidence. Nor does it automatically mean that every other opinion or statement is wrong. And to say that unproven theories like The Theory Of Expansion are correct without any observational evidence to prove the theory is much more of a "Strange Claim" than one that uses strictly simple observational EVIDENCE to make a counter claim.

Who ever decided to move this reply here should be ashamed of themselves for trying to censor any opinion but their own. That type of censorship should be left in the realm of religion.

:angry:

But to be fair I will allow you to produce your scientific (observational) evidence that would show that my assertion is incorrect.

[Eclogite]

Please consider the following:

 

1. You claim to have been censored. Good quality, inexpensive dictionaries are available in many countries. Buy one. Look up the meaning of censorship. Your words have not been censored in any way. They are freely available for all to read.

 

2. Your claim runs contrary to currently accepted thinking in this area. That automatically makes it a "Strange Claim", by definition.

 

3. No one has stated, yet, that your opinion is wrong. We are simply waiting to see you provide evidence to support your opinion.

 

4. No one has said that current thinking cannot be challenged. For pity's sake man, how the hell do you think we arrived at current thinking? By challenging the previous thinking. Such actions are the lifeblood of scientists and your protests to the contrary simply demonstrate your profound ignorance of how science functions.

 

5. Theories are never proven in science - more ignorance on your part.

 

6. There is solid evidence for expansion. Your statement to the contrary is mistaken. Let's start with this:

A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae

Edwin Hubble, P.N.A.S., March 15, 1929 vol. 15 no. 3 168-173

 

Acrobat pdf document

[phision]

see here:

[Natural]

Please consider the following:

 

1. You claim to have been censored. Good quality, inexpensive dictionaries are available in many countries. Buy one. Look up the meaning of censorship. Your words have not been censored in any way. They are freely available for all to read.

 

2. Your claim runs contrary to currently accepted thinking in this area. That automatically makes it a "Strange Claim", by definition.

 

3. No one has stated, yet, that your opinion is wrong. We are simply waiting to see you provide evidence to support your opinion.

 

4. No one has said that current thinking cannot be challenged. For pity's sake man, how the hell do you think we arrived at current thinking? By challenging the previous thinking. Such actions are the lifeblood of scientists and your protests to the contrary simply demonstrate your profound ignorance of how science functions.

 

5. Theories are never proven in science - more ignorance on your part.

 

6. There is solid evidence for expansion. Your statement to the contrary is mistaken. Let's start with this:

A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebulae

Edwin Hubble, P.N.A.S., March 15, 1929 vol. 15 no. 3 168-173

 

Acrobat pdf document

1. I felt that I had been censored because my ideas were taken from the forum in which they applied and put in a place where most people couldn't find them. It would be like a religious teacher taking a book on evolution and putting it on the back shelf so students probably wouldn't find it and read it.

 

2. By that line of thinking, all new theories would be taken out of the scientific community and considered to be a "strange claim". Instead of leaving them where they belong, which is listed under the topic to which they apply. Because you may as well call the Strange Claim topic the "Trash Can", because most people will not even look for anything there since it is not listed by topic.

 

3. My evidence is the same as looking at an object one mile away, and then turning your head and looking at another object another mile away. You automatically know that you are seeing an area of 2 miles.

 

4.I felt that my thinking had not only been challenged but suppressed to the trash can.

 

5.If theories are never proven then science would not exist. All scientific facts had to be theories at one time. Which were then subsequently proven by observational evidence. (I'm not even sure what the heck you meant by "theories are never proven")

 

6.That was my mistake. What I actually meant to say there was "Inflation" and not "Expansion".(same lines different thought) (pardon me Alan Guth) However I do think that the Theory of Expansion my not take into consideration the absorption of energy of light as it passes through some unseen type of medium in the universe or and unknown interaction of the photons and therefore a red-shift. Which would appear to be the red-shift of motion but might actually be the red-shift of absorption. (I know... Dopler... I hear you... but I'm just wondering) I also realize that this would throw a monkey wrench in the big bang theory but many scientist these days are rethinking the idea of the big bang. (mainly because of the infinity problems of singularities) And it would also throw a monkey wrench into the mysterious ideas of dark matter and energy. However that conversation has it's own "gravity".

 

Mainly I just wanted to protest my thoughts on the subject being thrown in the waste basket.

I understand that there may be some comments that are completely strange due to their authors being just as strange as they are, but when the ideas are actually valid lines of thinking along the same topic they should be left under the topics of the conversation for all to read and accept or not accept. (each according to their understanding of the subject)

I think Giordano Bruno had a few problems having his ideas accepted as the norm also.

:P

[Natural]

see here:

Thank you so much for this video. It was excellent!

:)

[JMJones0424]

You clearly aren't being censored. The original poster's question was answered to his satisfaction by Modest and others. Conversation with you would be much easier if you dropped the persecution act.

 

3. My evidence is the same as looking at an object one mile away, and then turning your head and looking at another object another mile away. You automatically know that you are seeing an area of 2 miles.

And since you read the links I posted, you now know why you were incorrect, right? Imagine a light source one mile away and another light source one mile away in the opposite direction. The photons leaving those light sources and arriving at your location do not travel two miles to reach you.

 

5.If theories are never proven then science would not exist. All scientific facts had to be theories at one time. Which were then subsequently proven by observational evidence. (I'm not even sure what the heck you meant by "theories are never proven")

I don't think you fully understand what is meant by a scientific theory. Theories do not become facts. Theories are explanations of facts. Theories can be falsified, but because one can never be sure if one's knowledge is complete, theories can never be proven correct. We've got lots of threads on philosophy of science if you are interested.

 

Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand. Usually someone here can either answer or point you in the direction of an answer.

 

6.That was my mistake. What I actually meant to say there was "Inflation" and not "Expansion".(same lines different thought) (pardon me Alan Guth) However I do think that the Theory of Expansion my not take into consideration the absorption of energy of light as it passes through some unseen type of medium in the universe or and unknown interaction of the photons and therefore a red-shift. Which would appear to be the red-shift of motion but might actually be the red-shift of absorption. (I know... Dopler... I hear you... but I'm just wondering) I also realize that this would throw a monkey wrench in the big bang theory but many scientist these days are rethinking the idea of the big bang. (mainly because of the infinity problems of singularities) And it would also throw a monkey wrench into the mysterious ideas of dark matter and energy. However that conversation has it's own "gravity".

I cannot more highly suggest you read through the cosmology tutorial I linked. I know of no credible evidence for tired light.

[Eclogite]

Natural I expect you to be offended by some of what I write here. My objective is not to offend, but to educate. If you feel that you are the single person on the planet who does not require further education stop reading now.

1. I felt that I had been censored because my ideas were taken from the forum in which they applied and put in a place where most people couldn't find them. It would be like a religious teacher taking a book on evolution and putting it on the back shelf so students probably wouldn't find it and read it.

Two points:

A. Many people, myself included, look at New Posts, not specific forums. Many people are attracted to Strange Claims. It is often the most active sub-forum in many science forums.

B. To be brutally frank your idea is so ill conceived it should be in the Trash Can. We have given you the benefit of the doubt placing it in Strange claims.

 

2. By that line of thinking, all new theories would be taken out of the scientific community and considered to be a "strange claim". Instead of leaving them where they belong, which is listed under the topic to which they apply.

Nonsense. Before a new idea sees the light of day in a peer reviewed publication it will have undergone intense scrutiny by the individual researcher, his colleagues at his establishment, other experts in other locations, and the peer review committee of the journal. Even at that point, if radical, the idea will still be considered a Strange Claim and the researcher will be expected to provide very good supporting evidence.

 

3. My evidence is the same as looking at an object one mile away, and then turning your head and looking at another object another mile away. You automatically know that you are seeing an area of 2 miles.

It has already been explained to you why this is not evidence, it is just a basic misunderstanding on your part. You should now be able to see that you are mistaken in your thinking on this point.

 

 

4.I felt that my thinking had not only been challenged but suppressed to the trash can.

Given how wrong your thinking is that would be better place for it. Do you now see that is the case?

 

3. My evidence is the same as looking at an object one mile away, and then turning your head and looking at another object another mile away. You automatically know that you are seeing an area of 2 miles.

It has already been explained to you why this is not evidence, it is just a basic misunderstanding on your part. You should now be able to see that you are mistaken in your thinking on this point.

 

 

5.If theories are never proven then science would not exist. All scientific facts had to be theories at one time. Which were then subsequently proven by observational evidence. (I'm not even sure what the heck you meant by "theories are never proven")

JMJones has given an excellent response on this point.

 

4.I felt that my thinking had not only been challenged but suppressed to the trash can.

Given how wrong your thinking is that would be better place for it. Do you now see that is the case?

 

3. My evidence is the same as looking at an object one mile away, and then turning your head and looking at another object another mile away. You automatically know that you are seeing an area of 2 miles.

It has already been explained to you why this is not evidence, it is just a basic misunderstanding on your part. You should now be able to see that you are mistaken in your thinking on this point.

 

 

6. Various comments on expansion.

I don't like the BB. I object to it on philosophical grounds. But I accept that it currently offers the best available explanation for the character of the universe. I'd love to see something overturn it. Your ideas not only don't get to the starting blocks, they wouldn't be allowed in the stadium.

 

You clearly have an interest in science. Wouldn't it be better to learn more of the basics before challenging them?