"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Nic Samojluk · Jun 9, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The age of the universe is based on the temperature of the CMB which we have been measuring since the 1970's, not the number of galaxies.

“They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. …

The uncertainty still creates a limit to the age of the universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger. …”

More: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Notice that this scientist states that the universe could be older. I agree with that opinion.

Besides, it affirms that the upper age limit is set by the objects in the universe. Since we have not found the limit of the universe, it follows that tomorrow we may find older objects than those we can now see.

My conclusion? We have no idea how old is our universe.

Astrophile · Jun 9, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Here is a description of a singularity by an outstanding physicist:

Stephen Hawking
“The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.”

More: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

If the laws of physics are broken down, then what we have is a universe exploding out of a non-meaningful statement. A singularity is actually science fiction. It cannot be tested and verified by the laws of physics.

So if a singularity is actually science fiction, why does an outstanding physicist accept that there was a singularity at the beginning of the universe? You are using one part of Professor Hawking's statement to reject another part; your denial of the existence of a singularity depends on the truth of what he says about the laws of physics, but if there was no singularity what he says about real time beginning with a singularity must be false. Also, you might consider that Professor Hawking knows more about singularities than you or I do.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 9, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Given the mountains of evidence that back it, very few.

I am among the few. Those mountains of evidence are limited by the premises scientists have chosen for their theory.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 9, 2015

Astrophile said:
So if a singularity is actually science fiction, why does an outstanding physicist accept that there was a singularity at the beginning of the universe?

Read everything I have written about singularities. In order to show that singularities are based on science fiction, I had to quote Hawking in order to establish what we were talking about.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 9, 2015

Astrophile said:
Also, you might consider that Professor Hawking knows more about singularities than you or I do.

“Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career - early belief that everything swallowed up by a black hole must be lost forever …”

Ref.: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-black-hole-must-be-lost-forever-8568418.html

If he was wrong on one occasion, he can be wrong on another!

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 9, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
“Stephen Hawking admits the biggest blunder of his scientific career - early belief that everything swallowed up by a black hole must be lost forever …”

Ref.: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-black-hole-must-be-lost-forever-8568418.html

If he was wrong on one occasion, he can be wrong on another!

Yes, but you can't pick the way he's wrong . . . . only reality can pick the way he's wrong.

Please note that the notion that "everything swallowed up by a black hole must be lost forever" is in a catagory of hypotheses that are not firmly established anyway. The idea that something will be discovered to reduce the age of the universe to within YEC limits remains ludicrous.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 10, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
The idea that something will be discovered to reduce the age of the universe to within YEC limits remains ludicrous.

Was I attempting to reduce the age of the universe? Notice what I wrote about the age of the universe! Here is one example.

“The uncertainty still creates a limit to the age of the universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger. …”

More: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Notice that this scientist states that the universe could be older. I agree with that opinion. …”

My beliefs is that when we set a 14.7 bilions of years for the universe, we are limiting God himself as well. I do not think that we can set an upper limit to the age of the universe.

RickG · Jun 10, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
My beliefs is that when we set a 14.7 bilions of years for the universe, we are limiting God himself as well. I do not think that we can set an upper limit to the age of the universe.

Astronomy is not my area, but I think the age of the universe according to those who are professionals in that area, is the "known universe". I don't think they limit it as being the absolute age.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 10, 2015

RickG said:
Astronomy is not my area, but I think the age of the universe according to those who are professionals in that area, is the "known universe". I don't think they limit it as being the absolute age.

Yes they limit the absolute age. They peg it these days at about 13.7 billion years. Not too long ago, they were determining the age of the universe at about 12 billion years while estimating the oldest stars at about 14 to 14 billion years, which was a head scratcher to all involved . . . but they have managed to justify the age due to expansion with a slightly revised age of oldest stars and make it all consistent. And no, they didn't just fudge the data to change the age estimates. They calculated the age of the oldest stars based on their measured size, brightness, and theory of stellar evolution.

RickG · Jun 11, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Yes they limit the absolute age. They peg it these days at about 13.7 billion years. Not too long ago, they were determining the age of the universe at about 12 billion years while estimating the oldest stars at about 14 to 14 billion years, which was a head scratcher to all involved . . . but they have managed to justify the age due to expansion with a slightly revised age of oldest stars and make it all consistent. And no, they didn't just fudge the data to change the age estimates. They calculated the age of the oldest stars based on their measured size, brightness, and theory of stellar evolution.

I think you misunderstand my comment. Yes they provide an absolute age, 13.798±0.037 billion years, but no scientist worth their salt is going to limit themselves to that. If an older, or even a younger age is determined to be more accurate, they will update it. Another example would be the K-Pg boundary, i.e., the demise of the dinosaurs, once at 65 Ma is now 66 Ma. (source: International Commission on Stratigraphy 2012)

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Here is a description of a singularity by an outstanding physicist:

Stephen Hawking
“The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.”

More: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

If the laws of physics are broken down, then what we have is a universe exploding out of a non-meaningful statement. A singularity is actually science fiction. It cannot be tested and verified by the laws of physics and it does not honor the creative power of God.

At one time, the gravity from the Sun caused the known laws of physics to break down , such as in the case of Mercury which had a precession in it's orbit that shouldn't be there. Those laws at those time were Newton's laws of gravity. Along came Einstein who discovered the underlying physics, and those new laws were able to accurately describe the precession in Mercury's orbit. Newton's laws are still a good approximation for low gravity and low velocity. Einstein's laws cover a much wider range of gravities and velocities, but like Newton's they stop being good approximations at the energies proposed for the singularity.

You want to claim that this is all "science fiction". That seems rather ridiculous. Finding things we don't know and trying to understand them is exactly what science is. What you are really doing is ridiculing the very act of doing science. It isn't the BB theory that you are attacking, but rather the very idea that we should ask questions and try to cure our ignorance.

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
The size of the universe. It seems to be almost infinite in size. Every time we build a new telescope, the universe gets bigger and bigger. By the time we find the limits of the universe, you will probably agree with me on this.

If the universe were infinite with infinite stars, then the night sky should be completely white with starlight. It is called Olbers' paradox.

"In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840) and also called the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

PsychoSarah · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Read everything I have written about singularities. In order to show that singularities are based on science fiction, I had to quote Hawking in order to establish what we were talking about.

Sir, you have discovered the art of quote mining.

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
The Bible teaches that God had no beginning. If the universe began as a result of a huge explosion 15 billion years ago, then I have to conclude that God existed since eternity past until the Big Bang doing nothing. Instead of a Big event 15 billion years ago, I choose to believe that there were probably millions of Small Bangs going back countless of billions of years ago.

You need evidence to arrive at a conclusion. All you have are beliefs.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 11, 2015

RickG said:
Astronomy is not my area, but I think the age of the universe according to those who are professionals in that area, is the "known universe". I don't think they limit it as being the absolute age.

Age Limits for our Universe

“The universe cannot be younger than the objects contained inside of it. By determining the ages of the oldest stars, scientists are able to put a limit on the age. …” [The reference is listed below.]

The problem I see here is that the oldest objects in the universe might be located outside of the known universe, which means that we can establish the minimum age of the universe but not its upper limit.

“The uncertainty still creates a limit to the age of the universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older

, but not younger. …”

Notice that it states that the universe can be older. I conclude that the universe might be much older than the age calculated for the known universe—the one we can observe with the most powerful telescopes we have been able to build so far.

“If the expansion rate is known, scientists can work

backwards to determine the universe's age, …”

I doubt that this rate is known.

"In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number. …”

Ref.: http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Here I see another problem. Many scientists hypothesize that the rate of the expansion of the universe at the beginning was infinite.

“When the universe was smaller and more dense, it therefore follows that the expansion rate was much larger than it is today. Indeed, as we extrapolate the universe further back in time, we reach a point where the density, temperature, and expansion rate were all infinitely large. …

Ref.: http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/reallyearly.html

If the initial rate of expansion of the universe was much larger than the present rate, then our calculation of the age of the universe might be off by an unknown quantity. And if we can’t be sure how old is the known universe, our knowledge of the entire universe is even a greater mystery.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 11, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Yes they limit the absolute age.

Read my response to RickG!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 11, 2015

Loudmouth said:
It isn't the BB theory that you are attacking, but rather the very idea that we should ask questions and try to cure our ignorance.

“At the Big Bang, our knowledge of what happens gives out; the fact that physical quantities become infinite is a sign that we don't know what is going on. Presumably, in the real world there is no singularity; instead, something happens that cannot be described by physics as we currently understand it. …”

Ref.: http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/reallyearly.html

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
“At the Big Bang, our knowledge of what happens gives out; the fact that physical quantities become infinite is a sign that we don't know what is going on.

The same thing happened with Newton's Laws. Our knowledge of gravity gave out when we looked at Mercury's orbit. That is how Relativity was born, and a brand new century of physics.

Presumably, in the real world there is no singularity;

They are found in every black hole. We also can't seem to get quantum mechanics and relativity to agree. That tells us that neither theory is complete and need to be worked on. This doesn't mean that supernatural magic is involved.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 11, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Sir, you have discovered the art of quote mining.

I search for quotes that might support my views when I have the extra time to do this.

Loudmouth · Jun 11, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
I search for quotes that might support my views when I have the extra time to do this.

All we ask is that you pull the quote from the original material, be able to supply the context of the quote, and not misrepresent the person being quoted. For example, this is a dishonest quote.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

This is also a dishonest quote mine:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"

"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Finally Old Enough

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Finally Old Enough

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Chaotic Neutral

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency