Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Time : Expansion of The Universe

1…6791112…16

Comments

  • #242
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I do know what you are saying, but it's still not the gist of my question. My question is basically is "empty space" made of something or is it made of nothing. Maybe it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one, or maybe it's just a plain stupid question, but it is a question i can't seem to find an answer to.
    Basically is it possible, in the known physical universe for patches of "nothing" to exist. Obviously i know there can be vacums, but are they still something? For example - gravity works through a vacum, so does radiation - how could that be if there wasn't some medium for them to travel through? How can anything travel through something that doesn't exist??

    PS: Sorry if that sounds like i've been at the lsd, but i can't explain it any better than that!!
    Watch this if you get a chance.
    There are a few good documentaries with that fella Brian Greene, watch them all a few times and you might start to get the gist of things. ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9gXKwRpXc


  • #243
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Perhaps it would be more productive if you stopped trying to critique the big bang theory, and told us what you think will replace it now that it's "on it's way out".

    Some variant of "let there be light", no doubt.


  • #244
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Tell me this, since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not in the past?

    I accept the 'big bang' proposal as the wider population sees it and most everyone who encounters it -

    "Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    Obviously you have a different idea as you indicate constantly that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant so you can't have contradictory assertions and believe in both of them at the same time.Galileo's statement is directed at people who can't change their perspective and not those who simply get things wrong and have the capacity to alter their views and that statement I will repeat again -

    " I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
    establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
    discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
    for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
    dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
    may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

    If you conclude that the oldest galaxies are the most distant,the only acceptable premise of ' big bang' you are nailed to that conclusion,if you decide you don't accept the premise then there is nothing to talk about because a person who holds contradictory views simultaneously is outside the normal restraints people impose of themselves.


  • #245
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    I accept the 'big bang' proposal as the wider population sees it and most everyone who encounters it -

    "Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    Obviously you have a different idea as you indicate constantly that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant so you can't have contradictory assertions and believe in both of them at the same time.Galileo's statement is directed at people who can't change their perspective and not those who simply get things wrong and have the capacity to alter their views and that statement I will repeat again -

    " I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
    establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
    discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
    for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
    dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
    may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

    If you conclude that the oldest galaxies are the most distant,the only acceptable premise of ' big bang' you are nailed to that conclusion,if you decide you don't accept the premise then there is nothing to talk about because a person who holds contradictory views simultaneously is outside the normal restraints people impose of themselves.
    Bla bla bla. Broken record syndrome.
    Answer the question.
    Since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not as it was in the past?


  • #246
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Amtmann wrote: »
    NO it isn't.


    Deal with the statement,this is not my premise but those who propose 'big bang' -

    "Following its May 2009 general overhaul, NASA's most famous telescope has become able to peer further in space and time than ever before. This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    So here I am promoting the main premise of 'big bang' which is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant and find its adherents arguing against it and that is remarkable hence the reference to 'doublethink' -

    "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
    simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies
    while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
    inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it
    back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the
    existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of
    the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary.
    Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise
    doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering
    with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge;
    and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
    truth" Orwell


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Tell me this, since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not in the past?
    I accept the 'big bang' proposal as the wider population sees it and most everyone who encounters it -

    You didn't answer Cú Giobach. Nor have you answered my question.

    2 questions you seem unwilling to answer. Interesting.


  • #248
    Discostuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 303 ✭✭Discostuy


    This has to be one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever read.
    As a newbie to astronomy and star gazing, I've genuinely learned some cool and interesting facts. Its also been very amusing.

    One thing I can't grasp though, is how computers have not been thrown out of windows haha


  • #249
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Bla bla bla. Broken record syndrome.
    Answer the question.
    Since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not as it was in the past?

    The broken record is that packaged 'big bang' mess and when confronted with the extended conclusion,the adherents won't look at the premise and that,my dear man,is nothing short of a cult indoctrination -

    "In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy."

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html

    If you find yourself with a normal perception of what the past is by way of your memories and people/places you cared for you may snap out of the idea that you can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly but until then you are lost a world that exists only in your imagination.


  • #250
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Don't worry son,you will soon be a big banger and have the power to look back in time and space

    A cool fact is that we all have that power. When you look up at Sirius, you see it as it was eight and a half years ago. Arcturus, 36 years ago. Deneb, 1400 years ago. If you get a glimpse of the Andromeda galaxy (you can see it with the naked eye from a dark site) you are seeing the core of a neighbouring galaxy as it was two and a half million years ago!


  • #251
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Discostuy wrote: »
    This has to be one of the most enjoyable threads I've ever read.
    As a newbie to astronomy and star gazing, I've genuinely learned some cool and interesting facts. Its also been very amusing.

    One thing I can't grasp though, is how computers have not been thrown out of windows haha
    Welcome.
    Glad you're enjoying it. :D
    Join in, even if your only on page one of Astronomy for Dummies, you would know more than that poor chap ranting here. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You didn't answer Cú Giobach. Nor have you answered my question.

    2 questions you seem unwilling to answer. Interesting.

    It is not a question but a statement,you see the connection between the time light travels from object to observer as a statement of the evolutionary timeline of the Universe,that is what the public sees as 'big bang' -

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    If you accept the premise then accept the extended conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest otherwise live with a contradiction and that I won't deal with.You either accepts what the article says in which case you get the extended conclusion or reject what any of these articles state in which case you are opposed to 'big bang' but you can't hold contradictory view simultaneously.


  • #253
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    The broken record is that packaged 'big bang' mess and when confronted with the extended conclusion,the adherents won't look at the premise and that,my dear man,is nothing short of a cult indoctrination -

    "In all the world, there is nothing quite so impenetrable as a human mind snapped shut with bliss. No call to reason, no emotional appeal can get through its armor of self-proclaimed joy."

    http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming7.html

    If you find yourself with a normal perception of what the past is by way of your memories and people/places you cared for you may snap out of the idea that you can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly but until then you are lost a world that exists only in your imagination.
    Answer the question.
    Since light takes time to travel, how would it actually be possible to see something 14 billion light years away as it is now and not as it was in the past?


  • #254
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Telchak


    gkell2 wrote: »
    ...

    I think you're taking the idea that the nearer galaxies are the youngest far too literally. It's like you're looking at a model of the universe from a macro perspective instead of one relative to your location on earth. It's ironic that you cannot distinguish between the literal English, and what people clearly mean when they say it, considering your long winded posts full of rhetorical quotes.

    We say the furthest galaxies are older, because it has taken so long for their light to get here that in reality that galaxy is now much older (or gone) than the image of it we see. The light from younger galaxies in that same area of space hasn't reached us yet. Therefore, from perspective on earth, the furthest galaxies are much older than closer one's.

    What exactly is hard to grasp about this very simple concept?


    This comes to mind...

    survival-faraway.jpg

    Small Young, far away :D


  • #255
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell, how old do you imagine the Big Bang establishment thinks our own galaxy, the Milky Way is?

    After all, it's so near that we're inside it, so by your notions, it should follow that we think it's youngest galaxy of all, right?


  • #256
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    A cool fact is that we all have that power. When you look up at Sirius, you see it as it was eight and a half years ago. Arcturus, 36 years ago. Deneb, 1400 years ago. If you get a glimpse of the Andromeda galaxy (you can see it with the naked eye from a dark site) you are seeing the core of a neighbouring galaxy as it was two and a half million years ago!

    So let me get this straight,the oldest galaxy is not only the most distant but also observed when the Universe was smaller/younger (evolution timeline) -

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young.
    The earliest analysis of the images suggest that the cosmic structure lived just 500 million years after the Big Bang, or roughly 13.2 billion years away. This makes it the oldest galaxy ever known."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    By that reasoning they believe they see the oldest galaxies 13.2 billion years ago and 500 million years after the 'big bang' event of 13.7 million years ago. So Andromeda is 2.5 million light years or 13.197.5 billion light years after 'big bang' event using the same extended conclusion that if the oldest galaxies are the furthest away then the youngest galaxies have to be the nearest in the evolutionary scheme of 'big bang'.

    You see when these articles state that the oldest galaxy is the most distant they include it as an evolutionary timeline hence the absurdity through internal logical consistency of the founding premise,it is applied to Andromeda.

    I see the herd here is beginning to stampede but it doesn't matter anyway,I knew a long time ago that they spotted absurdities they didn't account for and the worst is over as 'big bang' starts to crumble from view.


  • #257
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Telchak wrote: »
    I think you're taking the idea that the nearer galaxies are the youngest far too literally.

    I am afraid it is the extended conclusion arising from the original premise that the oldest galaxies are the most distant so if you can 't look at your own conceptual vomit then why expect anyone else to.

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    You are not taunting me with that conclusion,I am merely pointing out that it belongs to you.


  • #258
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »

    By that reasoning they believe they see the oldest galaxies 13.2 billion years ago and 500 million years after 'big bang' or 13.7 million years ago. So Andromeda is 2.5 million light years or 13.197.5 billion light years after 'big bang' using the same extended conclusion.
    Exactly, we see it as it was 13,197,500 years after the 'big bang' not as it actually is today 13.7 billion years after.
    Now if you were to travel to Andromeda (and somehow get there today) you would see it as it is today and when you looked over to the Milky Way you would see that as it was 13,197,500 years after the big bang.
    Quite easy to understand.


  • #259
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Telchak


    gkell2

    Do you not find it odd that your "logic" in the most recent posts is being contradicted by everyone else here? Not contradicted based on accuracy of complicated scientific theories, but mainly that you cannot grasp the basic mathematics of distance, speed, and time?

    I suspect you'll quote some great historical figure that was ahead of time, apparently comparing yourself :rolleyes:

    You're arguing against the literal meaning of the English people use, and ignoring WHY galaxies further away are older. And then, somehow, using the argument against that one sentence to conclude that Big Bang theory unravels.


  • #260
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Telchak wrote: »
    gkell2

    Do you not find it odd that your "logic" in the most recent posts is being contradicted by everyone else here? Not contradicted based on accuracy of complicated scientific theories, but mainly that you cannot grasp the basic mathematics of distance, speed, and time?

    You're arguing against the literal meaning of the English people use rather than what they actually mean by it.

    Appeal to numbers of people jumping off an intellectual cliff is not a technical argument,you live and die by the premise of 'big bang' and presently it is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant within an evolutionary framework you imagine you can see directly.

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    What many see here as some sort of intellectual superiority surrounding 'big bang',I see as a race to the bottom so by extending the original premise to envelop the nearest galaxy,the whole thing descends into absurdity.

    I am sorry if your appeal to numbers has an attractiveness to it when a person likes to test the soundness of things themselves however it would be nice to meet a person with common sense every now and again who is not afraid to step outside the packaged story of 'big bang'.


  • #261
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gkell2 wrote: »
    It is not a question but a statement

    No, they were both questions. Did you see the question mark after them? That means they were questions.

    Can you answer either of them?
    gkell2 wrote: »
    If you accept the premise then accept the extended conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest otherwise live with a contradiction and that I won't deal with.

    This would only be true if light moved at an infinite speed.

    Do you accept that light moves at a finite speed? A yes or no answer will suffice. Once you have answered that question you should be able to answer the other question.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Telchak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Telchak


    It's like you pick out words from a sentence that are convenient for you to argue against and ignore the rest :rolleyes:

    I edited my post previous slightly before you posted, but I suspect your reply would be the same meaningless repetition that doesn't address the actual arguments I'm making ;)

    I confess I don't know enough about the big bang theory to argue for or against it, and if you actually read my post you'd see that. This debate will never reach that level as long as you refuse to ignore incredibly basic physics, or confess you misunderstood what that oft repeated sentence means, something everybody else got.


  • #263
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Appeal to numbers of people jumping off an intellectual cliff is not a technical argument

    So far you are the only one refusing to answer questions. Pretty basic questions at that.

    You are the only one refusing to do this, it seems logical to assume that you either cannot or do not wish to answer these questions. While we cannot know why, it seems reasonable to conclude it is because you do not understand the questions nor do you know how to answer them.

    Of course we might be wrong. Either way I'm more than happy to explain the concepts we are discussing to you but I cannot help you understand them until you clarify what your base position is. For example, the question you have been asked already in various forms, do you accept that light moves at a finite speed, not an infinite instantaneous speed.


  • #264
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Exactly, we see it as it was 13,197,500 years after the 'big bang' not as it actually is today 13.7 billion years after.

    You poor thing,the observation that the oldest galaxy is the most distant comes with an evolutionary timeline attached -

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    Run the extended conclusion to Andromeda within that evolutionary timeline and you arrive at the absurdity that it is the youngest and nearest galaxy which formed when the Universe was 13.7 billion years old.This is your 'big bang' conclusion so I shrug when I see people try and taunt me with what effectively is their own meaningless conclusions,they can't see that it is an extended conclusion but then again when was common sense ever a commodity among empiricists.

    If you don't like the 'big bang' premise in that article then just say so.


  • #265
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So far you are the only one refusing to answer questions. Pretty basic questions at that.

    You are making a statement and I am showing you the extended conclusion of that statement.

    "This is why it recently managed to observe the oldest and most distant galaxy ever found, which formed when the Universe was very young."

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hubble-Sees-Oldest-Galaxy-in-the-Universe-180820.shtml

    I don't care if you have to look at it a thousand times,it not only correlates the oldest galaxy with being the most distant but does so within an evolutionary timeline.

    Some people might to believe they have the 'power' to view the entire evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly,that is the premise of 'big bang',but there never existed a more unhealthy notion anywhere and anytime in human history.


  • #266
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    I am sorry if your appeal to numbers has an attractiveness to it when a person likes to test the soundness of things themselves

    says the guy who won't even check how long it takes the earth to turn once on its axis, because the facts disagree with his fixed notions!


  • #267
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    says the guy who won't even check how long it takes the earth to turn once on its axis, because the facts disagree with his fixed notions!

    The principles are straightforward enough ,the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 365 times in 365 days,that is why daylight turns to darkness and the temperatures go up and down daily.It is known as the Lat/Long system with the only stipulation being that there is no external reference for daily rotation as an independent motion for how could there be when it is mixed together with variable orbital motion.Try the innovative and inventive John Harrison's explanation -

    "The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
    following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
    parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
    Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
    axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
    those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
    Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
    those degrees) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
    those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
    minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
    that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
    with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
    minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
    quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
    can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
    visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
    until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
    only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
    such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
    what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
    clearly discovered." John Harrison

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=remarks#v=onepage&q&f=false

    You should read that book,it is about what happens when an individual faces a herd mentality and comes out the better of it.Of course Harrison was not just contending with the professors of Oxford and Cambridge,he was contending with the dictates of Newton -

    "I have told the world oftener than once that longitude is not to be found by watchmakers but by the ablest astronomers. I am unwilling to meddle with any other method than the right one." Newton


  • #268
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gkell2 wrote: »
    You are making a statement

    I'm not making a statement, I'm merely asking a question. A relatively simply question you are refusing to answer.

    I'm happy to stop asking the question if you will state right now that you categorically cannot or will not answer the question.


  • #269
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    the Earth turns once in 24 hours

    Imagine you travel to the North pole at midwinter. This puts the Sun out of the way, so maybe you can see what we're driving at.

    So, there you are at the North pole, it's dark all the time, and you have a perfect view of the heavens. How long does it take the plough to make one circuit of the sky?

    Hint: the answer is not 24 hours.


  • #270
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm not making a statement, I'm merely asking a question. A relatively simply question you are refusing to answer.

    I'm happy to stop asking the question if you will state right now that you categorically cannot or will not answer the question.

    You said you can see a galaxy that is not there anymore and although some readers try to insist that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant,thereby putting themselves at odds with the main premise of 'big bang',none of them decided to take the route you did -
    Zombrex wrote: »
    No. The speed of light has no effect on the age of galaxies or the age of the space they occupy. It does though allow us to see imagines of galaxies that existed a long time ago due to the fact that the light takes a long time to travel to us. These galaxies no longer exist though in the form we observe them, any more than a person in a photograph from 1972 still looks like that now in 2012.

    'Big bang' includes an evolutionary timeline in its premise so imagining a galaxy traveling at the speed of light for 13.2 billion years so you can have your image of the galaxy remaining the same is just another absurdity in a mess that contains nothing but absurdities.

    Galileo was right,it is just that he couldn't have envisioned that any group would become some pervasive -

    " I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
    establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
    discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
    for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
    dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
    may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

    'Big bang' indeed !,has this country not suffered enough from poor judgments disguised behind a veneer of respectability and authority ?.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    gkell, how old do you imagine the Big Bang establishment thinks our own galaxy, the Milky Way is?

    Since gkell is obviously dodging this question, I'll just note that the Milky Way, our own galaxy and therefore the closest of all, contains stars over 13 billion years old, barely any younger than the Universe itself.


Advertisement