Universe too big or too young?

Got a beginners' question? No matter how elementary, our friendly forum community and magazine writers will answer it.

Universe too big or too young?

Postby Mike G » Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:38 pm

Hi, would be interested to know what explanations astrologers have for the following anomaly- If our universe is estimated to be around 13.8 billion years old (time from big bang to present day), and the size of the observable universe is estimated at 92 billion light years (so its 46 billion light years from the center to the edge) ... and if both those things are true then the average speed of the matter now residing at the edge of the universe since the big bang must have been about 3x speed of light. Or put another way, if C is max speed then the universe should either have a radius of only 13.8 billion light years OR it's age is 46 billion years? ... or its all magic?
Mike G
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:19 pm

Re: Universe too big or too young?

Postby Gfamily2 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:55 am

Firstly, it's Astronomers rather than Astrologers. Just to get that out of the way.

In response to your main question, Just google Ned Wrights Cosmology FAQ and look up the answer to the question
"If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that are now 47 billion light years away?"

I would post the link myself, but new users aren't allowed to post links in case they're spammers.
Scopes: Meade 8" SCT, Skywatcher 127mm Mak, Raffle winner of SW ST80
For imaging: Pentax K5, Asda webcam, Star Adventurer (new toy)
For companionship: Mid Cheshire Astronomical Group.
(Not a moderator)
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:38 pm

Re: Universe too big or too young?

Postby dave.b » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:34 pm

Here you go:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2. It will make your head hurt! :-)
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:35 pm
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Universe too big or too young?

Postby david48 » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:51 pm

Gfamily2 wrote:Firstly, it's Astronomers rather than Astrologers.

You were right to administer a subtle wrist-slap for using the term "Astrologer"!

This term is nowadays inextricably associated with vapid "Mystic Meg "-style Horoscopes in newspaper and magazines. These make all true scientists recoil in horror from such nonsense.

Yet, doesn't "Astrology" seem the natural term for "discourse about the stars"? Which is what the word means, from its original Greek roots. It ought to be acceptable. It's in line with other scientific terms. Such as Biology, Geology, Psychology, Meteorology, Palaeontology, Anthropology and many other "-ologies" which fit the purpose.

Isn't it a shame that the fitting term "Astrology" has been denied its natural place in the nomenclature of Science?
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:13 pm

Return to Ask a silly (astronomy) question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests