How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

[Justatruthseeker]

Your summary of the supplied link indicates you are even more woefully ignorant than I gave you credit for.
Despite the fact the link is pseudoscience the author makes it perfectly clear about the mechanism.

In case you didn’t know (atomic) hydrogen is not plasma and is electrically neutral.
It certainly explains your lack of basic comprehension skills as you are too preoccupied reading your own nonsense into the link.

Yes, I know, that’s what they said also about that “energetic neutral atom” ring around the heliosphere too. Which just shows their ignorance as an atom can not be energetic enough to be the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two and be neutral at the same time.

So you’ll have to excuse me if I call their terminology of neutral a laughable excuse for their ignorance. And others who believe neutral atoms are so energetic they are emitting so much radiation they are the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two.

So frankly, I don’t think any of you know what you are talking about.....

Wow this is a good fairy tale but in reality it is a monumental lie.
An expanding Universe was first proposed by Friedmann in 1922, and Lemaitre in 1927 who predicted Hubble’s Law.
In 1929 Hubble showed that the redshift data supported Lemaitre’s predictions.
There is now a strong move to rename Hubble’s Law as the Hubble-Lemaitre law.

Not bad for Lemaitre whom you have labelled a cheat to be honoured is it…..

Stop blaming Hubble for the mistakes of others. Hubble made it clear he did not believe his data supported an expanding universe, but gave a more accurate picture of his count data if another then undiscovered cause was assumed.

Hubble didn’t support expansion in the least.

Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia

“Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."

Stop with the PR and blaming Hubble for that fiasco.....

This is an oldie and goodie.

If the CMB is caused by the deceleration of the solar wind then how does it turn out to being a perfect blackbody?
You couldn’t answer it the last time so I will give you a break; what about its temperature?
The CMB has a blackbody temperature of 2.7K.

Apparently you understand nothing of deceleration radiation which would be in the microwave bandwidth as shown by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. A black body is merely in thermal equilibrium and there is no true black body although they simply calculate them as such to the first approximation as it makes it simpler.

Also let’s be clear that even in your theory the CMB was emitted while the universe was in a “plasma” state........ so why you suddenly question plasmas ability to produce black body simply calls your own theory into question.... it seems you don’t believe your own theory and plasma cooling to form hydrogen......

Since you are vague about where the solar wind is being decelerated lets take at it at the boundary where it comes to a complete halt at the heliopause.

I wasn’t vague at all, I specifically said at the heliopause.....

Well according to Voyager and Ibex measurements the plasma temperature is a whopping 500,000K.
Either the temperature of the CMB is totally wrong or it is nowhere near where you think it is.

Straw man as that is the energetic “neutral” atom ring...... you know, the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two that is, cough, neutral...... that they couldn’t even see till they got a probe out there......

And 500,000K is idiot talk. Anyone who thinks the surface of the sun is 5,000K and plasma at the heliopause is hotter than the suns surface doesn’t need listened to. It is a measure of its energy, charge, not an actual temperature. Next you’ll be telling me you believe the plasma surrounding our galaxy is at 2 million K, the temperature of the suns corona, yet far from any source of heat. It’s a measure of its charge, not a temperature.....

Then there is case of the blue and red shift caused by the Earth’s orbit.
Do you realize that whatever the direction of the Earth’s movement is now, in six months time it will be in the opposite direction?
If your "theory" is correct, red and blue shifting of the CMB is constantly changing and will completely "change colour" every six months.

Except the scans of the CMB are not a continuous scan. They are made at the same time during the year so the satellite is in the correct hemisphere. Only you are confused....

The red and blueshift of the CMB doesn't change because for the simple reason it is not local.
The Earth/Solar System/Milky Way/Local Cluster/etc is moving at a velocity of 600km/s relative to the CMB.
The Earth's orbital velocity is 30 km/s so even when it is in the moving in the opposite direction, the direction of the relative velocity 600-30 = 570 km/s remains the same.

Your “theory” is total garbage.

It doesn’t change because it is made always during the same time of the year. Do your research before opening your mouth.

The only garbage I hear is you believing no other radiation emitted beyond the local cluster shows any blue shift due to the galaxies motion, then think the CMB does, when it must cross this same expanding space. Garbage..... trash...... Fairie Dust.....

Of all the lies this is the biggest one.
You have been given opportunity after opportunity to show how your magic plasma (which incidentally I will update the table since you think atomic hydrogen is plasma) explains all the problems you have described.
You have not tackled one single issue; why is that?

I’ve solved them all, you just can’t admit that “neutral atoms” wouldn’t be energetic and be the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two because neutral has nothing to do with that description at all. So why would anyone accept any definition of neutral you chose to give?

Well, explain how those “energetic neutral atoms” are the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two if they are “neutral”?????

You can’t can you without admitting neutral doesn’t belong in that description at all.....

Magic? Your the one proposing massive particles (energy E=mc^2) yet no electromagnetic emissions. All because you won’t accept what is right in front of your eyes with a mass of more than twice the galaxies mass right where your magic dark matter was supposed to exist....

And 12 years ago they couldn’t even see that 2 million K emission, it was “dark”. But now that it is light, you have shut your eyes so you don’t have to see...

Your PR doesn’t impress me, as I see it for what it is, fakery.....

 

[dad]

The concept of 'God' is an invention of the human mind.

Jesus said He was quite real. That leaves me believing that your claim that God was invented is an invention!

Otherwise no human would understand what is meant by 'God' .. and clearly, millions and millions of us do.

You thought humans understanding was their own invention? Or, that if something is understood it must be invented in the mind?? How about ice cream, millions understand it, you think it is a figment of the mind?

It isn't consistently testable though .. and yet observations of the universe are.

The view from the fishbowl is tested in the fishbowl. Time in the far universe was not tested...or space there...etc. God has been tested though. Repeatedly.

There's no 'preferences' in any of what I just wrote actually.

Looking at the quotes I used in what you quoted here, I see I responded to Frumy.

 

[SelfSim]

Jesus said He was quite real

Did he also say what he meant by 'real'?

You thought humans understanding was their own invention?

Well I know that many other creatures show no signs of having the slightest clue about what a conversation like this one is about .. so it must be a human conversation .. and we both understand what we both mean in it.
That sounds pretty much human focussed to me.

Or, that if something is understood it must be invented in the mind??

Understanding requires a mind ...

How about ice cream, millions understand it, you think it is a figment of the mind?

I know what you mean when you use the words 'ice cream' and I have a mind .. and so do the millions of other human minds who also know what 'ice cream' means.
All sounds pretty human focused to me.

The view from the fishbowl is tested in the fishbowl. Time in the far universe was not tested...or space there...etc.

Time is required for our minds to understand most things peceived. This is because understanding (and even perceptions) requires us to perform recalls from our memory.
If we are trying to understand our observations emanating from the distant universe, then we also require time in order to make use of other concepts stored in our memory.
This has been tested many, many times over and over again.

If you don't agree, then show us how you can understand something without invoking your memory (and thus time).

God has been tested though. Repeatedly.

.. and those tests (not objective tests) were conceived and conducted by minds .. human minds.
You have not convinced anyone that those tests are in even the tiniest bit independent from human minds.

'God' is thus given its meaning by those human minds.

Looking at the quotes I used in what you quoted here, I see I responded to Frumy.

.. and so .. your point is .. what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Inferences are known by conclusions reached. You prefer modelling the universe after man and his world...by faith alone. That is blindingly obvious.

I prefer modelling the universe after its observed behaviour.

Your comment is obvious projection.

 

[ianw16]

I wasn’t vague at all, I specifically said at the heliopause.....

And what on Earth has the solar wind got to do with the CMB? Who is claiming such nonsense, and where is it written up? Just so that I can email the author and tell him that he's an idiot.

 

[ianw16]

The view from the fishbowl is tested in the fishbowl. Time in the far universe was not tested...or space there...etc. God has been tested though. Repeatedly.

Really? And when was this human invention tested by science?

 

[ianw16]

But their interpretation of cosmological redshift is flawed.....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

No, it isn't. That is from a Journal that is known to host a fair amount of highly speculative nonsense. And it is 30 years old. It is doubtful anybody would have seen it, let alone responded to it.

 

[ianw16]

Kind of hard to determine the cause of it when electricity is ignored in the universe.....

Another EU lie.

 

[ianw16]

I’m not the one trying to avoid a universe 99.9% plasma and trying to use the wrong physics for it, despite 200 years of laboratory experiments.....

Utter nonsense, and just typical EU word salad. You have no model, you have no idea.

 

[ianw16]

Their is no conspiracy except in your own mind. Just real laboratory science that you ignore.....

Sorry? Which laboratory experiments? Where is the one that explains the rotation curves of galaxies, including the stars within those galaxies? There isn't one.

 

[ianw16]

The CMB is actually caused by the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere, which occurs in a 360 degree sphere.

Hahahaha. Oh dear! Where did you get that nonsense from?

 

[ianw16]

Which just shows their ignorance as an atom can not be energetic enough to be the brightest thing in the sky by a factor of two and be neutral at the same time.

Wrong. All it shows is your abysmal lack of knowledge of plasma physics. Which we have come to expect from EUists. Lacking, as they do, any qualified plasma physicists in their ranks.
Cold, interstellar neutrals enter the heliosphere, and charge exchange with hot ions. The hot ions grab an electron from the neutral and becomes an ENA.

Energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) are generated in this region when low-energy [few electron volts (eV)] interstellar neutrals undergo charge exchange with either solar wind ions or PUIs . Once produced, the ENAs move freely across magnetic fields that confine the plasma ions, and some small fraction propagate all the way into Earth orbit where they can be detected.

Global Observations of the Interstellar Interaction from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX)
McComas, D. J. et al.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...lorer_IBEX/links/09e4150b5ee745ff52000000.pdf

 

[ianw16]

And 500,000K is idiot talk. Anyone who thinks the surface of the sun is 5,000K and plasma at the heliopause is hotter than the suns surface doesn’t need listened to........It’s a measure of its charge, not a temperature......

Lol. More abysmal ignorance of plasma physics. How can it be a measure of charge? That is totally nonsensical. Here is a measure of the temperature of neutral He from IBEX;

Interstellar neutral helium in the heliosphere from IBEX observations.
III. Mach number of the flow, velocity vector, and temperature from the first six years of measurements
Bzowski, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04835.pdf

7440 ± 260 K. Now, do please tell us; what is the charge of neutral He?

 

[ianw16]

And 500,000K is idiot talk

Nope, observation.


FIRST SKY MAP OF THE INNER HELIOSHEATH TEMPERATURE USING IBEX SPECTRA - IOPscience
Livadiotis, G. et al.

Let's make it ~ 1 million K.

 

[ianw16]

Since you are vague about where the solar wind is being decelerated lets take at it at the boundary where it comes to a complete halt at the heliopause.

I wasn’t vague at all, I specifically said at the heliopause.....

Wrong. Try the termination shock.

Heliosphere - Wikipedia

 

[ianw16]

Apparently you understand nothing of deceleration radiation which would be in the microwave bandwidth as shown by quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics.

Really? A link would be useful. And what is 'deceleration radiation'?

 

[ianw16]

Also let’s be clear that even in your theory the CMB was emitted while the universe was in a “plasma” state........ so why you suddenly question plasmas ability to produce black body simply calls your own theory into question.... it seems you don’t believe your own theory and plasma cooling to form hydrogen......

Utter nonsense. The CMB is from a time when the universe was much hotter and denser than now. That is why it is a BB spectrum. The plasma you are talking about is extremely diffuse, and cannot produce a BB spectrum.

 

[dad]

Did he also say what he meant by 'real'?

Yes, His Dad.

Well I know that many other creatures show no signs of having the slightest clue about what a conversation like this one is about .. so it must be a human conversation .. and we both understand what we both mean in it.
That sounds pretty much human focussed to me.

OK, glad you got that far.

Understanding requires a mind ...

You think some posters lack this?

I know what you mean when you use the words 'ice cream' and I have a mind .. and so do the millions of other human minds who also know what 'ice cream' means.
All sounds pretty human focused to me.

Human focused? I guess that means it is real.

Time is required for our minds to understand most things peceived. This is because understanding (and even perceptions) requires us to perform recalls from our memory.
If we are trying to understand our observations emanating from the distant universe, then we also require time in order to make use of other concepts stored in our memory.
This has been tested many, many times over and over again.

Great, so was this leading to some point? What, you thought we did not think it took time to do stuff?

If you don't agree, then show us how you can understand something without invoking your memory (and thus time).

I for one think time is actually real.

.. and those tests (not objective tests) were conceived and conducted by minds .. human minds.
You have not convinced anyone that those tests are in even the tiniest bit independent from human minds.

If the blind were healed and life time lame folks got up instantly and ran, and the deaf were healed, and the dead raised...you think that was all in the mind? Or are you in complete denial?

'God' is thus given its meaning by those human minds.

We'll have to disagree about your beliefs.

 

[dad]

I prefer modelling the universe after its observed behaviour.

Your comment is obvious projection.

When the observing is only done here you are projecting when you try to make time the same, and space...out there. How things behave in the solar system and area is all well and good and important. Too bad the models of the universe and it's origin in the religion of science are godless and fishbowl based projection.

 

[ianw16]

When the observing is only done here you are projecting when you try to make time the same, and space...out there. How things behave in the solar system and area is all well and good and important. Too bad the models of the universe and it's origin in the religion of science are godless and fishbowl based projection.

Word salad. Show us the science.