The Age of the Universe

[RealityCheck01]

Except they turn out to be less than "standard", contrary to dark energy *assumptions*.

Except that is non-science, Michael !
Dark energy is a set of many observations not only SN1A.
Standard candles are always being reevaluated, making them more accurate as in your first link.
Cosmology Standard Candle Not So Standard After All

Astronomers have turned up the first direct proof that "standard candles" used to illuminate the size of the universe, termed Cepheids, shrink in mass, making them not quite as standard as once thought. The findings, made with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, will help astronomers make even more precise measurements of the size, age and expansion rate of our universe.

That theregister link is a reporter basically lying about a paper in dumb language - "embiggenmentation" :eek!
This is the science: THE CHANGING FRACTIONS OF TYPE IA SUPERNOVA NUV–OPTICAL SUBCLASSES WITH REDSHIFT
This is the unconfirmed but probable detection of two sub-classes of Type 1a supernova. The authors speculate that this will have unknown as yet effects on cosmological parameters.
Planck gives a universe made up of 68.3% of dark energy which the Type 1a supernova matches. So maybe this result will change that to 68.2% !

Oh dear, Michael, is this the delusion that Hubble could not state incorrect opinions when he did not know about the CMB in a 1953 speech? Or that science stopped in 1953?

 

[RealityCheck01]

What 'natural' model might that be? EU/PC theory?

Obvously not, Michael, since there is no EU/PC model !
There are collections of often mutually exclusive, usually invalid theories that some EU/PC cranks have collected together under the non-science assumption that anything that is not standard cosmology must be right. EU/PC includes the crank Ari Brynjolfsson's "Plasma redshift", the idiocy of the CMB is microwaves from Earth's oceans (Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille), etc.

ETA: There are few scientific papers that the EU/PC crowd wrongly think are a model, e.g. Lerner's papers.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Is there an observed difference between Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift other than the wavelength?
But is there overwhelming evidence that "space" is expanding.

Redshift is redshift, Doveaman. What makes cosmological redshift cosmological is Hubble's Law (it increases with distance). To make cosmological redshift into a Doppler shift you have to have the rather crazy idea that the universe actually exploded physically from Earth's location about 13.7 billion years ago !

What is the evidence for the Big Bang? is a list of the overwhelming evidence that space is expanding.

I once heard it said that because we observe redshift, space is expanding, and because space is expanding, we observe redshift

A rumor of someone saying something that looks ignorant is not reasoning of any kind, Doveaman!
Hubble's law is one piece of evidence that space is expanding.
The overwhelming evidence that space is expanding leads astronomers to use Hubble's law to estimate the distances to galaxies.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why do scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old even though objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away?

I like the triangulation method for determining distances.
Based on my own measurements, it's 3.7801574 billion times bigger.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes the shifting of red in a spectrograph is an observation but the shifting the red light on a spectrograph does not automatically imply that the source of the light is in motion; so expansion is an assumption or guess. ...snipped fantasies...

That is not right, sparow: It is tested science in labs that a moving source of light redshifts the light. This is the Doppler effect. This how police RADAR works. We use the Doppler effect to measure the speeds of many astronomical objects, e.g. the redshift of stars on one side of a galaxy tells is how fast they are travelling away from us and the blue shift of stars on the other side of a galaxy tells is how fast they are travelling toward us.

The Doppler effect may be in the text book: Perspectives of Modern Physics, Arthur Beiser, formerly Professor of Physics, New York University, 1969, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-13508

What makes the redshift that we observe for galaxies cosmological is Hubble's Law.

Infrared light is not invisible - it is just absorbed by Earth's atmosphere. That is one reason why we have space-based telescopes such as the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, Spitzer Space Telescope and soon the James Webb Space Telescope.

 

[RealityCheck01]

25.1 The theory of the electron. ...

Short quotes with little context do not mean much, sparrow.
But I would agree with what you have quoted - quantum electrodynamics is the most precisely tested theory in physics and so QED is a "satisfactory" theory for the electron.
Protons, neutrons, etc. are described by quantum chromodynamics which is an enormously more complex and less precise theory than QED.

One of the postulates of special relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in in all inertial frames. SR works !

The Doppler effect is apparent in the whole electromagnetic range.
Cosmological redshift is that every spectral line that we can detect is shifted the same amount in the same direction (toward the red end of the spectrum) + Hubble's Law.

 

[RealityCheck01]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Bad research, Michael.
Is space really expanding? A counterexample (3 Jul 2006; Concepts Phys. 4 (2007) 17-34)
is countered by
Is space expanding in the Friedmann universe models? (18 Sep 2006; accepted for publication in Am. J. Phys)

 

[RealityCheck01]

Halton Arp was right about that.

Actually, Michael, Halton Arp probably said nothing about ""a star obviously in a cluster of stars but its red light shift said it was some ware else" as in sparrow's unsupported story.

That could be a mangled version of Halton Arp's idea that quasars were connected to foreground galaxies but further investigation has disposed of that:

His name was Halton Arp, and what he was fooled by is called forced perspective. It is the same effect that produces this picture.
...
It has since been shown that the light from the quasars are passing through the material in the galaxies demonstrating that the quasars are behind the galaxies, not next to them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is wrong. The age of the universe is computed from the Friedman equation, which requires measuring the Hubble constant and the mass-energy content of the universe.

There is a lot more involved than just the expansion rate. Things like the spin down rate of the earth need to be taken into consideration. That way you can verify your results.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The universe is only 6000 years old.


and to their amazement they confessed that the earth is 6000 years old. There you go folks. So now you can have no more confusion unless you insist...

Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago. What does that have to do with the age of the universe? Even if the oldest living tree were 6,000 years old. Again what would that have to do with the age of the universe. As they say we are a carbon based life. They say we are star stuff. Your rings in your oldest living tree over laps with rings in trees that were around more than 6,000 years ago. God planted the garden in Eden in ancient mesopotamia in between the Tigris and Euphrates river 6,000 years ago. At the university of Jerusalem the people with a PhD in Botany can tell you all about the ecology we find in the middle east that Moses tells us about in our Bible. They refer to this as the domestication of plants and animals in the middle east. Science can tell you that farming spread to Europe from the middle east. So there are lots of different branches of science that can be used to verify the Bible is true. Even if the Bible is subject to interpretation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There is a lot more involved than just the expansion rate. Things like the spin down rate of the earth need to be taken into consideration. That way you can verify your results.

That is wrong, joshua 1 9. The Earth has existed for 4.6 billion years and so any "spin down rate" has nothing to do with calculations of the age of the universe. All the age of the Earth establishes is a lower limit for the age of the universe.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago. What does that have to do with the age of the universe? ...

You are correct, joshua 1 9 - nothing to do with the age of the universe!
From basically counting we have
* tree ring records that go back 10,000 years.
* varve layers that go back 30,000 years.
* ice core layers that go back ~800,000 years.
There are the multiple lines of evidence that goes back 4.6 billion years for the Earth alone.
There are the distances to galaxies which go to ~13 billion light-years which means that light we detect was emitted ~13 billion years ago.

 

[[serious]]

Wrong, Michael: You asked for a single flaw and I gave you two flaws !

Then technically, he's right. You didn't point out a single flaw...

 

[Chriliman]

The age of the Universe cannot be determined by measuring distances, because:

1. Light speeds up by 200x & slows down to a stand still, depending on the types of gases & temperature of the gases light passes through.
2. Also the velocity of light is affected by variations in gravity. More Gravity = More Time. Less Gravity = Less Time.
3. Finally, we cannot accurately measure distances of objects outside our solar system, due to insufficient parallax shift. Even from opposite ends of our orbit around the sun, our view is far too narrow, to calculate such large distances based on triangulation.

So light from the furthest galaxies, may be traveling far faster than we ever expected; since there is no gravity in intergalactic space. Also those galaxies themselves may not be as far or even as big as we assume, with our triangulation methods.

If I use my reasonable brain to think about this, it would make sense that mass came BEFORE time. Mass is the cause of gravity and the more mass the more gravity meaning more time. Less mass equals less gravity meaning less time, so take all mass away and you have timelessness. So somehow mass was created by something that is massless and timeless.

This very concept is described in Revelation 20:11
"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them."

The earth and heavens fled from his presence because he is massless and timeless. There can be no mass or gravity or time, if you're timeless and massless.

Think!

 

[Michael]

Scientists say the universe is expanding based on multiple lines of evidence - Hubble's law was just the first piece of evidence that the universe is expanding.

FYI, Hubble himself described *two* possible solutions to photons redshift, and in the later part of his career he supported *tired light*/inelastic scattering processes over an expansion interpretation. The mainstream has a very bad habit of *ignoring* the actual personal opinions of the individuals from whom they now try to draw credibility.

[/quote]What is the evidence for the Big Bang? starts with Olbers' paradox, [/quote]

Easily explainable by ordinary 'dust' and 'distance'..

Hubble's law etc.

Hubble himself however *disagreed* with that assertion by the end of his career.

and goes onto the CMB etc.

Eddington *predicted* the temperature of dust due to starlight scattering in space, and came up with the correct temperature to within 1/2 of one degree. First BB "predictions" on the other hand were off by an *entire order of magnitude*.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...repeated obsession with Hubble snipped...

What is the evidence for the Big Bang? starts with Olbers' paradox,

Easily explainable by ordinary 'dust' and 'distance'..

Very easily explained by being ignorant about about "ordinary 'dust' and 'distance'" solving the paradox, Michael!
26 June 2015 Michael: Olbers' Paradox is nor solved by dust.
Olbers' Paradox explains this fallacy - the ordinary dust also heats up. The best that it can so is block some of the visible light and the night sky is still (less) uniformly bright.
ETA: Another way to look at this. A way that dust can stop the sky from being uniformly bright is if every line of sight ended up at a dust particle. But then the night sky would be uniformly dark in visible light and uniformly bright in infrared! We can magically add fairy dust holes to allow stars and galaxies to create the night sky as we see it. But then we still will see a uniform infrared background between the holes.

That 'distance' is just gibberish.

ETA: Olbers lived centuries ago and so stated his paradox in terms of visible light. It is also applicable to radio waves, UV light, microwaves, gamma rays etc. It is even applicable to neutrinos !
Did WMAP see a uniform microwave sky as emitted from stars- no!
Did Planck see a uniform microwave sky as emitted from stars- no!
Does the Hubble Space Telescope see a uniform UV, visible or IR sky as emitted from stars- no!
Does the Fermi Space Telescope see a uniform gamma ray sky as emitted from stars- no!
Do neutrino observatories see a uniform neutrino background (after solar neutrino are removed) - I do not know!

...
Eddington *predicted* the temperature of dust due to starlight scattering in space, and came up with the correct temperature to within 1/2 of one degree

Being ignorant about Eddington yet again, Michael
No dust in his calculation - it is only starlight!
No CMB in his calculation - it is only starlight!
Eddington's Temperature of Space

Argument from ignorance:
* Eddington never predicted the existence of the CMB. As you state he calculated an average temperature of the universe based on ordinary starlight which is not the CMB

So we have dating from 17 June 2015 Michael: A repeated fantasy about Eddington's Temperature of Space from starlight being the CMB and including dust

 

[Michael]

Since you really want a reply to this post, msgd1025 :
There is no evidence of a supernatural beginning to the universe. Your personal opinion is not evidence.

Ditto for your supernatural inflation genie, your dark energy faeries, and your magic matter gods.

There is evidence for a natural beginning to the universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Turns out that most of it is *dated* and actually *refuted* by later studies, including all those revelations of stellar miscounts in that 2006 lensing study.

How light crosses the universe is the same way it crosses any volume of space, e.g., from the Sun to the Earth.

Not in your magic universe they don't. "Space" doesn't do any mythical magical expanding as light travels from the Sun to the Earth.

The speed of light is c.

Only in perfect vacuum....

Detecting a galaxy that is X light-years away means by basic Newtonian physics that it took the light cX years to get here. Thus a galaxy 13 billion light-years away from us means that that universe is at least 13 billion years old.

We have very good reasons to believe that light behaves everywhere as it behaves locally.

Bzzzt. Light 'locally' doesn't experience any type of redshift due to "space expansion".

 

[Michael]

Except that is non-science, Michael !
Dark energy is a set of many observations not only SN1A.

Boloney. The whole concept is based on the *now falsified* assumption that all SN1A events are the same

Cosmology Standard Candle Not So Standard After All

The whole premise of the claims related to 'dark energy' is flawed.

That theregister link is a reporter basically lying about a paper in dumb language

You *always* resort to the *sleaziest* debate tactics on the books, namely *attacking the messenger*, and interjecting *personally loaded* language into every post, in this case "lying". Your mainstream heroes *lied* about SN1A events being 'standard candles'. They aren't.

Oh dear, Michael, is this the delusion that Hubble could not state incorrect opinions when he did not know about the CMB in a 1953 speech? Or that science stopped in 1953?

The only "delusion" going on is the mainstream's *delusion* that they can simply ignore the actual statements of Hubble with respect to redshift, and Alfven with respect to circuit theory as it applies to events in space. That's the real *delusion*.

Ya know RC......

I've met *thousands* of individuals on the internet, and I've yet to see anyone use as much *personal attack* language in their posts in *every* posts as you do. You use the sleaziest "low road' debate tactics on the books. Proud of that childish behavior?

 

[Michael]

Then technically, he's right. You didn't point out a single flaw...

He didn't point at *any* real "flaws' at all. In fact, his own reference author use *multiple* methods to achieve similar results, and there is no *single* way to do it, so the fact Lerner uses a different method is *utterly irrelevant* in the final analysis.

 

[Michael]

Very easily explained by being ignorant about about "ordinary 'dust' and 'distance'" solving the paradox, Michael!

The ignorance is all yours. Even Eddington understood that dust would scatter starlight and predicted the average temp of that dust to within 1/2 of a degree too.

More loaded language (ignorant). Who would have guessed?

26 June 2015 Michael: Olbers' Paradox is nor solved by dust.
Olbers' Paradox explains this fallacy - the ordinary dust also heats up. The best that it can so is block some of the visible light and the night sky is still (less) uniformly bright.

Which is pretty much exactly what we actually observe in *raw* images before any processing occurs. Every close cluster turns up as a *bright spot* in the image, as does every *distant* galaxy.

You have a *grossly* oversimplified view of 'dust' RC. It's not uniform and it's not the same in every direction. That's why they have to *process the living daylights* of the the raw Planck images to get a 'smooth' background.

ETA: Another way to look at this. A way that dust can stop the sky from being uniformly bright is if every line of sight ended up at a dust particle. But then the night sky would be uniformly dark in visible light and uniformly bright in infrared! We can magically add fairy dust holes to allow stars and galaxies to create the night sky as we see it. But then we still will see a uniform infrared background between the holes.

No CMB in his calculation - it is only starlight!
Eddington's Temperature of Space

It's actually the effect of *starlight scattering* on *dust* particles in the universe. It's not *just* starlight. There absolutely *zero* need to resort to BB theory to explain the average temperature of dust in space. It's a *simple* calculation that was done by *Eddington*, and done *far more accurately* than early BB estimates.

The mainstream has *constantly* underestimated the amount of dust in the universe:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/universe-now-twice-as-bright/