The Age of the Universe

[In situ]

I was of the opinion that the 13.8 billion "years old" was calculated from the speed the light took to reach us from the farthest objects in the distance.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not really, or rather not fully. The age of the universe is calculated based on the cosmological constant cold dark matter model (in short the Lambda-CDM model). This model describes the evolution of the universe and explains why we see the stuff we see today, including the light from the most distant starts (or more correctly the light from their galaxies as we cannot separate the light from individual stars in very distant galaxies), the distribution of galaxies and dark matter/energy as well as the patterns in the 3K background radiation etc. The age of the universe is related to the cosmological constant. If you can determine the value of this constant, then you can determine the age of the universe. This is what the Lambda-CDM model does. I.e. it is little bit more complex than just dividing a distance with the speed of light since you need to take into account the expansion rate of the universe itself which is dependent on the (types of) energy content of the universe, such as the ration of dark energy v.s. energy which in itself change over time. Doing all this, and more, physicists has concluded that the age of the universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.

 

[Doveaman]

Unfortunately, no. As serious pointed out, it's a bit complicated because it involves a Hubble redshift component that has to also be accounted for in their theory. Neither number is calculated strictly (or even actually) on the speed of light alone, nor the movement of objects alone. They also threw in a "bait and switch" component that supposedly causes an undefined thing called "space" to do magical expansion tricks at Hubble speeds. That expansion trick is *crucial* to both of those numbers, more crucial than the speed of light. Neither number is actually limited to, nor entirely dependent upon the speed of light, mostly due to the expansion of space claim.



IMO the universe is infinite and eternal for all I actually know. The whole concept of expansion is based upon the idea that photons reaching Earth *never* experience any inelastic scattering on the billion light year long trip to Earth. That is simply not a tenable premise to begin with. The moment you allow for some amount of inelastic scattering to be the cause of at least *some* of that redshift, the whole need for expansion falls apart. Even if there is some expansion going on, it could be the result of moving objects and time dilation features, and not have anything at all to do with 'expanding space'.

I honestly think the "expanding space" claim is the reason it's confusing, and most folks don't get the whole Hubble constant issue, nor the fact that even Hubble himself wrote about the possibility of 'tired light', AKA today known as inelastic scattering.

http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/new-evidence-that-the-universe-is-not-expanding/

Eric Lerner applies what's called a 'surface brightness' tests on higher redshifted objects and shows that they are quite compatible with a static universe rather than an expanding universe.

Einstein once said you don't really know what you are talking about until you can explain it to your grandmother.

There are some people who claim that the expansion of space has been observed.

It would be impressive to see a photo or a video of that expansion. I'm sure my grandmother would be impressed too.

 

[In situ]

light's speed is dependent on the media it is traveling through, but the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Better?

An electromagentic (em) field, which includes light, always propagates at the speed of light. However in the present of a medium an em field will start interact with the medium. This process of interaction takes some time. Because this interaction takes some time the propagation speed appears to slow down. The denser the medium is the the more the apperant slow down is since the em field will have to interact more often with the medium. Thus make a difference between the actual speed, which is always the same, and the apparent speed which is dependent on the density of medium, i.e. how often the photons interact with the medium it passes.

 

[BukiRob]

c = d/t Thus, at light-speed, the limit, c, is constant in any inertial frame of reference. Light can, if I remember correctly, travel slower; and even, for instance in Bose-Einstein condensates, even stand still. I could be wrong.

Not only can light travel slower it absolutely does. It is heavily impacted by gravity. The greater an objects gravity, the slower time moves from the perspective of that point in space.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the age of the universe being ~15 billion years old and the bibles 7 day creation account. Schroeder does an excellent job of explaining this in laymen terms

 

[In situ]

There are some people who claim that the expansion of space has been observed.

What do you mean with "observed"? We have not observed any electromagnetic or gravitational fields either. The concepts of fields are useful hypothesized theoretical construct and have never been observed but still most physicists is of the opinion that they probably have a physical reality as well. As I see it, the only reason someone would claim the universe is not expanding is either based on ignorance of what fundamental physics teach about space, matter and gravity and as well what experimental evidence suggest is the case, that or they simply trying to provoke.

 

[Daniel Sylon]

I'll gladly disagree to that. For one the natural world and history really does bunk the bible in so many ways.

If for the sake of argument the truth is in the bible,

I would argue that we humans keep misinterpreting the bible time and time again just like we did when we insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe according to "the bible"..

I cannot even begin to say how much the Bible is true in everything it says. For one, they are the words of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. For two, without these words, we would be lost forever to our own wisdom. For three, if we do not believe that the word of God are true, then we are deceived.

 

[In situ]

Einstein once said you don't really know what you are talking about until you can explain it to your grandmother.

And what exactly are you trying to imply with this comment?

 

[In situ]

IMO the universe is infinite and eternal for all I actually know.

I then conclude you do not know very much or you do not acknowledge some knowledge... Because for all I know, I don't think we can say what the case really is.

It would be impressive to see a photo or a video of that expansion. I'm sure my grandmother would be impressed too.

Are you stupid or do you just pretend being stupid in order to sustain a position you already know is incorrect?

 

[Sine Nomine]

Einstein once said you don't really know what you are talking about until you can explain it to your grandmother.

There are some people who claim that the expansion of space has been observed.

It would be impressive to see a photo or a video of that expansion. I'm sure my grandmother would be impressed too.

Einstein may not have meant that the Grandmother could understand, simply that one understood well enough to simplify. Many of the scientifically literate posters are doing a great job at this.

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. This will not be accomplished on CF, although discussion is valuable. I'm sure we could find examples where physicists and other scientists misunderstand theological concepts, even ones commonly held as non-debatable truths, because they lack the theological training and Biblical knowledge-base.

You said that the answer to your initial question would make a difference for you. Can you explain a bit further?

 

[The Cadet]

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

So... How do we establish what is and is not the truth?

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

How do we establish that this is the case?

Einstein once said you don't really know what you are talking about until you can explain it to your grandmother.

There are some people who claim that the expansion of space has been observed.

It would be impressive to see a photo or a video of that expansion. I'm sure my grandmother would be impressed too.

Not only is this not an Einstein quote, it's also not particularly useful. The fact of the matter is, many things in science really are complex and difficult to understand, to the point where it really is all but impossible to explain them to people with no expertise in the subject. It would be like me trying to explain Direction Inputs and their differences in Melee, Brawl, and Smash 4 to someone who doesn't know what a "Nintendo" is - none of it makes much sense at all.

 

[zardak]

The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old. Because you guys look at extraneous theories, you are not able to confirm what is what. That's why we need a reference-point for the truth. The Bible says "IN THE BEGINNING", meaning "THAT WAS THE BEGINNING!!!", God made the heaven (space) and the earth. - FYI the Hebrew in the Old Testament does not have plural "Heavens", it has the singular... "Heaven" (meaning - 'Space'; or if you like, "The Cosmos")

And i know for a fact that the earth has been dated and confirmed as 6000 years old, so that's also when space (the "Heaven") was created. Therefore the 13.7 billion compared to 42 billion light years away blah blah induces a faulty albeit blurry/confused conceptualization for theorizing. Obviously if we know the truth already, then factual answers can stem from that to avoid 'what ifs" and 'whys' or 'hows', and therefore we can see by the Bible that when God made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago, he obviously made the 'entire expanse' AT THE SAME TIME; problem solved! If anyone calls themself a Christian, then they need to look at the 'facts' (truths) in the Bible for exactly what they say, the Bible does not play word-games; capiche?
There is no mystery about all this... IN THE BEGINNING (6000 YEARS AGO), GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH". That's the end of the matter. Now get-on with being a Christian and rejoicing in your salvation...


And for the naysayer know-it-alls who wish to continue disputation, then consider this...

Some 'non-Christian' scientists said they found the perfect way to date the earth, and they said it's even 'more' reliable than telling the age of a tree by the rings on it's stump (which is 100% foolproof), 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...

 

[In situ]

Unfortunately, no. As serious pointed out, it's a bit complicated because it involves a Hubble redshift component that has to also be accounted for in their theory.

Do you mind elaborate on how the "Hubble redshift component" is accounted for?

Neither number is calculated strictly (or even actually) on the speed of light alone, nor the movement of objects alone.

So how is it done then and what parameters are involved?

They also threw in a "bait and switch" component that supposedly causes an undefined thing called "space" to do magical expansion tricks at Hubble speeds.

A "bait and switch" such as?

That expansion trick is *crucial* to both of those numbers, more crucial than the speed of light.

In what way is it "crucial"?

Neither number is actually limited to, nor entirely dependent upon the speed of light, mostly due to the expansion of space claim.

So what are the dependencies then?

 

[In situ]

The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old.

What does a religious view on the age of the universe has to do with the OP's question?

 

[Doveaman]

As I see it, the only reason someone would claim the universe is not expanding is either based on ignorance of what fundamental physics teach about space, matter and gravity and as well what experimental evidence suggest is the case, that or they simply trying to provoke.

Or maybe they have a different interpretation of what fundamental physics teach and their experimental evidence suggest something different.

This would explain why scientists often disagree.

Makes you wonder how science could be objective.

 

[The Cadet]

The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old. Because you guys look at extraneous theories, you are not able to confirm what is what. That's why we need a reference-point for the truth. The Bible says "IN THE BEGINNING", meaning "THAT WAS THE BEGINNING!!!", God made the heaven (space) and the earth. - FYI the Hebrew in the Old Testament does not have plural "Heavens", it has the singular... "Heaven" (meaning - 'Space'; or if you like, "The Cosmos")

Okay. How did you establish that this was true?

And i know for a fact that the earth has been dated and confirmed as 6000 years old,

Actually, the oldest dated rock on earth was dated to about 4.3 billion years ago. Moon rocks have been dated to around 3.16 billion years ago. You can certainly find things on the earth that are 6000 years old, but that doesn't set an upper limit for how old it could be, merely a lower limit.

 

[BukiRob]

The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old. Because you guys look at extraneous theories, you are not able to confirm what is what. That's why we need a reference-point for the truth. The Bible says "IN THE BEGINNING", meaning "THAT WAS THE BEGINNING!!!", God made the heaven (space) and the earth. - FYI the Hebrew in the Old Testament does not have plural "Heavens", it has the singular... "Heaven" (meaning - 'Space'; or if you like, "The Cosmos")

And i know for a fact that the earth has been dated and confirmed as 6000 years old, so that's also when space (the "Heaven") was created. Therefore the 13.7 billion compared to 42 billion light years away blah blah induces a faulty albeit blurry/confused conceptualization for theorizing. Obviously if we know the truth already, then factual answers can stem from that to avoid 'what ifs" and 'whys' or 'hows', and therefore we can see by the Bible that when God made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago, he obviously made the 'entire expanse' AT THE SAME TIME; problem solved! If anyone calls themself a Christian, then they need to look at the 'facts' (truths) in the Bible for exactly what they say, the Bible does not play word-games; capiche?
There is no mystery about all this... IN THE BEGINNING (6000 YEARS AGO), GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH". That's the end of the matter. Now get-on with being a Christian and rejoicing in your salvation...


And for the naysayer know-it-alls who wish to continue disputation, then consider this...

Some 'non-Christian' scientists said they found the perfect way to date the earth, and they said it is even 'more' reliable that telling the age of a tree by the rings on it's stump (which is 100% definite), and to their amazement they confessed that the earth is 6000 years old. There you go folks. No more confusion, just rejoice in God's awesome glory...

I would encourage you to watch the video link I posted of a presentation Schreoder gives. It beautifully explains exactly how the Biblical account of a LITERAL 6 day creation (Adonai rested on the 7th) and an observed/implied age of the universe being ~15 billion years old are correct.

 

[In situ]

Not only can light travel slower it absolutely does.

It certainly never happens from the point of view of the light itself.

 

[Doveaman]

Are you stupid or do you just pretend being stupid in order to sustain a position you already know is incorrect?

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

No need for the insults.

 

[Sine Nomine]

This would explain why scientists often disagree.

Makes you wonder how science could be objective.

You suggest that there is disagreement among [all or most] scientists and this reduces objectivity.

This simply isn't true. Most scientists agree, especially within their respective fields. The disagreements that do involve many scientists are frequently about points that are relatively minor for the layman.

Objectivity in science refers to the process of doing science. Objectivity in this sense is practiced, so science IS objective. Individual scientists have biases just like everyone else.

Science agrees on the approximate age and extent of the universe.

 

[Goonie]

The problem with this whole curious debate is that it's based on a misnomer, a faulty premise.

The universe is only 6000 years old. Because you guys look at extraneous theories, you are not able to confirm what is what. That's why we need a reference-point for the truth. The Bible says "IN THE BEGINNING", meaning "THAT WAS THE BEGINNING!!!", God made the heaven (space) and the earth. - FYI the Hebrew in the Old Testament does not have plural "Heavens", it has the singular... "Heaven" (meaning - 'Space'; or if you like, "The Cosmos")

And i know for a fact that the earth has been dated and confirmed as 6000 years old, so that's also when space (the "Heaven") was created. Therefore the 13.7 billion compared to 42 billion light years away blah blah induces a faulty albeit blurry/confused conceptualization for theorizing. Obviously if we know the truth already, then factual answers can stem from that to avoid 'what ifs" and 'whys' or 'hows', and therefore we can see by the Bible that when God made the earth and the universe 6000 years ago, he obviously made the 'entire expanse' AT THE SAME TIME; problem solved! If anyone calls themself a Christian, then they need to look at the 'facts' (truths) in the Bible for exactly what they say, the Bible does not play word-games; capiche?
There is no mystery about all this... IN THE BEGINNING (6000 YEARS AGO), GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH". That's the end of the matter. Now get-on with being a Christian and rejoicing in your salvation...


And for the naysayer know-it-alls who wish to continue disputation, then consider this...

Some 'non-Christian' scientists said they found the perfect way to date the earth, and they said it's even 'more' reliable than telling the age of a tree by the rings on it's stump (which is 100% foolproof), 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...

No reputable scientists have said this, geology, chemistry, physics depts in every reputable university on earth are in agreement that the earth is old, billions of years old.