what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[John Caldwell]

Don't know. Since time began with the expansion during the BB, then I suppose "first" would be the singularity, but it's not really the right way to think about it. The term "first" is dependent on time, and asking what there was before time makes about as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.

Ahhhhh....philosophy. I like philosophy more than science. It's funner.

 

[SelfSim]

Wow this discussion is really active at the moment, so I am replying to something you stated on page 7.
A mathematical year is a year that is based on mathematical speculation. A real year is a year that actually happened.

Ok .. so does 365.25 days really happen then?

When I was younger, I remember "they" changed the time of the dinosaur from 130 mio years ago to 65 mio years ago. I thought, that is a heck many years to go wrong. Then I realized, hm, this is based purely on mathematical speculation.
Scientists do not have a calendar in front of them. They only have their mathematical formulas, but somehow most people accept that anyway.

Logical principles, logical inferences and axioms are used to prove theorems in mathematics.
Theorems are not speculations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

angular momentum is what to me finishes the BB model. The 13.7B years number is hinged on the BB model. That is the connection.

Since the 13.7B years age is now generally viewed as a fact, then it stands to reason, that if something holds such a weight in our society, it has to be more than a loose saturday night theory. Someone stated that it is to this day the best model that we can produce. OK. But when I attack the model for a serious flaw, it simply stands that the model is not good enough to account for major phenomena, and therefore it should not be credited such weight.

Ok. I appreciare that you've shared your method and/or some degree of analysis and have (thus far) concluded that the BB model doesn't deserve to be credited the weight that it has been given by the established intelligentsia.

What scientific model should I replace it with then, Peter?

 

[atpollard]

What scientific model should I replace it with then, Peter?

While I am not Peter, I was always partial to those Earth-centric models with the complex clockworks gears within gears. I don’t believe them, but a “steampunk” creator tickles my imagination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While I am not Peter, I was always partial to those Earth-centric models with the complex clockworks gears within gears. I don’t believe them, but a “steampunk” creator tickles my imagination.

Those do look fun to play with, I must admit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When I was younger, I remember "they" changed the time of the dinosaur from 130 mio years ago to 65 mio years ago. I thought, that is a heck many years to go wrong. Then I realized, hm, this is based purely on mathematical speculation.
Scientists do not have a calendar in front of them. They only have their mathematical formulas, but somehow most people accept that anyway.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Dinosaurs (non-avian, of course, I had avian dinosaur for dinner Thursday) lived for a very long time. With out checking, I would not be surprised if they already lived 130 Myr ago. They *ended* about 65 Myr ago (the more precise numbers I remember seeing recently was 66 Myr ago). Determining the end of the age of the dinosaurs requires finding layers of rock that have dinosaur bones and ones that don't and dating them. The dating methods are not simple, but the are also not controversial in scientific circles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Example: The solar system is believed to have come out of a supernova that was rotating, so the rotation of planets is due to the cloud of gas already being in rotation. But how did the supernova / the cloud of gas start rotating in the first place.

No. The Solar system did not form from a rotating supernova. Supernovae are expanding, the early solar system was collapsing.

How do small patches of the universe start to rotate? Easy. Start with any non-rotating uniform gas and inject a non-rotating disturbance (for example a jet of gas puffed into it. Alternatively you could think of a person walking in a straight line into a uniform block of air). When the intruding gas pushes the larger medium aside it starts to rotate. With one rotation sense on one side and the other on the opposite side. The net angular momentum is still zero, but there are now localized pockets of rotation.

This happens all the time with fluid-fluid interactions forming localized pockets of rotation. In a large molecular cloud there will be many randomly oriented pockets of low-level rotation that lead to the randomly oriented star systems when they collapse.

 

[Astrophile]

Wow this discussion is really active at the moment, so I am replying to something you stated on page 7.
A mathematical year is a year that is based on mathematical speculation. A real year is a year that actually happened.

When I was younger, I remember "they" changed the time of the dinosaur from 130 mio years ago to 65 mio years ago. I thought, that is a heck many years to go wrong. Then I realized, hm, this is based purely on mathematical speculation.
Scientists do not have a calendar in front of them. They only have their mathematical formulas, but somehow most people accept that anyway.

This is quite wrong, or at best it is based on a misunderstanding. I own books that were published before you were born, or at least before you learnt to read, that give the date of the end of the Cretaceous and the final extinction of the dinosaurs, at 65-70 million years ago. According to the same books, 130 million years ago was during the Early Cretaceous, or near to the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, when dinosaurs dominated the landscape. The dinosaurs made their first appearance during the Triassic period, between about 200 million and 240 million years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is quite wrong. I own books that were published before you were born, or at least before you learnt to read, that give the date of the end of the Cretaceous and the final extinction of the dinosaurs, at 65-70 million years ago. According to the same books, 130 million years ago was during the Early Cretaceous, or near to the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, and the dinosaurs made their first appearance during the Triassic period, between about 200 million and 240 million years ago.

Science moves their boundaries as necessary to force-fit their interpretation of data.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science moves their boundaries as necessary to force-fit their interpretation of data.

No. Actually, science is recursive, open to scrutiny and self-correcting, kind of like how Bible Hermeneutics should be if and when we employ the Hermeneutical Circle/Spiral.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Actually, science is recursive, open to scrutiny and self-correcting, kind of like how Bible Hermeneutics should be if and when we employ the Hermeneutical Circle/Spiral.

Show me something that the Bible says, that was corrected later.

[Be aware that I love debating the geocentric interpretation.]

 

[sjastro]

I do really appreciate that you take part in this discussion with all your specialized knowledge.

Thanks.
I'm simply offering the science perspective which doesn't involve making guesses or having some religious adherence towards theory.
The objective of science is to disprove its own theories such as the 100+ years in trying to show general relativity is wrong.

I understand that the only thing we can really measure with respect to distances in the universe is the red shift. Even doing a simple triangulation has only succeeded for the nearest star as far as I remember.

This is not correct.
The Hubble Space telescope apart of taking pretty pictures is able to make accurate measurements of stellar positions resulting in parallax capability extending out to around 10,000 light years.
By comparison the nearest star Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years distant.

Another objective of the Hubble is to discover standard candles which are stars which vary in brightness periodically and can be used for distance measurements.
The apparent brightness of a star depends on the inverse square law, double the distance decreases the brightness by a quarter, triple the distance by a nineth etc.
The apparent brightness can be measured and if the absolute brightness or luminosity is also known the distance of the star can be calculated.
In the early 20th century astronomers discovered there was a relationship between the luminosity of a variable star and its period and as a result two types of variable stars the Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars are used as standard candles.
Within the 10,000 light year distance limit the Hubble can calibrate the standard candle using parallax measurements.
For much longer distances type 1a supernovae are used to determine distance.
The relationship between redshift and distance comes from Hubble's law.

​

In your original post #92 (what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?) you made statements that sounded like the angular momentum is a simple effect of space-time. If you believe that I would be really interested that you can elaborate on that.

I thought I made it clear angular momentum is not an effect of space-time as with velocity and linear momentum as these represent examples of motion within space-time not of expansion of space-time itself.
There is an effect known as frame dragging where massive objects either having angular or linear momentum can drag space-time along with it but this is not what you are describing and the effects are extremely small.

Example: The solar system is believed to have come out of a supernova that was rotating, so the rotation of planets is due to the cloud of gas already being in rotation. But how did the supernova / the cloud of gas start rotating in the first place.

@Hans Blaster has provided an excellent response to thus.

 

[sjastro]

Here is the detailed timeline for the Big Bang evolution of the universe.

​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Show me something that the Bible says, that was corrected later.

[Be aware that I love debating the geocentric interpretation.]

No, I'm not going to sidetrack us into a tanget about proper Biblical Hermeneutics here, AV. I was only intending to make a comparison of concepts and methods respective to both Physical Science and Biblical Hermeneutics. So, I won't.

 

[SelfSim]

I understand that the only thing we can really measure with respect to distances in the universe is the red shift. Even doing a simple triangulation has only succeeded for the nearest star as far as I remember.

This is not correct.
The Hubble Space telescope apart of taking pretty pictures is able to make accurate measurements of stellar positions resulting in parallax capability extending out to around 10,000 light years.
By comparison the nearest star Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years distant.

Its difficult understand exactly what is being challenged by @PeterDona (?)
For example:

A mathematical year is a year that is based on mathematical speculation. A real year is a year that actually happened.

It seems he may be challenging the validity of the very basic math operations in calculating distances from direct measurable quantities (say, in parallax calculations), and then converting to light years using the constancy of c as the reference(?)

As in his above quote, he seems to be inferring there's a 'non real' difference somehow introduced when performing these basic math calculations, which then renders them as 'speculations'(?)

I look forward to his clarification.

 

[sjastro]

Its difficult understand exactly what is being challenged by @PeterDona (?)
For example:
It seems he may be challenging the validity of the very basic math operations in calculating distances from direct measurable quantities (say, in parallax calculations), and then converting to light years using the constancy of c as the reference(?)

As in his above quote, he seems to be inferring there's a 'non real' difference somehow introduced when performing these basic math calculations, which then renders them as 'speculations'(?)

I look forward to his clarification.

Parallax calculations are based on trigonometry which has been around since 150 BC.
The Earth's orbit is the baseline but NASA used the Earth-New Horizons as a baseline which is far larger to demonstrate the parallax of Proxima Centauri.

 

[46AND2]

No, I'm not going to sidetrack us into a tanget about proper Biblical Hermeneutics here, AV. I was only intending to make a comparison of concepts and methods respective to both Physical Science and Biblical Hermeneutics. So, I won't.

That's disappointing. I was going to give an example I'm sure you'd agree with, but he don't wanna hear it from me.

 

[46AND2]

Thanks.
I'm simply offering the science perspective which doesn't involve making guesses or having some religious adherence towards theory.
The objective of science is to disprove its own theories such as the 100+ years in trying to show general relativity is wrong.


This is not correct.
The Hubble Space telescope apart of taking pretty pictures is able to make accurate measurements of stellar positions resulting in parallax capability extending out to around 10,000 light years.
By comparison the nearest star Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years distant.

Another objective of the Hubble is to discover standard candles which are stars which vary in brightness periodically and can be used for distance measurements.
The apparent brightness of a star depends on the inverse square law, double the distance decreases the brightness by a quarter, triple the distance by a nineth etc.
The apparent brightness can be measured and if the absolute brightness or luminosity is also known the distance of the star can be calculated.
In the early 20th century astronomers discovered there was a relationship between the luminosity of a variable star and its period and as a result two types of variable stars the Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars are used as standard candles.
Within the 10,000 light year distance limit the Hubble can calibrate the standard candle using parallax measurements.
For much longer distances type 1a supernovae are used to determine distance.
The relationship between redshift and distance comes from Hubble's law.

​

I thought I made it clear angular momentum is not an effect of space-time as with velocity and linear momentum as these represent examples of motion within space-time not of expansion of space-time itself.
There is an effect known as frame dragging where massive objects either having angular or linear momentum can drag space-time along with it but this is not what you are describing and the effects are extremely small.


@Hans Blaster has provided an excellent response to thus.

Thank you for putting in the time you do. You were patient and prolific before my year long hiatus, and you continue still.

 

[46AND2]

Its difficult understand exactly what is being challenged by @PeterDona (?)
For example:
It seems he may be challenging the validity of the very basic math operations in calculating distances from direct measurable quantities (say, in parallax calculations), and then converting to light years using the constancy of c as the reference(?)

As in his above quote, he seems to be inferring there's a 'non real' difference somehow introduced when performing these basic math calculations, which then renders them as 'speculations'(?)

I look forward to his clarification.

Indeed. Hence my comment a while back that he would, by rationale, need to disregard Calculus entirely....

Which is odd considering he claims to be a physics teacher. Must be algebra based physics for non-STEM students.

 

[46AND2]

.