"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Nic Samojluk]

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

In my search for the truth I try to harmonize what I find in the Bible with what science teaches. Try to read what I have written again and tell me why my thinking makes no sense to you.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

They are found in every black hole.

My problem is that I do not dare to get inside a black hole to investigate. I may be unable to get out of it.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

Show me where I have broken this rule and I will try to make the proper corrections!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Its SO TRUE that the beginning of the cosmic big bang is not withing our ability to grasp in our minds at this time. Our basic laws that we understand and work with don't really begin to function until after the first second of the big bang unfolding. (students of cosmology will please forgive my gross, excessively large estimate of the time it took for the universe to settle into following our laws here).

But clearly the universe has a way of taking care of those problems, so what is your point?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

About singularities . . . . I don't think singularities really exist. They come up with our present equations for dealing with gravity and to me such things are merely evidence that we don't have the whole set of laws of gravity worked out yet.

But don't anybody go into a black hole to find out. Nobody has ever come back from a black hole yet.

But if anybody knows how to actually try getting into a black hole, please share that information as well!

 

[Loudmouth]

Show me where I have broken this rule and I will try to make the proper corrections!

I never said that you did. I was just outlining what we would expect if you did use quotes.

 

[Astrophile]

“If the expansion rate is known, scientists can work backwards to determine the universe's age, …”

I doubt that this rate is known.

.
But it is known; it is called the Hubble constant, and it is the ratio of the recession velocity of the galaxies to their distance. Hubble obtained a value of 525 km/s/Mpc in the late 1920s. In 1958 (57 years ago), Allan Sandage obtained a value of 75 km/s/Mpc, to within a factor of two. The modern value, obtained by the ESA Planck Surveyor in March 2013, is 67.80±0.77 km/s/Mpc. Try googling 'Hubble's law' or 'Hubble constant'.

"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.

First, the inflationary episode occurred at the very beginning of time, when the universe was only between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old. It does not affect the age of the universe measured from the redshifts of the galaxies, which were formed after about 13 billion years ago. Second, an increase in the rate of expansion of the universe would yield a younger age for the universe rather than an older one. This was a problem for Hubble's own value for the Hubble constant (525 km/s/Mpc), which made the universe younger than the earth.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But clearly the universe has a way of taking care of those problems, so what is your point?

I was attempting to understand the reasoning behind the alleged age of the universe. There seems to exist a consensus that our universe is approximately 15 billion years old. My suggestion is that this may not be true. I have the suspicion that our universe is probably much older that said figure. Apparently, the age of our universe is determined by the oldest object in it.

“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 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. …”

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

Notice that it states that the universe can be older. How much older? We do not know, because we have not discovered yet the limits of our universe, which means that we have no idea where the largest object in our universe is located. It could be located outside the known universe—the one we can observe with the largest telescopes we have built so far.

I conclude that the 15 billions we have assigned to our universe might be way off the actual figure by an unknown quantity. My personal feeling is that we probably will never estimate the correct age of our universe.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But it is known; it is called the Hubble constant, and it is the ratio of the recession velocity of the galaxies to their distance.

New Theory: The Universe Isn't Expanding, It's Just Gaining Mass

“One cosmologist is proposing that the universe isn't actually expanding, as the standard theory goes. Instead, the redshift effects astronomers see could mean that everything is just gaining more mass …”

Ref.: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...universe-isnt-expanding-its-just-gaining-mass

 

[Nic Samojluk]

About singularities . . . . I don't think singularities really exist.

The Big Bang Mystery

“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]

In my search for the truth I try to harmonize what I find in the Bible with what science teaches. Try to read what I have written again and tell me why my thinking makes no sense to you.

It makes no sense to reject facts because they contradict with creation myths in books.

 

[Loudmouth]

“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.

The CMB is also a feature of the universe, and it measures the maximum age of the universe, or at least the time since electrons and atomic nuclei joined together to make atoms. Why are you ignoring this feature of the universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

New Theory: The Universe Isn't Expanding, It's Just Gaining Mass

“One cosmologist is proposing that the universe isn't actually expanding, as the standard theory goes. Instead, the redshift effects astronomers see could mean that everything is just gaining more mass …”

Ref.: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...universe-isnt-expanding-its-just-gaining-mass

There are crackpots in science. That is nothing new.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Big Bang Mystery

“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

And? Not knowing how the singularity comes about does not prevent us from understanding what happened after the singularity started expanding.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was attempting to understand the reasoning behind the alleged age of the universe. There seems to exist a consensus that our universe is approximately 15 billion years old. My suggestion is that this may not be true. I have the suspicion that our universe is probably much older that said figure. Apparently, the age of our universe is determined by the oldest object in it.

It is determined by the CMB. The production of the CMB marked the point where the universe cooled to the point that hydrogen formed atoms. The transition of going from plasma to atoms allowed the passage of light through the universe. The cosmic microwave background comes from everywhere in the universe because at the time of its formation it was being produced by all atoms in the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

About singularities . . . . I don't think singularities really exist. They come up with our present equations for dealing with gravity and to me such things are merely evidence that we don't have the whole set of laws of gravity worked out yet.

But don't anybody go into a black hole to find out. Nobody has ever come back from a black hole yet.

But if anybody knows how to actually try getting into a black hole, please share that information as well!

Singularities are the equivalent of dividing by zero as they relate to Relativity, if I understand it correctly. I think most scientists agree that our current physical models are incomplete, and a more complete model will be able to explain what happens in black holes, and in the singularity that produced our universe. String theory is one of those attempts at a better model.

 

[Astrophile]

New Theory: The Universe Isn't Expanding, It's Just Gaining Mass

“One cosmologist is proposing that the universe isn't actually expanding, as the standard theory goes. Instead, the redshift effects astronomers see could mean that everything is just gaining more mass …”

Ref.: http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...universe-isnt-expanding-its-just-gaining-mass

It doesn't matter; one can still determine the Hubble constant from the apparent radial velocity and the distance of the galaxies. Also, the link that you gave, and the sources in Nature Notes and arXiv, don't say anything about how old the universe is on Wetterich's hypothesis, so there doesn't appear to be any reason to think that this hypothesis agrees with your ideas any better than the Big Bang does.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I think most scientists agree that our current physical models are incomplete, and a more complete model will be able to explain what happens in black holes, and in the singularity that produced our universe.

Our universe was not produced by a singularity, but rather by God who created what we observe in nature. I am not ready to thrash the Bible and replace it with science. The role of science is to try to discover the footsteps of the Creator in nature and thus lead us to worship the one who is responsible for everything that exists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Our universe was not produced by a singularity, but rather by God who created what we observe in nature. I am not ready to thrash the Bible and replace it with science. The role of science is to try to discover the footsteps of the Creator in nature and thus lead us to worship the one who is responsible for everything that exists.

Actually, no -- the role of science is to discover the truth about the workings of the physical world, regardless of what or where that truth may be.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

It makes no sense to reject facts because they contradict with creation myths in books.

Let’s not confuse facts with the interpretation of those facts.

Myth | Definition of myth by Merriam-Webster
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth

Merriam‑Webster
an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true.

This definition does not describe the great biblical truths. For example, Daniel, the prophet, could not have predicted the succession of the world empires on his own human wisdom.