The Age of the Universes


As soon as I was happy with the UVS, long ago, I began imaging huge clouds of hydrogen and helium ions forming in the UVB, the first star nurseries.

  Then, when I learned about Einstein's bottomless gravity wells, I knew that they not only drove spiral galaxies, they created them.

Now, when I imagined those clouds, I saw massive columns of those ions collecting, not in masses of 12 or 100 or 1000 solar masses but millions, finally collapsing into  supermassive gravity wells and sending shock waves through their clouds, igniting the first stars.  Many of those stars would begin orbiting the well along its plain of rotation Et Voila!, the first spiral galaxies.

Years later, around the time Dark Matter was making news, I started hearing about Gamma Ray Bursts so energetic that they seemed to rip Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity apart: there simply wasn't a source that could produce that kind of energy as a sun or anything else we knew about, especially at their distance: 9 to 12 billion light-years.  When I heard about the distance my ears perked up and then, when I heard that they seemed to be coming from early star nurseries, I knew exactly what they were: birth announcements of the collapse of columns of millions of solar masses of hydrogen and helium ions into Supermassive Black Holes.  By 2004, the Cosmological community concurred and I began waiting for them to figure out that spiral galaxies would form around them.  I'm still waiting (2012).

Then, totally out of left field, another thought struck me: how in the world have we gotten to be 9 to 12 billion light years away from anything in only 13.6 billion years, the currently accepted age of the Universe(s)?  Am  I missing something?  Is the Milky Way and every other galaxy in the Universes traveling at the speed of light?

I immediately began re-examining all of our measures of the age of the Universes, from Hubble's Constant to WMAP, and came to a shocking conclusion; they all measured distance, not time.  In fact there's no way to measure the Universes' age short of calculating the average rate of the Universes' expansion - by hand. Even then there were problems because everyone assumes that that expansion is and was smooth and continuous.  Nothing in our Universes has ever been smooth and continuous.

The bottom line seemed to be that the only way to approximate the age of the Universes is to start taking data points from statistically significant slices of the sky, determining how fast galaxies are receding from one another in those slices and then averaging it all out.  And then you're only talking about the UVB.  There's no way to figure out how far or fast the UVS has been expanding.

There is a way to make a totally meaningless guess using the speed Andromeda and the Milky Way are approaching  one another,  which is a little less than 0.0004 percent of the speed of light.  It's doubtful the average rate of expansion would be that slow or anywhere close to it but even if you knock off two zeros you're talking about more than 300 billion years.

What a mess and I'm still wondering if I missed or misunderstood something.

Luckily, it really doesn't matter how old the Universes are but, if I'm right, it does say something about all those Cosmologists and mathematicians who have assumed that distance and time are the same thing for nearly eighty years.  If I'm wrong, I'll take a little trip and apologize to each one, one at a time.


 



















































































Make a Free Website with Yola.