the earth may be older than the universe
What ?! Let us suppose that the Hubble constant is now 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a fair approximation). Then, to obtain the age of the universe by way of the standard model, we divide the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second) by the Hubble constant (50 k/s/m) to obtain its radius (~6000 megaparsecs). Now, one megaparsec is equal to about 3.25 million light years ... so ...
Now, observe what happens if we alter the Hubble constant in accordance with present accelerated expansion theory. Let us suppose an increase to 50,000 k/s/m instead of just 50 k/s/m and do the above calculation. Thus, with this tremendous increase in the Hubble constant we get a very small universe which (if we supposed originated in a primeval fireball aka. the "big bang") is only about
Now, you see what I'm getting at? If there was an Earth then, the inhabitants who used big bang measures to establish the age of the universe would find it to be about 20 million years old while their geologists and other terrestrial scientists would find it to be many billions of years old ... in complete and utter contradiction with the big bang age estimate. They would measure the Earth to be older than the universe that contains it. The same reasoning would apply to less exaggerated increases in the Hubble constant. But ... if the Hubble constant is in fact increasing ... it ought to be possible to find artifacts (globular clusters ?) which are older than the universe which contains them. This is a direct logical consequence of present theory. Now, let us assume that in the past ... ... the Hubble constant was about 25 k/s/m ... Then, to someone living at that time the universe would have appeared to be a much bigger place ... in fact ... twice as big ... and therefore ... twice as old ... not about 13 billion years old but rather about 26 billion years old. In fact, we can 'fraction' the Hubble constant into smaller and smaller sizes and make a universe of any desired age whatsoever, i.e. the age of the universe is a function of the changing Hubble constant. In view of the fact that entropy occurs at all levels, we can only conclude that the universe is of finite age. Therefore, if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating with time, we must discard it entirely as a mechanism for estimating the age of the universe. It can in no way be reliable. But if the Hubble radius is not contracting with time (as accelerated expansion models demand) ... and ... galaxies are NOT falling out of sight beyond the Hubble radius ... we CAN use the present expansion extent for an estimate of the age of the universe. And my personal theory remains intact ... unfalsified because we cannot have the universe as an 'integer count' if there is a net subtraction.
