The Age of the Universe

[sparow]

Yes I expect you would, regardless of what the evidence showed. Seems little point bothering to even look at it.

Evidence isn’t proof, evidence has to be interpreted and the result is always an opinion not a fact.

 

[In situ]

Stupid is when you insult someone for something they didn't say.

If my assumption (e.g. you deny the scientific consensus that the universe expands) based on your avatar and other comments was incorrect then I apologize - and shame be on me. But what did you not say then?

 

[In situ]

Evidence isn’t proof, evidence has to be interpreted and the result is always an opinion not a fact.

It is correct that (scientific) evidence are not a (scientific) proof of truth, but (scientific) evidence can be proof for refuting false claims. Nor is it correct that (scientific) evidence are "interpreted". Evidence are facts. Facts are observation that are not in dispute by the expertise in the area. A red rose is a red rose is a red rose - it does not need to be interpreted being a red rose. Only way to make it otherwise is to be color blind (read: incorrect calibrated instrument) or blind (read: being in denial of the facts).

 

[Loudmouth]

The fact is that heliocentrism doesn't stand-up to reality, and reality doesn't stand-up to THE TRUTH. So where have you got to go now? LOL

I didn't think I needed to explain that 200 years of science contradict creationism.

 

[In situ]

Predictions can be made based on truth/Bible. The continued success of those predictions confirms the truth/Bible.

So what you say is that your confirmation bias confirms your confirmation bias. I do not think that is a particular good method to narrow down the "truth" if you honestly seek what the "truth" is. In my opinion you should try to disprove what you believe in order to avoid confirmation bias. If you time after time fail in disproving your own beliefs, then there are good reason to stay with them. But, to me, to confirm your right by confirming your own beliefs is like shutting down your ears for the rest of the world which has different opinions. You will never learn anything new that way...

 

[In situ]

Like I said, WATCH THE VIDEO Schreoder goes into great detail....

I don't have to. I have already seen a space-time diagram of a black hole and that is enough for me to know that light does not speed down when it approach the event horizon. According to Einsteins, what happens is that you see the light in the past (because the light has traveled into the future) and get the impression it speeds down, but it does not - you are only lagging in time compared to the light which have traveled to the "end of time" when it passes the event horizon.

By the way, I asked you if you had done the calculations - not if you watched some video....

 

[In situ]

Unlike inelastic scattering processes (plural) in plasma which *have* been observed and documented in the lab, none of the Lambda-CDM proponents can demonstrate that space expansion occurs in controlled experimentation or that it has any effect on a photon in the *real* (non magical) universe. It's all an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer". It's a *supernatural* claim that *fails* in the lab every single day, every single time.

Yea, yea... The issue was your claim of an appeal to magic. Where is that appeal to magic found in your opinion?

 

[In situ]

inelastic scattering is also observational fact and it's not shy around the lab either.

And of course every physicist is incompentent and never thouht of that. Why don't you write a paper to Science and explain how wrong everyone is ?

 

[BukiRob]

I don't have to. I have already seen a space-time diagram of a black hole and that is enough for me to know that light does not speed down when it approach the event horizon. According to Einsteins, what happens is that you see the light in the past (because the light has traveled into the future) and get the impression it speeds down, but it does not - you are only lagging in time compared to the light which have traveled to the "end of time" when it passes the event horizon.

By the way, I asked you if you had done the calculations - not if you watched some video....

LOL now you try to sell people that you are more informed on this topic that a dual PHD from MIT who TAUGHT Theoritical Physics at MIT...

Im done with you, you are a poser

 

[In situ]

What exactly makes it the "best' explanation if "space expansion" never happens in a lab, and multiple *empirical* options which do show up in the lab already exist to explain it?

That claim is asserted based on what I know. We don't have to rewrite elementary physics books with such explanation, however with your explanation we can just as well burn all text books in physics and start it all over with Galileo... If we did that would be rather strange consider how far physics has taken us so far.

You mean except for the standard particle physics model which is now complete *without* SUSY theory?

And you mean I am ignorant fool that does not know what I am talking about? That may be true, but SUSY is still not part of the standard model and is irrelevant for this.

What high school class teaches "expanding space" ....

High school - is that your level?

Physics, I dunno about your country but in ours it is included (at least at the time I was in high school), but what does this has to do with your claim of an appeal to magic?

or "dark energy" concepts?

I start to get tired of all this machine gun argumentation - how is this related to your claim of an appeal to magic in the standard model eludes me. You keep talking about things that are not included in the standard model and things that are not established knowledge among physicists yet - hence should not not be taught in high school classes

What is your point with all this if this is not only a school of red herrings?

Hubble himself offered you *two* viable alternatives. It's not my fault that you only considered one of them.

And because they selected one you don't like this is supposed to prove that physicist appeals to magic or what?

 

[In situ]

LOL now you try to sell people that you are more informed on this topic that a dual PHD from MIT who TAUGHT Theoritical Physics at MIT...

Im done with you, you are a poser

Believe what you will. All I said was that I have seen a space-time diagram of a black hole. You don't need to have a Phd in physics to understand a space-time diagram. It is like Feynman diagram - you do not need to understand the math behind it to understand what is going on.

Anyway, I understand your retreat as you are unable to defend your claim in your own words. So who is really the imposer here?

But okay, I will look at it - maybe I am wrong or maybe you misunderstood him. (Have you ever consider that last option?)

 

[In situ]

Unfortunately, the literacy needed to move beyond simply trusting that the physicists know what they say to knowing with similar certainty requires the same knowledge-base and facility they have.

That is why you repete the classical experiment in physics laboratory classes - to be able to confirm the laws yourself.

 

[In situ]

A lot of the scientific claims made in these forums is based on trust/faith in the words of men.

Unlike the bible that is based on repeatable experiments which can be independent verified by anyone. When are you guys ever gonna stop project your own short comings onto science when it come to the burden of proof?

You set a very high standard for science; repeatable experiments which can be independent verified by anyone isn't good enough for you. Proven technology that shows science works is not good enough for you, but when it come to your own beliefs, anything anyone claims is good enough to be accepted as long as it just confirms to what you already believe in. Nothing more than a honest said words for it is needed as "evidence".

Don't you see the double standard of evidence you demand?

 

[Loudmouth]

You may know something I do not; I do not know that fundamental forces in physics are constant they may be variables; the periodic table we have may not be common outside of our solar system. While I have seen spectrums of the elements I don’t know how they are derived. Oxygen and hydrogen are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum referred to as light as far as I am aware.

The fundamental forces are constant through the universe. The periodic table is the same throughout the universe. The spectra of an atom will be the same throughout the universe. If you take the right classes, you will also learn these things.

I am not aware of what the red shift is in our own galaxy or whether the shift is different for each star including those stars outside of us and whether our own galaxy is speeding away from us. I have never seen the empirical evidence but I expect I would disagree with the conclusions.

We don't see the same redshift for stars in our own galaxy. Therefore, we know that it isn't something intrinsic to stars themselves. We only see a correlation between redshift and distance to a galaxy.

 

[Loudmouth]

They probably know a lot more than they tell us but your statements do not convince me. I can see no reason why the periodic table cannot be shifted in the same way light is.

A child probably doesn't understand why pouring water in a gas tank won't work as well as gasoline. Doesn't change that fact that water won't work as well, even if we can't convince the child otherwise.

 

[In situ]

You mean ....

Please, don't put word in my mouth. What I mean is a none expanding universe does not make sense with our current knowledge. You may cite esoteric experiments and unconfirmed hypothesis as much as you like, that does not change the fact that the standard model work so good we have no reason to believe it is wrong in its basic principles (dark matter and string theories etc are not part of the standard model - we talk about our daily physics now, physics we use to make airplanes, cars, cameras, computers, nuclear power, our understanding of radioactive decay etc etc physics all found on Earth).

If the universe does not expand it would affect basic (standard textbook) physics as we now it. Physics would be wrong - somewhere! But where? For all we know it works, and it works very, very, well. So what is wrong?

To highlight this:

Assume the universe is not static, that space does not expand and galaxies are not at rest.

Then why do we only see redshift? Why do we never see blue shifted galaxies? The "second" - discarded - explanation to this is; our galaxy is the center of the universe and everything moves way from it. But why would that be? There is nothing we know about that says it should be so, rather for all we know; if galaxies started at fixed points - static - that would be an extremely unstable configuration and will tend to create collapses, creating both red and blue shifted galaxies. However the universe is only red shifted and that implies that, under this assumption, that all known galaxies in universe has its origin from our galaxy. But why would that be? And what made them escape in the first place? There is no know laws of physics that can explain this. What process ("laws") was in place at the time all matter was together to allowing all matter fly apart forming what we see today? Is it cyclic? Was all matter spread out and then focused on one point and then flew out from that point again? In other words what caused this expansion? How do we explain all this with current physics and the "fact" that we are in the center of all this?

Such universe simply does not make any sense to us so it was discarded.

A third explanation:
Assume the universe is, for some unknown reason, is static and galaxies are at rest.

Then why do we observer redshift? Is it because the spectral prediction of quantum mechanics is wrong? Is it because we do not understand optics? Also what is wrong with nuclear physics? Why do stars exists in other galaxies? Why does things even look the same in other galaxies if emitted energy levels are changed? What have we got wrong with nuclear and atom physics? Or is our physics correct and these spectrum are signs of new - for us unknown - super heavy elements? But why would these super heavy elements make stars that shine? And why doe we not observe it in our galaxy? And why is that the spectrum changes for different galaxies? And why is it always red shifted, never blue shifted? Does the shift mean that each galaxy has it own physics - or its own elements? If so, why do other galaxies still look so similar to our galaxy?

Such universe does not make any sense either....

Or assume something else:

We can assume the universe expand, and everything will be all fine and well with old knowledge - knowledge which we know works - and nothing needs to be changed in our understanding of things.

 

[In situ]

They probably know a lot more than they tell us but your statements do not convince me. I can see no reason why the periodic table cannot be shifted in the same way light is.

Ever heard about that "fine tuning" of the universe? You cannot just shift around the spectrum in the periodic table and expect no effects from that. Stars will not burn "properly", may not even form at all. Chemistry as we know it will not work anymore. That mean we should not see red shift from known chemicals on Earth - still we do.

And why would every galaxy have its own unique shift and why would it only be red shifted? Why are we at the "top"? Not only does your suggestion make little sense, provided our understanding of physics is correct which we have good reason to think it is, but a shift as you suggest is contradicted by observations as well. Therefore it is a no go.

 

[sparow]

The fundamental forces are constant through the universe. The periodic table is the same throughout the universe. The spectra of an atom will be the same throughout the universe. If you take the right classes, you will also learn these things.

These statements are assumptions and while I expect them to be fundamentally true yet if you higher up the scientific ladder you would realise that the universe is insane and would not be allowed to stand trail. While the spectra of the atom may be the same throughout the universe the atom itself is not stable; if you fuse a hydrogen atom it is no longer a hydrogen atom; if you were to fuse a bunch of them you would have a residue of atoms that would fit into various slots in the periodic table. My assumption is that in a star nuclear fusion is continuous and atoms are reforming and popping around the periodic table at the speed of light.

We don't see the same redshift for stars in our own galaxy. Therefore, we know that it isn't something intrinsic to stars themselves. We only see a correlation between redshift and distance to a galaxy.

There can hardly be a correlation between red shift and distance when the only indication that distance exists is red shift; it is like using the chicken to determine haw far away the egg is when you don't know which one came first.

 

[sparow]

A child probably doesn't understand why pouring water in a gas tank won't work as well as gasoline. Doesn't change that fact that water won't work as well, even if we can't convince the child otherwise.

Now pretend God is saying this to you.

 

[sparow]

Ever heard about that "fine tuning" of the universe? You cannot just shift around the spectrum in the periodic table and expect no effects from that. Stars will not burn "properly", may not even form at all. Chemistry as we know it will not work anymore. That mean we should not see red shift from known chemicals on Earth - still we do.

And why would every galaxy have its own unique shift and why would it only be red shifted? Why are we at the "top"? Not only does your suggestion make little sense, provided our understanding of physics is correct which we have good reason to think it is, but a shift as you suggest is contradicted by observations as well. Therefore it is a no go.

You have a different perspective on red shift to Loudmouth, you may not know what red shift is.