Replies

This thread is over 150 post long, and not a single naysayer has provided a scintilla of evidence that the methods used by the scientists were defective.

That's probably because they aren't. I personally don't doubt the intelligence of these people and what they're doing. My only argument that hasn't been refuted either is that they're only measuring what they can see. If there are galaxies or other objects in space farther out than what we can now detect, objects whose light is too faint, or hasn't reached us yet, that would throw their whole discoveries out of whack, because that would mean the universe is older than what they're saying. That's why I'm skeptical of stories like this.

I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.

If there are galaxies or other objects in space farther out than what we can now detect, objects whose light is too faint, or hasn't reached us yet, that would throw their whole discoveries out of whack, because that would mean the universe is older than what they're saying.

How so? IF there were objects further away that we can't see, how does that make the Universe older that what has been measured?

I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.

I dare say that would be extraordinarily unlikely, as I'm quite sure there are observational data that place an UPPER bound on the possible age of the Universe, and that bound is much lower than 100 billion years. I wish I could remember the exact observational data that tell us this, but at the moment I can't recall what it is. Perhaps "Physicist" knows.....