Talk:Cosmic age problem

" now believed solved"? by whom?
Those are weasel words in passive voice. They have no citation. Almost any idea is "now believed." But who believes it? And how do you know those believers are correct in their beliefs? Can anyone prove which population of people believing some belief are to be believed in their beliefs? Did someone take a survey to determine the percent of the populace who believes it? Would asking 1000 random people the age of the universe yield consistent results? To justify that statement would be to nail jello to the wall. I delete the words. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC))

I don't really think you have a leg to stand on considering your huffy edits to the article. I find it hard to credit you with a good faith motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.92.152 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like us readers have to decide between people who use weasel words and those who make huffy edits. This is getting too advanced for me. --199.90.157.4 (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Who Stated the Universe Had an Age?
Age is a comparative concept, what exactly are we comparing all of existence to? It is not mentioned here. Surely readers cannot be expected to believe that a timeless construct has "age"? It is suggested to re-classify this problem as pseudoscience as it fails basic reasoning. Wavyinfinity (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly a good point. If you can find a citation in a reliable source that talks about it, we could include it in the article. Have you read anything about this anywhere? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are mis-understanding the problem presented in the article. There were two measurements: the age of the universe, and the age of certain objects. Now, because those objects can only be younger than the universe itself (as they were formed in it), one would expect the measured age of all objects to be less than (or possibly equal to) that of the universe. This article is about the (apparent) conflict where some objects were measured to be older than the universe, which shouldn't be possible. The problem itself *could* be resolved by arguing that the universe is timeless, as you propose. So the stated problem isn't pseudo-science at all, it's a properly scientific conundrum. (Note that I'm not saying the solution to the problem that you propose is scientific.)
 * Also, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean with "age is a comparative concept". --DanielPharos (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed he was referring to time dilation as different parts the the physical universe have experience different amounts of time. I wouldn't call this pseudoscience, but it is a more complex question then it might seem at first look. But it is WP:OR without a citation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Add to that the expansion causing the observable universe to be larger than naively expected (it's not 13.8 billion light-years, but much larger), and the confusion is complete. :)
 * But I think we can both (all?) agree that this at least isn't pseudo-science in itself. It's a valid question/problem that arose, but was (fully?) resolved as the article states. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The other thing that Wavyinfinity might be referring to is the idea that the universe is bigger then the space-time continuum we exist in and that "Universe" could be timeless or simply much older then all the physical matter around us. Perhaps there was something existing before the Big Bang. He might think time is circular or lots of other things about the cosmos. If any of that is true then the question is invalid or needs to be rephrased. Assuming the question is answered requires we assume we know the underlying nature of the Universe and that would only be an assumption, because I do not believe we can be sure. No matter, perusing the question is a scientific pursuit. Even if it is discovered that the question cannot be answered or needs to be rephrased, that would be a contribution to the human body of knowledge. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, we'd simply need to replace "age of the universe" with "age of the Big Bang". But before we put words in Wavyinfinity's mouth, let's give him/her a chance to reply and explain him/her position in more detail. --DanielPharos (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Age is known accurately or precisely?
At the time I read this, there was a snippet at the end the said

"More recent measurements from WMAP and the Planck spacecraft have established a very accurate age of the universe of 13.80 billion years[15] with only 0.3 percent"

I suspect that the word accurate should be changed to precise. I do not know how we can determine accuracy, as almost all methods are highly indirect and theory-laden. For example, while hypotheses such as inflation, dark energy, and dark matter may be accepted (in lieu of superior alternatives), they are extremely poorly understood, and at this time, sound like a just-so story to an outsider. Dpleibovitz (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)