@DavidMH,
DavidMH wrote:
From the following, do you realise there is a GRAVE and fundamemental mistake made by ALL cosmologists in ASSUMING the Hubble Constant RECIPROCAL at around 13.8 billion years is the age of the universe? It is in fact is the maximum time / distance from an observer to the “Hubble horizon” determined in range by the redshift, that at 13.8 billion is the furthest that can be observed!!!! The redshift limited Hubble time / distance “horizon barrier” thus is the maximum redshifted observable horizon. It is NOT the age of the “unobservable universe” that lays beyond the Hubble horizon of 13.8 billion. From this NO ONE can know the age of the universe, which could be infinitely large, old, whatever your guess may be???!!! So,do you agree from this readsoning it is IMPOSSIBLE to know how old the universe REALLY is??
David, no scientist or cosmologist that I have read has ever claimed that "the universe" is
"x" years old. Many of them do claim that the
observable universe probably is about 13+ billion years old...meaning "really old."
You did a switch to recognize that in your OP, but the beginning of the OP sounded almost accusatory to scientists, cosmologists, and anyone who thinks they are talking about the entire of the universe rather than just the part we humans can detect.. (Which conceivably may be all of it...although I suspect not.)
Any guess I or anyone else makes about whether there is more...or the age of that more is like a coin toss.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace