How do they measure a distance of 1 billion light years, much less the 156 billion light year size of univrse?
First of all, the universe is not 156 billion light-years across, but just 93 billion light years. That means, the furthest point we can possibly observe is 46.5 billion light years away. The article you posted is not just 5 years old, it is also factually wrong. The space.com people mistook the 78 billion light years, calculated by WMAP as minimum diameter! of the universe by observation of the cosmic microwave background, for the radius of the universe and doubled it. The minimum radius means, that the universe can't be smaller than 78 billion light-years in radius. Objects, which are one billion light-years away, would be beyond the "end of greatness" - you can't see individual stars or galaxies from 320 million light-years on. For such objects, you can't use short-range distance calculation methods, like for example searching for Cepheid variables. The most common way is using the redshift of objects. You take the spectrum of the light and calculate how far it is shifted towards longer wavelengths by the Doppler effect, by searching for special absorption lines in the light. From the Redshift, you can calculate the distance of the object, by using Hubbles law - the known rate of expansion of space, 70 km per second per one million parsec. If it is one billion parsec (one parsec is 3.2 light years, it is a more useful unit of distance for such long distances) away, the object would be approximately moving away from Earth by 70,000 km/s - and if it is moving away by 7,000 km/s, it is 100 Mpc away. If you know this observed distance, you can then calculate the comoving distance of the object, by again including the expansion of space into it. The comoving distance is the distance of an object today, as the light way emitted from a closer position one billion years ago.
If the universe is close to 13.8 billion years old, then how can some stars be about 13 billion light years away? Wouldn't they have had to travel at the speed of light to get to where they are?
The idea is space can “inflate” faster than light even if the light within space only moves at the speed of light. The universal expansion of matter, the original “big bang” has already been falsified as an explanation for the current state of the universe so the universal inflation of space had to be added to it or the Big Bang would have been falsified. The trouble is the universal inflation of space is also problematic: Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces ChallengesNew dark energy debate throws doubt on universe expansion theoryhttps://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2017/04/10/researchers-doubt-the-existence-of-dark-energy/Hubris is as common to science as to politics, the entire theory is mostly a scientific bubble, refuting evidence is ignored and only supporting evidence considered, its even claimed that the theory must be right because there is no other!This body of theory suggests both our interpretation of Einsteinian relativity and of Copenhagen quantum mechanics is the problem, this is why relativity and quantum mechanics contradict one another.Cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics also contradict one another but the laws of thermodynamics are swept under the big bang rug, its claimed that looking under the rug to try to explain where and when the big bang came from is unreasonable, that way the theory need not be reasonable ether, there is no where or when to address.relativity makes this easy by denying the universe has its own existence outside an observers frame of reference, time and space are supposed to have no independent state.since quantum mechanics does not support relativity nor relativity quantum mechanics we need to put ether relativity, quantum mechanics or both on consideration for chopping block, but these are loved and highly socially supported ideas that nearly all physics careers have been founded on, no one wants to admit a bubble is a bubble, especially not if the bubble advanced their social or economic agenda.They who are invested with the status quo almost never buck the status quo, its a general rule. To find new theories we must go outside the bubble, from our comfortable position inside the bubble we can not see the danger, the “pop!” is nearly always a surprise.Here is a body of theory from outside the bubble: Prof. J.P. Paul Wesley
If the diameter of the universe is 93 bill light yrs, how do we know that it isn't older than 14 bill yrs?
I understand how the diameter of the observable universe can be 93 billion light years across even if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old (since the Big Bang), due to the process of space inflation in the earlier history of the universe... since space inflated faster than the speed of light and the objects we can see today at 46.5 billion light years away were once much closer to our point in space when the light emitted from them first began to travel toward us. Now since they are much farther away, and continually expanding farther out as well, we can see red light waves coming from them which confirms this. I also understand all the evidence supporting the notion that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. I'm just confused on a couple things... How far away is the most distant object we can see today (the edge of the observable universe)? Wouldn't it have to be 46.5 billion light years away? Given that is the edge of the observable universe, do we have any idea as to how large the actual universe might be? How do we know? Will the light emitted from objects beyond the edge of the observable universe ever be able to reach us (I'm assuming not, given the universe keeps expanding rapidly)? I've also read other sources that have said the most distant object we can see is 13.7 billion light years away. How is this true if this contradicts the fact that we can see that the observable universe has a radius of 46.5 billion light years?