Quote:
Originally Posted by sirChuck
The stars you base the age of the universe on are in fact only the stars we know of, therefor better tools could in fact show an older universe.
|
No,
01101001 is right-- the issue is not how big the universe is (infinite is fine), the issue is how
old it is. We don't "base" the age of the universe on any particular stars, we base it on many things, and it all comes out 13.7 billion years old. That's just as true for an infinite universe as a finite one-- your reference to Occam's razor is the basis for this. Even an infinite universe would have no stars older than 13.7 billion years, if one goes on the simplest interpretation of what we see.
Quote:
|
All of the galaxy's we can see could in fact be moving in direction (a) at 300 times the speed of light, and at the same time be moving in other directions and speeds relative to us.
|
Of course that's true, but what is the point of asking a question that we cannot know the answer to? Philosophically, perhaps, but it's not of scientific interest.
Quote:
By the way i just noticed your user name 0110 1001 did you think about the 2 binary numbers you made, or just happen to come up with a 6 and a 9 
|
Now there's a question that
does have an answer, if it should be forthcoming!