Age of the Universe

[joshua 1 9]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.htm

13.772 billion years or 13.82 billion years?

1. In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years.
2. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...bble-oldest-frontier-science-space-astronomy/

 

[Oafman]

Planck is more accurate, with an uncertainty of 38 million years, (13.813±0.038 billion years).

WMAP had an uncertainty of 59 million years (13.772±0.059 billion).

To anyone thinking of reading Dr Gerald Schroeder's 'interesting perspective', don't, it's nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[Oafman]

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Even by your standards AV, that is not a well thought-through comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even by your standards AV, that is not a well thought-through comment.

Why?

 

[essentialsaltes]

13.772 billion years or 13.82 billion years?

1. In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years.
2. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

Planck is more accurate, with an uncertainty of 38 million years, (13.813±0.038 billion years).

WMAP had an uncertainty of 59 million years (13.772±0.059 billion).

More importantly, these two measurements overlap, given the stated uncertainties. They can both be right.

 

[Oafman]

Why?

Since 4004 BC, the Earth has travelled around the Sun just over 6000 times.

But we know, from countless separate lines of enquiry, that the Earth has gone around the Sun an awful lot more than 6000 times. So 'it' (the universe) had been in existence for a very long time before 4004 BC.

 

[joshua 1 9]

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

What do you mean by "it" ?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you mean by "it" ?

The universe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

More importantly, these two measurements overlap, given the stated uncertainties. They can both be right.

This is all really very simple. We can use the Hubble to photograph the early universe. So all we have to do is measure how long it takes for the light to get from there to here.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The universe.

Schroeder point is based on Einstein theory that time is relative. So Schroeder uses Einsteins theory to show that the beginning was 6,000 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Schroeder point is based on Einstein theory that time is relative. So Schroeder uses Einsteins theory to show that the beginning was 6,000 years ago.

I go by James Ussher.

It's much simpler than all that science stuff, and we can keep Schroeder & Einstein out of it.

 

[46AND2]

This is all really very simple. We can use the Hubble to photograph the early universe. So all we have to do is measure how long it takes for the light to get from there to here.

This was a joke, right?

ETA: Sorry, misread. Nevermind.

 

[Shemjaza]

This is all really very simple. We can use the Hubble to photograph the early universe. So all we have to do is measure how long it takes for the light to get from there to here.

Doesn't account for the stretching of space itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This was a joke, right?

ETA: Sorry, misread. Nevermind.

Satire

 

[joshua 1 9]

Doesn't account for the stretching of space itself.

What does the stretching of space have to do with the speed of light?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I go by James Ussher.

It's much simpler than all that science stuff, and we can keep Schroeder & Einstein out of it.

James Usshers book is almost 1000 pages and he only devotes one page to Genesis chaper one.

 

[AV1611VET]

James Usshers book is almost 1000 pages and he only devotes one page to Genesis chaper one.

Well, for the record, I did his calculations myself and varied by only about 100 years.

It's close enough that I don't mind using his calculations over mine, especially since the Scofield Bible uses them.

That way, when someone asks me when an event in the Bible occurred, all I have to do is look it up in the Scofield Reference Bible.

Occam's razor.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Well, for the record, I did his calculations myself and varied by only about 100 years.

It's close enough that I don't mind using his calculations over mine, especially since the Scofield Bible uses them.

That way, when someone asks me when an event in the Bible occurred, all I have to do is look it up in the Scofield Reference Bible.

Occam's razor.

It is very easy to do the math on the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. It gets more difficult after that but there is a lot less controversy with Abraham being real compared to Adam being a real person. Of course as you do those genealogies you see that people lived almost 1,000 years before the flood. For example Noah's father could have know Adam because for a short time they were both alive on the earth. This is going to be difficult for science because there is no evidence that people lived 1000 years. Of course there is no evidence that they did not live that long.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is going to be difficult for science because there is no evidence that people lived 1000 years.

That's too bad.

I have about as much respect for people who demand evidence for things that happened in the Bible; as they have respect for our faith in things that happened in the Bible.

Scientists dig their own hole and want us to pull them out -- all the while biting the hands that attempt to.