Lv 4
? asked in Science & MathematicsAstronomy & Space · 1 decade ago

how old is the universe?

11 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    They say it's about 15 billion years old. What I don't understand is, if the universe is 78 billion light years across, wouldn't it have to be at least 39 billion years old?

    I'm not a student of astronomy. It's just a logical question. If everything started from the "big bang"? Then why isn't the universe only 30 billion light years across? Is the universe expanding at over twice the speed of light? No, because they say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Just food for thought.

    Here's a really cool video of the universe with some Hubble photos. It states the universe is 78 billion light years across. Enjoy!


  • 1 decade ago

    (13.7 ± 0.2) × 10^9 years. That is about 13.7 billion years. This is actually pretty easy to figure out. All you need to know is the universe's rate of expansion (they called it the hubble constant) then take the universe as we see it now and run it backwards and see how long it takes to squash back into a single point. That is how you figure out the age of the universe.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    WMAP, a more accurate satellite to replace COBE, mapped the CMB (Comic Microwave Background), and has taken data that cosmologists use to infer that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. But this age of the universe is not possible which I will try to explain a little later. Here is more on WMAP:


    WMAP data is used to agree with a 13.7 B (Billion) year age proposed by expansion theory studies. WMAP perhaps can give important clues to the structure of the current universe that we can see, but these researchers seem not to care very much about that issue because it could relate to black body radiation originally coming from stars, which cosmologists deny because it would tend to refute big bang theology. Anyway, the Wikipedia article relates to the ‘ideal’ blackbody instead of the real one that might actually come from stars everywhere. It seems to me a subtle subterfuge.

    Is the universe 13.7 billion years old?

    Recent data of very early universe studies at about 11 to12 B years ago refutes the big bang theory completely about the age of the universe because of the finding of large galaxies that long ago. The data studies were conducted by Karl Glazebrook of Johns Hopkins., and a copy of the press release is at the end of this document. Virtually all galaxies are regular galaxies which indicate a standard build such as the Milky Way and Andromeda and most others in our vicinity of space. These take a minimum of 13 B years to form and may take very much longer. There are many indicators that large galaxies have been around for very long periods of time. Even at great distance we see large galaxies that are yellowish with age and rich in metals. Bib bang cosmologists would like to see only small blue galaxies, implying newly forming ones from the early matter soup thought to exist then.

    Even if a large galaxy could form quickly in that time frame, it should be blue from all new young stars. But we are not seeing this. And there are many other issues as well clearly implying expansion theory is bogus.

    To look at large regular yellowish galaxies 11 billion years ago or so implies rather clearly that when light left them they were a minimum of 13 billion years old. Adding two numbers of 11 and 13 gives an age of 24 billion years for the age of the universe as an absolute minimum. It should be an embarrassment for those people looking at the WMAP data to say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

    This study clearly calls into question the validity of expansion theory, a defunct theory already for other reasons that had to be saved by the notions of inflation. This is very strong evident that the red shift has been interpreted incorrectly. Red shift is real data, but we need to try to explain it in terms of something other than an expanding universe. Otherwise current cosmology is in the hands of fools that cannot add simple numbers.

    So why would WMAP researchers make such a ridiculous remark? What this indicates to me is the institutional pressure to apply big bang theory at any cost even if it is irrational thinking. A very important hindrance to progress exists because of various institutions that have power, prestige, momentum, and especially money spent on research. The peer system is also at fault for only accepting the status quo views, a very strong armed approach to control any new idea. Anything out of the standard view, the consensus, is rejected, even if the consensus is wrong, which it frequently is.

    WMAP researchers and many others are under pressure to conform and get published and get money for further work based on big bang theory. Enough said already.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This version of the universe is perhaps 20 billion years old, but the universe, in all it's incarnations, had no beginning.


  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    really really old billions of years and y r people on at 1:00 in morning?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If it is expanding fast about 13 billion years.If it is expanding slow about 15 billion years

  • 1 decade ago

    13.7 billion years. they made the most accurate determination of its age just recently:


  • Labsci
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    14000 - 15000 million years old (give or take a few days).

  • 1 decade ago




  • 1 decade ago

    nobody knows about it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.