Jump to content

Bmpbmp1975

Senior Members
  • Posts

    307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bmpbmp1975

  1. I am trying my best, thank you but I do not understand the numbers and values in the paper. How much do these numbers and values change our current understanding in the age of the universe , the size of the universe and the lifetime of the universe before its demise? I really do not understand why you keep bringing up woosh . I asked Strange what he meant by may not be and you starting with the whoosh comment.
  2. Ah ok Not sure what your meaning but I’ll for for someone who understands the paper to reply as strange said.
  3. And what did you mean by maybe, it was a NASA press release so it must be right?
  4. The paper was released I had included it above https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf
  5. This seems like a new find that the universe is not expanding at the same speed depending on direction. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/universe-s-expansion-may-not-be-the-same-in-all-directions.html how does this affect what we currently know with the age of the universe, the end of the universe and anything else we know or we thought we knew. i have included the actual paper if anyone is interested https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.03305.pdf
  6. it’s amazing how we can calculate this to 13.8 billions with a margin of 10-20 millions of years. 13.7 to 13.9 . Thanks so much for helping me understand When you said Correct vary the value of the , I assume you meant I was correct. Lol it’s amazing how we can calculate this to 13.8 billions with a margin of 10-20 millions of years. 13.7 to 13.9 . Thanks so much for helping me understand
  7. And this is what gives us the 13.8 billions plus or minus 10-20 million years.
  8. When you say other answers are possible we are still always in the range of about 13 billion years old right. We are talking - difference of millions of years and not billions of yearss right
  9. This post has gotten confused I thought I understood and now I think I am confused again. Lol From my understanding the our universe is 13.7 ish billions years of age five or take 20 millions. Now différence variances are also included in wiki article age of universe still out is in the same ball park of 13.8billion. the last few comments from what understand seems to be insinuating this can be completely wrong or am I misunderstanding
  10. But on average still around the 13.8 billion right?
  11. Ok but on average we are looking at 13.8 billion
  12. So 13.799 billion years give or take 20 million years? Right
  13. I see so if I am understanding what has been said. When Hubble came out 30 years ago and was new the calculation and measurements stated between 9 and 19 billions. Over the years after more measurements , calculations and study they narrowed it down to 13.8 billions years old which is what we know now. i think I got it thank you all.
  14. Oh so you saying that since this 30 years ago they improved measurements which gave us the proper age. the thing I also notice is none of the articles have dates on them so I am assuming this was an older article that I thought way new.
  15. Thank you all, I understand now 13.8 is the current age
  16. How is it correct if it states 9 or 19b and you stated 13.8 am I missing something
  17. Ok thank you so that article is wrong then.
  18. So the age is still 13.9 billion then it started out saying factor of 2 then said 10 then went back down to 2. So I am not sure what that means exactly. Last I thought age of universe was like 13.8 or 13.9
  19. So if I am reading this right they discovers that the universe can be either 9 billion or 19 billion years old so this changes it from the current thoughts of 14.9 billion “ When the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, the uncertainly over the universe’s expansion rate was off by a factor of two. This meant that the universe could be as young as 9.7 billion years or as old as 19.5 billion years. The younger value presented a huge problem; it would mean the universe was younger than the oldest known stars https://hubblesite.org/hubble-30th-anniversary/hubbles-exciting-universe/measuring-the-universes-expansion-rate
  20. Ok so it’s 2.5 miles and not 2.1 km
  21. Sorry this article said 4.1 km asteroid https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/science/1249990/Asteroid-warning-NASA-tracks-4KM-killer-asteroid-hit-Earth-end-civilisation-asteroid-news/amp
  22. So the sizes I have seen is 2.1 km and some say 4km. whats thé actual size
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.