The Age of the Universe

pshun2404 · Jun 14, 2015

Goonie said:
Ah, the argument from incredulity, and if I have never seen it, it never happened.

Ah yes the one atheists always use to dismiss what the ancients thought of as miracles...

Confuse-us say, "when ancients called invisible life forms that cause disease "spirits" they were delusional or superstitious, but when moderns call invisible life forms that cause disease "bacteria" they are enlightened...."

Provided by

Sam Antiks

Goonie · Jun 15, 2015

pshun2404 said:
Ah yes the one atheists always use to dismiss what the ancients thought of as miracles...

Confuse-us say, "when ancients called invisible life forms that cause disease "spirits" they were delusional or superstitious, but when moderns call invisible life forms that cause disease "bacteria" they are enlightened...."

Provided by

Sam Antiks

One has never seen a spirit under a microscope, bacteria on the other hand.

Doveaman · Jun 15, 2015

[serious] said:
Nope, it's based off the hubble constant as I mentioned earlier.

Isn't the hubble constant about galaxies moving outward in expanding space, and their speed being proportional to their distance as determined from redshift?

This was confirmed by checking the frequency of the CMB which was predicted to be what it was based on that calculation of the age of the universe.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the age of the universe was calculated and then the CMB frequency was predicted based on that age. The success of the prediction confirmed the calculated age. Am I correct?

If this is the case, how did you calculate the age of the universe in the first place based on the hubble constant?

BigHearted · Jun 15, 2015

Better answers to all your questions can be found on the Podcast called Astronomy Cast, found here.

In particular, distances in the universe, the size of the universe, and the age of the universe.

This is not to diminish the posters who've taken the time to answer your questions with some great analogies, but if you're looking for science, go there.

Truly1999 · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
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?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

Why do you desperately need to know? Is it really going to make a difference to your life knowing the answer? And why are you asking forum members to scratch their head when you can Google it? I mean, it's not like you're asking for a theological opinion or a spiritual answer. There will be a simple explanation. Good luck!

D2wing · Jun 15, 2015

pshun2404 said:
The problem with this perspective (and every perspective has its issues) is that it is based on an assumption that taking the Milky Way galaxy as our point of reference (which we almost cannot avoid) it measures all things in relation to this focal point....it is kind of like (similar to but more sophisticated) the old idea of we being the center of the Universe. Red shifting (one of the measures of how fast the Universe is expanding) is somewhat deceptive because the measure does not usually include the actual speed (only relative) at which we are moving AWAY FROM the object...

Now though the YECs would conjecture that IF there is a Creator that such a being COULD HAVE created the Universe with the light (appearing to have traveled) already in place (which IF there is a God is entirely a logical possibility), there is another perspective you each should read given us by an MIT physicist and mathematician Gerald Schroeder called The Age of the Universe at

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

Schroeder also being an Orthodox Jew found inspiration to explore the role of What chronological time is as a function of space from somethings postulated by the Philosopher Maimonides...

Just also good reading on this interesting subject matter....

Paul

This is an excellent explanation. The best I have ever heard. I am interested in transitory time versus eternal time and this helps a great deal.

yasic · Jun 15, 2015

Imagine you are on an island surrounded by mist. You send two boats sailing in opposite directions from you. Both boats are moving at 10 miles an hour. You lose sight of the boats after a couple minutes due to all the mist.

When the boats are 13 miles away, they send a canoe back to the island to relay where the boats currently are. They are slower and move at 5 miles an hour. So 26 hours later the canoes arrive and let you know that the boats were 13 miles away when the canoe's left.

So you 'observed' the boats being 13 miles away, but you know that they kept moving so if they kept up the pace they would really be 39 miles away from you right now. However since they are going in opposite directions they would be 78 miles apart from each other.

This is how you can know two boats are 78 miles apart even if you only 'observed' them being 13 miles away from you.

Doveaman · Jun 15, 2015

Truly1999 said:
Why do you desperately need to know?

I don't desperately need to know. I simply want to know.

Is it really going to make a difference to your life knowing the answer?

Yes.

And why are you asking forum members to scratch their head

Why are you of the opinion they are scratching their head?

when you can Google it?

I did Google it. Google led me here.

I mean, it's not like you're asking for a theological opinion or a spiritual answer.

Why don't you recommend that CF get rid of their Physical & Life Sciences forum then?

There will be a simple explanation.

It's only simple if you can make sense of it.

birddseedd · Jun 15, 2015

My question would be, if the universe was made in 6 days a few thousand years ago, how is it billions of years old?

paulm50 · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
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?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

Because light years are a measure of time it takes for light to travel. Not a measure of time.

how can the "see" that far? They can't, they're calculating due to the expansionist theory. They may well change it when they learn more.

The bible never changes and those that follow it to the word, are stuck with just those words.

4reel · Jun 15, 2015

It is interesting to talk about time and distance etc. Now base you thoughts as if you were God and there is no such thing as time and no such thing as distance. We try to put bottle and put a time or a distance on it. We use the knowledge we have but 100 years ago We were moving from horses to cars. If God can create everything then he will allow us to see and understand what he (God) wants us to see. Remember the tower of Babble? Were we created in 6 days? Yes, why because we were told that in the bible and no one can dispute that because we only have our 24 hours per day and 365 days a year but even that has to be corrected every 4 years. We are time based beings and until we leave time out of the equation we will never understand how God works.

Doveaman · Jun 15, 2015

BigHearted said:
Better answers to all your questions can be found on the Podcast called Astronomy Cast, found here.

It's only better if you can make sense of it.

Doveaman · Jun 15, 2015

paulm50 said:
Because light years are a measure of time it takes for light to travel. Not a measure of time.

how can the "see" that far? They can't, they're calculating due to the expansionist theory. They may well change it when they learn more.

The bible never changes and those that follow it to the word, are stuck with just those words.

Truth never changes, and we should always stick with the truth.

[serious] · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the age of the universe was calculated and then the CMB frequency was predicted based on that age. Am I correct?

If this is the case, how did you calculate the age of the universe in the first place?

i feel like I'm repeating myself, but yes. The age of the universe was calculated based on the hubble constant, (earlier estimates based on oldest known stars and best models of stellar evolution of the time exist) the frequency of the CMB was calculated based on these ages.

ScottMcMasters · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
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?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

If I remember correctly, the universe expanded at a much faster rate immediately after the Big Bang, according to the accepted model.

Rygaku · Jun 15, 2015

birddseedd said:
My question would be, if the universe was made in 6 days a few thousand years ago, how is it billions of years old?

The better question why would god create such a dangerous place and put humans into the universe that pretty much is well near impending doom?

But to answer your question the bible is wrong about the age of the universe. But if you want to for giggles try to wrap six thousand years to billions years, you would have to wonder how the passage of time is to god for him it would six thousand and here it would be billions, the best way to explain that would be time dilation.

Truly1999 · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
I don't desperately need to know. I simply want to know.
Yes.
Why are you of the opinion they are scratching their head?
I did Google it. Google led me here.

The forum members are scratching their head, from the fumbled answers I've read so far. You're question seems confused. A light year is a measure of distance not time. So you seem to be saying that the 46 billion light years seems to be 'older' than the 13.8 billion "years old". Are you serious or are you testing members to see just what they come back with?

Btw, a particle of light travels at three hundred million metres per second. So, one light year is 9,500,000,000,000 kilometres. See http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bh_obsv_defs.html, for basic formulae/explanation from the University of Cambridge.

Regarding, Googling: Google is a simple search engine. As far as I know, there isn't an intelligent search engine as yet available to the public, and so the first 10 or 20 results doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get to an appropriate resource. You need to use your discretion. If any result comes back with a domain of .edu for US academic institutions or ac.uk for UK academic institutions, then I personally look at those first if I'm looking for a really good indepth answer fast. But, of course, any organization can apply for a .edu or .ac.uk domain and it doesn't guarantee that they are a respected authority. Of course, you could simply visit the NASA website as a starting point, where you would find appropriate links to sites.

99terabytes · Jun 15, 2015

paulm50 said:
Because light years are a measure of time it takes for light to travel. Not a measure of time.

how can the "see" that far? They can't, they're calculating due to the expansionist theory. They may well change it when they learn more.

The bible never changes and those that follow it to the word, are stuck with just those words.

Yes a measurement of time light takes to travel, in a straight path, and a measurement of distance. Time- 1 regular year. It is a measurement of time.

so yes saying something is 46 billion lightyears away, means light took 46 billion years to get there, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, and is 46 billion times 6 trillion miles away.

BUT we all know the faster you travel, the slower time is. So while from our perspective it took 1 year for light to travel 6 trillion miles, for the light, it took CONSIDERABLY less.

So yes you would think, oh the furthest thing away to my left is 46 billion lightyears away, and to my right is 44 lightyears away... so the universe must be 90 billion years old, if the speed of light cannot be increased past the speed we know it as.

And it would be 90 billion years old, from our perspective. BUT from its perspective? Its said a human can, if traveling close to the speed of light, travels away from earth, and then returns, he will of lived thousands of earth, and see the earth year 3000, or 4000, even though he was born in the year 2000 for example.

so this planet 46 billion lightyears away, has been traveling for 46 billion lightyears from our perspective but from its perspective it might be only 4 billion years old.

The whole definition of age of the universe is whats at fault, because
from whose perspective is it coming from?

I hope this explained it.

And bible can be quite literal... take 1 day at 50 times the speed of light lol. you'd be living mabye millions of years from anothers perspective. Who knows how fast God was going on the first, second, third day etc.

Also if you see the bible creation story, and see the dozens of different hominid fossils/bones around, it doesn't take much to perceive the 6th day creation, and the Adam genesis story, as separate stories occurring at separate times. Why else is Abel marked so no one else could hurt him, as he is turned away to wonder the earth that would have no hominids unless they are in fact 2 separate feets at 2 separate times.

birdman5413 · Jun 15, 2015

The truth is in the Bible no matter what we humans say or think!

Admiral_Kang · Jun 15, 2015

Doveaman said:
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?

You will notice that I did not ask why objects can be observed to be 46 billion light years away.

I am asking why scientists maintain that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

This is an excellent question, one of the best I've ever seen on these forums. My congratulations; there should be a prize for this!

The 13.8 billion-year figure is calculated from the Hubble Constant (Ho), which in rough terms is related to the expansion of the Universe. Basically you take the inverse of the Hubble Constant (1/Ho) and that gives you the age of the Universe.

The Hubble Constant can be calculated to within a fair degree of accuracy because the distance of remote objects can be measured, as can their velocity; the Hubble Constant is then calculated from these two values.

I hope that answers your question - note that I have not attempted to answer the question why the age of the Universe in some ways appears to contradict the observable size of the Universe.

---

Off-topic, then, but there is a proper cosmological answer to that, which I'm still trying to get my head round; but I think it's due to the differences in the rates of expansion over the years.

The Age of the Universe

Newbie

Not so Mystic Mog.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Part time poster, Full time lurker

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

New Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Member

Active Member

Newbie

Newbie

Junior Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency