# Talk:Age of the universe

## 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)

## 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)

## 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. WilyD 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#Hubble_time 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)

## Capitalization of universe

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. sroc 💬 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#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. 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#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. 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). WilyD 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)

## 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 universeAge 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)

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:

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

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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