John Smith wrote:
Where is the 12.5 billion year age of the universe given, I will recheck,
but the universe is much older...
You sure that is not the age of our galaxy?

I was remembering an earlier estimate. The latest is:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_030211.html

"The new data show the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, to within
200 million years, Bennett said."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Yes, Cecil:

Yes, I agree, most are in agreement, at the VERY LEAST, that the universe is
younger than twenty-billion-years old, I concede, I concede!!!! I surrender
even!!!

tearing-off-white-boxers-to-use-as-"flag of truce!" grin



Warmest regards,

John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
| Where is the 12.5 billion year age of the universe given, I will
recheck,
| but the universe is much older...
| You sure that is not the age of our galaxy?
|
| I was remembering an earlier estimate. The latest is:
|
| http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ry_030211.html
|
| "The new data show the universe to be 13.7 billion years old, to within
| 200 million years, Bennett said."
| --
| 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----