"Embedded Age" and Why it's Wrong

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Big Bang theology is also indistinguishable from Omphalos.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old yet shows signs that it is 75 to 150 billion.

*A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology (Lerner 1990).

Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.* -- Source

According to the Big Bang model, there are objects in the universe that are much more mature than the universe itself -- embedded age.

Naah. The large scale structures of the universe fit very well within the big bang model.

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes! How did you know!?

Eddie has all the inside info on that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old

Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.

<ggggg> refining. They keep refining it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Big Bang theology is also indistinguishable from Omphalos.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe is only around 13.7 billion years old yet shows signs that it is 75 to 150 billion.

*A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported even larger structures. As per their findings, the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology (Lerner 1990).

Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.* -- Source

According to the Big Bang model, there are objects in the universe that are much more mature than the universe itself -- embedded age.

Your source is a fringe writer publishing in a vanity journal pushing a set of very fringe views. Having read the paper today, and a few others of his and a few more at Cosmology.com, I'd be inclined to ask for a second opinion.

Its good that people are out there challenging the standard model (just look at some of the stuff coming out of CERN at the moment), but I'll wait until there's a more comprehensive examination before abandoning the current estimation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

<ggggg> refining. They keep refining it.

They keep adjusting the atomic clock also.

 

[Zosimus]

Even after recalculations, oldest known star still older than the universe itself.

http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html

Keep recalibrating guys.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Even after recalculations, oldest known star still older than the universe itself.

http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html

Keep recalibrating guys.

Gee, I guess you didn't read the whole article, because it has this in it:

The uncertainty Bond refers to is plus or minus 800 million years, which means the star could actually be 13.7 billion years old — younger than the universe as it's currently understood, though just barely.

 

[Zosimus]

Gee, I guess you didn't read the whole article, because it has this in it:

Oh, I read it just fine. I also understand the meaning of the word "could."

The star could be as old as 15.3 billion years old. The Big Bang theory claims that the universe was created some 13.8 billion years ago. The best estimate of the age of the star is 14.5 billion years old. Again, this is older than the supposed age of the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

The star could be as old as 15.3 billion years old.

It could be as young as 13.7 billion years old.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Oh, I read it just fine. I also understand the meaning of the word "could."

The star could be as old as 15.3 billion years old. The Big Bang theory claims that the universe was created some 13.8 billion years ago. The best estimate of the age of the star is 14.5 billion years old. Again, this is older than the supposed age of the universe.

Well, I'm quite satisfied that the star is not older than the universe that contains the star. I'm also satisfied that the age of the universe is established somewhat more securely than the age of that star.

 

[Pink Spider]

____________________
____________________

MOD HAT ON

This thread underwent a minor
cleanup by CF-Staff.

Please remember that Goading is
not allowed anywhere on CF

MOD HAT OFF
____________________
____________________
​

 

[TLK Valentine]

Holy guacamole they keep changing the number for how old the universe is.

Sorry, what number did you come up with?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Sorry, what number did you come up with?

I never ran the math on that myself. It does not much matter to me. I ran the math once to try and figure out the length of the first day. To figure out the spindown rate of the earth. That was pretty easy to do.

 

[crjmurray]

I never ran the math on that myself. It does not much matter to me. I ran the math once to try and figure out the length of the first day. To figure out the spindown rate of the earth. That was pretty easy to do.

Go on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rather --- what He created it with.

How He created it is called creatio ex nihilo.Correct.Incorrect --- the earth is not 6000 years old --- it is 4.57 billion years old. Remember: God embedded age into it. If the earth was 6000 years old, then that means that God embedded only 6000 years into it the day he created it some 6100 years ago, making it some 12,100 years old now.Incorrect --- Embedded Age is defined as "maturity without history" (qv 1), whereas Omphalos is defined as "maturity with history". In other words, Omphalos is embedded history, not embedded age.There is none, as embedding age did not leave an audit trail.I don't know about "all other coal", but for the most part, that is correct. Before the Flood, during the Flood, after the Flood --- whenever.Not in Genesis 1, though --- you're making a leap of 2500 years into the future by bringing up the Flood, which has nothing to do with the Creation Week. Of course it would "appear old" --- because it is old.No it wasn't --- you're making it sound like it only appears old --- it is, however, in actuality --- old.

Bumped for RealityCheck01

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ty to AV for sharing his theory. Its a good example of a counterexample to mainstream thought.

William James came up with the idea of an proposition's "cash value" - ie what practical bearing would it have if I were to believe such and such to be the truth. I think the "cash value" of embedded age is it allows AV1611VET to believe in the bible, and to go to church with a clear enough conscience.

OTOH the cash value of evolution for some of us, is sometimes it can be used as leverage to de-convert Christians.

Think of all those variations in the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Now, if one of them could be shown to undermine faith, would there be a motivation to believe in it from an atheist perspective?

Similarly, "embedded age" is fun and interesting. Its probably taken seriously because of the religious ramifications. But on its own its just one of those quirks that our limited reason allows us to believe in. It "adds up" but its like those 'eipcycles' in Ptolmeic astronomy - the maths is much hard work...

 

[AnotherAtheist]

OTOH the cash value of evolution for some of us, is sometimes it can be used as leverage to de-convert Christians.

Think of all those variations in the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Now, if one of them could be shown to undermine faith, would there be a motivation to believe in it from an atheist perspective?

Speaking for myself, science and scientific theories do not have a cash value in terms of de-converting Christians. Nor would I be more likely to believe in something due to 'added value' if it de-converted Christians. I personally want to believe in things that are true. And science has incredible value in enabling the human race to do things, and do things better. That's it's value.

It's more or less irrelevant to me whether people believe in God and Jesus unless those beliefs are expressed in ways that make the world a worse place. E.g. science-denial to preserve religious beliefs spilling over into denying science in general. Or morals being enforced (e.g. laws) which are not the best set of societal morals that we could have.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ty to AV for sharing his theory. Its a good example of a counterexample to mainstream thought.

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[dad]

Speaking for myself, science and scientific theories do not have a cash value in terms of de-converting Christians. Nor would I be more likely to believe in something due to 'added value' if it de-converted Christians.

Science not realizing it is inspired, does not mean it is not inspired.

I tend to look at the results...the fruit. Does the fables and origin stories garner faith in God, or doubt?

And science has incredible value in enabling the human race to do things, and do things better.

Not all things it enables sinners to do are good for the planet..or mankind.

Or morals being enforced (e.g. laws) which are not the best set of societal morals that we could have.

Dog eat dog animalistic godless morals are not the best set on the block actually.