Is the universe 13.7 billion years old? or 13.7 billion years

>>7794290
you must be 18 years or older to poast here

(it's 13.8 billion years old)

File: retard-baby.jpg (30KB, 492x559px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 492x559px

>>7794290

That is age measured in a fundamental observer. The difference between that time and one measured on earth in negligible.

>>7794290
Funny thing about looking into the night sky, is that some say you are looking into the past. I know that the particles of my body are as the universe now. Everything about my body is in the "past" in relation to everything else. So that my particles can never leave the "past", it should show that the past is an illusion. The given inference that the universe is 13 billions years old, should be correspondent to the idea that given current interpretation that the amount "time" that has so far elapsed would be 13 billion years.

>>7794290
Does it matter?

>>7794308
Does anything matter?

File: 1356958220963.png (274KB, 495x665px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 495x665px

One of the theories of where our universe will end up is that it will eventually condense itself into a very dense single point, out of which another big bang will occur.

What are the chances that this has been happening forever, and that the outcome of the big bang is always the same? Ergo, we're doomed to repeat the same shit over and over in a cycle that spans hundreds of billions of years?

you're move, sci

>>7794402
One of the theories that's wrong

The universe is expanding

>>7794306
The only thing that makes your particles part of the past is the time it takes for your light to reach the observer