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

[Justatruthseeker]

It's an example of expansion in every direction, nothing more. Like an analogy, it's only relevant for the specific concept it was invoked to illustrate - in this case, expansion in every direction.

Except we are discussing material, not you claim of space, which is empty.....

I'm not responsible for your errors. The Doppler effect applies equally to light (it applies to all waves from a source in relative motion), whether in a medium or in a vacuum. Is this something else you didn't know?

It applies to light because those bodies are in motion, not because of magical expanding empty space.....

No-one can say for sure; there are a number of ideas - it may well be made up of the various quantum fields which extend throughout the universe, so one could say quantum foam. One version suggests the Higgs field is fundamental, one suggests it's gravity, and so-on. Loop Quantum Gravity represents it as Einstinian spacetime quantised into tiny loops making up spin-networks or spin-foam.

I'm not well up on the details, but there's plenty of information out there if you really want to learn about it.

Quantum gravity is a failed model that can’t explain reality.

Oh it’s made up of fields alright, electric and magnetic fields, hence the propagation of light.

So, let’s see if I got this correct. Not only do they not know what 95% of their cosmology is made up of in space, but don’t know what space is either? Of course, if they were not trying to expand nothing, they wouldn’t have that problem of proposing unknown things to save their theories from the trash bin.

So basically 99% of your cosmology is unknown, untestable, yet you think you can accurately describe the universe????

That about sum it up?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You remind me of another poster on these forums, who simply couldn't help himself trying to divert every thread onto the subject of his personal obsession. Maybe it's a syndrome...

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.....

The only one diverting is those trying to divert away from the fact the universe is 99.9% plasma with proclamations of Fairie Dust instead....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I respectfully disagree.

There is clear and abundant evidence across many science and astronomy forums that deniers of the concordance/expanding universe model are engaged in a deliberate campaign aimed at bringing it down and replacing it with the irrational "Electric Universe" cult model in order to divert funding.

I'd call this as being 'deliberately malicious' behaviour and there is little difference between such behaviours and the individuals who consistently exhibit them in a web based medium .. (Not that it makes one iota of difference to a model which is well supported in theory and in direct observation, mind you).

I might claim the same thing since you ignore a universe of 99.8% plasma and every laboratory experiment in the last 200 years with plasma.....

It failed miserably in theory and observation. Why do you think they had to add 95% Fairie Dust to a model tested to a 99.8% accuracy without any of it? Because that model couldn’t be made to work outside the solar system to fit ionized matter.

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

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@FrumiousBandersnatch (and to all)...

You do agree that from wherever we are in the universe that the expansion appears to happening outward from us, correct...? And the stuff further away from us moving away faster the further it is away from us, ect, correct...?

But we know that is not the "actual case", right...?

So how is it really happening...? If we were able to take a view or look from either above or outside of it/that, what would we see that is actually happening, as far as the "actual expansion goes...?

And where are the force or forces causing the actual expansion, coming from and how fast (or slow) is it really, actually happening...? (Versus, and according to the way we always see it, in it, from wherever we are in it)...? (which is not the truth or the actual case)...?

So, what is the actual case...?

God Bless!

The actual case is that cosmological red shift has nothing to do with expansion.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

It is light interacting with a charged medium (99.9% of the universe). Which would cause a red shift in a 360 degree sphere from whatever point one observed from as light passed through more plasma.....

This is why the value for absorption is different than the value for emissions in red shift. Something impossible if it was merely expanding space or recessional velocity causing the red shift. Both of those mechanisms would shift the light equally regardless if it was absorption or emission spectra.

Once technology advanced and the z values became too high to support their belief of recessional velocity, they changed it to expanding space to keep their theory from falsification. For without red shift they have no way to determine actual distance beyond the limit of parallax. Although they still don’t as Hubble’s law demands the redshift be correlated directly to recessional velocity, but they claim it’s expanding space, not recessional velocity causing the red shift. So in reality Hubble’s law is useless in determining distance.

But they don’t want to abandon their belief they can determine distance and age of the universe.

The CMB is another falsification of their theory. It contains both a blue and red shift. Their would be no blue shift if it was from the distance and age they claim. Just as no radiation beyond the local cluster is blue shifted. This shows it is actually a local phenomenon.

It has a blue and red shift component due to the earths orbit. The CMB is actually caused by the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere, which occurs in a 360 degree sphere. Something they were totally unaware of when they proposed what the CMB radiation was. The anomaly that appears they call the “Axis of Evil” is due to that ring of energetic neutral atoms at the heliospheric boundary. Although using neutral and energetic in the same sentence shows their confusion.

They got plasma halos of more than twice the mass of the galaxy right where they claim they need unknown mass (Dark Matter). Also unknown about when they proposed their “placeholder”. Yet refuse to abandon their ridiculous claims, despite every test being a null result. Over 15 of them now. Continue ignoring all that mass they have since discovered.... They have invested so much time and money they can’t admit they were wrong. I expect another 7 sigma finding next year as they ask for more funding to continue their search for what they have already found but just won’t acknowledge.

Everything is explainable using actual science without needing to add Fairie Dust and unknown physics....

 

[sjastro]

The actual case is that cosmological red shift has nothing to do with expansion.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

It is light interacting with a charged medium (99.9% of the universe). Which would cause a red shift in a 360 degree sphere from whatever point one observed from as light passed through more plasma.....

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.

“One must then conclude that a redshift is produced due to hydrogen in space…..”

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.

Once technology advanced and the z values became too high to support their belief of recessional velocity, they changed it to expanding space to keep their theory from falsification. For without red shift they have no way to determine actual distance beyond the limit of parallax. Although they still don’t as Hubble’s law demands the redshift be correlated directly to recessional velocity, but they claim it’s expanding space, not recessional velocity causing the red shift. So in reality Hubble’s law is useless in determining distance.
But they don’t want to abandon their belief they can determine distance and age of the universe.

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…..

The CMB is another falsification of their theory. It contains both a blue and red shift. Their would be no blue shift if it was from the distance and age they claim. Just as no radiation beyond the local cluster is blue shifted. This shows it is actually a local phenomenon.

It has a blue and red shift component due to the earths orbit. The CMB is actually caused by the deceleration of the solar wind at the heliosphere, which occurs in a 360 degree sphere. Something they were totally unaware of when they proposed what the CMB radiation was. The anomaly that appears they call the “Axis of Evil” is due to that ring of energetic neutral atoms at the heliospheric boundary. Although using neutral and energetic in the same sentence shows their confusion.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

They got plasma halos of more than twice the mass of the galaxy right where they claim they need unknown mass (Dark Matter). Also unknown about when they proposed their “placeholder”. Yet refuse to abandon their ridiculous claims, despite every test being a null result. Over 15 of them now. Continue ignoring all that mass they have since discovered.... They have invested so much time and money they can’t admit they were wrong. I expect another 7 sigma finding next year as they ask for more funding to continue their search for what they have already found but just won’t acknowledge.

Everything is explainable using actual science without needing to add Fairie Dust and unknown physics....

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?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except we are discussing material, not you claim of space, which is empty.....

The analogy is an aid to grasping how uniform expansion takes every point away from every other. The medium is irrelevant.

It applies to light because those bodies are in motion, not because of magical expanding empty space.....

Even you should be able to see the Doppler effect applies in either situation; both involve relative motion.

So, let’s see if I got this correct. Not only do they not know what 95% of their cosmology is made up of in space, but don’t know what space is either? Of course, if they were not trying to expand nothing, they wouldn’t have that problem of proposing unknown things to save their theories from the trash bin.

Nope, you didn't get it correct. Loop quantum gravity isn't 'a cosmology', it's theoretical physics.

So basically 99% of your cosmology is unknown, untestable, yet you think you can accurately describe the universe????

That about sum it up?????

You still fail to understand how science works. It's not a religion in which you believe in your pet model regardless of the evidence and to the exclusion of all other models.

 

[sjastro]

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Ignoring Justatruthseeker’s mistaken impression the above link is somehow related to redshift being caused by plasma when the author explicitly states it is due to hydrogen, I did state previously the link is a work of pseudoscience that I should expand on.

The evidence that kills off this idea are quasar spectra.
Quasars with high z values are old and distant and existed at a time when hydrogen gas was more abundant than it is today.
The depletion is due to ionization were hydrogen gas is ionized by high energy photons to form plasma and its use in the formation of stars.
Quasars emit UV radiation which can be absorbed by hydrogen gas at discrete wavelengths.
These wavelengths are known as the Lyman series.

Quasars emit a strong Lyman alpha line at 1216 Angstroms.
If the quasar is old enough when hydrogen was more abundant, then UV is absorbed by hydrogen clouds between the quasar and observer.
Since these clouds are closer to the observer they have smaller redshifts than the quasar and form absorption lines towards the blue end or to the left of the Lyman alpha emission line.
These absorption lines in the quasar spectrum are known as the Lyman-Alpha forest.
In younger quasars which are closer and where there may be little or no hydrogen gas between object and observer, the Lyman-Alpha forest may be missing.

A comparison between the young quasar 3C-273 with no Lyman-Alpha forest to the left of the emission line at 1216 Angstroms to the old quasar Q1422+2309 is shown in the Hubble spectra.

The Hubble spectra have been converted into their rest frames by dividing using the expansion factor (1+z).

The light of 3C-273 passes through very little (or no) hydrogen gas yet it is still redshifted otherwise the major emission line would be located at a different wavelength to Q1422+2309 when converted into their rest frames.

Hence Justatruthseeker’s link is refuted by the evidence.

 

[dad]

Not a single shred of data supports their belief that the universe looks the same from any place. NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF DATA. It is pure belief against the data and in spite of it.....

Interesting point. Anyone contest this?

 

[dad]

The observable universe was a very small part of the whole expanding universe, but it was no more the centre than anywhere else.

If we can only observe the observable universe, on what basis can we talk about what is unobserved?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If we can only observe the observable universe, on what basis can we talk about what is unobserved?

Extrapolation and inference. For example, suppose the available evidence is consistent with you being on the surface of a sphere; you don't have to observe the whole sphere to estimate its size, you can measure the local curvature and extrapolate; it doesn't guarantee you get the right size (you might happen to be on a particularly flat or curved bit), but if the sphere was hollow and you had access to the inside, you could make a loud noise and measure the reverberation times to get another estimate. If you also knew the material it was made out of, you could hit it hard and measure the seismic vibrations to get an idea of its size, and so-on.

If all the methods you use to estimate its size suggest the sphere is larger than a certain minimum size, you could have a calculable level of confidence that it is indeed larger than that minimum. Estimates for the size of the universe beyond the observable are done in analogous fashion.

 

[dad]

Extrapolation and inference. For example, suppose the available evidence is consistent with you being on the surface of a sphere; you don't have to observe the whole sphere to estimate its size, you can measure the local curvature and extrapolate; it doesn't guarantee you get the right size (you might happen to be on a particularly flat or curved bit), but if the sphere was hollow and you had access to the inside, you could make a loud noise and measure the reverberation times to get another estimate. If you also knew the material it was made out of, you could hit it hard and measure the seismic vibrations to get an idea of its size, and so-on.

If all the methods you use to estimate its size suggest the sphere is larger than a certain minimum size, you could have a calculable level of confidence that it is indeed larger than that minimum. Estimates for the size of the universe beyond the observable are done in analogous fashion.

How big do you think the universe is, more than the furthest 'stars' they detect?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How big do you think the universe is, more than the furthest 'stars' they detect?

I don't know; it might be infinite. The latest estimates for the curvature of spacetime, using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite, suggest it's so flat that the radius must be at least 250 times that of the observable part, which means it's at least 15 million times the observable volume. See How Large is the Entire, Unobservable Universe?

 

[dad]

I don't know; it might be infinite. The latest estimates for the curvature of spacetime, using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Planck satellite, suggest it's so flat that the radius must be at least 250 times that of the observable part, which means it's at least 15 million times the observable volume. See How Large is the Entire, Unobservable Universe?

From your link

" We can only make inferences based on the laws of physics as we know them, and the things we can measure within our observable Universe. "

I would add to those limits that when people infer that there was no creation, they limit themselves as to how anything should be interpreted!

 

[ianw16]

From your link

" We can only make inferences based on the laws of physics as we know them, and the things we can measure within our observable Universe. "

I would add to those limits that when people infer that there was no creation, they limit themselves as to how anything should be interpreted!

Creation is unscientific and has zero evidence for it. That is why scientists, including Christian ones ignore it as a possibility.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From your link

" We can only make inferences based on the laws of physics as we know them, and the things we can measure within our observable Universe. "

Seems blindingly obvious.

I would add to those limits that when people infer that there was no creation, they limit themselves as to how anything should be interpreted!

Scientists don't infer there was no creation, they simply have no good reason to suppose such a thing happened; as soon as they find evidence that Tepeu the maker and Gucumatz the feathered spirit created the world with their thoughts, or the world emerged from a shell, or Pangu came out of chaos with two horns, two tusks, and a hairy body, separated the seas, put the mountains in their place, and gave the Earth its form using a powerful knowledge of yingyang, I'm sure they'll take that information into account.

 

[sjastro]

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Continuing from my previous post where the Justatruthseeker's link is refuted by the Lyman-Alpha forest found in quasar spectra, the BB model is superior to every other cosmological model in not only explaining the abundance of light elements but also their distribution in the early Universe.

A prediction made in 1965, well before even the vaguest understanding of quasars, the UV spectra of these mysterious objects could be used to test the theory hydrogen gas levels in the intergalactic medium in the early Universe were not only higher, but at levels where the optical depth of the medium could cause the suppression of the Lyman-Alpha forest.
This is known as the Gunn-Peterson trough and could only occur in the spectra of very distant quasars.
The existence of the trough would allow the percentage of hydrogen gas in the medium to be calculated.
The trough was finally discovered in 2001 in the spectrum of quasar J103027+052455.0 at z=6.28.

Comparison spectra are in the observer’s frame of reference rather than the rest frame.

In the early Universe around the final stages of reionization neutral hydrogen gas was around 0.001% of the intergalactic medium.

 

[dad]

Scientists don't infer there was no creation, they simply have no good reason to suppose such a thing happened;

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

 

[SelfSim]

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

The concept of 'God' is an invention of the human mind. Otherwise no human would understand what is meant by 'God' .. and clearly, millions and millions of us do.
It isn't consistently testable though .. and yet observations of the universe are.
There's no 'preferences' in any of what I just wrote actually.

 

[SelfSim]

... Continuing from my previous post where the Justatruthseeker's link is refuted by the Lyman-Alpha forest found in quasar spectra, the BB model is superior to every other cosmological model in not only explaining the abundance of light elements but also their distribution in the early Universe.

A prediction made in 1965, well before even the vaguest understanding of quasars, the UV spectra of these mysterious objects could be used to test the theory hydrogen gas levels in the intergalactic medium in the early Universe were not only higher, but at levels where the optical depth of the medium could cause the suppression of the Lyman-Alpha forest.
This is known as the Gunn-Peterson trough and could only occur in the spectra of very distant quasars.
The existence of the trough would allow the percentage of hydrogen gas in the medium to be calculated.
The trough was finally discovered in 2001 in the spectrum of quasar J103027+052455.0 at z=6.28.

Comparison spectra are in the observer’s frame of reference rather than the rest frame.

In the early Universe around the final stages of reionization neutral hydrogen gas was around 0.001% of the intergalactic medium.

The Lyman-Alpha forest and the Gunn-Peterson Trough are 'smoking guns' when it comes to emphasising how consistent the BB model is when compared with the observational data!
(Unlike Justatruthseeker's attempts at holding up cherry-picked papers which usually either actually confirm the consistency of the BB model, or confirm their own junkiness).

 

[sjastro]

The Lyman-Alpha forest and the Gunn-Peterson Trough are 'smoking guns' when it comes to emphasising how consistent the BB model is when compared with the observational data!
(Unlike Justatruthseeker's attempts at holding up cherry-picked papers which usually either actually confirm the consistency of the BB model, or confirm their own junkiness).

The discovery of the Gunn-Peterson Trough is a good example that a null result does not prove a theory wrong.
For nearly four decades every quasar discovery lead to a null result for the Trough until a combination of good luck and improved technology in CCD imaging lead to the breakthrough.
When Justatruthseeker natters about the search of dark matter producing null result after null result he fails to take into consideration the potential limitations of the experiment itself.