Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 DanMiller

DanMiller

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2022
  • Loc: Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 15 July 2023 - 10:24 AM

Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."

 

"Our newly-devised model stretches the galaxy formation time by a several billion years, making the universe 26.7 billion years old, and not 13.7 as previously estimated," says author Rajendra Gupta, adjunct professor of physics in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa.

 

However, many scientists have been puzzled by the existence of stars like the Methuselah that appear to be older than the estimated age of our universe and by the discovery of early galaxies in an advanced state of evolution made possible by the James Webb Space Telescope. These galaxies, existing a mere 300 million years or so after the Big Bang, appear to have a level of maturity and mass typically associated with billions of years of cosmic evolution. Furthermore, they're surprisingly small in size, adding another layer of mystery to the equation.

 

https://phys.org/new...previously.html

 

I still am confused about this.  When you read anythhing about the Universe, a lot of discussion considers that the milky way?  If that is the case, then what do they call the space that holds all of the other galaxies.  Which brings up another question.  Again, through reading and discussions here, the Milky way is considered one of the oldest galaxies. But if you read the last paragraph that I posted.  They note some galaxies found by the James Webb Space Telescope that they believe were created only 300 million(only) years after the Big Bang.  With that said, how old are those galaxies in comparison to Milky Way.  How long after the Big Bang was the Milky way created.

 

I freely admit that I am showing my lack of knowledge and you can laugh.  But, I’m old. I’m past the point of caring if someone laughs at me for lack of knowledge when that is what I am trying to get.

 

Dan


  • pugliano likes this

#2 Supernova74

Supernova74

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,600
  • Joined: 25 May 2020
  • Loc: Epsom surrey near (London)

Posted 15 July 2023 - 10:30 AM

Yes it’s definitely mind boggling to think about and the more you think the more you will scratch your head.


  • DanMiller likes this

#3 Chad7531

Chad7531

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,846
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2022
  • Loc: Defiance, OH

Posted 15 July 2023 - 10:38 AM

One thing not really mentioned is that those galaxies that the JWST is discovering on the edge of the visible universe likely aren’t around anymore. That light took quite a long time to get here, it’s seeing what the universe looked like a very long time ago. Not what it currently looks like.
  • DanMiller likes this

#4 DanMiller

DanMiller

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2022
  • Loc: Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 15 July 2023 - 10:55 AM

One thing not really mentioned is that those galaxies that the JWST is discovering on the edge of the visible universe likely aren’t around anymore. That light took quite a long time to get here, it’s seeing what the universe looked like a very long time ago. Not what it currently looks like.

Thank you. For what ever reason, I think of old Star Trek's showing that.  Earthh being examined by a race through telescope,but what they are seeing has occured earlier in our history.  Not a true example of how far back in history they are seeing.  But an example of what you said.



#5 KTAZ

KTAZ

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,368
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2020
  • Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Posted 15 July 2023 - 11:19 AM

The Milky Way is what we see as we peer through the extended banks of our home galaxy. Not sure what everything beyond it is considered, but "universe" comes to mind.

 

If I recall correctly, our Milky way is approximately 13 billion years old; the sun is about 5 billion years into its sequence and the earth is a similar age.

 

To answer how old that distant galaxy is, you'd have to know how far it is and consider the speed of light to understand how old it truly is.


Edited by KTAZ, 15 July 2023 - 11:19 AM.

  • DanMiller likes this

#6 DanMiller

DanMiller

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2022
  • Loc: Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 15 July 2023 - 11:58 AM

Ok, have no clue where I found that description of the Universe being the Milky Way.  I am sure I linked to it someplace in the UFO topic.  But, I just read differently and it is what I thought.  Everything,  not just the Milky Way.

 

Oi,  going to be one of those days.


  • BFaucett likes this

#7 Taosmath

Taosmath

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,787
  • Joined: 21 May 2014

Posted 15 July 2023 - 12:00 PM

 

To answer how old that distant galaxy is, you'd have to know how far it is and consider the speed of light to understand how old it truly is.

Sorry, I don't believe that's correct.  The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 M light years away, but that doesn't mean it is 2.5M years old; only that the galaxy was in existence 2.5 M years ago.

 

I am not a cosmologist, but AFAIK, the only way to determine the age of a galaxy is the same way we assess the age of globular clusters.  We look at the star populations, determine where the various classes of stars are on their evolutionary path through the HR diagram and especially  which classes are still on the main sequence, then use our models of stellar evolution to estimate how long that collection of stars has been in existence.

 

This method would rely on seeing individual stars and so is only applicable to closer galaxies.  Maybe there are ways to estimate the ages of more distant galaxies , but I don't know what those methods are.


Edited by Taosmath, 15 July 2023 - 12:01 PM.

  • Miguelo and DanMiller like this

#8 SNH

SNH

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,407
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2015
  • Loc: North central Arkansas

Posted 15 July 2023 - 02:16 PM

Sorry, I don't believe that's correct.  The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 M light years away, but that doesn't mean it is 2.5M years old; only that the galaxy was in existence 2.5 M years ago.

 

I am not a cosmologist, but AFAIK, the only way to determine the age of a galaxy is the same way we assess the age of globular clusters.  We look at the star populations, determine where the various classes of stars are on their evolutionary path through the HR diagram and especially  which classes are still on the main sequence, then use our models of stellar evolution to estimate how long that collection of stars has been in existence.

 

This method would rely on seeing individual stars and so is only applicable to closer galaxies.  Maybe there are ways to estimate the ages of more distant galaxies , but I don't know what those methods are.

You are close. If I'm not mistaken, astronomers think that larger galaxies are nearly as old as the Universe itself. When you can see really far back/out (like with the JWST), they are getting 'ages' for such galaxies by simply comparing the redshift of the galaxies to the age of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation date of 13.7 Gyr. If such a galaxy has a redshift of 13.5 Gyr, then it has to be just 200 Myr old/far since we believe we know the CMB is 13.7 Gyr.

 

With very few galaxies can we tell how old they are. I think the few we do are younger and closer to us so that we can discern certain features.

 

Scott H.


Edited by SNH, 15 July 2023 - 02:16 PM.

  • DanMiller likes this

#9 RazvanUnderStars

RazvanUnderStars

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,019
  • Joined: 15 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 July 2023 - 07:32 PM

A pertinent comment from the Universe Today piece about the study: "tweak theories are weak theories. While this model can be made to fit observational data, there’s no physical motivation for doing it".


  • Erik68 and DanMiller like this

#10 DanMiller

DanMiller

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2022
  • Loc: Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 15 July 2023 - 07:49 PM

A pertinent comment from the Universe Today piece about the study: "tweak theories are weak theories. While this model can be made to fit observational data, there’s no physical motivation for doing it".

I found this on a geek forum that I go to.  The comments there pretty much ripped it apart and there was no respect really given for the author.  I don't know enough to make a judgment either way. But because I am under the impression that phys.org is not a crack pot source. I thought I would post it. And this was listed as a theory, not what everyone agreed to.   Food for thought, that’s all.


  • BFaucett likes this

#11 BFaucett

BFaucett

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,226
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Houston, Texas 29.8° N

Posted 15 July 2023 - 08:33 PM

Dan,

  
I thought you might find these videos to be of interest.
  
Cheers! Bob F. smile.gif 
  
  

01- How Big - 400x.jpg
How big is the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?
video posted to YouTube on Jan 12, 2023
YouTube channel: Dr. Becky
   
00:00 - Introduction
00:48 - 28 billion light years (the Observable Universe)
02:29 - 93 billion light years - correcting for expansion
03:48 - An example with JWST galaxy GS-z13
05:25 - Comoving distance vs lookback distance
05:53 - We can't say the Universe is infinite
07:23 - Brilliant
08:46 - Bloopers
   
Correction: 04:20 I wasn't very careful with my words or graphics here. For those familiar, I made the decision to skip over the idea of "proper distance" for simplicity in this video. This is the distance between us and the object (in this case GS-z13) when the light was emitted, which at the time was actually 2.34 billion light years. The Universe's expansion means that the light travel time is then the further "lookback distance" of 13.48 billion light years.
   
video link: https://www.youtube....h?v=6kJ0I7SyJsU
   
   

 

02 - JWST has found MASSIVE - 400x.jpg
JWST has found MASSIVE galaxies in the early Universe which we can't explain
video posted to YouTube on Mar 9, 2023
YouTube channel: Dr. Becky
   
00:00 - Introduction
00:22 - What have astronomers found in JWST data?
02:04 - Lyman break in a galaxy spectrum: DISTANCE
03:19 - Balmer break in a galaxy spectrum: AGE & MASS
04:59 - How we know heavy these galaxies are
06:18 - How you measure it with just galaxy images (not spectra)
08:02 - How heavy are these galaxies then?
09:11 - Why it's a big deal they're so big
10:28 - Does this mean the Big Bang theory is wrong? No.
11:23 - The caveats: are the measurements accurate or precise?
12:54 - What's next? Getting spectra with JWST
13:26 - Bloopers
   
video link: https://www.youtube....h?v=hmkyF1tNFc4
   
   

 

03 - How do we know how old the Milky Way is - 400x.jpg
How do we know how old the Milky Way is?
video posted to YouTube on Mar 16, 2023
YouTube channel: Dr. Becky
   
00:00 - Introduction
00:58 - The GAIA telescope surveying 1 billion stars
01:28 - Parallax & proper motion
02:23 - What the spectrum of a star tell us
03:46 - GAIA 3D map of the Milky Way
04:23 - How we know how long stars live (the Hertzsprung Russel diagram)
06:12 - Stars formed earlier are made of different ratio of elements
07:07 - Fitting model spectra to get ages
07:47 - Other methods: GYROCHRONOLOGY
08:36 - Other methods: PHOTOMETRY
09:17 - The oldest star known and its uncertain age estimate HD140283 (no it's not older than the Universe)
10:03 - Let's do this with a big sample of sub-giant stars (Xiang & Rix 2022)
12:14 - Deriving the age of the Milky Way (Xiang & Rix 2022)
12:52 - Brilliant
13:26 - Bloopers
   
video link: https://www.youtube....h?v=PgPVAq6lTPo
   
   

 

04 - JWSTs too massive galaxy problem solved - 400x.jpg
JWST's "too massive" galaxy problem solved?! | A non-universal IMF
video posted to YouTube on May 4, 2023
YouTube channel: Dr. Becky
  
00:00 - Introduction
00:56 - Our best model of the Universe
03:14 - JWST's overmassive "impossible" galaxies
04:12 - How we measure the mass of galaxies
06:15  - The initial mass function
08:59 - How the IMF affects JWST's overmassive galaxies
11:16 - Is the IMF different in the early Universe?
13:43 - New estimates for the masses of these galaxies
16:33 - What's next?
17:33  - Brilliant
18:42 - Bloopers
   
video link: https://www.youtube....h?v=W4KH1Jw6HBI
   
  
About Dr. Becky Smethurst:

Royal Astronomical Society Research Fellow at the University of Oxford
Dr. Becky's page at the University of Oxford
Personal website
Linktree

 


  • Dennis_Oz, jerobe, Chad7531 and 1 other like this

#12 Lizardman

Lizardman

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2022

Posted 15 July 2023 - 09:28 PM

What’s the difference? It’s old

#13 Eye_Robot

Eye_Robot

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 96
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2021
  • Loc: Wild and Windy Casper, Wyoming

Posted 15 July 2023 - 10:29 PM

Explains why I feel older than I look.


  • 7Soeurs and DanMiller like this

#14 DanMiller

DanMiller

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3,876
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2022
  • Loc: Pennsylvania, USA

Posted 16 July 2023 - 07:33 AM

Explains why I feel older than I look.

Explains why I am older then I look.  smile.gif


  • Eye_Robot likes this

#15 BFaucett

BFaucett

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,226
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Houston, Texas 29.8° N

Posted 18 July 2023 - 04:40 PM

DrBecky-400x225x.jpg

 

Is the Universe twice as old as we think?!  #shorts #jwst

video posted to YouTube on July 18, 2023

YouTube channel: Dr. Becky

 

A new research study has been published claiming that the Universe is 26.7 billion years old, and not the typically accepted value of 13.8 billion years old. This all stems from the distant galaxies JWST has found that seem to have formed too many stars in too short of time in the early Universe, for our best model of the Universe to explain. If you assume that the redshift of light is not just due to the expansion of the Universe, but a combo of that and light losing energy as it impacts with other particles, then you end up with an older Universe, meaning  there’s enough time to make the stars in the galaxies that JWST has spotted. But there’s a lot of caveats and assumptions that go into this, and this research paper conveniently ignores other data that supports the age of the universe being around 14 billion years old. I’ll be diving into this more in a long video on my YouTube channel next week.

 

video link:  https://www.youtube....h?v=EuEp8qGO5QA

 

 

Cheers! Bob F. smile.gif

 


  • Knasal and DanMiller like this

#16 JOEinCO

JOEinCO

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,771
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Colorado Front Range

Posted 20 July 2023 - 05:17 AM

Explains why I am older then I look.  smile.gif

 

Where do you look? lol.gif 

 

Did you also look when you were younger? grin.gif  


  • DanMiller likes this

#17 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 09 August 2023 - 10:18 PM

Scientists have failed utterly and it amazes me the arrogance of many of them preaching the gospel about a 13.8 billion year old universe. No matter what any telescope produced, scientists would always say you are seeing galaxies only a few hundred million years of the big bang. I always found that quite literally laughable. They don't even know if there was even a big bang regardless of the cosmic background radiation. Then when Hubble did the ultra deep field, scientists said they saw premature galaxies that had barely formed yet. That was not what was happening. What was happening is that the telescope was running out of resolving power. That's what made those galaxies look premature! How could they not know this!

 

Then they get a bigger telescope, the JWST and scientists are scratching their heads because now they are seeing galaxies back in time that are fully formed. It's easy for others to mock Percival Lowell's canals on Mars. It's easy for us to mock the ancients for not knowing whether the earth went around the sun. We are no different now and we are behaving exactly the same way. Scientists teach kids to believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that there was a Big Bang. This whole universe age is a disaster, and these scientists still have no idea. 26 billion years? They'll get a bigger scope and they'll just keep increasing the age. It's absurd. 


  • Cliff C, pugliano, Steve Cox and 2 others like this

#18 Jehujones

Jehujones

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,801
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2021
  • Loc: Simi Valley, CA.

Posted 10 August 2023 - 02:29 PM

lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif



#19 pugliano

pugliano

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 518
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 11 August 2023 - 04:49 PM

The more we know, the more we realize how little we know.


  • Daniel Mounsey likes this

#20 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 65,452
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 August 2023 - 07:27 PM

I found this on a geek forum that I go to.  The comments there pretty much ripped it apart and there was no respect really given for the author.  I don't know enough to make a judgment either way. But because I am under the impression that phys.org is not a crack pot source. I thought I would post it. And this was listed as a theory, not what everyone agreed to.   Food for thought, that’s all.

The word theory, as used in science, is not a guess or a supposition, but an explanation of what is seen based on evidence.  A theory can predict other findings as well, and avenues of exploration to add further confirmation of the theory, making it a solid piece of physics.  The "law" of gravity is a theory, as are out ideas of the nucleus in the atom.  We even use the words "atomic theory" as a system of explanation of what is observed.  Theories require observational evidence, and they can be refuted if inadequate.

 

Theory in popular language is not used the same way.  It is merely a conjecture, or an idea that could explain something and it needs no evidence.

"That is just your theory, and I think it's crazy".


  • BoldAxis1967 and BFaucett like this

#21 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 65,452
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 August 2023 - 07:42 PM

Scientists have failed utterly and it amazes me the arrogance of many of them preaching the gospel about a 13.8 billion year old universe. No matter what any telescope produced, scientists would always say you are seeing galaxies only a few hundred million years of the big bang. I always found that quite literally laughable. They don't even know if there was even a big bang regardless of the cosmic background radiation. Then when Hubble did the ultra deep field, scientists said they saw premature galaxies that had barely formed yet. That was not what was happening. What was happening is that the telescope was running out of resolving power. That's what made those galaxies look premature! How could they not know this!

 

Then they get a bigger telescope, the JWST and scientists are scratching their heads because now they are seeing galaxies back in time that are fully formed. It's easy for others to mock Percival Lowell's canals on Mars. It's easy for us to mock the ancients for not knowing whether the earth went around the sun. We are no different now and we are behaving exactly the same way. Scientists teach kids to believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that there was a Big Bang. This whole universe age is a disaster, and these scientists still have no idea. 26 billion years? They'll get a bigger scope and they'll just keep increasing the age. It's absurd. 

Evidence, observational evidence.

That creates a theory, which can be verified or refuted by additional evidence.

We have a LOT of evidence the universe is of a certain age and a lot of evidence that the universe was a very compact object billions of years ago.

Those ideas didn't just come from someone's idle daydreams--they explained what we see.

What you are claiming has no evidence and doesn't explain what is seen.

 

That doesn't mean that further observations won't lead to a better understanding of how stars and galaxies could form so soon after the Big Bang, but that the universe is actually older is only one possibility and it is not one of the most likely ones.

We don't even know what dark matter is made of, even though we have tons of evidence it exists.  Until we know that, we have an incomplete understanding of how galaxies formed in the early universe.

And dark energy?  The fudge factor in many equations.  It's existence would explain a lot of observations, but we don't really have a clue what it is.

 

We know more than Galileo.  People in 500 years will know a lot more than we do (unless our future looks more like Mad Max and less like Star Trek).  And they will have new questions they cannot answer.


  • Daniel Mounsey, John Gauvreau, Diana N and 1 other like this

#22 Starman1

Starman1

    Stargeezer

  • *****
  • Posts: 65,452
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 11 August 2023 - 07:45 PM

The more we know, the more we realize how little we know.

And this is the way of knowledge. Knowledge leads to answers for questions we knew.  It also leads to many questions we didn't know to ask before we learned those answers.

And there is no reason to think the universe is simple.  The more we learn, the more complex it becomes.


Edited by Starman1, 11 August 2023 - 07:45 PM.

  • Daniel Mounsey, John Gauvreau and JackCornell like this

#23 Taosmath

Taosmath

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,787
  • Joined: 21 May 2014

Posted 11 August 2023 - 08:31 PM

Don,

 

Thank you for your clear and polite clarifications and explanations.

 

To add a little to that,  it's not just Dr. Becky who is skeptical of the conclusions reached , I saw that the  Astronomy Mag newsletter also disputed the claim this week.

 

https://www.astronom...as-we-thought/?

 

That however is absolutely not to say that Prof. Gupta from Univ. Toronto is wrong or is an idiot.  He's doing exactly what a good scientist is supposed to do: Challenge standard interpretations of existing observations and data by saying 'But if you look at it this way...'.  If the alternate proposal fits the results better or explains more phenomena, then after the requisite prodding and testing by other scientists,  the alternate proposal becomes adopted as a better description for what's happening.  Scientists routinely ascertain that the alternate proposal has more flaws than the currently preferred model and reject the alternate.  But sometimes, if the alternate model works better, it's adopted. For example  Einstein's theory of General Relativity replaced Newtons law of gravitation, just as Newton's laws of Motion supplanted Aristotle's. That's how Science is supposed to work - getting increasingly more accurate and useful descriptions of what happens in the universe.  The current hot topic here is that the Standard Model of Particle physics will be upended if the Fermilab Muon experiments do indeed show there is a 5th (currently unknown) physical force.

 

Gupta tested the current understanding and made an alternate proposal; currently it looks unlikely that his idea will be accepted to replace the current age of 13.8 Bn years.  But before we completely reject Gupta's idea there will be further analysis and calculation before consensus is reached on whether the alternative is better.  Today that looks unlikely, but that's how Science is supposed to work.


  • BFaucett likes this

#24 BFaucett

BFaucett

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,226
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Houston, Texas 29.8° N

Posted 11 August 2023 - 10:41 PM

Has JWST shown-cover-400x.jpg
      
Has JWST shown the Universe is TWICE as old as we think?! [17:35]
video posted to YouTube on July 27, 2023
YouTube channel: Dr. Becky [currently 622K subscribers]
     
A new research study has come out claiming that to explain the massive galaxies found at huge distances in James Webb Space Telescope images, the Universe is older than we think, at 26.7 billion years (rather than 13.8 billion years old). In this video I'm diving into that study, looking at what model they used to get at that claim (a combination of the expansion of the universe and "tired light" ideas of redshift), how this impacts our best model of the Universe and the so-called "Crisis in Cosmology", and why I'm not convinced yet!
    

00:00 - Introduction: JWST's massive galaxy problem
01:48 - Our current best model of the Universe: λ-CDM
03:16 - The problems with λ-CDM and the "Crisis in Cosmology"
04:28 - Getting distance from redshift
05:13 - A new model of the Universe: a HYBRID of "tired light" and expansion of the Universe
06:25 - The history of "tired light" and why it was eventually dismissed (Tolman Surface Brightness Test)
08:18 - What Gupta (2023) have found
09:30 - The change to the calibration of redshift and distance (and the new age of the Universe)
10:02 - What other problems does this new model help solve?
11:07 - The observational evidence that this new model ignores...
12:39 - How else do we explain JWST's massive galaxy problem? Universal IMF issues
14:35 - Outro: the legacy of JWST
15:23 - Brilliant
16:46 - Bloopers

    
video link: https://www.youtube....h?v=aBYgck1zAgQ
    
About Dr. Becky Smethurst:
Royal Astronomical Society Research Fellow at the University of Oxford
Dr. Becky's page at the University of Oxford
Personal website
Linktree
   
   
Cheers! Bob F. smile.gif


Edited by BFaucett, 11 August 2023 - 11:30 PM.


#25 JackCornell

JackCornell

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2022

Posted 17 April 2024 - 05:56 AM

And this is the way of knowledge. Knowledge leads to answers for questions we knew.  It also leads to many questions we didn't know to ask before we learned those answers.

And there is no reason to think the universe is simple.  The more we learn, the more complex it becomes.

Exploring the Universe, we may uncover increasing complexity, but it's also a journey towards a deeper understanding of fundamental simplicity. The next generation reading our speculations might think of us as pioneers, paving the way for new insights, rather than seeing us as ignorant. Just as we now regard those who once believed the Earth rested on three elephants with a sense of historical context and appreciation for their contributions to the evolving tapestry of knowledge.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics