Problem with the Age of the Universe

There is something seriously wrong with the present models describing the nature of the expansion of the universe or our understanding of stellar evolution is way off. One proof of this statement is based upon the currently accepted theoretical models that allow some stars in our universe to be older than the universe.

The following link, (furnished by NASA) illustrates the problem.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

1 Based upon the observed distribution of the types of stars found in Globular Clusters it is possible to determine the age of the Globular Cluster. (Massive stars “burn” fuel faster, and once the fuel is consumed, the star becomes a Red Giant, diverging from the “main sequence” of stars described on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. This dating of Globular Clusters seems to correspond fairly well to theoretical calculations. ) Some of the older Globular clusters are determined to be 11 to 18 Billion years old.

2. The universe is measured to be Flat. (Within a few percent, at least) http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html.

3. Based upon application of Principles of General Relativity the age of the universe is 2/3 x 1/Ho, if the universe is flat (See NASA article previously referenced).

4. While there is some adjusting to the measured expansion rate, the best estimates of Ho is about 70 kilometers/sec per million parsecs, (Ignoring Allan Sandage’s rather radical measure of Ho of 47 (km/sec)/Mpc, in comparison to three independent measures of Ho). (Note 70 kilometers/ sec per million parsecs = 2.27 x 10^-18 m/s per meter).

5. The age of the universe is then 2/3 1/Ho = 2/3 14 = 9.3 Billion years.

The age of the oldest stars in Globular clusters are at least 2 billion years older that the Universe!


Of course this is impossible, so a number of attempts have been made to resolve the dilemma. The most popular fix is to incorporate a cosmological constant. Unfortunately adding a cosmological constant alters the curvature of Space-time from the observed flatness. To account for this effect, variations in the distribution of Dark matter, has to be assumed, as well as variations in the effect of dark energy. These assumptions should give pause. Adding terms to an expression just to keep the existing models consistent can amount to making “The biggest blunder” one can make.

The age problem resolves itself if one allows the expansion of space-time to include matter itself. Do not stop it at the boundary of galaxies, as presently assumed. Once that simple change is done, gravity becomes a function of cosmic time. Since gravity is greater in the past, stars would evolve far faster than presently thought. When the universe was 1/4 it’s present age, the effect of gravity would be 6.35 times greater ("G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3) = (1/4) ^(4/3) = 1/6.35). This would dramatically increase the rate that these stars would consume their fuel, aging them far faster. Globular Clusters assumed to be 12 billion years old would be less than 6 billion years old, well within a 9 billion year old Universe. Everything falls into place. No cosmological constant is required, no changing effect of Dark Matter at different evolutionary times is required, No variation in the effect of dark energies is required. The expansion of space-time is truly uniform.

Snowflake

If the expansion of space-time is uniform and includes matter, in fact includes everything, and gravity is a function of cosmic time, wouldn't time move faster when gravity was stronger?

In other words, if these stars burned fuel faster because gravity was stronger but at the same time time moved at a proportionally increased rate, they would still be 11 to 18 billion years old.

No. According to the very site you link to, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. End of problem.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hi Law Beefaroni

The theoretical model I am proposing requires two dimensions of time. Time does not “move”. Time describes relationships of points in space. One dimension of time describes the temporal distance between points as determined by the speed of light. This preserves the relationships of Special relativity. The other dimension of time describes a point’s location historically in relationship to the moment of creation (The Big Bang).

You are right in that the measure of time may change in my model, but the effects of that change will not be noticed locally. I will be addressing this issue shortly in another thread called “Critiques and validations of the uniform expansion of space time theory”.

Thanks for the observation.

Snowflake

So, there's a problem with the universe's age when you use your version of astrophysics instead of the one everyone else uses?

Hmm, now which is wrong, decades, nay, centuries of carefully experimentally proven work, or your stuff...

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Hi Alex

All the problems I mentioned were from one source, A NASA source. It is based upon “centuries of carefully experimentally proven work” I suggest you read the articles found in the link. The principles or issues expressed in the NASA publication are all based upon our current understanding of the evolution of stars and Einstein’s theory of General relativity.

If you have an issue with these sources, I suggest you correspond with NASA and tell them they are wrong.

You can take issue with my application of my theory of a Uniform Expansion of Space Time as a theory that resolves the problems. You may be perfectly content with things just as they are, I am not.


Snowflake

Ah, well, fair enough.

__________________
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Remember the Hubble time is just a back of the envelope calculation. In an accelerating universe the actual age is higher.

The problem here is overstated. The age of the Universe is now pretty well known, 13.7 billion +/- 200 million.

But the age of globular cluster stars is still not well known; the ages are harder to measure. Note the age range of 11 - 18 billion years. That's a big error bar! It is still quite possible-- indeed, likely given the WMAP results-- that the ages of the stars will settle down to the lower end of that range.

What would be the implications, other than having to edit the current theory, if a cluster was measured to be older than the universe is currently thought? Which would be attacked first, the current age or methodology for determining stellar ages? Assuming the the method that determined the older age was fairly accurate.

I expect both would get attacked, each from the other side. :P

Actually, everyone would be questioning almost everything. We are pretty sure we understand the fundamentals, but there are still places where uncertainties can creep in.

But it's times like those that science leaps ahead!

Did you read the information in that link all the way to the bottom? If so, why are you being so totally misleading and misrepresenting this information? The webpage clearly states....
Please explain why you are claiming that NASA has said otherwise. (?) :^o

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Hi Astrobairn

You have a point regarding the “inaccuracy” inherent in Ho since it is only over comparatively recent periods of time that the rate of expansion has been determined. Locally, or presently, I think the value for Ho is fairly accurate.

You bring out the point of stating that an “accelerating universe” would make the age higher. I am not so convinced that is the case. High red shift type 1a supernovas, which are used to justify the assertion that space is “accelerating”, may not be the same as local 1a’s. The evidence of this is indicated by the decreasing rise times, or length of the light curve. After adjusting the duration of the light curve for relativistic considerations, there is reduction in the time interval of the light curve of a day or so for high red shift 1a’s. Why is this happening? Our “standard candles” may not be as standard as we think.

Thanks for the post.

Snowflake

Hi Bad Astronomer

You have stated that the age of the Universe is 13.7 billion years old +- 200 million years. This is assuming a constant Ho. (Age of Universe = 1/Ho).

In the application of General Relativity without a cosmological constant, with the assumption that the universe is flat (as it appears to be), the age of the universe is 2/3 x 1/Ho.

If there is a cosmological or other factor “accelerating” the expansion of space then the age of the universe can be even greater. This information is from the NASA site. (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html)

Given the speculative nature of the cosmological constant, the confusion about how much real or dark matter exists in the universe, and the whole dark energy thing, I think the assertion that the age of the universe is a little less than 14 billion years old to a specific variation of a few million years has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Snowflake

Hi Normandy 6644

Your point about what model should be kept or thrown away is good, perhaps it would be wise to consider all, particularly since the theoretical basis of dark matter and dark energy is so speculative regarding the expansion rate and that the models for predicting stellar evolution may be prone to adjustments.

Eventually I am hoping to win a convert to my proposed uniform expansion of space-time theory. (Instead of stopping the expansion of space-time at the boundary of galaxies, I propose that matter itself is expanding. This expansion conforms to a specific rate that preserves the following locally observed relationships, celestial balance, atomic stability, fundamental constants, and the conservation principles, such as the conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.) In this case the application of the theory predicts a much faster evolutionary process for stellar evolution than presently thought. This would change the age stars of stars that have diverted from the Main Sequence and would not require Dark matter, or dark energy. It also would correspond to an expansion rate conformant to General Relativity with out a cosmological constant. Everything is simpler.

Snowflake.

Actually, this age comes from assuming the cosmological model of dark matter and energy; with dark energy specifically changing the expansion rate. The age of the Universe found was not just taking 2/3 of the inverse of the Hubble constant. That only works for a flat Universe dominated by normal matter.

The "stars older than the universe" problem is greatly exaggerated, and in my opinion non-existant. To begin with, the statement from the WMAP page that the oldest globular clusters are 11 to 18 billion years old is flat wrong. The oldest current globular cluster ages are all less than 14 billion years (Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology, Krauss & Chaboyer, Science, 299: 65-69, January 3, 2003; Homogenous age dating of 55 globular clusters: Clues to the Galaxy formation mechanisms, Salaris & Weiss, Astronomy and Astrophysics 388: 492-503, 2002). Krauss & Chaboyer show a best fit age of 12.6 billion years for the oldest globular clsuters. Salaris & Weiss use two slightly different models to determine the ages of 55 globular clusters from the color magnitude diagrams. The oldest age on their list is 13.1 ± 1.2 billion years for NGC6535.

The oldest know stars are not globular cluster stars, they are low mass, low metalicity Galactic halo stars. Their low metalicity makes ages hard to determine. As an example, the age of the halo star CS 22892-052 ranges from 10.4 billion years to 14.2 ± 3 billion years (The extremely metal-poor, neutron capture-rich star CS 22892-052: A comprehensive abundance analysis, C. Sneden et al., Astrophysical Journal, 591(2): 936-953, Part 1, July 10, 2003). The large uncertainty is typical for the halo stars, where abundances of heavy elements are very hard to measure. A few years ago the typical quoted halo star ages were about 15 ± 5 billion years. All of these ages are easily consistent with a 13.7 billion year old universe, or even one rather younger.

The WMAP derived 13.7 billion year age of the universe is far too widely assumed to be the age of the universe. In fact, 13.7 is on the low end of universe ages derived from several CMB experiments (i.e., Boomerang, MAXIMA, DASI, VSA, or CBI. Although WMAP covers the whole sky, most of the other experiments have a higher angular resolution than does WMAP, and so are more sensitive cosmological parameter probes. If you look through the parameter derivations in the many papers of the majny projects (I have), it quickly beomes evident that 14.5 billion years is a much better representation of the "best fit" age to the full CMB data set (I have not done this as a formal exercise, but this won't be far from the result of a formal analysis).

So, a more likely CMB age for the universe is 14.5 billion years. The oldest GC stars are about 13 billion years, and the oldest halo stars are about 14 billion, with large uncertainties, and are just as likely to be much younger as they are to be much older. There simply is no problem here.

The (2/3)(1/H0) age of the universe is model specific. If the model it is based on is incorrect, then so is the derived age. It assumes a matter dominated flat universe and general relativity. But all of the CMB data are now clearly inconsistent with such a model. This means that either general relativity is wrong, or the assumption of flat and matter dominated is wrong. Considering the rather significant success of general relativity in modeling local space-time effects, it is not the first to go. A flat, "dark energy" dominated universe, with dark matter and general relativity, is a very good match to the CMB data. There is simply no reason to replace it with another model, at this time. There may be in the future, but not now.

Hi Cougar,

What makes the NASA reference so good is that it gives a variety of presentations on the expansion rate in relationship to the age of the universe. How that rate varies (or doesn’t vary) is dependant on the theoretical model one wishes to keep. If principles of General Relativity are applied, with no cosmological constant, given the observed flat universe, the age of the universe is 9 billion years old. This is in the NASA publication. This is in conflict with stars 11 billion years old. This is information in the NASA publication.

In order to avoid this contradiction, a selection process is being used regarding the choice of theoretical models, usually a constant Ho is assumed. Usually there is also the addition of a Cosmological constant, and or various distributions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy added to the mix.This is in the NASA publication. I also mentioned this in my post.

If given a choice, between a theory that conforms to observation, or a theory that conforms to observation only if a number of “fixes” are required, I would tend to choose the simpler model. The quote you use at the end of your post requires the assumption of a constant Ho.

The quote you give is from data from the WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE (WMAP). This is a study of our universe based upon the microwave background. An amazing study of the variations in the thermal background temperature. The following quote is from the technical paper that is used to justify the assertion that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years old. First year Wilkinson Microwave Anbisotropy Probe WMAP Observations: Determination of cosmological Parameters. D. Spergel L. Verde et al.
“ We begin by considering a basic cosmological model: a flat Universe with radiation, baryons, cold dark matter and cosmological constant, and a power-law spectrum of adiabatic primordial fluctuations.” The assumption is for a constant Ho with any variations in the expansion rate adjusted by the addition of dark matter and dark energy. The cosmic background radiation does not give a direct measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Again quoting from the same source “CMB observations do not directly measure the local expansion rate of the Universe rather they measure the conformal distance to the decoupling surface and the matter-radiation ratio through the amplitude of the early Integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW) contribution relative to the height of the first peak. For our power law ACDM model, this is enough information to “predict” the local expansion rate. Thus, local Hubble constant measurements are an important test of our basic model.” The fact that the local expansion rate determined by the study of Cosmic Microwave Background matches so well with that of Type 1a supernovas is encouraging and indicates that our observed local rate of expansion is essentially correct.

Unfortunately for those advocating that this is proof of a uniform or constant rate of expansion, the arguments are not that conclusive. Imagine we have two universes. Both start off with identical amounts of radiation associated with the big bang and both have expanded to the same “size” the only difference is the rate of expansion. The amount of cooling of the CBR will be essentially the same for the two universes, but the age of the two universes will be different. (There would be a slight adjustment regarding the exact timing of decoupling but with these measures in the order of 300,000 years, the variation would not show up on an estimate of an estimate of the age of the universe of billions of years old. The standard deviation for the age of the universe is usually in 100’s of millions of years.)

Snowflake

You would first want to look at the age determination and measurements first. For example, I have seen three different papers that give ages for the globular cluster NGC 6397 of 16 billion years +/- 1.0, 14 billion years +/- 1.1, and 12.5 billion years +/-1.1. This is quite a range, but there are a number of parameters that affect the age determination including metallicity. In the paper that gives the 16 billion year age, they assume a different metallicity than the paper that gives the 12.5 billion year age. If you adjust the first paper's age for that effect the age of the cluster would be reduced from 16 billion to about 13.5 billion years. So the age determination of 16 billion years may not be correct.

Of course someone might still make a case for an age crisis in that there is a time lag between the Big Bang and the first formation of stars, globular clusters and so on. So if a firmly established set of ages was too old to give time for the GC to form after the Big Bang, then the BB parameters would have to be evaluated. I don't think that is the case right now although things are cut pretty close.

For example, the Milky Way disk includes a "thick" disk and a "thin" disc. The thick disc is thought to be older than the thin disk and one recent study confirmed from Hipparcos satellite data that most of the stars older than 12 billion years were kinematically part of the thick disk. So the question becomes how long does it take to form the thick disk of a spiral galaxy after the Big Bang? The thick disk stars (and oldest globular clusters) go at least to 13 billion years although a few are dated to 15 billion years. So if the BB occurred 13.7 billion years ago, is 0.7 billion years enough time to form those stars and a galactic disk? If that is enough time then there is not a problem. If it actually takes 2 billion years to form those features then you would need to take a look at something - BB concordance model parameters, stellar formation processes and so on.

Yes, but unfortunately, your initiating post claimed....
This is flat wrong because a model with no cosmological constant is not the "present model describing the nature of the expansion of the universe."

You're citing an old, outdated theory that is no longer valid because of more recent observations, you're mixing in a little newer data, and you're concluding in shrill tones, "There is something seriously wrong with the present models!" What, are you trying out as a sensationalistic news reporter whose wild-eyed reports always evaporate once their surface is scratched a millimeter or two?
More gross misrepresentation. Of course, this has been well explained before. You are apparently so far out in your own little fantasy universe, you cannot hear what people in this universe are trying to tell you....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Age of Oldest Globular clusters
The following list includes the oldest ages of low metal Globular Clusters. The ages are organized chronologically by date of publication. It only includes those dates I could extract from every abstract available from - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

Date, .age x 10^9, first named on paper
1982=17 x +- 2 …Sandage Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 252, Jan. 15, 1982, p. 553-581
1982=16+ ………Nissen P.E
1983=16………….Carney B.W.not less than 10 to 12, Longer if rotation considered
1985 ….Vandenberg D.A Publishes article that ages of clusters can be reduced if C N O are involved with core reactions. The decreasing age of the universe indicated by expansion is forcing the necessity ……………….for looking explainatons allowing the reduction in the age of Globular Clusters. IN: ESO Workshop on ………………Production and Distribution of C, N, O Elements,
1986=16.3……….Buonanno. R
1986=13 +- 3……Quarta M.L.
1987=15 or less...Sil’chenko O.K
1988 =13 – 14……Vandenberg D.A.
1988=16 +- 3…….Giannone, P
1989 …………..Guzik, Joyce A proposes that mass loss may reduce turn off age from 18 to 12 billion years.
1989 =19 +-3……Buonanno,R
1990 …………….Dearborn, David proposes that “dark matter” may be responsible for the age problem with Globular clusters and also from the period fluctuations of RR Lyrae Stars

1992=20 +- 3 to 14 +- 2 Bruce. W depending on oxygen/Iron ratios at lower figures model inconcistent,Carney,
1992=17 +-2 …….Chaboyer, Brian
1993=14………….Sandage, Allen. By increasing observed brightness .25 mag via the “Oosterhoff period effect a reduction in age can be achieved. Sandage uses an age based upon 2/3 1/Ho and Ho 45 km/s per mpc (Still hoping for closure with accordance with General Relativity)
1993=15 to 18…..Bolte M.
1994=11 +- 1…… Shi Xiangdong By altering the initial helium abundance and mass loss rate at the formation of a Galactic cluster it is possible to reduce the age of a globular cluster 3 billion years.
1995 11- 21……. Chaboyer, Brian max variation in age of oldest clusters.
1995=16 ………… Folgheraiter, E.L. which can be reduced to by 2 with possible oxegen effects.
1995=14 +- 1.5…… Shi, Xiangdong
can be reduced to 11 +-1 after adjustment to helium concentrations and mass loss.
1995=14 …………. Mazzitelli, Iafter making 3 adjustments to evolution theory
1995=14.6 +- 1.7…Chaboyer, Brian
1996=15 –3 +5…… Vandenberg, Don A max variation
1996=……….. …….Grundahl, Frank It is becoming evident that when a globular cluster forms changes it’s apparent rate of aging a number of publications at this time
1996=16.4 +-.2…..Jimenez, Raul
1996=15.5…………Renzini, Alvio
1996=14 –18 reduced by Time-variation of Newton’s gravitational constant and the age of globular clusters
by deg’Innocenti,S: FiorentiniG: Raffelt,GG; Ricci,B; Weiss.A Astronmy and Astrophysics, v 312 p 345-352 A
1996=13.5 +- 2…….Jimenez, Raul potential reduction to 9.7
1996=13…………….Reid, N
1997=11.8 (+2.1, -2.5)..Gratton, R.G. Improved distance measures, plus all the assumptions necessary to reduce age.
1997=14 +/- 1.2……Pont.F
1997=12.6 Lowest 10.4.. Feast, M.W.
1997=12…………… D’Antona,F
1997=12. 2………….D’Antona. (Uses the “latest Equations of State” to reduce age
1997=16 +- 1……….Based upon clusters around other galaxies
1997=14 +- 3……….Bergbusch, Peter A
1997=11.8^{+2.1}_{-2.5}
1997=10……………Pont. F (was formally 13 –14) more accurate readings, plus a new theoretical model allows reduction. Hipparcos.
1997=14 +- 3……..Sagar, Ram
1998=11.5 +- 1.3…Chaboyer, Brian With the increase accuracy of distance measures due to Hipparcos, and a new theoretical model that reduces the evolutionary development of stars that diverge from the main sequence Chaboyer, Brian
1999=12.5 +- 1……Jimenez, Raul
2000=11 – 14………Pont,F
2000=12.9 +- 2.9…..Carretta, Eugenio
2000=15 to 18.3…..VandenBerg, Don A. Uses Hipparcos, improves model for metalicity, resolves some conflicts appearing in models with age less than 13
2000=14.6 to 16…..Grundahl, F
2000=14.5 +-3…….Beasley, M.A (variation due to exta galactic globular nebula)
2001=11.3…………McNamara D.H
2001=12.9 to 18.5 Thompson, I.B extra galactic cluster
2001=13 +- 2.5……Zoccali, M extra galactic
2001=15.9 16.4……Rengel Miriam
2001=16……………Kravtsov, Valery V
2001=13 +-1.5……..Demarque, Pierre
2002=12.7 +- .7……De Marchi, Guido
2003………………..de Marchi, Guido publishes another article after peer review of his previous work. determines topic of dating gc a completely wide open in relation to age conflict. questions an earlier date of 12
2003=15.9 16.3……Rengel, Miriam
2003=11.2…………Youngest possible age Krauss, Lawrence M
2003=more than 10..Cohen, Judith G


number less than or equal to 13 = 27
number greater than or equal to 14= 35
number greater than or equal to 15= 32
number greater than or equal to 16= =22

The data from Hipparcos reduced the age of Globular Clusters a bit after 1997. Modelers have adjusted the age up and down by considering other influences. Most changes were adopted in an effort to find a mechanism that reduce the age of Globular Clusters to avoid conflict with the age of the Universe.

After two days of reading only the abstracts, I tend to believe in the work of those advocating the oldest age of Globular Clusters to be in the 14 to 16 billion year old range. The reports tend to be more though and an understanding of the complexities involved seem to be more considered. This is probably in part due to the amount of criticism they know they will receive. My impression was that those who derived younger maximum ages tried to “force” the equations to reduce age. After a young age (less than 13), is published, there is another paper soon published using the same but generally more detailed considerations arguing for a much older age. The advocates who date GC to be 14 billion years old or older also tend to point out problems when such a young age is assumed. When these theoretical modelers meet there must be some clashes.

Note that even in 2003 there are still some advocating GC to be 15.9 to 16.3 billion years old. This is older than the popularly stated age of the universe.

Snowflake.

I believe there are old stars in very distant galaxies. If these galaxies are, say 9 billion light years away, then we are seeing stars that were really old 9 billion years ago. Suppose these stars were "only" 8 billion years old then. That means they were formed 17 billion years ago. A problem for the big bang? No, the big bangers just ignore that.

John, maybe the light from those distant galaxies travelled faster than light!

This shows a profound misunderstanding or just plain ignorance of things cosmological, relativity, lookback time, and frames of reference. It is remarkable that the author cannot imagine that it is his understanding that might be deficient, but rather it is the problem of the entire scientific community! What's that called, a Messiah complex?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Snowflake,

One of the problems is that there are a number of ways of modeling the ages and the data itself can lead to different results with the same model. For example, the 2001 kravtsov study you mention is the one I was mentioning above. Yes they give 16 billion years, but if you account for metallicity differences between what they assumed and what a different published study gives, the age of the cluster comes down to about 13.5 billion years which is not so problematic.

After evaluating many different studies that date stars in a number of different ways I've found that:

1. Most age dates are consistent with the currently accepted age of the universe - not only in terms of absolute ages, but also in terms of time needed to reach those stages (although its cut as close as you can).
2. There are a few studies that have reliable data which indicate stars older than the currently accepted age.
3. Improvements in both data and models are still needed.

So I wouldn't say this issue is resolved one way or another at this time, but for now there is not enough here to conclude that the Big Bang concordance model has been violated. We can say that IF any of the age dates greater than 15 billion years are firmed up with additional support, then there would be a conflict with the current concordance model.

Cougar, I'd love to see you demonstrate how 9 + 9 don't make 18.

Well, so as to avoid further confusion (there's certainly enough of that in evidence!), let's keep the example to be 9 + 8, as the eminently confused Kierein posited....
You see no faulty logic/assumption in the above, ExpandoMann?

OK, let me narrow it down for you.
BZZZZZZT! WRONG! If you're viewing a galaxy that is 9 billion lightyears away, then the galaxy and its constituent stars are YOUNG, not "really old" as Kierein represents. To blithely suppose that the stars were already 8 billion years old (when the light that is just now reaching us after traveling 9 billion lightyears was emitted) is simply a ridiculous supposition. As Perry Mason would say, Mr. Kierein is assuming facts not in evidence. :roll:

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Oh, so it's just your old argument that the distant galaxies are all young stars, because cosmologists like them to be that way. Perry Mason would disapprove.

Well, as long as anyone can just make up facts, suppose that the starts that we see 9 billion ly away are only 1 billion years old.. then you get 10 by, I guess that is ok right? So, we'll just use my suppositions because... today is Saturday?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

HUH? You mean that we AREN'T seeing galaxies 9 billion light years away as they were 9 billion years ago? And if we see stars that were already 8 billion years old then, that they weren't really formed 17 billion years ago? When WERE they formed then?