The Age of the Universe

[Doveaman]

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.

I agree.

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

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

Sure.

Knowing the answer to a question is different from not knowing the answer, therefore knowing the answer makes a difference for me.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

Actually, in science, most fields tend towards a consensus. While at the start of a discipline or after a new breakthrough, there may be many different hypotheses about how best to explain the world, what we consistently see is competing hypotheses being supported or falsified by the increasing evidence-base, ultimately leading to most scientists in a given field agreeing on what's going on. See also: Beauchamp vs. Pasteur; Lamarck vs. Darwin; heliocentrism vs. geocentrism; the numerous hypotheses surrounding the cause of AIDS; et cetera. This consensus within a field is a very good sign that science is actually on to something, because if you examine reality closely, you will necessarily come to the same conclusions as someone else examining reality closely if you both have access to all the information.

By contrast, how about religion? Christianity has tens of thousands of distinct denominations, sects that separate themselves by very important beliefs, including beliefs about the most important thing about Christianity - how to avoid hell and enter heaven, or whether those places even exist to begin with, and there's no folding in. There's no trend towards doctrinal concordance. Rather, sects keep on splitting further and further down the line, forming a veritable family tree of different religious beliefs based on the same book. This should not happen. Not if the religion is based around interpreting something that is real and present in reality.

 

[Doveaman]

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

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

 

[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")

Yes... its 6000 years old from G-d's perspective and its ~15 billion years old from our perspective looking back. Genesis looks at creation going FORWARD in a linear fashion. You, me and everyone else alive is looking BACK. Both the position of the creation being.

Here is a question for you... if at creation Gd said I'm going to send a pulse of a hypothetical laser beam every second to earth how long would it take for it to be observed on earth? More importantly, once you saw

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...[/QUOTE]

Okay. How did you establish that this was true?



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.

That age is only correct if the baseline assumption is correct. Rocks are generally dated by making some assumptions about stratification which is little more than generally accepted guesswork. Recent papers have been published presenting serious flaws using radiocarbon dating or absolute dating methodologies.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

there are both numerous and obvious examples of the flaws of using these methods to date strata and rocks.
For example, there are numerous example over the last 150 years of people who found man made artifices of antiquity found in coal. One was recently discovered in Russia. American scientists from Oklahoma discovered an iron pot which was pressed into a piece of coal aged 312 million years old. Then, in 1974, an aluminum assembly part of unknown origin was found in a sandstone quarry in Romania.

This begs the question what is a pot doing embedded in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old. One one of 2 answers is possible. Either these things are hoaxes (give the number of things discovered from 1851 to present it is highly unlikely) OR our dating assumptions about the earth are wrong.

Science argues that the layers of coal found all over the earth took millions and millions of years to form. This would be true if one assumes and believes a world wide flood that would destroy all life on earth did not occur. However, if one believes the biblical account of a great flood it would explain how coal can rapidly form under the right conditions.

This is a good explanation of the flaws geological column written by a phd (who has his Phd in Geology) http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column

 

[Sine Nomine]

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.

What sources can you cite for your certainty? That the earth is about 4.5 billion years old is not disputed by serious scientists from any field that has a way to address the question. The universe must be at least this old. Physicists concerned with that question know that the universe is rough 14 billion years old.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Knowing the answer to a question is different from not knowing the answer, therefore knowing the answer makes a difference for me.

I'm glad you don't seem to consider it of eternal significance.

 

[BukiRob]

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

I did say that, you KNOW what I was trying to communicate. The perspective of time is either faster or slower based upon where it is observed. The greater the gravity the slower time moves. Just shy of the event horizon of a black hole time would appear to basically stop

 

[In situ]

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

There is no such things as "different interpretation" of an inconsistency or a contradiction.

One cannot claim things in vacuum, which you seams to think is fine nevertheless, and then think it automatically will make sense for those that actually are educated in that particular field of knowledge. For a claim to be accepted by physicists it must be consistent with everything already known. The claim that the universe is static is not consistent with anything that we know. I see people make statements here that flies in thew face of what we already know and then to see you claim it is a matter of "interpretations" is only a confession of your own ignorance about the subject.

This would explain why scientists often disagree.

This comment suggests you do not understand the methodology scientist uses to achieve knowledge or how they regard "truth". It is also indicative of a red herring...

Makes you wonder how science could be objective.

Scientists achieve objectivity by using math, logic reasoning, falsification and independent verification. Something spitted on by religious people all the time as being "close minded".

 

[Sine Nomine]

I did say that, you KNOW what I was trying to communicate. The perspective of time is either faster or slower based upon where it is observed. The greater the gravity the slower time moves. Just shy of the event horizon of a black hole time would appear to basically stop

This is a lot of work to support a biblical account that may not be about the age of the universe. Does the Bible place God at a particular location relative to the cosmic point of origin? Assuming 6 days is the answer from such a perspective, is there a practical or theological significance to knowing the answer?

 

[In situ]

The perspective of time is either faster or slower based upon where it is observed. The greater the gravity the slower time moves. Just shy of the event horizon of a black hole time would appear to basically stop

I have concerns about the accuracy of your comment. For instance have you considered the length contraction when you claim the speed is slowed down? I have not done the calculation, have you? My gut feelings bet is on the light does not slow down its speed from an outsiders view. Now, show me your calculations and prove me wrong and I will happily concede to be in error.

 

[BukiRob]

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.

That is simply untrue. There are many scientists within the fields of geology, physics, geochronology who will admit that they simply don't have answers. Serious flaws are being exposed with radio carbon dating and even more deep fundamental flaws with the geological column.

Just because you were taught that everyone agree's in HS and your undergrad 100 level courses taught by liberal teachers doesn't mean that people with Phd's working in their fields in the field agree with your assessment.

There is undeniable, reliable evidence of a world wide flood. If you assume such a thing DID NOT occur you have to have an earth that is billions of years old to explain the deep beds of coal found all over the earth. You have to do things like say the grand canyon was formed over millions upon millions of years carved out by the Colorado river... we know for absolute certainty that a canyon of size can be formed in extraordinarily short periods of time. Mt St Helen's is a striking example of how rapid erosion can form large canyon's in a short period of time.

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/

 

[BukiRob]

This is a lot of work to support a biblical account that may not be about the age of the universe. Does the Bible place God at a particular location relative to the cosmic point of origin? Assuming 6 days is the answer from such a perspective, is there a practical or theological significance to knowing the answer?

Gd is not man and to think of him in human terms is deeply flawed. He is spirit and not bound by the physical laws of the universe.

As I said, I suggest you take time to watch the video I posted its link a few posts up. Schreoder is a physicists who got his Phd and taught at MIT.

There is massive theological significance. What we know for certain is the universe had a beginning.

That means that for absolute certainty that science has verified without question that the first 3 words in Genesis are in fact absolute truth... IN THE BEGINNING.

Had you asked scientist in the 1950's when the universe was created the vast majority would have scoffed at you because the accepted line of thought was that the universe was eternal.

 

[BukiRob]

I have concerns about the accuracy of your comment. For instance have you considered the length contraction when you claim the the speed is slowed down? I have not done the calculation, have you? My gut feelings bet is on the light does not slow down its speed from an outsiders view. Now, show me your calculations and prove me wrong and I will concede to be in error.

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

 

[Oafman]

That is simply untrue. There are many scientists within the fields of geology, physics, geochronology who will admit that they simply don't have answers. Serious flaws are being exposed with radio carbon dating and even more deep fundamental flaws with the geological column.

Carbon dating is not used to date rocks.

 

[BukiRob]

Carbon dating is not used to date rocks.

IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book") (1997). Online corrected version: (2006–) "radioactive dating

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1]

 

[Oafman]

IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd ed. (the "Gold Book") (1997). Online corrected version: (2006–) "radioactive dating

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1]

Right. But you specifically said "radio carbon dating". Carbon-14's half life is only a few thousand years, so it's no good for dating rocks. Good for Egyptian mummies etc, but not rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is simply untrue. There are many scientists within the fields of geology, physics, geochronology who will admit that they simply don't have answers. Serious flaws are being exposed with radio carbon dating and even more deep fundamental flaws with the geological column.

We need real scientific references to back this claim up.

 

[Michael]

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

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

If you're looking for the formulas you'll find them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

A "bait and switch" such as?

Such as baiting students using Doppler shift to demonstrate photon redshift is caused by *object expansion*, then "switching" them to metaphysical "space expansion" claims that have *never* been shown to have any effect on a photon.

In what way is it "crucial"?

You can't get a size figure for the universe that is greater than 27.6 billion years in size without it.

So what are the dependencies then?

You might want to read through the link that I provided.

 

[[serious]]

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

That's a 50 minute video. Post the best arguments from it and we'll go from there. Don't expect everyone to waste an hour of their lives to save you 10 minutes of typing.

 

[Michael]

Yes, other forms of scattering were discovered by physicists too.

Ya, and they ignore *all* of them with respect to photon redshift in space plasmas, and instead they peddle a form of metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

What makes you say that it doesn't look younger? Are you telling me that this galaxy is actually depleted in gas and has an alpha/Fe that suggests a strong contribution of type Ia supernovae? Or do you just mean that it has pretty spiral arms?

Not only does it have pretty arms, it's got a nice spiral layout which isn't expected. They also find all sorts of evidence of 'mature' galaxies in a 'young' universe.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/03/galaxies-in-the-early-universe-mature-beyond-their-years

As the article says, the majority of galaxies at that epoch are irregular, so the discovery of one exception is super cool and interesting, but it is absurd to turn this into an age determination.

I think it's amusing that astronomers are constantly surprised by the "maturity" of various objects and galaxies in the distant universe, and then they back peddle over the data when they find features that don't jive with with their claims.

http://rt.com/news/235871-space-ancient-black-hole/

Their minds get blown, yet the cling to their failed predictions and claims anyway.

If there was no correlation between redshift and age, there would be no correlation between redshift and galaxy shape.

Sure there would be. We'd expect *more scattering* and more blur in more distant objects. We expect more blurring and distortions due to lensing too.

If redshift was caused by scattering, high redshift galaxies should have broadly the same statistics as low redshift galaxies.

And that's why we keep finding exceptions to your claims all the time, and why astronomers are always 'surprised' by their findings and getting their minds blown by features and objects that simply shouldn't exist at high redshifts.

The fact that someone can use a keyboard and post things on a public website doesn't make their words true. Now that I know that you are persuaded by an article on "vixra" promoting "tired light", I think I will disengage. Don't take me wrong. If I had infinite time I would be happy to spend some of it trying to explain to a tired-light proponent how science works. But I do not have infinite time, so I have to devote the time that I have to activities that have a higher chance of success. There is plenty of information online on the subject. That said, when there is a tired light model that fits all the observations of modern cosmology, and fits new observations that cannot be explained by the current model, I will change my mind and accept the new theory. Almost all astronomical data is public, so anyone can use it.

Pots and kettles. What you never did, and what you can't show me is any real *exhaustive published* study on various inelastic scattering processes that actually eliminates them all, one by one. Instead all I ever get from you guys is some *unpublished* website from Ned Wright as your *sole source* of information related to inelastic scattering/tired light ideas. You base all of your tired light claims on *unpublished website* materials, and you have a the gall to whine about me referring to Vixra PDFS in relationship to tired light? Talk about double standards.

Would you prefer arxiv PDFs instead?

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420

The bottom line is that there are also "mathematical models' to explain photon redshift as a function of inelastic scattering in plasma.