Talk:Age of the universe/Archive 2

A few mistaken scientists and a lot of armchair scientists misinterpreting data.
Please QUIT INCLUDING THIS ARTICLE IN OTHER ARTICLES; NOTHING HERE HAS ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE ANY FIRM CONCLUSIONS.

While undoubtedly the MINIMUM age of the universe here has a consensus, the methods use say nothing of the MAXIMUM age of the universe. Therefore saying "the universe is X years old" is wrong, stupid, stupidwrong, wrongstupid and Time Cube science. Saying "the universe is at least X years old" isn't half as bad. 85.156.0.200 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * oh my, it looks like 'someone' got up on the wrong side of the bed.--TriTertButoxy (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just very, VERY tired of seeing it in articles it decidedly doesn't belong to. Such as "black dwarf". In which this article is used as "proof" that black dwarves don't exist yet - while the age of the oldest white dwarf is USED to make this bloody measurement. Or roughly, circular logic. Not to mind we don't know at all how old the universe really is just because we don't have good enough space-based telescopes to measure anything of that scale. We can't even build good enough measurement instruments yet, nevermind afford sending them to space. This article is at least 100 years early. 81.197.52.13 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Humbug - even if there's not a singularity, but an infinite expansion from an infantesimal point or suchlike, there are no black dwarves. There are no stars from before the era of big bang nucleosynthesis.  The density inhomogeneties  in the CMB make it pretty clear there were no compact objects at the surface of last scattering.  Wily D  20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a fair bit late - but - STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. We cannot measure enough of the universe to know if there are black dwarves - or heck, enough to give a good guess about the age. We can give a minimum age based on what we've observed - the age in the article - but not about the whole age of the universe until... we can measure the majority of the universe. And enough about it's borders based on empirical evidence (not this numerology some "scientists" do) to actually know how large it is. I'm personally siding with "it's infinite", but that has as little proof for as it has against. So I'm not pushing it as a fact in unrelated articles. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional note: Circular logic. Using "age of the universe" for date of the big bang and using that again for the age of the universe. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This remains patent nonsense - Age is WMAP+Clustering+Ias - that stellar ages, globs, black holes masses, metal enrichment and a host of other measurements are on board is merely icing on the cake. Age of the Universe = Time since the Big Bang = usual English meaning of the phrase.  If you want to object, try sending your objections here, they print lots of exciting sounding wrong results, and then we can discuss it.  Until then, you'll have to resign yourself to the fact that WMAP5 interpretation uses the phrase "age of the universe"  just like everyone else talking about the subject. Wily D  16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, not only are you misguided, you are also a (or possibly a troll). An internally coherent theory != fact. Stellar ages, black hole masses, metal enrichment... what do those things have in common? Oh right - fitting evidence to a theory rather than the reverse. Does the phrase "dark matter" ring any bells? Hint: It's not some secret matter - it's matter we cannot see? How much does that affect the calculations? More than the data we have now. We. Don't. Have. Enough. Data. To. Make. This. Conclusion. - this is not a theory by science terms, it's a hypothesis and will remain so until we have some PROOF. So quit referring to it as true and most importantly - keep it to this article. I've seen this shit in *religion* articles. It doesn't belong anywhere else than here, and even here it should be noted that it has a high possibility of being completely wrong - as the article does in parts (and doesn't in other parts). 62.106.50.124 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide how old the universe is. It reports prevailing opinions, not ours. I'm not a professional scientist, but as I understand the scientific consensus, they (rightly or wrongly) believe the Big Bang was 13.73 billion years ago. That is often called the "age of the universe", although they actually have no firm opinion on what, if anything, came before, so that name is arguably misleading. Art LaPella (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I very, very strongly doubt there is a scientific consensus about this. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You doubt the consensus on the time since the Big Bang, or the (non-existent) consensus on anything before? Art LaPella (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Modified your comment to indent it. I doubt consensus on the actual age. Not big bang happening, just how long ago it was. I wouldn't be surprised to find "at least" but not something like this article. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Actual age" and "how long ago it [big bang] was" are both of the alternatives I offered, but I think you mean "how long ago the big bang was". The article bases its opinion on the WMAP study, which I thought was pretty much accepted. Do you have a reference that says otherwise? Art LaPella (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the WMAP study part says there's a lot of uncertainty. Most importantly: None of us know if we're even approaching this from the right end. This is much like a blind man describing an elephant he is touching with a gramophone needle - it's impressive we have as much data as we have but we don't have half enough to draw any solid conclusions yet. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the article in depth it becomes a lot more reasonable. The main problem is the header and the fact that "facts" from here spill into other articles. 62.106.48.110 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does "the header" mean the title, "Age of the universe"? To quote the article: "Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang." That is, "age of the universe" could be considered a widely accepted misnomer like "sunset" instead of "Earth-turn", so the article is entitled sunset. Art LaPella (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have even enough data to see if it's the age since the big bang (heck, big bang isn't exactly agreed upon - the thing wikiscientists seem to agree on is patent nonsense - if you start breaking causality in as flagrant a way as that you have veered into religion instead of science - I'm willing to accept quantum occurrences but that's a rant for an another article) - all our conclusions are based on the data *currently available* and we can obviously see (see: dark matter) that we don't even have half the data we know of the existence of. Insufficient evidence to make it scientific to put this article forth as fact instead of a coherent theory with, uh, little evidence to back it up. A little, good enough for the "at least" (assuming a big creator didn't intentionally create the stars as aged :P), but not enough to draw full conclusions. Or roughly seeing, there is no proof whatsoever that the stars we see are even close to being the oldest, especially given that the stars would be more and more likely to be dark matter as they aged enough. 62.106.50.124 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anon, I think you're right that quite a few Wikipedia articles wrongly claim that the universe began with a big bang 13.7 billion years ago in which "time was created" and so on. I've certainly run across a few such statements. I should fix them as I come across them, but I can't think of a replacement that's both correct and short enough that it doesn't read like a major digression from the article's subject. It's also true that the lede of this article is misleading, but again it's hard to fix that without copying the whole body of the "Explanation" section into the lede. I can't see how to shorten the explanation without leaving out some essential element.
 * But big bang cosmology (which has nothing to do with any big bang event) is much better understood that you seem to think. We do have enough evidence to predict confidently that there are no black dwarfs. That doesn't depend on quantum gravity or the details of how the universe began, it only depends on straightforward and well-understood parts of the model. We have explored the whole universe in the limited sense that's relevant to this prediction. -- BenRG (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you in parts but at least you have grasped the crux of the matter. Debate here is fine, references to this article as "facts" elsewhere are not. Anyway, I'm outta this discussion, trying to improve the science side of wikipedia is like debating with creationists. Even with those that think they're discussing science. Wikiscientists. *sigh* 85.156.7.138 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few references to the fact that it is meaningless to talk about 'time' before the Big Bang. But if you accept String Theory as part of modern science, (a big IF for some, I know) then this problem doesn't really exist. Well perhaps, more specifically, by String Theory I mean the theory of branes and M-Theory. Time exists both before and after the big bang, at least in the calculations I've seen so far in that subject. It is no problem to talk about time before the big bang, although the 't' coordinate in the relevant equations will be a slightly different 't' to the one that measures time in our universe. Of course, if you don't accept string theory then, yes, it is meaningless to talk about time before the Big Bang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.88.14 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not only in string theory that you can talk about times before the big bang. But there's little or no empirical evidence to support any of these ideas (whereas there's tons of evidence for the evolution of the universe over the last 13.7 billion years). I don't think any Wikipedia article should claim either that times before the big bang make sense or that they don't. We just don't know. -- BenRG (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Geneses 1:1)In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth .I will be praying for all of you because some day your going to face GOD weather you believe it or not and you can be a good person and do all the works in the world but that's not going to get you to heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9)but it's only by the grace of the lord Jesus Christ that you can be saved. So i urge you before it's too late to get right with God ,Repent from you evil minds and evil way's of the world and pursue the things of Christ. For I Testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things , God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book (Revelation 22:18)God loves you but he hates your sin , we are very undeserving of his mercy but he loved us so much he paid the price for our sins so that we may live with him some day in heaven for all eternity (John 3:16). But if you reject his cure to be saved you will burn in hell forever and hell is a very very serious place and very much real.

Thank you for reading and i really hope you take this this message to Heart because He's coming back some day and if you aren't ready then i really feel for you. por4kid16@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.90.222 (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions
There is this section "Common Misconceptions" which seems to be written in light of the recent religion/science debate. This makes Wikipedia read like the ugly Conservepdia, so I feel it should be removed. Or, at the very least, it should be pushed to the bottom of the article or its contents be intersperced throughout the article. How do other editors feel? --TriTertButoxy (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that obviously needed to be removed. Needs sources, totally OR, un-encyclopedic tone. johnpseudo 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

13,7 or younger
I have found a news article according to which it has been found that the universe is 350 million years younger than previously estimated. Should this be added to the article? --Eleassar my talk 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm the wrong person to answer this, but probably not at this point. Unfortunately the problem of determining the age of the universe is a lot more complicated than our "13.73 +/- 0.12" makes it sound. The WMAP five-year report actually includes numbers derived from dozens of model/dataset combinations. The 13.73 figure comes from this one (ΛCDM+SZ+LENS model, WMAP5+BAO+SNALL data). This incorporates data from Riess's group (SNALL). If they've revised their results, as the article suggests, then the combined figure probably needs to be revised also, but I think we need to wait for the WMAP people to do that (or Riess, or someone who knows what they're doing). I think the change will be much smaller than 350 million years because there isn't nearly that much variation among the predictions in the top row of the matrix. -- BenRG (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Much ado about 0.1 standard deviation
An anonymous editor has changed the article to say that the age is 13.73 or 13.72 billion years, giving two different references, both from the WMAP team. The problem is that the WMAP team has released dozens of different values for the parameters, as I mentioned in an earlier thread. And anyway it's silly to give two values that differ by only 10 million years when the error margin on both of them is twelve times that.

I reverted the change but I'm not happy with the old version of the article either; I don't think we should baldly claim that the age is 13.73 billion years, since the real situation is more complicated. I propose that we either (A) say that the age is about 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 100 million years, and add that the value depends somewhat on which version of ΛCDM you use and which experimental data you take into account, or (B) use one of the "WMAP Recommended Parameter Values" given here, with a footnote mentioning that this is a WMAP recommended value and assumes a particular model etc. etc. In case (B) I think we should use the WMAP+BAO+SN value (13.73), not the WMAP-only value (13.69). Whatever we do here, other articles that mention the age of the universe should be edited to agree with the value given here and link to this article for a fuller explanation. Anyone else have an opinion? -- BenRG (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a newcomer to the world of "error" it seems to me that we would be better to exagerate it rather than attempt to minimise it, thus avoiding any accusation of spurious accuracy ... my suggestion is 13.5 - 14.0 billion years which gives an idea of the level of uncerainty but at the same time points decidedly to 13.75 or thereabouts. Abtract (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree, error bars are well defined in this case (and much smaller then you suggest). There is no need to purposefully mislead people in order to look... unbiased? --Falcorian (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of like Abtract's idea. The ±0.12 billion is a 68% CL error, so (assuming the errors are normal) the WMAP team is only about 95% confident that the true age of the universe is in the range 13.5–14 billion years. I think the typical Wikipedia reader is likely to gloss over error margins and take the central value as the value. If we say 13.73 ± 0.12 people will remember 13.73. If we say 13.5–14 they'll remember 13.5–14, which is closer to the right idea. -- BenRG (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the lead, we should say 13.7. That agrees with everything to the number of significant figures given.  Discussion of the error bars should be moved later in the article.  The introduction should be as readable was possible while still being accurate! -- SCZenz (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the lead is clear and concise with: "Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about ±120 million years." Maybe I'm not really clear on what you mean, but certainly 13.8 and 13.6 are within the error bars currently quoted (13.73+-0.12 Gyr)... So I don't see what you mean by "That agrees with everything to the number of significant figures given." --Falcorian (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer "Current observations suggest that this is about 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 0.1 billion years". The "±" sign is not necessary in this sentence. --Friendly Neighbour (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ± is not necessary, and that the errors should probably be in billions (for clarity). --Falcorian (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathematica 6.0 Code

 * <<PhysicalConstants`
 * AgeOfUniverse
 * 4.7*10^17 Second
 * SecondsPerDay = 24 * 60 * 60 Second
 * 86400 Second
 * SecondsPerYear = 365.2424 * SecondsPerDay
 * 3.15569*10^7 Second
 * AgeOfUniverse/SecondsPerYear/Year
 * 1.48937*10^10 Year

14.8937 Billion Years ? Where's (my/the) mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.161.246 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like Mathematica's value is way off. Judging from this page, it hasn't been updated in at least 18 years. Their HubbleConstant is wrong too. -- BenRG (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to add that Mathematica will do the unit conversion for you if you say, but it turns out that Mathematica thinks that years are 365 days long:
 * So be careful out there. Incidentally a Gregorian year is 365.2425 days (not 365.2424) and cosmologists usually use Julian years of 365.25 days (of 86400 seconds each). The age of the universe isn't known accurately enough for it to matter, though. -- BenRG (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So be careful out there. Incidentally a Gregorian year is 365.2425 days (not 365.2424) and cosmologists usually use Julian years of 365.25 days (of 86400 seconds each). The age of the universe isn't known accurately enough for it to matter, though. -- BenRG (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So be careful out there. Incidentally a Gregorian year is 365.2425 days (not 365.2424) and cosmologists usually use Julian years of 365.25 days (of 86400 seconds each). The age of the universe isn't known accurately enough for it to matter, though. -- BenRG (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So be careful out there. Incidentally a Gregorian year is 365.2425 days (not 365.2424) and cosmologists usually use Julian years of 365.25 days (of 86400 seconds each). The age of the universe isn't known accurately enough for it to matter, though. -- BenRG (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So be careful out there. Incidentally a Gregorian year is 365.2425 days (not 365.2424) and cosmologists usually use Julian years of 365.25 days (of 86400 seconds each). The age of the universe isn't known accurately enough for it to matter, though. -- BenRG (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Age and size of universe.
The age of universe is 13.27 billion years approximatly. But we can detect stars at a distance more than 100 billion light years. How is it possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.139.190 (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer: The universe is expanding, so a star which was 13.27 bly away when the light left it is actually much further away now. Since the expansion of the Universe is accelerating and time is curved, it could even be more than 26.5 bly away now, even though this seems impossible. For a long answer, try from Distance measures (cosmology). Ben Standeven (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

mention more approaches?
I have to say I love this debate going on here, though lacking links to facts and scientific publications... why won't you guys just ADD A SECTION to the article listing the other calculation methods? or maybe, like in Age of the Earth, add list a timeline of the different theories from the different sources? (someone did that in the Hebrew version of this article, I see). Also, I think this item has both cultural and scientific points of interest (just see the number of articles linking to it!). It would be fun/interesting to create a "in popular culture" section as well, listing the AOU in different Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Religious universes (at least 4 quadrillion according to Hubbard's OT3, 5769 years according to Judaism (and probably many christians and creationists) etc.) and link back to Dating Creation, just for completeness :-) --SeeFood (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Observational limits on the age of the universe
Very close to the beginning of the article we read:

"Since the universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in it, there are a number of observations which limit the age of the universe. These include the temperature of the coolest white dwarfs, and the turnoff point of the red dwarfs."

I find this confusing. To "limit" X usually means that something requires or implies that X cannot be greater than some boundary extent. But in this case "limit" seems to be used in the opposite sense: that the age of the universe cannot possibly be less than some number of years. Toddcs (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there several reputable groups of physicists that have dated stars to be much older than the age reported for the universe in this article? (I am soooo not an expert. My Ph.D. is in a behavioral science.  Just a curious reader.)97.96.62.148 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert to 13.73+- 0.12
Should it be written that the universe is "13.73 +- 0.12 billion years old" or "13.61 to 13.85 billion years old". I find the first example better, because it also says that the universe is "about 13.73 billion years old". Quarkde (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said last time this was discussed, I believe it should be written "between 13.5 and 14 billion years" because anything more accurate is pushing measurement/calculation beyond credibility, imho. We must remember this is an encyclopedia not a scientific paper. Abtract (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first example is sticking to the sources, the second example is applying our own ideas to the errors. Per WP:NOR, we should be using the error bars that're being reported in the sources (and WMAP5+BAO+SNIa+... is the most reliable source, yes). Wily D  11:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I went back to "between 13.5 and 14". The notation X±Y in a scientific paper doesn't mean "between X−Y and X+Y", it means (usually) that the mean is X and the standard deviation is Y. If you asked the authors of the WMAP papers whether they believe the value is between X−Y and X+Y, they would (should) say no, because that's only a 68% CL interval, and a physicist won't usually believe in a result at a confidence level lower than 95%. The rationale for the 13.5 to 14 range was that it's roughly a 95% CL range for the age, so it represents roughly what the WMAP authors believe based on their published figures. There's also a case to be made for just quoting 13.73±0.12 and letting readers work it out. That would be better in a technical article but I think that in an article like this a lot of people wouldn't understand the notation. Also, people would tend to overlook the error bars and come away with the idea that the universe is known to be 13.73 billion years old, which is way too specific. -- BenRG (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

mathematical/gravitational singularity
I'm not much of an astronomer, but I was confused when the link on the word singularity (in the phrase "mathematical singularity") went to the gravitational singularity page. Is this a mistake or am I just in the wrong area of Wikipedia?

I figure it should either say "mathematical singularity" and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularity

or say "gravitational singularity" and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

but certainly not half/half. fogus (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote that paragraph. I put "mathematical" there to emphasize that the singularity only shows up in the mathematical model (not in the real world). But the rest of the paragraph makes that point anyway, so I just deleted the word "mathematical". -- BenRG (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious views
No link to religious view on the issue? Indeed, the age of the universe is also a matter of interest (and a source of statements/polemics) for Christianism and Judaism, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.244.221 (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a scientific topic, and religious ideas with respect to scientific topics generally fail WP:UNDUE. It would be possible to discuss mythology in a history section (see for example universe), and you're more than welcome to start on that. Cheers, Ben (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Age of the Universe
I have a great deal of interest in Cosmology but really have no background or superior intellect for the subject. Here is my thought or question.

To us, the universe seems to be the same in every direction that we look. The most distant objects we see are about 13 B years old. Unless the Earth is at the center of the universe, some of the oldest objects must be over 13 B years old and are simply beyond our view.

Another perspective.....The light we see from those distent objects left those objects 13 B years ago and represent where the objects were in the distant past. Since they were all so far out then, aren't they much further away now?

Is it posible that the universe is much older than 13 B years and that oldest objects are so far away that their light can't reach us due to their speed?

63.250.138.142 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Many things may be possible. And none of them are taken into account in this rather one-sided article. There is no mention (none that I have seen) that this is just one theory - albeit the most current coinage. Likewise there is no mention of some of the obvious problems this theory throws up. But I very much doubt that you will be able to get these and other issues included in the article. Just as with "religion", followers of "science" tend to get very precious over their latest pet ideas.... Setwisohi (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable scientific source for the other theories, they can be included. But if your idea of "followers of science" is taken to mean "the mainstream scientific community" then you might have a problem coming up with good sources. Wikipedia reflects the reality of the scientific consensus regarding cosmology. The due weight and neutral point of view guidelines maintain that we must reflect the consensus in the right proportions and not give undue weight to fringe theories. If another concept of the age of the universe has a significant minority following among cosmologists that can be included in the article with due weight to its relevance. Auntie E (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

History
Perhaps we can get a section on "Historical estimates of the age of the universe", so we can get a sense of how the estimates have changed over time? I realize that the general trend has been "older and older", but, for example, if I'm reading something from the 80s that says that the universe is 17 billion years old, I'd like to know if that was an accepted (or famously proposed) estimate at that time, or if the author of the book I'm reading was merely uninformed. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert by killer chihuahua
Why are you threatening me with vandal warnings? I do not go around writing "PENIS!" or "I hate George Bush" all over Wikipedia. I was simply adding balance to the article as it is currently NPOV, swung towards evolutionists and Big Bang believers over Creationists.
 * You made no attempt to add balance, you portrayed biblical dogma as fact. Majority opinion is swung against Young Earth Creationism, and stating otherwise in scientific articles attributes your (patently absurd) views undue weight. --King ♣   Talk   21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Universe age
The age of the universe is impossible to determine, why do they go by the big bang? The big bang simply resides within the universe, the big bang is not the universe itself. For all we know there may be billions of other big bangs occurring as we speak out of our range of sight within the universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.195.162 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's evidence of the currently-accepted Big Bang theory, rendering your "just thought up" version entirely moot. This is the folly of "equal validity"- there isn't any. --King ♣ Talk  01:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day." This statement is a lie. It says it is a 'fact'. It is not.

Here's the opening of the article on 'The Big Bang':

"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space)."

In other words, however you justify it, The Big Bang is a MODEL - A THEORY. Because it is popularly believed does not make it a FACT, yet the Age of the Universe article proclaims it to be a FACT. This is just more of the mathematical dogma that prevades society ... and keeps people who cannot distinguish between theory and reality employed.

Even money says this comment will be purged by a dogmatist. DasV (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is between 13.5 and 14 billion years old" is hardly claiming it as "fact". Also it is as well to understand that in scientific terms "model" and "theory" in no way imply guesswork.Abtract (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and for about 1500 years theory and observations suggested that the Earth was the center of the universe (Ptolemy). But it isn't. Gravitational theory says that if I hold a ball above the floor and then release it it will fall to the floor ... that's theory. Releasing a ball held above the floor, releasing it, observing it hit the floor ... that's a fact.

You must first determine the Big Bang is factual ... no matter how much scientific evidence and theory is believed by whatever number of people ... before you can say that it is a fact that the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang and now.

The 'FACT' is the age of the universe is suppositional, and some/many scientist who believe in the Big Bang would define it as the time between the Big Bang and now. By the way ... the 'age of the universe' was adjusted when the Hubble telescope began to show stars far beyond the proposed distance they would have traveled in accordance with Big Bang predictions at that time ... in other words they adjusted the theory to fit the observations. So if you don't know the difference between fact and theory ... then anything is possible and you never have to prove it. DasV (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

big bang?
The big and is a THEORY therefore it should not be shown as it's ture, it should be shown as a THEROY. Wikipedia is not a crytal ball! Likelife (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. thx1138 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So the Earth is the center of the universe? In a scientific context.

Anything can be 'supposed' in a scientific context ... it does not make it a fact. This is not about witch-doctors who have access to occult transcendental truth ... it's about ordinary human beings who build upon prior mathematical and scientific reasoning, and in this case extremely limited observations, to come up with suppositions that 'might' explain things as we find them. If you want to worship such reasoning then you are confusing the fields of science and mysticism. DasV (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

History section
Wouldn't this article benefit from a History section to put the concept into perspective? After all, it is only very recently that the age of the observable Universe has been known with some accuracy.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at a History section stub. Please let me know what you think.Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

concept of a non-infinite universe
"The concept that the Universe may have a finite age is relatively modern, dating back only to the 1920's." This needs some back-up. Besides, I don't think it's true historically. Cp. for example this quote from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler by Johannes Kepler: ''Now because 18 months ago the first dawn, 3 months ago broad daylight but a very few days ago the full sun of the most highly remarkable spectacle has risen — nothing holds me back. I can give myself up to the sacred frenzy, I can have the insolence to make a full confession to mortal men that I have stolen the golden vessel of the Egyptians to make from them a tabernacle for my God far from the confines of the land of Egypt. If you forgive me I shall rejoice; if you are angry, I shall bear it; I am indeed casting the die and writing the book, either for my contemporaries or for posterity to read, it matters not which: let the book await its reader for a hundred years; God himself has waited six thousand years for his work to be seen.''

By the way, I do not write this to argue that the world is 6000 years old. I want to show that right from the start of modern science the concept of a non-infinite age of the universe was already there, contrary to the first section of the history section! An infinitely old universe was a result from Aristotelian philosophy. Wherever we find people who go beyond/against that, we should also expect the concept of a non-infinitely old universe. If someone would reply that this only applies to "philosophical" considerations, not a scientific article, please re-name the article into "Age of the universe (natural science view)" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.143.94 (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The nominator withdrew the move request. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Age of the universe → Age of the Universe — Move, so that this article conforms with the capatalisation used throughout the article Universe.—84.92.117.93 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a proper name so I am going to oppose capitalization. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should bring that up on Talk:Universe. This discussion should not take place here. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fair comment. The capitalisation appears to be inconsistent. Both universe and Universe used interchangeably and inconsistently. Your move request does not affect Ultimate fate of the universe or any of the other articles that appear to be in the same boat. I would agree that this discussion should likely not take place here but I also don't believe that the move should take place until that discussion does take place and the issue of the name is resolved.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point I guess. I'm too busy to get involved with that now, so I've removed the move request for this article. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problems with History
This article claims that the idea of a finite age for the universe is relatively "modern". This is blatantly false. Many ancient cultures taught - if on a somewhat different time scale - that the universe was finite ... far before the 1900s. The idea predates the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, the Roman Empire, and the formation of every single modern religion! I believe that this obvious error should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.180.130 (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeed. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is religious moniker such as Creationism put in the title area?
Age of universe is a Scientific topic, not a religious one. It should be removed.

Providing religious monikers like Creationism does two things: - Equates religious theories with a scientific one - Provides one particular religious view over so many other religious views.

It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.1 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly. I removed the disambiguation bit here and in the article, Age of Earth.Desoto10 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And somebody put it back as well as the one for Age of the Earth. I really do not understand this. Do we have a caveat in all biological/physical/scientific articles stating that "this is the scienitific viewpoint, for the religious viewpoint go to --?"Desoto10 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. There are few scientific topics that overlap with major religious, cultural, and philosophical worldviews the way that the origins of the Earth and the universe do. Thus, there is little danger that every scientific article will necessitate such a disambiguation.


 * Alternatively, this article could be renamed "Scientific views on the age of the universe" and "Age of the universe" could be turned into a pure disambiguation page. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely oppose renaming either article. Doing so only serves to give undue weight to opinions which have no evidential backing. An article on "The Age of the Universe" should give complete deference to demonstrable fact, and at best link to religious opinions on the matter with a dab link. See WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI for policy on this. I also give weak support to keeping the dab link; If that's what some readers come to this article looking for, then we should help them find it. Jess talk&#124;edits 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Evidentialism" is not the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of content in a article. Notability is. That said, I tend to agree that the article is fine as it is. As you have noted, the purpose of disambiguation is to help people find the information they are looking for on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with promoting an agenda. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about inclusion criteria. I was talking about weight. To rename this article in favor of a disambig page would be ceding equal weight from the scientific view on the age of the earth to various religious opinions. This is a violation of WP:Fringe and WP:PSCI. Just because something is notable doesn't mean it should be listed as prominently or be given "equal time". In any case, since we're both on the same page about this, there's little point in discussing some hypothetical position neither of us holds. ;) Jess talk&#124;edits 00:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong priors & error bars
Under strong priors, we have: "To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used."

Can someone insert the (or an) estimate of the age of the universe that shows BOTH error bars? At the moment we only have one, throughout. Willbown (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not a scientific consensus on the age of the universe.
The page gives the impression that the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years.

In fact, this is only a hypothesis, and an untested one.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup There is currently insufficient data to know, or reliably estimate, the age of the universe.

There are varying age estimations, depending on assumptions about the shape of the universe and the relative amounts of ordinary and dark matter in the universe. These variances are not ± 0.17 billion years, they are ± 4 - 5 billion years.

Even NASA (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html) state that scientists USED to think the universe was 13.75 years old. This is no longer the scientific consensus.

This page needs some major editing by an expert in the field, or deletion. It is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on a subject that give incorrect information.

115.187.248.212 (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I don't think you read all the way through the NASA page that you cited. In the final section "WMAP Can Measure the Age of the Universe" it says "WMAP has been able to determine these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 3% of the critical density. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years" (my emphasis). This overlaps the 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years range cited in the article lead, and certainly does not support a 4-5 billion year uncertainty. Do you have any other sources for your claims ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does everyone assume constants are constant?   All this assumes time and space are invariant.   This is all based on our current perception and observation technology.   In 100 years, will this forecast change significantly?   Time and space cannot be invariant at the time of the big bang.   And there is dark energy out there that could change our perceptions.  Cosmologists - be aware! Comments Welcome! --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So its impossible to predict what will happen in 100 years for scientists, but it makes perfect sense for you to predict what scientists will predict and observe and the conclusions they will come to 100 years from now, while justifying the remarks by using the opinions of those same scientists who you already claimed are wrong? Interesting. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited the lede to first define the term and then give the current best estimate. --agr (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

'Hello everyone,'''

I am the one who changed the word scientific to evolutionary and the other changes that made evolution appear as one view and creationism as another view. I only did so since:

1. There are sources that believe that creationism is science as opposed to evolution (Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, etc.) and especially

2. The most reliable source states that creationism is true -- the Bible.

Of course you may think, "The Bible? The Bible isn't even a scientific book," but the writers of the Bible claim that what they wrote came from God, who is omniscient (one brief reference to this is 2 Tim. 3:16). If the writers are correct, that would:

1. Imply that God exists, of course, and

2. Prove that the Bible is always correct on all areas, such as science, that it talks about.

The apostle Peter wanted Christians to always be ready to give evidence for what they believed (1 Pet. 3:15), which implies that he believed that there was evidence to give. Since the books in the Bible were written years ago, when people did not know as many scientific facts as we do today, they of course, would have made scientific errors; unless, of course, they were inspired by God. Therefore, let's see what happens when the Bible touches on science:

1. When the book of Job was written, people believed that the earth was hung on an animal, or a monster, etc.; yet Job says that God ". . . hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7 NKJV).

2. The prophet Isaiah says that God ". . . is He who sits above the circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV). This shows the Bible's belief on the earth's shape.

3. Ecclesiastes 1:6 describes a cycle of air currents: "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit" (NKJV).

4. The verse after that, Ecclesiastes 1:7, describes exactly why we never run out of water in the ocean: "All rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again" (NKJV). This does happen when seawater evaporates into clouds, goes through the air, comes down as rain, forms rivers, and comes goes into the sea, "the place from which the rivers come".

There are many other passages that could be used as well. Since the Bible has always been scientifically correct before, it would make since that it would be correct on the Earth's age.

When it comes to Wikipedia's weight policy, wouldn't the Bible, seeing that its beliefs on science have always been correct, have at least enough weight to tie that of evolution's? The Bible cannot be proven to be false. In fact, the first thing stated in the entire Bible, Genesis, 1:1-2, mentions all five of what makes the universe up; time, space, matter, power, and motion; in saying this: "In the beginning" (time) "God created" (power) "the heavens" (space) "and the earth" (matter)". . . . And the Spirit of God was hovering" (motion) "over the face of the waters."

So what do you all think? Shall we use the wording that I created before? If anyone opposes please explain why we should preserve the present edition. The Sackinator (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is contradictory
The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years.

The estimated age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years, the time since the Big Bang.

So the universe is more light years wide than it is years old? Did it grow faster than the speed of light or something? 184.96.254.193 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575. Or many other sources on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.55.163 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So the answer to his question is "yes"? This article is very long.  Is it more light years wide than it is years old?  A simple one-word answer, please.  Chrisrus (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the universe is more light years wide than it is years old (more precisely, the radius of the observable universe in light years is greater than the age of the universe in years). No, this is not contradictory. Radiation emitted from the edge of the currently observable universe (which we can observe as cosmic microwave background radiation) has taken 13.75 billion years to reach us, but during that time the edge at which that radiation was emitted has moved away from us, and is now about 46 billion light years distant. Yes, this means that the comoving distance between us and the edge at which the radiation was emitted is currently expanding at a rate that is greater than the speed of light - but it wasn't doing that 13.75 billion years ago when the radition was emitted, which is why we can observe that radiation. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Way to go Gandalf! Everything (speed of light, etc.) changes to preserve whatever Earth bound physicists rationalize about the 'universe' [which of course they cannot see or embrace]. A great spin off to the Big Bang puts Earth smack dab in the middle of the universe. So Ptolemy's priests have the last laugh. Especially since the Marching Morons are becoming a real phenomena, and not just fictional characters. Just keep saying "Earth, Fire, Water" ... that's all you need to know! DasV (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What in Gandalf's answer implied the speed of light had changed? If 2 objects move away from each other, and each is travelling at the speed of light, the DISTANCE between them is increasing at twice the speed of light. So relative to one of these objects, the other would SEEM to be moving away at twice the speed of light, but only because the reference point (i.e. the first object) is also moving. Light itself would not change speed. (Which is kinda the whole point of distinguishing between ACTUAL universe and OBSERVABLE universe.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.225.195 (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gandalf, for this brief but clear answer. Chrisrus (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been estimated that our solar system makes one revolution around our galaxy each 250 million years. If the Universe is 14 billion years old the solar system has revolved around the galaxy 56 times... I find this highly improbable. The light / energy measurments are seriously flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.174.243 (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No cite for age given in first sentence
The citation given for the age of the universe in the first sentence, 13.75 Ga, doesn't contain the text "13.75" anywhere. Where does the figure given come from? ciphergoth (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noted that too, so I searched for a source with a real figure, and got one WMAP figure on nasa.gov from July 2010 that claimed 13.7±0.13. That I inserted instead of the previous possibly unduly synthesized value. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I found that there's actually a source for the figure 13.75±0.11 Gyr, so I restored that value and sourced it properly this time. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously from God, duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.53 (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * God doesn't lie. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Bang is a theory... just like there was a theory the earth was flat at one time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.174.243 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

second citation needed

 * Can we get a second citation, preferably from a primary source (e.g. NASA), confirming the value of 13.75 gigayears?? The first citation given in the article here seems reputable, but a Google .gov search for "age of universe" provides 3 citations from NASA for the value 13.7 Ga  , and 1 citation from NASA for the value 13.73 Ga , none of which confirms the value given here on Wikipedia (since 13.75 rounds to 13.8 for any 3-digit approximations).  Nikki (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All recent sources will give an age of around 13.7 years. The hundredth and thousandth place is more debatable, which is why there is a plus or minus sign. I don't think we should worry too much about such specific numbers. Cadiomals (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, the cited source (Jarosik et al) is a peer-reviewed publication (which is the main paper presenting the most recent results from NASA's WMAP mission). A peer-reviewed publication is preferable to the NASA web sites found with Google. The cited paper also goes through the recent estimates, essentially all of which are consistent (within the stated uncertainties) with the value found by Jarosik et al. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious formula
The formula given after "So a rough estimate of the age of the universe comes from the inverse of the Hubble parameter, ..." seems like mathematical gibberish gives a correction to the Hubble time based on how much the Hubble constant deviates from 72 km/s/mpc. That does not seem to be what is called for from the flow of the text. There is a much simpler derivation of 1/H0 in the Hubble's law article. Any reason not to use that?--agr (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

silly question
From my layman understanding of things, I am a tad confused. If there were something hypothetical outside of the universe (a restaurant, say) that was observing it forming, due to relativity and the concentration of matter, it would be really slow/still, implying that universe is infinitely old if seen from outside of it. Is that correct? --Squidonius (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Half correct — slow and still, but very young. Imagine you're accelerating to the edge of the actual universe (much larger than the observable universe). To meet this boundary, you would have to go faster than the speed of light, which corresponds to going back into time. As you get closer and closer to the edge of the universe, you're going back in time and the universe is getting smaller and hotter. By all possible mechanisms you would not be able to pass through this transition intact, but somehow you survive and eventually cross the boundary. You're now ``outside´´! Where is the universe? When you left, it was unbelievably small and hot, so instead of being infinitely old, it's the reverse, infinitely young — maybe smaller than Planck scales. But now do you get to see the universe expand? As you were accelerating, time in the universe was also slowing down until when you reached the boundary, when time had stopped. So in other words, from the ``outside´´, the universe is not visible and not expanding — i.e. it doesn't exist! Russell Harper (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction to best estimate?
Lawrence Krauss said that we can now estimate to "almost 4 decimal places" and he rounded off to 2 places to say "13.72 billion years is the age of the universe" in this video, around 18:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ImvlS8PLIo#!

This video was recorded in 2009. Is the number listed at the header of this article -- 13.75 plus or minus 0.11 billion -- more recent than that?

- Dave Davemuscato (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The citation is: N. Jarosik et al (2011), which seems later. Vsmith (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Estimate for age not believable
It has been estimated that our solar system makes one revolution around our galaxy each 250 million years. If the Universe is 14 billion years old the solar system has revolved around the galaxy 56 times... Considering the earth has made many 10s of thousands of revolutions around the sun and remained fairly stable in its position, I find it highly improbable that our solar system has only made 56 revolutions around our galaxy. The light / energy measurements are seriously flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.174.243 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Solar System hasn't existed for as long as the Universe. The Solar System formed about 4.5 billion years ago, which means its about a third the age of the Universe and it has revolved around the galaxy only about 18 times. Also, the Earth has made much more than tens of thousands of revolutions around the Sun, it has made about 4.5 billion (corresponding with its age) since one revolution is one year. I don't understand what is not believable about the estimated age of the universe so please clarify. Cadiomals (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

wrong # for age of the universe in seconds
I just checked this and believe the order of magnitude should be 10^17, not 10^15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.98 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

wolframalpha gives a slightly different time: 4.336 ± 0.035 × 10^17 seconds, calculated from 13.75 Gyr.  — Firsthuman (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific" change to "Evolutionary"
Hello everyone,

I am the one who changed the word scientific to evolutionary and the other changes that made evolution appear as one view and creationism as another view. I only did so since:

1. There are sources that believe that creationism is science as opposed to evolution (Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, etc.) and especially

2. The most reliable source states that creationism is true -- the Bible.

Of course you may think, "The Bible? The Bible isn't even a scientific book," but the writers of the Bible claim that what they wrote came from God, who is omniscient (one brief reference to this is 2 Tim. 3:16). If the writers are correct, that would:

1. Imply that God exists, of course, and

2. Prove that the Bible is always correct on all areas, such as science, that it talks about.

The apostle Peter wanted Christians to always be ready to give evidence for what they believed (1 Pet. 3:15), which implies that he believed that there was evidence to give. Since the books in the Bible were written years ago, when people did not know as many scientific facts as we do today, they of course, would have made scientific errors; unless, of course, they were inspired by God. Therefore, let's see what happens when the Bible touches on science:

1. When the book of Job was written, people believed that the earth was hung on an animal, or a monster, etc.; yet Job says that God ". . . hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7 NKJV).

2. The prophet Isaiah says that God ". . . is He who sits above the circle of the earth. . ." (Isaiah 40:22 NKJV). This shows the Bible's belief on the earth's shape.

3. Ecclesiastes 1:6 describes a cycle of air currents: "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit" (NKJV).

4. The verse after that, Ecclesiastes 1:7, describes exactly why we never run out of water in the ocean: "All rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again" (NKJV). This does happen when seawater evaporates into clouds, goes through the air, comes down as rain, forms rivers, and comes goes into the sea, "the place from which the rivers come".

There are many other passages that could be used as well. Since the Bible has always been scientifically correct before, it would make since that it would be correct on the Earth's age.

When it comes to Wikipedia's weight policy, wouldn't the Bible, seeing that its beliefs on science have always been correct, have at least enough weight to tie that of evolution's? The Bible cannot be proven to be false. In fact, the first thing stated in the entire Bible, Genesis, 1:1-2, mentions all five of what makes the universe up; time, space, matter, power, and motion; in saying this: "In the beginning" (time) "God created" (power) "the heavens" (space) "and the earth" (matter)". . . . And the Spirit of God was hovering" (motion) "over the face of the waters."

So what do you all think? Shall we use the wording that I created before? If anyone opposes please explain why we should preserve the present edition. The Sackinator (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved this post down to the bottom and put it in a new section. The section it was in was 2 years old, so it's really unlikely anyone would have seen it up there. Sackinator, feel free to change the section title if you'd like; I just made one up for you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jess. That works. The Sackinator (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your change of "scientific" to "evolutionary" was ignorant on several levels, the salient one being that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution. The Bible is obviously thoroughly unreliable on scientific matters, which Job and Isaiah both demonstrate. We should keep the current wording because unlike your revision, it's factual. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Röbin ,

I admit that my change was ignorant on, not multiple levels, but one: that evolution has nothing to do with the Earth's age; it is based on radiometric dating, which supports evolutionary beliefs. In order for it to be considered a fact, radiometric dating would have to be believed by everyone (I use this term loosely, for if you looked hard enough you probably could find someone who denies even gravity). Although radiometric dating is used to discover the ages of rocks, it is not believed by everyone. In fact, as was said in ChristianAnswers.Net, there are unreliable assumptions that one has to make to go along with what they believe on their radiometric estimations on rocks:

"1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant.

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added."

Furthermore, you said that Job and Isaiah have made statements contradictory to science? What were those statements and where can we find those statements?

Since I have been proven wrong on changing "scientific" to "evolutionary," I suggest that we change the wording to "radiometric." The Sackinator (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Radiometric dating is not really part of the evidence for the age of the universe. The oldest rocks we can date are from the solar system, which is quite a bit younger than the universe. Also, radiometric dating is scientific regardless of how many people believe in it. I'm afraid ChristanAnswers.net has given you some false information about it. But it isn't really relevant to this article. thx1138 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, The Sackinator, your entire argument is fundamentally flawed. The Bible is in no way a reliable, modern source of scientific discussion; science isn't about the beliefs you claim the Bible is "correct" on, it's about testable hypotheses and observations. In fact, the Bible is better described as a primary source than a secondary source and is therefore not a well-suited source on those grounds alone, never mind the fact that it's unscientific and wrong. See WP:PRIMARY. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I've been told twice that the Bible is wrong, so how is it incorrect? I need a book, chapter, and verse that makes a false claim about science. As I already posted, the Bible made scientific statements (such as the earth not being hung on anything) that later were proven to be correct. How did they know these things were correct? WP:PRIMARY says, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." If I use the Bible to state something, Alex, how is that wrong? The Sackinator (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Universum.jpg|thumb|Flammarion engraving]] "What were those statements and where can we find those statements?" I was referring to those scientifically inaccurate verses you cited in your first comment, above. Job in particular goes on to mention the earth's foundation, and the pillars supporting it (9:6, 38:4). Both books accord with ancient Hebrew cosmology, which imagined the world as a flat, round disc, held up by pillars, with the stars mounted on a sky dome above. It seems intellectually dishonest to cite Ecclesiastes 1:6 and 1:7 as proof the Bible's scientific accuracy, conveniently skipping over the geocentrism of Ecclesiastes 1:5. I could also bring up Psalms 104:5, Matthew 4:8, and many others. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Bible tells us what the authors of the Bible either believed themselves or thought were important narratives to include. It's not a science book and wasn't intended as one. thx1138 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bible begins with a description of God creating everything in six days: first the earth and trees, then the sun. (In reality, the sun actually formed millions of years before the earth. Not on day 4, but in year 9 billion and change.) Followed by a fable about a talking snake convincing a woman, who sprang to life from a bone, to eat a fruit from a magic tree. Tell me again how your Bible is the “most reliable source” of scientific knowledge. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * thx1138, it is true that the Bible is not a book that's purpose is to teach science, but since the writers claim that what they wrote came from God, that would mean that if their writings ever were wrong on a true scientific implication or statement that either God would not be all-knowing or the Bible could not be His word. The Sackinator (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Röbin Liönheart, you need to know that the book of Job was written poetically (this does not mean that it is a fairy-tail and cannot be understood, but that certain words, such as pillar, can be used figuratively and should not be used dogmatically to mean a literal structure supporting the earth), so the word pillar, as used here, could mean mountains. After all, Job wouldn't contradict himself of course (see Job 26:7).


 * In Matt. 4:8, two are being talked about: Jesus and Satan, two supernatural beings. Seeing that they're supernatural, we cannot judge those who are in this verse like we would judge mortal, human beings. Jesus would not even need to be on the mountain to see the whole earth; He could see the whole universe no matter where He was.


 * Another thing: You said that I was "intellectually dishonest" for talking about Ecclesiastes 1:6 and 7 while skipping verse 5, which mentions the sun going up and down. Ecclesiastes was talking from a man looking from the earth's perspective of the sun. We even use expressions like this today, yes, even in an age in which everyone in his right mind knows that the earth revolves around the sun: "I better be going, John; the sun's setting." The sun doesn't set as we all know. What's intellectually dishonest is that you are ignoring the compelling evidence for the writer of Ecclesiastes' inspiration (him being able to know, for example, the water cycle, which one in his time could have no way of discovering), and you rather try to act as if the writer of Ecclesiastes was teaching a scientifically incorrect belief only because he talks from a man standing on earth's point of view of the sun!


 * And finally, you said that the Bible is insane because of what Genesis teaches. Why do you act as though I'm a lunatic simply because I believe that God made created the universe about 6,000 years ago; that the first woman, Eve, was made from the first man, Adam's rib; and that Satan could take the form of a serpent and get Eve to eat from the tree which gave knowledge of good and evil, which God commanded them not to eat? Well, the Bible is scientifically correct every other time that the writers stated a fact that, until it was proved, sounded insane at first. For example, people at Job's time, based on what scientific facts they could experiment at that time, might think it foolish to believe that the earth is just floating around. They may have thought that it could not be true at all, since everything seems to fall: People, horses, fruit, vegetables, etc. When the ground is dug up, you can find that it fall, so surely the the earth can't float; it must be hung on an animal or something. Well, that could be what they thought at that time, but, if you think about it, what would the animal be on? Another animal? Would that animal be on another animal? This type of reasoning doesn't work. If everything falls down, including the animals that supposedly carried the earth, then wouldn't that mean that, even if there were an infinite line of animals standing on eachother, that they would still fall, since there is no floor for them to stand on? And if they were on a floor, wouldn't it fall then, since it's not on something? Job believed that God ". . . hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7 NKJV) You can see that the reasoning for an animal or pillars holding the earth is un-reasonable. Isn't this much like what you most likely believe, though? You must not believe that matter has been eternal, since no true scientists could believe such a thing. You must believe in the Big Bang, right? If yes, then think about this: Saying that there was a time when there was 100 percent zero matter begs the question: How did the matter get here from absolute nothingness, and how did living matter come from non-living matter? Please answer these, Mr. Liönheart. The Sackinator (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of the merits of your interpretation of the scientific merit of the bible, this interpretation is original research. It only belongs in this scientific article if a reliable source that doesn't present a fringe view of the scientific consensus presents this interpretation. This discussion is moving well away from potential improvements to the article and into a forum for discussion of the merits of the bible as science, which is not appropriate for a talk page. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 04:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "And finally, you said that the Bible is insane because of what Genesis teaches" Nobody said that. You're reading into what other people are saying. thx1138 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * True scientists could and did indeed believe in conservation of mass, or in your words, "matter has been eternal". Matter got here not from absolute nothingness, but from radiation (more specifically: about 0.0001 second after the universe began expanding, elementary particles froze out of radiation when the temperature dropped below 1013 degrees Kelvin). Wikipedia has articles you can read about the Big Bang and abiogenesis if you wish more information about them. And why do you assume that I'm a "Mr."? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Röbin, first of all, I would like to say that I am both sorry and embarrassed for assuming that you were male.


 * Conversation of mass isn't synonymous with matter is eternal. All people can prove from conservation of mass is that mass presently is conserved; this doesn't mean it was always that way. However it's an assumption that one might make from conservation of mass. One belief, which doesn't contradict the conversation of mass, which I believe since that's what the Bible teaches, is that God created the quantity of mass that's presently in the Universe and then ". . .ended His work which He had done. . ." (Gen 2:2).


 * About mass coming from radiation 0.0001 seconds after the Big Bang began: How is this a scientific belief? Can it be proven, or is it an assumptious belief? Can one prove that it wasn't, say, 0.0002 seconds, for example? You see, this is a guess. How is a guess any better than creationism? After all, I can at least prove that the Bible is always scientifically correct, as I have been doing (and, I can give published references that say the same thing as well).


 * True scientists could and did believe in false things which the Bible was always up to-date on, for another example, blood-letting. Lev. 17:11, which has always been up to-date, says, ". . . the life of the flesh is in the blood . . ." (NKJV). Why then can we say that the Bible contradicts true science? What humans believe has ended up being changed; God's Word stays the same, yet never needs an update.


 * Speaking of true scientists, Andrew Snelling,, a geologist who graduated with a PhD from the University of Sydney, is a creationist who believes strongly in the six-day creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/isd/andrew-snelling). Werner Gitt is another man who is a creationist. There is a book about 50 different scientists who have a PhD (http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/six-days/?).


 * Thx, I wasn't reading into Liönheart's post; I was simply answering based on what is to be implied from what she said. If I said that I'm talking to the one who's first three letters are "T," "H," AND "X," everyone would know that I'm talking about you, Thx; if Ms. Liönheart says, and I'll put the parts to notice in bold, "The Bible begins with a description of God creating everything in six days . . . Followed by a fable about a talking snake convincing a woman, who sprang to life from a bone, to eat a fruit from a magic tree. Tell me again how your Bible is the “most reliable source” of scientific knowledge." it is clear that she is claiming that the Bible is a crazy myth, a fantasy, a fairy-tale.
 * "Fable" doesn't mean "crazy". It means it's a fable; a myth. thx1138 (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Three Little Pigs" is a fable, a fantasy, and a fairy tale. It's not crazy; it's a story with a message. (But we should treat it like literature, not like a historical account because that would be silly.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Alex, you said that I interpreted the Bible. My point is that some, if not, all of you, are saying that the Bible should be considered non-scientific while atheism should be considered scientific. People, like I, interpret the Bible; yet they, including the ones who made the article Hebrew cosmology, interpret poetic words to be literal words and state their interpretations as fact, resulting in the Bible appearing to be false. I know published sources that use the poetic interpretations I used if I need them. Regardless, Röbin Liönheart's interpretations contradicted the very writer, Job's, belief of the earth (see Job 26:7).
 * No, we should consider science scientific. Atheism has nothing to do with it. Young earth creationism conflicts with scientific evidence, not because scientists have an anti-religious bias, but because their religion conflicts with reality.
 * An internal contraction in Job should not be too surprising, because the Bible often contradicts itself. But its contradiction between our world resting on "nothing" in 26:7 and on pillars in 9:6 and 38:4 (and Psalms 75:3, Psalms 104:5, 1 Samuel 2:8, &c.) would actually be because תהו, here translated "nothing", does not mean the vacuum of space. Job thought our world was not suspended in vacuum but held above a primeval celestial ocean. In the beginning, God hovered over the surface of the deep, and separated the waters below from the waters above, holding them back with a sky dome firmament (Genesis 1), a vault restraining waters above the sun, moon, and stars (which he later unleashes in the Flood). Pillars support it too (Job 26:11, Samuel 22:8) located in the waters surrounding our flat earth (Psalms 104:3), also home to the sea monster Leviathan that God describes extensively in Job 41. In ancient Hebrew cosmology, oceans surround our world, above and below.
 * You're trying to retrofit our modern scientific understanding of our solar system onto the primitive geocentric flat-earth cosmology in ancient Hebrew myths. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, What I ask is that, seeing that as long as one uses the context of the Bible, it not only doesn't contradict science, but even is ahead of scientists' knowledge of the universe, that we could simply change the word scientific to (I know that evolutionary doesn't work, since my meaning of it, "non-creationist", isn't its professional term; or especially radiometric as it has nothing to do with the Universe's age; I was just using that term as I accidentally forgot that this is the Age of the Universe's talk page, and not the Age of the Earth's) atheistic. The Sackinator (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken about the Bible. It reflects the scientific understanding of the people who wrote it. The scientific consensus about the age of the universe is based on multiple lines of evidence which have been rigorously tested. That's how science is done. There's nothing atheistic about it - many cosmologists are not atheists, and most Christians do not interpret the Bible as you do. I'm afraid you have been misled by some dishonest people. thx1138 (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Sackinator, I just noticed the very helpful information Jess provided on your talk page. Jess clearly laid out the criteria we use on Wikipedia for determining whether a source meets the reliable source definition used here and how to represent the scientific consensus. The Bible very clearly does not represent the modern scientific consensus and thus has no role as a source on this scientific article. Please review that discussion. If you object to any of the statements in the Age of the Universe article, please note your specific objection, which is most easily done by adding a tag to the relevant statement in the article itself. If there are no statements in the article which aren't supported by reliable sources, then this discussion is pointless. Admittedly, this is not the best-sourced article on Wikipedia, but essentially all of its content is uncontroversial within the scientific community and as taught in introductory astronomy-major university courses; I'd certainly welcome help to improve the references with reliable sources. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 16:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And perhaps more to the point, "scientific" doesn't mean "correct"; it means following the scientific process. Most importantly, for an idea to be scientific, it must be disprovable (testable) by experiment or observation. Anything, such as the word of God, that is "always correct on all areas" is not disprovable and therefore not scientific. Therefore, the hatnote as it currently stands is clear, concise, and appropriate for this article. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If, for example, the Universe's Age being 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years is scientifically proven, then why are there scientists today who deny it and explain why they do? Isn't calling their beliefs on the Universe's age un-scientific giving too much weight to one side? The Sackinator (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't care what scientists (or creationists) think; we care what reliable sources say. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of those scientists have published their research in reputable peer-reviewed journals and had it confirmed by other cosmologists. If they were to do so, we would have a reliable source to reference in the article. thx1138 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ms. Liönheart, all of your references to the Bible were taken out of context, and only one reference actually sounded like the pillars hold up the earth-1st Samuel 2:8. 1st Sam. 2:8 is a thankful prayer by Hannah. It also is very poetic. Are you going to take the entire prayer out of its poetic context? Are you going to make up that, since Hannah said that her horn (which really means power) is exalted, Hebrew tradition must've took rams' horns and whoever had the longest and largest horn exalted it in the Lord and attributed it to the Lord? Also, are you going to say that, since Hannah said, ". . . neither is there any rock like our God" (Verse 2, KJV) that they must have believed that God was a physical rock structure? If you observe the context, pillars are talking about God's prophets, His governments, etc, who hold up the world, the people. Notice how Jeremiah was made a pillar: "For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar . . ." (Jer. 1:18). Also notice Rev. 3:12: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God . . ."


 * You said that Leviathan was in the waters surrounding a flat earth? Why then does Psalm 104:26 say that Leviathan was in the waters where sailors sail?


 * Regardless, Genesis was talking about a time when the waters were both below and above the land (in the sky). It would be wrapped around Earth the same way that the sky does. Hence, the earth was standing out of the water and also was in the water (2. Pet. 3:5). Here's a link on the subject: http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r05/


 * I believe you made a mistake; the original Hebrew word does mean nothingness, which is a poetic way of saying what I already told you.. Look it up. Perhaps use Online Bible and look up its Strong's Number, if you know what I mean by that.


 * Am I trying to retrofit the Bible? Really? What I said, unlike what you said, is within those passages' context. If the Bible truly has false beliefs and was not guided by Deity, then how come the writers knew what they, without any other means, could know?

Everyone, here're citations to the fact that some creation scientists disbelieve in the Universe's age being the age that Wikipedia says and explains why: http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/ Also, see http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-biblical/

I'm not asking to remove the age that is presently on the article; I'm asking for the article to say what it says, yet say that some scientists believe otherwise. The Sackinator (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Institute for Creation Research is not a reliable source. None of their claims have been published in any reputable journals, and the reason for that is that their claims have no evidence to substantiate them. Just in the example you gave, there is no evidence there was ever a sphere of water surrounding the earth like a canopy. I am sorry that you have been led astray by ICR. Whether they are dishonest or just incompetent is not for me to say, but the information they are presenting is false. You would do well to examine their claims critically and see what scientists have to say about them. thx1138 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that the Wikipedia policy of undue weight WP:UNDUE excludes opinions which are a small minority, and Young Earth Creationism definitely fits that description. Wikipedians do not claim expertise, but defer to those who are recognized experts, and we do not need to, and should not, argue the evidence for the age of the universe against (or along with, for that matter) the universal judgement of the experts. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with what you all say, but since I cannot change your minds, we'll just leave the text as it is. The weight does go to the beliefs that are on here, but still, no one can answer how the Bible knew those scientific facts that I listed. Maybe some day, people will discover that the Universe is younger than they say it is now as well. Maybe I'll come back when the weight moves closer towards the creationist point of view. Farewell, The Sackinator (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Planck data
Planck says 13.82 billion years. Are we prepared to accept the following source:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/planck-captures-portrait-of-the-young-universe-revealing-earliest-light

or can someone find it in the original papers at:

http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers

©Geni 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would wait for the paper(s), at least before modifying the lede. The new Planck number is (barely) within the uncertainty we quote, and a news article doesn't let us quote the combined uncertainty, which I think is currently done quite well. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 19:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I inserted the combined number from Table 9 of paper I from the data release, which is 13.798±0.037. Not sure why the different mean number, but obviously consistent with the number in the press. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

– The pages titled God becomes the Universe and Shape of the Universe are the only ones that have got it right. The Universe is a place. As with the United Kingdom (only somewhat larger). And we capitalize place names, yes? And so we ought to capitalize Universe across all of these titles, to be consistent with ourselves. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Age of the universe → Age of the Universe
 * Chronology of the universe → Chronology of the Universe
 * Future of an expanding universe → Future of an expanding Universe
 * Ultimate fate of the universe → Ultimate fate of the Universe


 * Comment it would depend on if the universe's name is Universe or not... which is where we get into many problems in our treatment of the Solar System, the Sun, the Moon and the Earth, where many articles do not treat the Moon as the name of our moon, but just use "moon" to refer to the local moon (body orbiting a planet). And more problematically using "earth" to refer to the planet when properly this refers to dirt. Also "solar system" to refer to the local solar system instead of "Solar System" to refer to our solar system (system of stars and non-stellar bodies that orbits them in a tightly constrained manner). Similarly, the "sun", the local sun, instead of the "Sun", our sun (the local star). -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well except for the expanding one, none of these titles reflect 'a' universe or 'any' universe, but 'the' universe. In my book Universe always ought to be capitalized. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources (well respected journals, texts, or even better style guides) have to say on the matter? -- Jayron  32  05:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, some of these are already wrong, since they're not internally consistent. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: As discussed above, we need to be consistent regardless, so pointing out the inconsistency is good. A secondary point is that we should not imply through our prose or internal styling that there is more than one universe, since there is no explicit evidence for any universe other than the one that we are in. That means that the analogy with "the Solar System" is wrong. I have no real preference for or against capitalization, but both of these points need to be ovserved in any resolution of the problem. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's the titles of God becomes the Universe and Shape of the Universe that need to be changed to decapitalize universe; note that in the bodies of those articles (except for the first sentence of the former) the word is consistently lowercased. I can't find universe specifically mentioned in any style manual I have at hand, but that's probably because they suppose that no one would think of capitalizing it as a proper name. It's essentially universally lowercase in running prose. Deor (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The NASA Style Guide specifically says not to capitalize universe. - Aoidh (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you capitalize your mother's name, Aoidh? Because the Universe is our mother, our Creator. I actually think it to be disrespectful to not capitalize it. I am surprised that NASA would so advise. But I would point put again, two pages in this series do capitalize Universe, and they are the correct ones. Everybody seems to agree that all of these pages ought to be capitalized consistently, but if this move fails they won't be. If you want the other pages to be lowercased, you'll have to be the one to propose that, because I absolutely never will. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - seems a mother's name may be capitalized, but not the word mother; likewise, a universe's name may be capitalized perhaps, but not the word universe - at least this seems to make sense to me at the moment - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would capitalize her name but I would not capitalize mother, so that's not a good comparison. Unless you have a reliable source that says that it would be disrespectful to not capitalize universe, that just seems like an appeal to emotion.  Do you have any reliable sources (especially style guides or manuals of style) that would support capitalizing universe in such a way?  If not, then I can only go with what reliable sources are on hand, and those specifically state that universe should not be capitalized. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What if your mother's name were Mother? Or if that was simply the only way you called her? To tackle this from an opposite tack, our planet is named Earth; our galaxy is named Milky Way. So what, then, is our Universe named? What is it, if not Universe? DeistCosmos (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "What if" is irrelevant, especially when based on a flawed comparison. Do you have any reliable sources that support what you're saying?  If you're planning on convincing anyone that universe should be capitalized, that is what matters. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, for example -- Galileo's New Universe: The Revolution in Our Understanding of the Cosmos, by Stephen P. Maran, Laurence A. Marschall], 2013 -- uses capitalized "Universe" throughout. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not very convincing evidence; that's not a manual of style or a style guideline or even close to a well-known work; it's a book published by an independent publisher and is demonstrably the exception and not the rule, as per the rather overwhelming evidence below. Since initially commenting I've taken a good look at what sources use and what manuals of style dictate, and I'm even more convinced that universe should not be capitalized per Modern English convention. - Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Aoidh, who found an actual reliable source on the matter, and is to be commended for that, since that helps settle the issue. Unless and until other sources contradict that, we should go with it, and move other articles to match that.  -- Jayron  32  16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Why not just have a redirect from the cap-U versions to the lower-u versions? TomS TDotO (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (thanks to Aoidh above) => "Do not capitalize solar system and universe." (quoted from the NASA Style Guide) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Although the word "universe" is not referred to directly, perhaps the following quotes from the WP:MOS may help in some way?  Copied from MOS - General: Celestrial bodies - Copied from MOS - Celestrial Bodies: Celestrial bodies Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * When used generally, the words  sun, earth, and moon  do not take capitals (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home), except when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when the term names a specific astronomical body (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter).
 * Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations, and galaxies are proper nouns, and therefore capitalized (The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux; Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy). The first letter of every word in such a name is capitalized (Alpha Centauri and not Alpha centauri; Milky Way, not Milky way).
 * The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper nouns) when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body (our Sun, Earth, Moon and Solar System): The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; The Moon orbits the Earth. They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context (The sky was clear and the sun felt warm), or when used in a general sense (Io is a moon of Jupiter). However, they are capitalized in personifications, as in Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god.
 * Names of planets, moons, asteroids, comets, stars, constellations, and galaxies are proper nouns and begin with a capital letter (The planet Mars can be seen tonight in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux). The first letter of every word in such a name is capitalized (Alpha Centauri and not Alpha centauri; Milky Way, not Milky way). In the case of compounds with generic terms such as comet and galaxy (but not star or planet), follow the International Astronomical Union's recommended style and include the generic as part of the name and capitalize it (Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets; Astronomers describe the Andromeda Galaxy as a spiral galaxy).
 * Most interesting that "Universe" is excluded. Naturally, there are many suns and moons and solar systems. But only one Universe that we know of. I would ask, as well, do we consider our Universe to be a "celestial body"? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is interesting - fortunately, we have the NASA Style Guide to help us along imo - and use the lower-case for "universe" (ie, "Do not capitalize solar system and universe.") - as does NASA - thanks in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - seems Wiktionary uses the lower-case version of "universe" and designates the capitalized version as "dated or religious" - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But we are then yet left with God becomes the Universe and Shape of the Universe having titles with the capital U, and so something must be moved for consistency's sake. So why take chances? DeistCosmos (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's what you're worried about, I assure you that I will personally initiate move discussions for those two articles as soon as this one ends. Deor (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And I assure you that I cannot support a move in the wrong direction, overall. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

ALSO - The Oxford Dictionary uses the lower-case of "universe" as follows:  Copied from the => Oxford Dictionary universe

noun (the universe) all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ALSO - The Encyclopedia Britannica uses the lower-case of "universe" as follows:  Copied from the => Encyclopedia Britannica universe

the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part. Humanity has traveled a long road since societies imagined Earth, the Sun, and the Moon as the main objects of creation, with the rest of the universe being formed almost as an afterthought. Today it is known that Earth is only a small ball of rock in a space of unimaginable vastness and that the birth of the solar system was probably only one event among many that occurred against the backdrop of an already mature universe. Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OVERALL - NASA, WIKTIONARY, OXFORD DICTIONARY and ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA *ALL* use the lower-case version of "universe" - seems clear to me at the moment - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The universe is generally not capitalized. --Article editor (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose or be tolerant - Merriam-Webster also uses lowercase. So far, if you feel the need to be "consistent", the sources agree that it is lowercase.
 * I don't see the need to change anything, R from other capitalisation is always there. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have One Style To Rule Them All. Paradoctor (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Dior, I think we should rather decapitalize "Universe" in the two titles that got it wrong. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move aftershock
And what, then, if there is no support for "decapitalizing" the other two? Are we not then left with a foolish inconsistency? This is awry. DeistCosmos (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not provide a reason why "consistency" is required. I provided a reason why it can be accepted. Maybe I_just_don't_like_it is helpful? Paradoctor (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It hardly makes sense to deem the proposed new title to be the "wrong" title when other pages already sit at this "wrong" title. Their existence invalidates the claims upon which this request was rejected by all who contended that there was but one right way. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - if "consistency" is truly a concern, it's *entirely* ok with me to rename the two articles - to be consistent with the consensus view (of lower-case "universe") as discussed earlier - ie, "Shape of the Universe" can be renamed "Shape of the universe" and "God becomes the Universe" can be renamed "God becomes the universe" instead - an administrator may be needed to delete the related Redirect pages first - to make room for the renaming move - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support moving Shape of the Universe to Shape of the universe. I don't know about God becomes the Universe; it seems like a philosophical view of the universe, not a physical one, so I'm not sure if consistency applies. But a move would still be OK. --Article editor (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Brief Followup - Thanks for your comments - yes, I agree - changing to the lower-case "universe" seems entirely ok for the "Shape of the universe" article - less so perhaps, for the "God becomes the Universe" article - although it should be noted that the lower-case "universe" is used extensively in the lede and throughout the "God becomes the Universe" article - in any regards - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Consistency entirely applies -- God becomes the Universe is a statement on the physical reality of our Universe, a proposition this it originates from a deity-becoming process -- and is all the more reason why the capitalization issue was wrongly addressed above. Additionally, I would add that there has been no process to support a move of either article, and in fact it has been proposed several times on that talk page to move Shape of the Universe to the lowercase, and each time this has been rejected under the determination that the capitalization of Universe is, in fact, correct (views of User:Deor and User:Aoidh expressed above notwithstanding). DeistCosmos (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Not everyone may believe in your stated proposition of the universe (which is scientifically untestable) and may consider other (more testable) explanations instead - one recent scientific approach may be well described in The Grand Design (book) for example, which suggests the universe came about, and operates, without the need of any God (or Gods) - in the words of the book's physicist author, Stephen Hawking, "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary." - and also - "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." - perhaps this may help explain the word "universe" - with a lower-case - rather than capitalized (suggesting a more religious POV - see universe) - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit offtopic, and especially of no relation to the multiple failed attempts to rename Shape of the Universe. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've initiated move requests at both Shape of the Universe and God becomes the Universe. Deor (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "defined"
Hi everyone. Is there a source or style guideline to support the use of the word "defined" in the lead sentence? I will agree that there is a valid distinction between the definition of the term and the measurement (something I didn't think of when I made my edit) but beyond that it seems to me that even in such a case the word "defined" should not be used; it seems unnecessarily pedantic, as well as WP:WEASEL.

I also checked a few other articles, e.g. momentum, prime number, and matrix (mathematics). Based on the same logic, these could all be described using the word "defined" (in fact, I think the argument is stronger in these cases), but they aren't. I haven't seen any support for the practice in physical cosmology articles either. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel at all strongly about "defined"; I was perhaps unduly influenced by what I saw as flawed logic in the edit summary. I do think that a mention of and link to physical cosmology is useful. Would "In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang." be a better first sentence? —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply - I was perhaps unduly influenced by what seemed like possible fringe POV push content. :-) (I spend a lot of my Wikipedia time dealing with such content.) I've made your suggested change; I would still prefer not to include the phrase "in physical cosmology" but I'll leave that issue for another day. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I find the same re fringe content. My only reason for the physical cosmology bit is to say that's the subfield of astrophysics that deals with this since many readers may not know (and I didn't before I took my first undergrad cosmology class many years ago). I don't feel strongly about that either. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 10:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Age: It is not clear about the unit of time being used. When we talk about the age of a stone as 10 million years, we have some idea and assume that the year being talked about is the same year we are familiar with. However, how the notion of time changes when we reach close to the singularity is not clear to most people. How the concept of time is chagning with the cosmological scale and phase or epoch?chami 19:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

Age in years?
It is not at all clear whether we are using the year as the common today's calendar year. What happens to time when we move close to the singularity or near the edge? Can we define time in another consistent fashion?

The article is not for experts: they do not need it. It is for common people who are simply curious. You need to be both simple and accurate. Whole system is relativistic and the concepts of space-time-mass-energy are all mixed up, right?

In the begining, there was no earth and hence the definition of year is invalid. After the earth disappers, the definition loses reference. I am confused in the same manner about mass and energy. chami 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)
 * It uses "year" to have its common meaning (3.16 × 107 seconds, or today's calendar year). Is that confusing? It would never occur to me that year meant anything else. The parenthetical statement with the age of the universe in seconds removes any ambiguity for those who are confused. I think introducing any other meaning of year would be unnecessarily complicated (and a complication that the professional literature never gets into). —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 22:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I was not clear enough. In the relativisitc sense, there is something called time dilation and 1s is not 1s all the time and everywhere. If I understand correctly, 1s is different for different people and at different times. We have to mention the observer (and I do not know what else) and the time will be different for different people. Is it correct? Or, all these time dilations and space curvatures do not affect the age? Let me put it another way. Suppose I was present during the birth and today I am somewhat near the middle of the universe (whatever that may be) and the age by my clock will be same for all? Even if I am close the edge or on earth? I need to look up the twin paradox but can you be more clear.-- chami 17:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)
 * Like every reference I'm aware of, the age of the universe is expressed in this article in the present-day reference frame of the Earth (or, equivalently, the Sun, the Milky Way, the Local Group, or the Local Supercluster). The differences between what observers anywhere outside very local phenomena like black holes anywhere will observe are many orders of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty in the measurement of the age of the universe. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Age of the universe is truly unknown.
if interstellar objects are moving away from each other at an increasinly faster rate, and some even move faster than the speed of light, then that does not excplicitly or implicitly give anyone the ability to actually measure the age of the universe.

There is an extreme logical fallacy in thinking that "light hasn't existed long enough to reach us" beyond the 13 billion someodd lightyear horizon, when taking into consideration that those distant objects are racing away even faster, therefore implying that more distant light will never ever reach us - and that we can see will in fact only grow dimmer and fade out of view over time.

That is an extremely obscene leap of faith to assume the light will ever reach us with the existence of redshift measurements.

The speed of light is not tied to the age of the universe, for the speed of light was accurately measured far before the age of the universe, which solely uses the speed of light model itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.180.116 (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The age and size of the universe
How is it possible to detect stars from 100 billion light years away if the Universe is only 13 billion years old? How can anything out there in the Universe be beyond where light traveling since the Big Bang has yet to reach? Is it possible for two objects to be become separated in space by more than the distance light could have traveled? 71.212.228.6 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the opening section of Observable universe is a good discussion of this. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that anyone can detect objects that far away, cause they can't. They cant detect anything beyond our horizon of 13 billion some odd lightyears. What they instead do is try to make it sound like the observable universe is much bigger by pretending to know an equation for very distant objects. Something like "space has expanded since the light of the distant object has reached us", so the "true" distance of the object is far greater than the observed distance. Fact of the matter is, there is no literal equation to figure the true distance because the light we're receiving is so ancient it may as well be useless to begin with. We can't even know the true location of any stellar object over 100 lightyears away because people haven't been recording these facets of cosmology long enough to make predictions. In short, it's just a bunch of humbug - don't worry. 24.176.180.116 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's that space is expanding, not that the objects are traveling. Anyway, per WP:NOTFORUM, you're best off asking at the reference desk next time. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oldest thing in universe
It is not correct that "the universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in it". There could be things older than the universe which have entered the universe after its creation.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that depends, doesn't it, on whether we're defining "Universe" to mean "everything which exists"? If so then whatever the older thing was was PA of our Universe before the rest of our Universe came about, and so simply pushes that oldest thingness back to its birthday. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Its all wrong
Sabbathart (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)it is wrong to say that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old if it is true then the speed of light is not constant or was there ever a big bang its all wrong
 * Can you elucidate upon the proposition that the asserted age of our Universe requires some inconstancy of the Speed of Light? Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe
There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at . Please feel free to comment there. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe
There is a request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * NASA seems to be the authority to me. "Capitalize the names of planets (e.g. Earth, Mars, Jupiter). Capitalize moon when referring to Earth's Moon, otherwise lowercase moon (e.g. the Moon orbits the Earth, Jupiter's moons). Do not capitalize solar system and universe." http://history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/styleguide.html CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What you said has been discussed in SchreiberBike's link already. Words like universe and solar system already have been capitalized in many if not most of the Astronomy-related articles. Tetra quark (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want your thoughts to count in the decision, please express your preference at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. SchreiberBike talk  22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's unclear why NASA would be particularly authoritative. Monthly Notices, for instance, capitalises "Universe" to mean "this universe", and "Galaxy" to mean "this galaxy", but not to mean "a universe" or "a galaxy"; which is pretty reasonable.  The proper name of our universe is "The Universe", so you caps it like any other proper name.  (same as a moon vs. The Moon).  Wily D  22:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of request for comment
An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible mistake?
The method used to calculate the age of the universe has all fixed numbers except for the Hubbert Constant, which has been determined as 67.8±0.77 in the latest studies (December 2013). However when I calculate with H0=67.80, it gives me 14.422010323923x109 years as the age of the universe (4.5511468753554x1017 s). Let me elaborate:

1 pc (parsec) = 648,000 x AU / π 1 AU = 149,597,870.7 km Therefore 1 pc = 3.085677581491 x 1013 km (approximately 31,000 billion km) 1 mpc = 106 pc = 3.085677581491 x 1019 km

This helps us find the coefficient of the expansion of the universe per second: 1/mpc = 3.2407792894448 x 10-20

Let's multiply by the Hubbert Constant: 3.2407792894448 x 10-20 x H0 = 3.2407792894448 x 10-20 x 67.8 = 2.1972483582436 x 10-18 1 / 2.1972483582436 x 10-18 = 4.5511468753554x1017 s This is the age of the universe in seconds. 1 year = 365.2425 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 31,556,952 seconds 4.5511468753554x1017 / 31556952 = 14.422010323923x109 years.

So, either there's something wrong in these calculations (if so, please show me what), or the age of the universe is wrong on it's main page. Thank you :) --Universal Life (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The expansion velocity of the universe isn't constant in time; it changes during expansion (slowing during the eras of radiation domination and matter domination, and speeding up during our current era of dark energy domination). So the naive calculation isn't exactly right, you need to properly integrate it backwards. Wily D  13:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you WilyD. Could you (or anyone else) elaborate? --Universal Life (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WilyD's explanation is very good. Maybe you can better discuss these things elsewhere, Wikipedia is not a forum. This talk page if for discussing how to improve the article. Gap9551 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never used WP as a forum! It's really not nice to hear such discouraging comments, while my intentions were purely bettering the article and scientific curiosity. I agree that WilyD's explanation is really good, I'd asked for elaboration only because I didn't understand what s/he meant by integrating it backwards. --Universal Life (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, what part of the article would you to improve, and how? Integrating backwards means using the scale factor (relative size) of the universe and the relation between scale factor and time, starting at the present size (scale factor=1) and integrating back to scale factor 0 (the Big Bang), to find how much time has elapsed. Also see Hubble's_law regarding your original question. Gap9551 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer, I've been reading also since a while and now I understand better. About the article, my original intention before asking the long question above, was to correct the given date to 14.422 BY, thinking 13.798 BY was a mistake. But I preferred to discuss first to be sure as I'm a molecular biologist, not a physicist. Sorry, if I've caused any inconvenience. --Universal Life (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok that's clears it up. I'm sorry for misinterpreting your intention. Gap9551 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Seems like this is a bit of a fractious issue, perhaps it would be better to discuss this centrally via RfC rather than at a mildly out of the way talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Age of the universe → Age of the Universe – In modern astronomy, the Universe is capitalized when refering to our own universe. Only observable universe and other universes (as explained in the multiverse) are lower-case. – Are you freaking kidding me (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue of "universe" vs "Universe" has been extensively hashed over in MOS discussion. I recommend dropping it and moving on to more important issues. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? Fundamentally, there are two concepts here, the age of our universe, and the age of a universe. From the standpoint of bigbang universes, this article covers both concepts. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. This likely won't be changed because of the past discussions, but probably should be. To quote the request: "In modern astronomy, the Universe is capitalized when referring to our own universe." You had me at 'In'. Randy Kryn 12:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose though actually it doesn't need to be opposed -- it's already been discussed in an appropriate place, see the pointers above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The unnecessary capitalization of Universe makes the title look like a composition title, which it is not.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last paragraph is wrong
As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years.[19] How can a star be older than the universe? If the universe began then stars formed how did a star form before the universe? AirHeadBit (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That seemed confusing upon reading, but it's because of the margin of error (14.46 - 0.8 = 13.66 billion years, less than age of universe but not by much.) NapoleonKhan (talk)

Nested parentheses
There is a dispute involving nested parentheses. I suggest this way of avoiding it. MOS:P&B seems to prefer nested parentheses like this (9±1 billion [9±1 × 109]), but the use of the "val" template makes it impossible, which forces the choice between double parentheses (9 ... (9 ... )) or [9 ... (9 ...)]. I suggest rewording. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is gravitational time dilation discussed in the "age of the universe"
Gravitational time dilation has been proven over and over, so if you have a change in the rate of time between the base of Empire State building and the top of the Empire State building, is the age of the universe different for the top of the Empire State Building then it is for the base of the Empire State building? I myself and not qualified to clarify this, nor do I know the answer. When we set the rate of the second, where is that rate set; sea level? Once you set the rate of the second then you get an age of the universe. Maybe the discussion of the rate of time doesn't need to be discussed on this page, but links should be created.

Katacomb (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All times are generally reported relative to here on Earth. Gravitational time dilation between locations on Earth is not nearly significant enough to matter to these figures. NapoleonKhan (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Age of the universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/physics/anim2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/physics/anim3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224064318/http://seds.org/messier/glob.html to http://messier.seds.org/glob.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ZOG8atDm?url=http://messier.seds.org/glob.html to http://messier.seds.org/glob.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute
This page makes absolutely no mention of https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07603 or any of the work that has led up to it. See also https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/40/9810.full.pdf and many other easily available sources.

By quoting an incredibly tight estimate ("21 million years") around the 13.799 value, this page projects a degree of certainty about the primary subject that is indefensible in the light of current physics. I am not an astrophysicist, but when I visited this page I was shocked by the complete lack of even a mention that the conflicting evidence exists. I realize that in the light of anti-scientific criticism, a controversy about this topic is inconvenient. And I'm sorry. But Riess is a Nobel prize winning physicist, and no debate with anti-scientists can ever be won by misleading anyone about the current state of physics.

If there isn't any response to my concern within a couple of weeks, I'm going to finally create an account and attempt to add a "Disputed" tag to the page. If that doesn't work, I'll attempt to edit the page to at least mention the existence of the controversy, even though I don't qualify as an expert in this topic. If that doesn't work, I'll pursue dispute resolution. Someone needs to step up to this.

Random dude: I was also surprised. This has been a major news story, and somehow wikipedia is totally missing this. Please do.

Original author of this section again: I haven't gone for the "Disputed" tag because I've learned more about what a mess the situation is for the cosmologists. I honestly don't know what Wikipedia should do about the situation now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.34.193 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * From 13.8 billion, the universe's age was reduced by "precision cosmology" methods in March 2019 as reported in the Astrophysical Journal to 13 to 12.5 billion, and in September 2019  in the journal Science it was reduced yet again to about 11.4 billion years. So yes, these need to be reported. arxiv.org/abs/1903.07603 science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6458/1134.editor-summary Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)