Reading the responses, I think I need to explain a little more fully what I meant.
My remark was intented as an explanation of one of the parents' statement: "distant means younger" when observing astronomical objects. We are not talking here about the age of the object per se (how old is the star I see, etc.), but about the age of the observation (how long ago did that happen, what I see just now). Every look into the sky is a look into the past. But also every look around you is a look into the past.
With "the oldest thing in the universe", I did mean the particles that form you (not you as a specific formation of such particles). If we say that everything of the universe started at the same time, then the atoms closest to you are the oldest things in the universe you can observe. Objectively, of course, every particle has the same age, even though it might be beyond the event horizon and never be observable. (I am simplifying somewhat here, leaving the spontanous coming and going of particles in the vaccum out of the picture.)
My remark was intented as an explanation of one of the parents' statement: "distant means younger" when observing astronomical objects. We are not talking here about the age of the object per se (how old is the star I see, etc.), but about the age of the observation (how long ago did that happen, what I see just now). Every look into the sky is a look into the past. But also every look around you is a look into the past.
With "the oldest thing in the universe", I did mean the particles that form you (not you as a specific formation of such particles). If we say that everything of the universe started at the same time, then the atoms closest to you are the oldest things in the universe you can observe. Objectively, of course, every particle has the same age, even though it might be beyond the event horizon and never be observable. (I am simplifying somewhat here, leaving the spontanous coming and going of particles in the vaccum out of the picture.)