fluflu,  The age of our galaxy is less than 13.7 billion years old.  When the universe came into being, it took time for the first massive stars to form and for galaxies to begin to take shape.  As time went on, small galaxies merged with others, until you have the large stately galaxies that are near us today.  Our own galaxy has gone through many such mergers, and it's age is somewhat ambiguous.  At what point do you call a proto-galaxy a galaxy?  When do you start to call what formed around the first massive stars proto- galaxies?  The rosebush comes before the rose.   Just like the son will always be younger than his mother, our galaxy is younger than the universe and that's about all there is to that.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Dusty if you are going to refer to the BBT, at least get the theory correct.

Its like asking a person to count to TEN with only one number to count with.

Where has science gone, we live in the modern ERA. 

  Harry, Dusty does have the theory correct. As I stated earlier, according to the BBT, you cannot estimate the size of the Universe from it's age. The point being that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light, spacetime isn't affected from the whole having to travel to space thing. The Hubble Flow is well known, it was from the deviations of the Hubble Flow that the Seven Samurai were able to guage a rough map of large scale structure to the Universe, again see Voyage to the Great Attractor.

 I'm finding this discussion is less about hard science and more about emotions. You send us links, then absolve yourself of any responsibility about their validity. You take an extreme viewpoint then play the victim when called on it and question everyone else's logic. I'm finding this thread tiresome, unlike the Life Out There thread which has some great logic chopping.

Toodles

G'day from the land of ozzz

Kuzinov said

 Harry, Dusty does have the theory correct. As I stated earlier, according to the BBT, you cannot estimate the size of the Universe from it's age. The point being that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light, spacetime isn't affected from the whole having to travel to space thing. The Hubble Flow is well known, it was from the deviations of the Hubble Flow that the Seven Samurai were able to guage a rough map of large scale structure to the Universe, again see Voyage to the Great Attractor.

Do you think that the BB started from one point and that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light?

Is this some form of a joke. So we have theory becoming a fact.

 I'm finding this discussion is less about hard science and more about emotions. You send us links, then absolve yourself of any responsibility about their validity. You take an extreme viewpoint then play the victim when called on it and question everyone else's logic. I'm finding this thread tiresome, unlike the Life Out There thread which has some great logic chopping.

Some of the link that I post do not agree with my thinking and yet I find them interesting. Expressing my opinion right or wrong is hardly important.

But! If you wish to discuss any paper, just ask. If you wish to discuss deep science than, what are you waiting for.

Or do you wish to sit on the fence and feel the victim.

There are many who read the links that I post and even say thank you.

Harry Costas:

Do you think that the BB started from one point and that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light?

Is this some form of a joke. So we have theory becoming a fact.

This has been explained before. I also have explained here, several times, the way a theory reaches that status (that it is not just an "idea", that there are rules in science for elevating an hypothesis to the level of theory).

Your continually referring to the BBT as a joke is wearing thin. You can be forgiven your misunderstanding of, or resistance to, any given theory -- whether it's the standard model or not.

But I warned you before about challenging other members in this way. Play here politely, or don't play here.

 I'm finding this discussion is less about hard science and more about emotions. You send us links, then absolve yourself of any responsibility about their validity. You take an extreme viewpoint then play the victim when called on it and question everyone else's logic. I'm finding this thread tiresome, unlike the Life Out There thread which has some great logic chopping.

Some of the link that I post do not agree with my thinking and yet I find them interesting. Expressing my opinion right or wrong is hardly important.

But! If you wish to discuss any paper, just ask. If you wish to discuss deep science than, what are you waiting for.

Or do you wish to sit on the fence and feel the victim.

This is another challenge. Please change your style of discourse here, Harry. Last chance.

There are many who read the links that I post and even say thank you.

That may be true. But it's beside the point. Including it here is a bit smug.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Chip read my words.

What part did I say was a joke?

also read Dusty expanation of the BBT.

also the other critic before you respond.

 Than come back to me.

If you are unable to discuss this thread topic and keep it friendly, then in accordance with web site usage policies I will lock it from further discussion.

Evidencce minus evidence equals zero. Some are unabble to graps the concept so they select to built upon a model that fits their imagination. A created Universe froman initial point seems to fit the human mind but it does not fit the human mind to asked what was there before that initial point. I will stated it again, in order for something to exist it must have the space to occupied it first. Energy can't just appear out of nowhere, all energy is the break down of something else, visible and invisble. What seems to appear out in space all of the sudden as witness by scientists is due to the facts that we already have a Universe and a lot of dark energy. mass and gravity which are responsible for such appearences. The age of the Universe is not conclusive and so its keeps getting older as science discovered more facts and evidence about it. Some interesting reading are found in UNIVERSE BY design --- an Explanation of Cosmology and Creation. By Dr. Danny Faulkner. Though I don't accept nor believed in Religion or that God created the universe, this book presents different points of views.

fluflu:

.... A created Universe froman initial point seems to fit the human mind but it does not fit the human mind to asked what was there before that initial point. I will stated it again, in order for something to exist it must have the space to occupied it first. Energy can't just appear out of nowhere, ....

Hi fluflu,

 But energy apparently does appear out of nowhere all the time!  quantum vacuum fluctuations are an integral part of our universe.  particles and antiparticles come into existance and spontaneusly decay constantly throughout all space in the universe (the keystone of Hawking radiation).   These particles are of course energy.

Newtons a-priori universal time and space as a backdrop to all that exists has also been discarded in light of relativity and quantum mechanics. 

Space and time are human concepts....used to understand natural phenomenon.  They are perceptions to us,  but they may have expanded properties from some other more universal point of view not easily accessed by beings such as us who evolved in a very limited environment. 

 Einstiens model of spacetime is beyond many peoples understanding of reality...even perhaps a few of us on this forum...but even though it describes observations much better than Newton's model it too is an incomplete model of space and time as it cannot be reconciled with quantum phenonena.  So perhaps it does not describe all there is to know about space and time.  But Einsteins model IS the model of the big bang and it predicts the sigularity as containing all matter,   all space,  all time all of everything that later became observable in the universe.  If you accept the big bang theory at all then you are really accepting a model where there is no "before"  and there is no "backdrop of 3 space dimension".  A big bang with a "before" and a 3-D backdrop is a brand new theory.   

The model of the BB  as the origin of space and the origin of time is the model of General Relativity.  GRhas been proven constent with macroscopic observation (unlike conjecture that has not been confirmed such as string theory).  GR is not consistent with quantum mechanics so the universe cannot be modeled back in time to a singularity, only to a very small diameter.  THe mystery that lies in the earliest 10-43 second of history may in reality be on its own scale a rich and illustrious history that may include another familiar or unfamiliar universe.  Nobody knows anything about before this time.  Before this time ist is all conjecture.  "Before" all lies in the first .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000043 second and for all we know this may be enough to contain all our wildest imaginings!

PH

fluflu:

The age of the Universe is not conclusive and so its keeps getting older as science discovered more facts and evidence about it.

The universe has actually gotten younger as more precise measurements have been made.  The high end figure for the age of the universe was originally placed at 20 billion years.

Dave Mitsky