New or Grew?

[coffee4u]

For the record, I took a calculator and figured it up myself.

I was off by some 100 years with Ussher.

But the point is:

Whether it's 100 years, 1000 years or 10,000 years, it's still WAY off from science, which says the universe has been around for 13.8 billion.

Put another way, the margin-of-error in calculating how long the universe has been in existence is HUGE, when you're comparing a few thousand years to a few billion.

True.

But I don't think Ussher is at all a good source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. I believe many literalist must do the same, yet at the same time we all have to admit that none of were there.

Joe: How long did Rip van Winkle sleep, according to Washington Irving?
Scientist: 20 years.
Joe: How long has the universe been in existence, according to the Bible?
Scientist: Uh, no one knows.
Joe: Can't you get a calculator and ...
Scientist: No.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry your just taking some numbers and assuming they are right, neither your or him are correct.

Then please take the same numbers and tell me what you assume they are.

I have a habit of assuming 5 plus 5 are 10.

 

[AV1611VET]

True.

But I don't think Ussher is at all a good source.

Then use Texas Instruments.

 

[SelfSim]

Someone once said something like, "I don't need to know botany to appreciate the smell of a flower."

By the same token, I don't need to know microbiology to know that the food in my refrigerator is spoiled.

.. an argument which supports perpetual ignorance and no growth in knowledge ...

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I think there are fundamental misconceptions which go way deeper than the physics of what he's trying to grapple with there. For example the concept of 'object' in Physics, goes beyond the common concept which pops up at CFs all the time of: 'materialistic'. Eg: there are 'objects' in physics, which have no mass, for starters!

Even the concept of 'knowledge' produced by physics, cannot be the common assumption of a 'justified true belief'.

Well I was not trying to deal with any of the more philosophical questions raised by Mark especially in an AV thread. That said, there is plenty on relative speed of photons.

 

[AV1611VET]

.. an argument which supports perpetual ignorance and no growth in knowledge ...

Are you familiar with my Boolean Standards?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Someone should run the Bible through a computer and see what a computer comes up with.

You defer to technology .. yet reject the scientific thinking (and science) which produced them.
Hypocrite!

 

[AV1611VET]

You defer to technology .. yet reject the scientific thinking (and science) which produced them.
Hippocrite!

QV Post 107 please.

 

[SelfSim]

Are you familiar with my Boolean Standards?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I am .. but this personal belief nonsense achieves no progress in understanding the topic at hand .. (ie: the age of the universe).
PS: i recall it was dealt with previously and produced contradictions .. thus it was dismissed here under CF's 'rules of logical discourse', IIRC(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I am .. but this personal belief nonsense achieves no progress in understanding the topic at hand .. (ie: the age of the universe).

How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me.

How it got that old does.

 

[SelfSim]

How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me.

How it got that old does.

How it got to be ~13.8by old, is all important .. Science was the method used!

 

[AV1611VET]

How it got to be ~13.8by old, is all important .. Science was the method used!

Well, science says it grew that old over time.

So science is wrong.

 

[Taodeching]

Joe: How long did Rip van Winkle sleep, according to Washington Irving?
Scientist: 20 years.
Joe: How long has the universe been in existence, according to the Bible?
Scientist: Uh, no one knows.
Joe: Can't you get a calculator and ...
Scientist: No.

The Bible doesn't speak to the age of the universe. The early chapters of Genesis were not meant to be an exhaustive document on how things were done but rather a theological treaties about God's attributes. The problem is assuming the Bible tells you everything about everything, it does not nor was or is it intended to be.

 

[Taodeching]

Well, science says it grew that old over time.

So science is wrong.

Proof

 

[SelfSim]

Well, science says it grew that old over time.

But you just said:

How old this universe is doesn't intrigue me. How it got that old does.

The process which 'got it that old', is the scientific process of distinguishing the various evolutionary phases of the objective model of the universe.

So science is wrong.

An anecdotal opinion .. but your OP question has been answered, (above .. and in fact), nonetheless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible doesn't speak to the age of the universe.

That is correct.

The Bible does not say how old the universe is.

But It does have enough information in It that we can calculate long it has been in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Proof

Proof of what? that science says it grew that old?

Just get you a $275.00 King James McGraw-Hill science textbook from your local college bookstore and see for yourself.

 

[sjastro]

Right. so the question remains, "relative to what'? If you can't accelerate to that speed relative to spacetime, but an object going the other direction can't either, does that mean that neither can accelerate past half the speed of light? Or are we going to start again with the, "spacetime has no directions" bit? (Lol, I was told that concerning the BB. My logic assumes, even though spacetime itself was expanding, and therefore it did not begin in a point in space, once it began, there were effects moving at an extreme rate in opposite directions (within the newly formed space). We are confident with the 13.8 billion mark because of the doppler shift, but that doesn't account for the rate of expansion of 'reality' (i.e. spacetime), or does it? I have been told my words cancel out when I say rate of expansion -- since that rate is relative only to concurrent space. But that is my point! If, looking back, we see reason to conclude 13.8 billion years, what would that have been, let's say, from the POV of immediately upon that moment of initial rapid expansion? I don't think anybody knows.

Accelerate speed relative to space-time??
As a dumb mathematician in the company of equally incompetent cosmologists we were always under the impression space-time could be modelled as Lorentz manifold using the locally flat space-time.
To the layman this means globally the Universe is expanding (and could be curved), locally it behaves like a flat static universe.
Hence for our POV as you put it (technically the term is local frame of reference) it is meaningless to refer to accelerating speeds relative to expanding space-time as our measurements are in a local frame of reference.
For the same reason we can't devise an experiment locally that shows the Universe is expanding.

The expansion of the universe is observer dependent.
Here is a spectrum I took of the quasar 3C-273 billions of light years away.

The cosmological red shift (not Doppler) of the hydrogen lines indicates the Universe is expanding but importantly this was taken in the observers' frame of reference (mine) which is not a local frame.
My counterpart in another galaxy would measure a different cosmological redshift of 3C-273.

As @SelfSim has pointed out the speed of light is more of a universal constant than simply a velocity.
This was derived from Maxwell's equations where the speed of light c = 1/√(ε₀μ₀) = 3 x 10⁸ m/s.
ε₀ is the vacuum permittivity = 8.85 X 10⁻¹² F/m.
μ₀ is the magnetic permittivity in a vacuum = 4π × 10⁻⁷ H/m

 

[Taodeching]

That is correct.

The Bible does not say how old the universe is.

But It does have enough information in It that we can calculate long it has been in existence.

Not really, that is not what the Bible is for. Your idea is more fantasy than reality