I'm in a nit-picking mood :-) so I'll note that should presumably
photons, not just light.
But there's also neutrinos, though we don't yet have the ability to
detect them at cosmological distances.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?

How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin,
virtual photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should
obviously mean it's hypothetical.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a
billion years younger.

Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is
cooling? Are we measuring microscopic changes in temperature
of the CMBR and then extrapolating backwards? Or are we just
taking our theories about the temperature of the Big Bang and
curve fitting backwards from today to a billion years ago?
Basically what is the mark left on things from a billion years
ago
that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly
iron?

The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad
helium.

Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about
the halo? There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.

Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter
(iron, hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It
won't
banish the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself
doesn't have to be as massive as we need it to be right now.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores
(including neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which
somehow migrate out into the halo over time?

These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron
stars and stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT
consuming the dust and producing the ever-present X-rays?
Like their counterparts in less dusty areas manage to do...

Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little
bit, how about long dead star cores, but only the type below
1.4 solar masses, and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar
masses, like neutrons and blacks.

Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of
gravity are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws
that
we will eventually discover?

Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see
several galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that
the theories of gravity are undergoing modification, before.
I *was* thinking of the MOND theories partially. But it isn't
just
MOND there's other anamolies being presented here too.
Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark matter,
superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would
Probe Strange Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very
much mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the
holes we have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a
workable hypothesis.

Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of
mass
has been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said
that blackholes radiate their mass away as antimatter particles
fall into them, releasing their associated matter particles to
keep
living.

If there is a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a
few more
percentage of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather
than
particles, then perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank
vault. In fact, Hawking said that we should just now be seeing
some microscopic blackholes with masses the size of
mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to be
completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of
vaccuum energy eating away at them. At some point all
blackholes (even the biggest galactic ones) will have eaten
away at most of the material nearest to them, and there will
be nothing else falling in to any great rate, at that point the
vaccuum energy eating away at their insides might become
a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every
year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".

There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our
ticket is one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the
boonies... no matter how large or old the Universe is.

And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at
an accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to
a decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing
everything back together.

But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that
yet,
but then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all
just
a few years ago -- and now there is.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out
how much of the universe is outside of our viewing range,
will that affect the calculations for the age of the universe?

How could we find that out? Light (and its close cousin, virtual
photons) is our only means of detecting *anything*.

That's why I said "assuming by some discovery", which should obviously
mean it's hypothetical.

No. As I have said, the CMBR a billion years ago (baed on
observations) indicated an age of the Universe that was a billion
years younger.

Okay that's a good possibility, how do we know the CMBR is cooling? Are
we measuring microscopic changes in temperature of the CMBR and then
extrapolating backwards? Or are we just taking our theories about the
temperature of the Big Bang and curve fitting backwards from today to a
billion years ago? Basically what is the mark left on things from a
billion years ago that what would indicate the CMBR was warmer back then?

Well, how do we know the distribution of matter isn't highly iron?

The spectrum of the stars is that of mostly hydrogen ad helium.

Yeah, the spectrum of the stars is like that, but what about the halo?
There's little to no sprectrum to be seen there.

We don't even know what dark matter is composed of yet.

Yes, we know what it isn't, however. And baryonic matter (iron,
hydrogen and the like) is what it isn't.

What if Milgrom's MOND is right at least to some extent? It won't banish
the existence of dark matter, but the dark matter itself doesn't have to
be as massive as we need it to be right now.

What if all of the
stuff out in the galactic halos are long dead star cores (including
neutron stars and stellar blackholes), which somehow migrate out into
the halo over time?

These areas are full of dust. How is it that the "neutron stars and
stellar blackholes" prevent discovery by NOT consuming the dust and
producing the ever-present X-rays? Like their counterparts in less
dusty areas manage to do...

Okay, understood. Then let's change the parameters a little bit, how
about long dead star cores, but only the type below 1.4 solar masses,
and not the exotic ones above 1.4 solar masses, like neutrons and
blacks. Again, the sieving effect caused by some quirky nature of MOND.

Separated out by gravity in some sort of natural
galactic centrifuge. Afterall it seems like the laws of gravity are
starting to undergo modifications these days as we do more
detailed observations of the rest of the universe -- perhaps a
galactic centrifuge is a quite logical outcome of the laws that
we will eventually discover?

Not too likley. No such motion is evident, and we can see several
galaxies "closely" and quite clearly.

Maybe I should've been a bit more specific when I said that the theories
of gravity are undergoing modification, before. I *was* thinking of the
MOND theories partially. But it isn't just MOND there's other anamolies
being presented here too. Those anamolies can be explained by MOND, dark
matter, superstring theories, etc.

SPACE.com -- The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange
Puzzle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

The particles represent the temperature of the hole. Not very much
mass is going to be produced this way. Even with all the holes we
have discovered. You are a few loads shy of a workable hypothesis.

Well, at various points in the life of the universe a lot of mass has
been locked away inside blackholes. Stephen Hawking said that blackholes
radiate their mass away as antimatter particles fall into them,
releasing their associated matter particles to keep living. If there is
a natural skew to the universe that prefers that a few more percentage
of antiparticles will fall into blackholes rather than particles, then
perhaps blackholes are a form of cosmic bank vault. In fact, Hawking
said that we should just now be seeing some microscopic blackholes with
masses the size of mountains or asteroids created during the big bang to
be completely disappearing right now, simply from the effects of vaccuum
energy eating away at them. At some point all blackholes (even the
biggest galactic ones) will have eaten away at most of the material
nearest to them, and there will be nothing else falling in to any great
rate, at that point the vaccuum energy eating away at their insides
might become a greater effect. Right now we're still depositing into the
blackhole banks, later we might be withdrawing.

The
new particles could go into refreshing the galactic gas clouds
for new star formation. And mass and energy conservation
would be preserved in the universe by the fact that every year,
more parts of the universe become inaccessible to us as they
go "beyond the rim".

There are surprises in store for us, don't worry. But our ticket is
one way, and we are going to end up cold and in the boonies... no
matter how large or old the Universe is.

And the Dark Energy force that's forcing the galaxies apart at an
accelerating rate, might at some future point switch over to a
decelerating and reversing force which could end up bringing everything
back together. But that might only be triggered by the universe becoming
sufficiently cold. No evidence for the Dark Energy doing that yet, but
then again there was no evidence for Dark Energy at all just a few years
ago -- and now there is.

Yousuf Khan

So if the age of the universe is always based on only what we
can see, wouldn't that mean that the age of the universe will
always be fixed at the current age (of whatever estimate you
want to use)? If the estimate says the age of the universe is
13.7 billion years old now, then the universe will forever be
13.7 billion years old, even if we do the calculation a 100
billion years or a trillion years from now.

Jim Black wrote:

Okay great, then assuming by some discovery we find out how much of the
universe is outside of our viewing range, will that affect the
calculations for the age of the universe?

Not for our part of the universe. The portion of the universe outside
the region from which light has or could have travelled to us cannot
have had an effect on the part of the universe we can, in principle,
observe. To do so, some sort of information about the outside region
would have to have travelled faster than the speed of light to
influence us.

So if the age of the universe is always based on only what we can see,
wouldn't that mean that the age of the universe will always be fixed at
the current age (of whatever estimate you want to use)? If the estimate
says the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old now, then the
universe will forever be 13.7 billion years old, even if we do the
calculation a 100 billion years or a trillion years from now.

Yousuf Khan

Sam Wormley wrote:

We estimate the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years.
As the universe expands faster and faster, our observable horizon
will begin to shrink and we will no longer be able to "see" the early
universe.

Okay, then wouldn't we then be calling whatever we can still see to be
the "early" universe? And therefore wouldn't we then be saying that the
universe is always 13.7 billion years, since that's as far out into
that we can see?

Sam Wormley wrote:

We estimate the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years.
As the universe expands faster and faster, our observable horizon
will begin to shrink and we will no longer be able to "see" the early
universe.

Okay, then wouldn't we then be calling whatever we can still see to be
the "early" universe? And therefore wouldn't we then be saying that the
universe is always 13.7 billion years, since that's as far out into
that we can see?

Yousuf Khan