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

[Astrid]

Because the light would get here eventually. Which would tell us how far away the source was. Which would tell us how old it was. Why make everything relatively young and then try to kid us that it's old?

Sorry @Estrid. Couldn't help myself.

Suture self.

 

[Bradskii]

I came for an interesting discussion on a scientific topic. But I'm staying for the entertainment value.

 

[Astrid]

Words don't have permanent meanings, pronunciations, or spellings. They change with time. Deal with it. The term "science" is one of those. What we call "science" now was once known as "natural philosophy" until a few hundred years ago. When it says "science" in Timothy it IS NOT speaking of things like geology or chemistry or astronomy. That is completely anachronistic.



I have no idea what this means.

I don't know what "heaping teachers" could possibly mean.

Nor do I know what "inching ears" (probably itching?) have to do with anything.



I have no use for philosophers. There is at least one person on this thread who could verify this.

Here's one who thinks there's nobody more tiresome.
Not even my old uncle late of the Red Guard who
wants to tell me how the Revolution was sold out.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[sjastro]

I never called you a Nazi. But keep lying. Whatever makes you want to feel better. Just like the folks accusing Veith because they are childish.

I was giving an example how the Nazis used propaganda and fake science. But clearly you just want to find excuses for denying the evidence so you have to fall on ad hominem type arguments or go re-read. You’re confused.

And here we have psychology of projection at work.
Were you called a liar, lazy, childish, blind etc?
Why don't we the discuss the issue you avoided like the plague; Veith's commentary about angular momentum.
I made it perfectly clear why this is nonsense it's up to you show otherwise instead of engaging in hysterical diversions.

 

[Andre_b]

I came for an interesting discussion on a scientific topic. But I'm staying for the entertainment value.

Nah you’re just here for entertainment and sowing discord amongst people. It’s clear you don’t like science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is it possible you could in some easy words explain some of this CMB connection.

I'll give it a try. We may need a little back and forth.

i do understand that when a theory is able to make predictions that then later prove to be factual, that shows that the theory is a strong theory.

That is a common features of good theories. They predict things that haven't been found yet. In this case the existence of the CMB was predicted by BB theory. The precise value helps refine the specifics of the model.

I also heard that the CMB is not uniform. This may be off topic however.

There are fluctuations in the temperature. They are quite small and the angular size (reflecting there physical dimension in the past) indicate things about the history of the universe. These are the seeds of large scale structure in the Universe.

thanks

No problem.

 

[Andre_b]

And here we have psychology of projection at work.
Were you called a liar, lazy, childish, blind etc?
Why don't we the discuss the issue you avoided like the plague; Veith's commentary about angular momentum.
I made it perfectly clear why this is nonsense it's up to you show otherwise instead of engaging in hysterical diversions.

Lol one point was nonsense? Yet why was it nonsense? And that’s the only point you got huh? Explain why moons are rotating the opposite direction if your big bang philosophy had a spin since that was their idea of why everything rotates. The universe, Galaxies, planets, solar systems, etc etc. Oh right they probably removed that part of their philosophy because of that probably. Yet others hold on to it.

yes lots of people have responded childish responses and lied. What’s your point? I never called anyone a Nazi yet I was told I did. That’s a lie. Simple.

and yes people areIGNORING facts of OTHER possibilities. That’s willful blinding oneself because for whatever reason they cannot stand the other possibility because they would need to maybe just maybe change their life for the actual better. But not everyone wants what’s best for some reason. It’s a heart issue.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol you’re childish really. I’m simply stating a fact that AT THE TIME SOMETHING IS WRITTEN IT HAS A DEFINITION AND DICTIONARY FOR THAT TIME. You’re desperate.

Do you know what "psychological projection" is?

At the time it was written it looked like this:

γνωσεως

which transliterates as "gnoseos" (you might recognize the relation to the term "Gnostic" regarding early Christianity).

The Greek term for nature was φύσις at the time. So if you want to use dictionaries, we need to use a 1st Century Greek dictionary, not a 17th Century English dictionary.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uhh it is much much faster to watch someone explain and show videos than reading words trying to explain all those details. Haven’t you heart the expression “a picture is worth a thousand words” imagine a motion picture.

That's one way to think about it, but being the academically minded person that I (on good days) tend to be, I'm often suspicious of videos for condensing too many things and leaving details out that I'd prefer to learn.

Hence, the reason why I'd rather READ something like Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" than watch some expurgated video of the same essential content.

My friend, I was an atheist for quite some time and studied things out a lot. This society of needing everything to be a PhD or you know nothing is ignorance of the highest order. Those wonderful Nazi scientists must all have had PhDs to prove that the Jews were apparently not quite human and so were African decent people. Sickening really. Science has often been used as a tool with authority and terribly at times and many times. False science goes deep. Actually the Bible explains this fairly well.

You're preaching to the choir on all of this ...

So choose life.

I already did.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Andre_b]

Do you know what "psychological projection" is?

At the time it was written it looked like this:

γνωσεως

which transliterates as "gnoseos" (you might recognize the relation to the term "Gnostic" regarding early Christianity).

The Greek term for nature was φύσις at the time. So if you want to use dictionaries, we need to use a 1st Century Greek dictionary, not a 17th Century English dictionary.

Lol you imply a lot. Just like your big bang philosophy.

Yes the foolish gnostics FAKE knowledge, exactly like today’s folks with the Big Bang philosophy pretending to be knowledge. And many more foolish fads people jump on today. Like the eugenics fad, Nazis science was also a terrible fad. All fake knowledge. Hence the definition for it fits well for that time and today.

It’s still the definition of knowing or knowledge. Just because a group called themselves with part if the word, doesn’t mean if wasn’t saying the same thing.

you try really hard to debunk something with strawman tactics.

you folks sound exactly like gnostics.

 

[AV1611VET]

At the time it was written it looked like this:

γνωσεως

which transliterates as "gnoseos" (you might recognize the relation to the term "Gnostic" regarding early Christianity).

You do know that the book of Colossians was written to combat Gnosticism, don't you?

 

[sjastro]

Lol one point was nonsense? Yet why was it nonsense? And that’s the only point you got huh? Explain why moons are rotating the opposite direction if your big bang philosophy had a spin since that was their idea of why everything rotates. The universe, Galaxies, planets, solar systems, etc etc. Oh right they probably removed that part of their philosophy because of that probably. Yet others hold on to it.

yes lots of people have responded childish responses and lied. What’s your point? I never called anyone a Nazi yet I was told I did. That’s a lie. Simple.

and yes people areIGNORING facts of OTHER possibilities. That’s willful blinding oneself because for whatever reason they cannot stand the other possibility because they would need to maybe just maybe change their life for the actual better. But not everyone wants what’s best for some reason. It’s a heart issue.

Great I ask you a question involving angular momentum and you want to divert it with whataboutisms and nazis.
Let's try again how does a point have an conserved angular momentum and not an infinite angular velocity at the Big Bang?
If Veith wants to go on about the retrograde motion refuting the Big Bang by claiming rotation occurred at the Big Bang then the angular velocity has an infinite value.
When infinite values turn up in the model is clearly wrong.
Since you are great defender of Veith here the onus is on you to address this question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol you imply a lot. Just like your big bang philosophy.

Physical cosmology (the science the Big Bang Theory is part of) is a science, not a "philosophy". (ANd just in case you feel the urge to claim otherwise, it is not a religion otherwise.)

Yes the foolish gnostics FAKE knowledge, exactly like today’s folks with the Big Bang philosophy pretending to be knowledge.

Nope there is lots of evidence for it starting with Hubble's observations of receding galaxies a hundred years ago.

And many more foolish fads people jump on today. Like the eugenics fad, Nazis science was also a terrible fad. All fake knowledge. Hence the definition for it fits well for that time and today.

BBT isn't a "fad". It's been around for a century. And why are you talking about Nazi's. "Godwin" much?

It’s still the definition of knowing or knowledge. Just because a group called themselves with part if the word, doesn’t mean if wasn’t saying the same thing.

Yes, gnosis = knowledge, not science. The KJV usage is antiquated and does not reflect modern usage of either word.

you try really hard to debunk something with strawman tactics.

I wouldn't go playing with matches if I were you. (And quit laughing at others posts.)

 

[Andre_b]

That's one way to think about it, but being the academically minded person that I (on good days) tend to be, I'm often suspicious of videos for condensing too many things and leaving details out that I'd prefer to learn.

Hence, the reason why I'd rather READ something like Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" than watch some expurgated video of the same essential content.

You're preaching to the choir on all of this ...



I already did.

Lol Brian Greene. Riiiight loaded philosophy. To bad you have all full of holes without your “theory of everything”

Quoted from your own scientists:
“The Big Bang theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.

In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence (yeah right, like they know this ), the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom (). It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't.”

now that is a lot of haven’t figured out yet, pull this off, don’t know how gravity works. All in one sentence they are clueless on a few matters. And there’s much more holes to fill. The boat sank a long time ago.

No you didn’t choose life sadly and are deceived. You’ll be in such a shock fir being not humble snd blinded yourself WILLINGLY.

 

[Andre_b]

Great I ask you a question involving angular momentum and you want to divert it with whataboutisms and nazis.
Let's try again how does a point have an conserved angular momentum and not an infinite angular velocity at the Big Bang?
If Veith wants to go on about the retrograde motion refuting the Big Bang by claiming rotation occurred at the Big Bang then the angular velocity has an infinite value.
When infinite values turn up in the model is clearly wrong.
Since you are great defender of Veith here the onus is on you to address this question.

You explained nothing. Thanks

 

[Andre_b]

Great I ask you a question involving angular momentum and you want to divert it with whataboutisms and nazis.
Let's try again how does a point have an conserved angular momentum and not an infinite angular velocity at the Big Bang?
If Veith wants to go on about the retrograde motion refuting the Big Bang by claiming rotation occurred at the Big Bang then the angular velocity has an infinite value.
When infinite values turn up in the model is clearly wrong.
Since you are great defender of Veith here the onus is on you to address this question.

Are you doing on purpose to willingly ignore the spin theory?! It’s ONE OF MANY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHIES debunked, that’s all. Don’t get mad you have many other philosophies of the Big Bang you can choose which probably have been debunked because the entire system has full of holes as the never discovered theory of everything, or even the ASSUMPTION that general relativity is perfectly true. Another major assumption. There’s just too many. There’s actually much more but you clearly don’t want the science because the science is already showing it to be a pretty terrible theory, hence why many have already been looking for other ones and new philosophies to come up with like the Egyptians and Greeks and Romans and Babylonians and Pagans, etc do

 

[Andre_b]

Physical cosmology (the science the Big Bang Theory is part of) is a science, not a "philosophy". (ANd just in case you feel the urge to claim otherwise, it is not a religion otherwise.)



Nope there is lots of evidence for it starting with Hubble's observations of receding galaxies a hundred years ago.



BBT isn't a "fad". It's been around for a century. And why are you talking about Nazi's. "Godwin" much?



Yes, gnosis = knowledge, not science. The KJV usage is antiquated and does not reflect modern usage of either word.




I wouldn't go playing with matches if I were you. (And quit laughing at others posts.)

Science is supposed to show us what we know on something based on the evidence. It’s to give us knowledge. Seriously dude.

1. A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.

You are so desperate to deny any of my information given. What arrogance.

 

[sjastro]

You explained nothing. Thanks

You are one hopelessly confused individual; its not up to me to explain the problem of an infinite angular velocity at the Big Bang to account for angular momentum of galaxies or planets irrespective of whether motion is retrograde or not, the onus is on you.

It appears my question is beyond your capacity for comprehension.