Question

How old is the Universe,

Answer 1

Measurements taken from the Cosmic Microwave Background suggest that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

Answer 2

i dont think that satisfactorily explains the large scale structure

Answer 3

Hmm .. you don't? May I ask why?

Answer 4

the large scale structure would take longer to form, maybe 10 times longer

Answer 5

it would? Would you care to share some of your calculations?

Answer 6

why all the clumping, if gravity is weak, and time short, i can not see why their is any big structure beyond galaxies

Answer 7

its all expanding

Answer 8

Ah well... so you think it would take longer, cause you have this ahm.. feeling? xD
made my day... :P

You know, there were people dedicating their whole life to this kind of problems and well... unless you can come up with some solid data and correct calculations, nobody's gonna listen to you - sry...

start reading here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's law

Answer 9

sry... -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Answer 10

i am trying to understand why dark matter was made up

the only evidence i know of is that the large structures would require more mass than has be observed to form the things like galactic structures. This model of the universe demands heaps and heaps of dark matter that i cannot see. Alternatively the model is incorrect

and the large scale structure has just taken to longer to form.

Answer 11

I consider it as maybe the universe is till being created because you never know maybe its still being made much further away then mankind has reached

but if your looking for a scientific solid answer it is between 12 and 14 billion years old this is what has been proved by scientists by looking at tthe stars

Answer 12

I still find this tricky.

A "solid scientific" answer between 12 and 14 billion only applies to our universe. We don't know if there is more, if there are several universes, or that this universe had a history before the measurable Cosmic Microwave Background.

Answer 13

The figure is as solid as the theory and the theory is incomplete

Answer 14

I love this VERY Scientific conclusion: "The figure is as solid as the theory and the theory is incomplete." BUT DO NOT BE LIMITED BY A THEORY--any theory. Only when scientists have freedom to disagree with the "accepted" theories are scientific advancements made. I am concerned about the dogmatic acceptance of the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. As a scientists I want the freedom to continue to search for evidence and not be labeled as "stupid and uninformed." Think About This: If you found evidence that seemed to discredit evolution---What would you do with it? This reminds me of Copernicus and Galileo--How about the 2000 years that Aristotle's theories were ENFORCED-- I encourage all scientists to stand up for our freedom to question theories. The freedom to support or not support a theory without life changing consequences.

Answer 15

There is a great quote by Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
Evolution has been supported with extraordinary proof; fossil records, genetics, etc. If you think you want to discredit evolution feel free to look for evidence that contradicts it, but you better find more than we already have to support it. Don't be one of those fools who thinks that because one small piece seems to contradict their understanding of evolution the whole theory should be held in doubt. You better bring more to the table than a missing fossil or two to undo one of the most powerful and supported theories in science.

Answer 16

I was thinking of that quote my self,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
i can see plenty of evidence supporting evolution in my world,
i cannot however see any such evidence for dark matter, direct or indirect , it is only proposed to balance the mass equations for the time constraints in the large scale structure. to truly believe that the universes is more than 50% unknowable i find extroinary

Answer 17

I agree, but I figure even the term "Dark Matter" is really just tongue-in-cheek terminology for "Whatever the hell we're missing in these calculations". I mean, to call it "matter" even seems like a huge leap of faith, since it doesn't behave like any matter we know of. But with so much of the contemporary theories working perfectly scientists are obviously hesitant to completely scrap all of General Relativity, though that may be what's eventually needed. Once again, as was said above, some of the best minds in the world are currently devoting their whole lives to these problems, so whether or not we need a whole new theory is (in my opinion) for them to figure out. Or maybe us when we've studied this stuff for, like, 40 more years. >D

Answer 18

Asimov explains how relativity is wrong ,
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
funny but very convincing

Answer 19

Didnt think this would become a huge topic

Answer 20

@unk Thanks for the reference, but your comment should have read "how relativity is, quite likely, incomplete". The whole essay supports my point that ideas tend to be refined, not scrapped. The whole basis of Asimov's point is that right and wrong are more vague than we realize. I say relativity and cosmology and quantum mechanics will all become "refined" such that they are in better harmony, not that some grand idea will come out of left field and obliterate our previous understanding of nature.

Answer 21

I know my answer isnt solid but thats what im trying to say that we can only rely on what has been proved so far by scientists

Answer 22

Gravity may be weak, but it is cumulative, and not screened or cancelled out by opposite "charge" like electric charges are (which come in positive and negative forms), meaning that a lot of mass creates a very large force. Therefore, large scale structure can be formed within the universe in the form of galactic clusters and super clusters.

As for Dark matter, we don't know what creates it whether it is a real particle, or just a misunderstanding of how gravity works. The best candidate for dark matter are species of particles called WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles). The reason why we think it is a particle and not a misunderstanding of the forces of nature is because we can see dark matter effects of gravitational lensing when there is very little in the way of visible matter present (search for dark matter bullet cluster for example or see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster).

For the age of the universe with respect to the original question, what you feel or not feel is a moot point. Measurement and data is key in science and wins over feelings every time.

Answer 23

emotion has nothing to do with anything real.
jonnymca, i like the first part of your answer,
However i find WIMP a bit had to accept as they are only indirectly measured,
After reading the bullet cluster articles i am convinced that there is much we do not understand, and claiming that we have solutions as apposed to theories is dangerous . When independent measurements of of value determined by completely different measurement techniques that to do not rely on the same theories, are performed by and people with differing views and the value is consistent, then the concept is leaning more toward the true/correct/proved .
The article on the bullet cluster suggests that the measurements taken were not what they were expecting from the theories so i hardly about to take this ad hoc result as assuring.