Age of the UniverseAge of the unified Universe

What is the age of the unified Universe?

Status quo thinkers modeling reality will tell you that the age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Recently a number of scientists think the real number is twice that, but they are gasping and grasping for traction for the basis of the clues before them. We are about to give them the needed traction to drive their suspicions home. There are a number of issues that need to be unpacked in this question, but the short answer is a range between about 26 billion, to well over 106 billion, and others ancient in the unfathomable extreme. Here’s why that number is hard to pin down. The very first thing we have to do is understand what we mean by “Universe”. Here what we mean is the unified Universe and just from what we know about that the real answer to ‘that’ question is the latter ‘ancient in the unfathomable extreme’ answer. Again, here’s why that is. The WMAP data about a decade ago was analyzed again and produced some ‘statistically significant circles’. While mysterious to the authors of those papers, they made complete sense to us, but they also suggest that the actual size of the unified Universe is well beyond our particle horizon. Which is why the actual answer is unfathomable. Consequently there is a discussion to be had inside our particle horizon vs external to it, and as you will see below mode shifting z-factors will weigh in significantly in that discussion. Secondly the implication then is also that there is a distinction between what is inside our particle horizon and the actual real unified Universe. One of those implications inevitably led to the Bang to Bang characterization in our original systems review notes.

Mode Shifting The Question

Einstein - Hubble meeting
Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument
Fukang Pallasite Meteorite

Mode shifting this question is actually more involved than perhaps this article has real estate to unpack, but we will give it a simplex attempt. First understand that the term ‘c’ mode shifts its definition away from the speed of light under M1 and M2 to mean the process which results in that same velocity called under M5: Severance. The velocity is the same, but why it is true is different. We get into that elsewhere on this website. There are broad implications from this that ripple across science. One implication is that the term Rapidity (e.g. Concept Sieve: EMCS01Concept 0168), designated by the term beta (Latex formula) has its definition changed such that here it means velocity over Severance. Once fully mode shifted and we subsequently re-read the array of equations where the term ‘c’ shows up it makes a great deal more sense. The mechanics of the mathematics does not change but the meaning of various terms, parameters, and constants do change because the relationships and patterns comprising them often does change. Significantly the limits imposed by M1 and M2 completely vanish under M5 completely vindicating Edwin P Hubble. The point of this paragraph was to set up the fact that these factors and others dismantle the inflationary theory, completely remove limitations on cosmological velocities for the speed of light; all of which distinguishes local velocities, measured by interferometer experiments, is different from cosmological velocities measured using spectroscopic analysis. These insights completely and fundamentally redefine the term z-factors which previously referred to expansion of spacetime to mean multiples of the speed of light cosmologically. Subsequently we then must complete reassess those z-factors across the WMAP data, astronomy, and all space sciences to get a true size and age of the known unified Universe. Because that work is yet to be done we can not, at this time, place an age date. We must take a stab at some range, and that is the discussion you will find in the original systems review notes from 2012 here.


The phrase ‘particle horizon’ refers to the furthest point, given the speed of light, that any signal could ever reach the Earth since the Big Bang. How far away that horizon is depends on how you consider the details of that particular event and why it banged in the first place. Much of that strongly depends on which Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM) you adhere to in your belief system. Ardent and staunch scientists and engineers may bristle at the use of the phrase ‘belief system’ because they believe in empirical fact. Bear with us a sec. Empiricism is an epistemology, which in turn is the philosophy of knowledge. Susanne K Langer, in 1948, made the case for what we now refer to as Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), which occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. There is something of a very slippery slope when such mistakes are made and that slope accelerates one directly into what we now call LEEs Empricism Trap, which is a specific type of logic trap made manifest by human physiology in combination with empiricism. The only exit from that trap we are aware of is Elegant Reasonism. When we recognize the value of Elegant Reasonism‘s utility process employing its technological framework epistemologically supporting truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science we realize that humanity philosophically has a net new epistemology in the form of Elegant Reasonism.

That said, mode shifting the ‘particle horizon’ then directly impacts how old we believe the age of the unified Universe to be, both inside of and well beyond our particle horizon. This discussion gets amplified when we back up and consider the implications and ramification of the unified Universe Bang to Bang. We can normalize Hubble’s data and determine material expansion rates inside our particle horizon, but we can only infer what lay beyond that boundary. For now though we have a very good idea of why the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is seeing what it is.

Simplex Proof

Most of the elements on the Periodic Table are created through nucleosynthesis and by supernovas (stars blowing up), and yes this happens all the time. This is the only means to create that set of elements. That means they are exclusive to those processes. When stars do go supernova they throw material back out into space. Astronomers can measure the rates (e.g. velocities) of that material. Usually something ~10,000 kilometers per second, which by highway standards might seem fast, but in the grand scheme of interstellar space is very slow. There is a type of star called blazars which eject material at relativistic velocities but they are a different subject. Here we are interested in key element forming processes and their results.

Setting aside the previous discussions it should be noted that some supernova may produce z-factor rated materials (e.g. superluminal, see discussion on Rapidity – e.g. Concept Sieve: EMCS01Concept 0168) likely due to cosomological influences. The question then becomes just how far away are these things and those answers come in something called the lightyear. That is the distance light can travel in one standard year as measured here on Earth. Now, stand up wherever you are and go outside and look for some rocks. Heavily mineralized rocks are better. Heft one in your hand. Minerals are formed from physical and chemical interactions between elements. The elements in that rock came from a supernova. If you use the atomic number of those elements and then look at them through the lens of astrochemistry, you can do a bit of regression analysis on them to compare the statistical odds those particular, and specific, elements came together by random chance out of a gas cloud forming the Earth or if they were produced during a supernova event. If your results look like ours then you find that analysis favors the latter case not the first case. Now heft that rock again. That rock is in your hand, and interesting as it may be that you are likely holding a supernova remnant there is something even more astounding.  The truly astounding insight is that material crossed interstellar distances to arrive in your hand. Pull out a calculator and play around with how far away you think that supernova was, exactly. After you get some distance ranges is about when you are going to start comparing those numbers with how old everyone believes the age of the universe actually is. Supernovas whose ejecta could not possibly reach us because the universe is not that old can be removed from your list, right? What happens to your list though if the age of the unified Universe grows exceptionally ancient in the extreme. Your candidate supernova list just increased accordingly. Heft that rock again. It is in your hand. It did get here, because it is in your hand. Consider pallasite meteorites. They have a nickel iron matrix surrounding olivine. Go compare the elements comprising olivine and then compare that to stellar nucleosynthesis burn layers before, during and after a supernova. Go to a rock swap in your town and see if anyone has a piece of one of these types of meteroites there. Heft that in your hand. Look at the image to the left. What are the odds that specific configuration of materials would form out of random insterstellar gas. Why those particular elements? Again, look at stellar nucleosynthesis and ask yourself those questions all over again. Then pull your calculator back out. Pallasite meteorites are here. You can hold a piece of one in your hand. Heft it. Because you can do that means it crossed the interstellar distance to get here. What does that reinforce about how old you think the unified Universe actually is?

Look very closely at your rocks. It may seem unremarkable. It may also show signs of aerodynamic heating. If it does chances are it was flung through the atmosphere for some period of time, but that’s a different story. Right now astrominerology is essential to the history of that rock in your hand. We have set aside discussions of superfluids or astrominerology during the interval in interstellar space. See Event Frame Phase Step 2 (EFPS2)  – the interval.

Other types of proof points exist, and many are discussed in the original systems review notes available here.

Original Systems Review Discussion on Age of the Universe

We point out that our notes were released to reviewers in 2012, a decade ago. So our opinion is not a recent shift by any measure. In fact our development of our conclusions occurred much earlier than that even.


Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #AgeOfTheUniverse

By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: