what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that it involves cute magical girl warriors fighting for love and justice.

The go live on Themyscira, LOL.

But don't bring Themyscira here.

They're called "miracles," not "magic," as academia teaches.

 

[Andre_b]

Never heard of him. Who is he?

--- googling --- googling --- googling ---

Oh my! A creationist zoologist. No evidence in his bio he knows squat about astrophysics.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out the major holes in the philosophy. A large percentage of honest physicist will tell you this. Many are clinging on to this philosophy like the Egyptians and Romans did to theirs.

 

[PeterDona]

"The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple is a good starter. It was written in '91, and we have more/better methods now, but it gives a good synopsis about how the estimates got better over the years. I believe he developed the K/Ar and/or Ar/Ar methods.

Right, I was hoping that you would be able to point to something more simple like an article published in a journal. You see, as I remember it, in 1991 the age of the earth was already believed to be those 4.5/4.6B years.
I was hoping for that one reference or those few references.

What I told my students was that somebody had found a stone that was half uranium and half lead. That was probably just a made up story no my part.

 

[PeterDona]

You can address the question asked. Which referenced gravitational effects. Is it not apparent that those effects will cause rotational effects in any moving mass?

I think you posted something like
"you have heard of gravity?"
If
{you do not see such a statement as simply throwing such a hard insult that the discussion cannot continue}
then I cannot help you

For me, for 2 people to interact, there has to be some preparatory conditions, like you trust the uprightness of the other person, that the other person is able to conduct reasonable argumentation etc.

Your statement starts by claiming you do not believe such things about me. Then we can not communicate. And being the OP'er that somehow has to stay in the thread, I resort to reporting your post. That's it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out the major holes in the philosophy. A large percentage of honest physicist will tell you this. Many are clinging on to this philosophy like the Egyptians and Romans did to theirs.

What philosophy are you speaking of?

As for the physicists, have you bothered to ask us?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also the CMB isn’t proof, it actually was completely off of what it predicted. CMB could very well also be from another phenomenon unknown to us. It doesn’t even match what the models predicted it would be measured.

Since this is sciencey and on-topic I will reply to it...

The temperature of the CMB doesn't have a specific value for all possible BB cosmologies. The current, observable CMB temperature is related to how much expansion has occurred since the Recombination epoch as the original, unredshifted temperature of the background radiation is basically set by the atomic physics of hydrogen. The redshift to recombination is dependent on the expansion history of the universe and through it things like if the Universe was flat, the ratio of matter to non-matter, etc. T_CMB = T_Rec/(1+z) and z~1100. The guesses based on BB models that were within a factor of 2-3 were perfectly fine.

It is the *existence* of the CMB, *not* the exact value that is the prediction of general BB models. The exact temperature is very useful in constraining the parameters of the BB model.

If you think there are "alternative mechanisms" for forming the CMB you should spell them out.

 

[PeterDona]

No. The Solar system did not form from a rotating supernova. Supernovae are expanding, the early solar system was collapsing.

How do small patches of the universe start to rotate? Easy. Start with any non-rotating uniform gas and inject a non-rotating disturbance (for example a jet of gas puffed into it. Alternatively you could think of a person walking in a straight line into a uniform block of air). When the intruding gas pushes the larger medium aside it starts to rotate. With one rotation sense on one side and the other on the opposite side. The net angular momentum is still zero, but there are now localized pockets of rotation.

This happens all the time with fluid-fluid interactions forming localized pockets of rotation. In a large molecular cloud there will be many randomly oriented pockets of low-level rotation that lead to the randomly oriented star systems when they collapse.

Hm, ok I appreciate that you try to save the model that I have thrown a serious blow at. I respect when people try to think about things. So I will try to go a little distance with your thought.

So ehm, ok I can think of 2 maybe 3 points that I want to make about your assertion. Hopefully I can inspire thinking.
(1) while I agree to your idea that a "disturbance" could produce rotation in a gas or liquid, do we know what could be the nature of such a disturbance? Could we be able to independently verify that such an impulse / a disturbance has occured.
(2) Based on preservation of rotational / angular momentum, when a rotating system is created by a purely natural "disturbance", there would have to be something that has an equal rotation in opposite direction.
For easiness of thought, let us speculate that there should be a solar system just like ours, but simply rotating the other way. Where would we find that counter-rotating object?
(3) This may be a question coming from my lack of knowing fluid dynamics, but I want to make the point that "space" is not the same reference system as e.g. a liquid in a sea on earth. There is nothing in space to yield a resistence so to speak, so I just wonder about the whole idea, how effective would an impulse really be at creating that rotation.

I am also hoping you will be able to understand and assess my thoughts here.

 

[PeterDona]

Stretching out the heavens, or the raqia, should not be conflated with stretching space time. The raqia was a solid dome perception of the authors of the ancient near east:

Let's look at some more verses on the raqia:
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6 NRSV

God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8 NASB1995

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14 NRSV

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11 NRSV

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2 NRSV


And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20 NRSV

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13 NRSV


and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10 NRSV

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18 NRSV

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18 KJV

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18 NIV


It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22 NRSV

Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22 NRSV

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26 NRSV

Then I looked, and above the dome that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne.
Ezekiel 10:1 NRSV

When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:27‭-‬29 NASB1995


The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14 NRSV

If I may be allowed to pass on this topic. I understand that maybe the verse "God stretches out the heavens"
(which seems to be in many places - click)
could be taken to be a part of a biblical cosmology, and maybe you are well versed in the topic more than I, I simply wanted to make the point that that expression resounds with an expanding universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I may be allowed to pass on this topic. I understand that maybe the verse "God stretches out the heavens"
(which seems to be in many places - click)
could be taken to be a part of a biblical cosmology, and maybe you are well versed in the topic more than I, I simply wanted to make the point that that expression resounds with an expanding universe.

Also note that God "stretched" the heaven (past tense) as well.

Jeremiah 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Also note that God "stretched" the heaven (past tense) as well.

Jeremiah 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

... well, apparently, God still has the power to continue "stretching" the heavens (present tense, with caveats for any pockets of space-time variations that may be existing ... ).

 

[AV1611VET]

... well, apparently, God still has the power to continue "stretching" the heavens (present tense, with caveats for any pockets of space-time variations that may be existing ... ).

Well, the way I see it is like taking a balloon and blowing it up to about two feet in diameter with smoke.

Then suddenly "ballooning" out the balloon to a distance of ten miles in diameter.

The smoke (universe) will expand into the larger area until it reaches maximum disbursement.

Thus the smoke was both stretched out (to two feet) in the first place, and is also stretching out (towards maximum disbursement).

So both tenses apply: past tense and present tense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the way I see it is like taking a balloon and blowing it up to about two feet in diameter with smoke.

Then suddenly "ballooning" out the balloon to a distance of ten miles in diameter.

The smoke (universe) will expand into the larger area until it reaches maximum disbursement.

Thus the smoke was both stretched out (to two feet) in the first place, and is also stretching out (towards maximum disbursement).

So both tenses apply: past tense and present tense.

Sounds like we're in essential agreement, minus our selected choices of "scientific models." But I usually just let all of that stuff ride since I'm not a stickler where dogma about the origin and/or the nature of our universe is concerned.

It makes some discussions go a whole lot easier.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like we're in essential agreement, minus our selected choices of "scientific models." But I usually just let all of that stuff ride since I'm not a stickler where dogma about the origin and/or the nature of our universe is concerned.

It makes some discussions go a whole lot easier.

I love talking about the Creation Week.

It's my forte, you know.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that it involves cute magical girl warriors fighting for love and justice.

That's me right there.

 

[Astrid]

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out the major holes in the philosophy. A large percentage of honest physicist will tell you this. Many are clinging on to this philosophy like the Egyptians and Romans did to theirs.

More to the point is no creationist has even one datum
point to disprove evolution / deep time, or to fortify
their faith based beliefs.

So it is actually impossible to be an intellectually honest yec.

 

[sjastro]

You got any evidence for your accusations? You’re the one that started with the exact accusations.
I gave you a series which the first video of the series talks about the entire Big Bang pseudoscience philosophy.

Here it is again, the direct video explaining. Since it seems you glanced at my comment:

First of all it is against forum rules to post videos without providing a summary of its relevancy to the thread.
No one is expected to wade through a video that runs for nearly 1.5 hours for the answers.

I did however find the references to the Big Bang and this Walter Veith character quotes the Bible on a regular basis as compensation for willful ignorance of the science.
Rather than rebutting every single point in the video that doesn’t make sense, since the subject of angular momentum has raised its head again, this time in the video, this issue will be addressed.

As mentioned in the thread the Big Bang does not determine how objects orbit or spin in space-time and Veith’s account is nonsensical.
According to Veith a plausible explanation is the rotation and orbits of objects in space is due to the rotation of the infinitesimal point when the Big Bang occurred.
Since this point must have spun in a certain direction, objects which spin or orbit in a retrograde motion must prove the Big Bang is wrong!!!
What is laughable about this argument the science is demonstrably wrong which he uses to show how the Big Bang is wrong.
Unfortunately two wrongs don’t make a right.

Firstly as anyone who has a command of basic physics understands angular momentum is conserved.
If the radius r of an object or its orbit decreases, its angular velocity ω increases.
Slowly rotating massive stars which undergo a type II supernova through gravitational collapse end up as fast spinning neutron stars of much smaller radius due to conservation of angular momentum.
The limit when an object becomes a point as r → 0, results in ω → ∞.
In the case for the universe if we ran it backwards, ω becomes infinitely large when the universe is a point size at the Big Bang.
It is therefore nonsense to talk about points of infinitesimal size having an angular momentum.

Secondly at sizes below the Planck length the physics breakdown so it is pointless (pardon the pun) to even talk about angular momentum at the time of the Big Bang.
Veith is clearly a crank who is also conspiracy theorist and accused of being anti-Semitic.
Walter Veith - Wikipedia

You should have done some research on the author and the subject matter before concluding the video shows the Big Bang as a “pseudoscience philosophy.”

 

[Andre_b]

More to the point is no creationist has even one datum
point to disprove evolution / deep time, or to fortify
their faith based beliefs.

So it is actually impossible to be an intellectually honest yec.

Says the one that has only assumptions of the evidence for deep time.

Again doesn’t take a genius to figure out the multiple holes in the philosophy

 

[PeterDona]

Since this is sciencey and on-topic I will reply to it...

The temperature of the CMB doesn't have a specific value for all possible BB cosmologies. The current, observable CMB temperature is related to how much expansion has occurred since the Recombination epoch as the original, unredshifted temperature of the background radiation is basically set by the atomic physics of hydrogen. The redshift to recombination is dependent on the expansion history of the universe and through it things like if the Universe was flat, the ratio of matter to non-matter, etc. T_CMB = T_Rec/(1+z) and z~1100. The guesses based on BB models that were within a factor of 2-3 were perfectly fine.

It is the *existence* of the CMB, *not* the exact value that is the prediction of general BB models. The exact temperature is very useful in constraining the parameters of the BB model.

If you think there are "alternative mechanisms" for forming the CMB you should spell them out.

Is it possible you could in some easy words explain some of this CMB connection.

i do understand that when a theory is able to make predictions that then later prove to be factual, that shows that the theory is a strong theory.
I also heard that the CMB is not uniform. This may be off topic however.

thanks

 

[sjastro]

That's me right there.

I thought you come across more as the kick ass type female which I encountered plenty of times when doing martial arts.
(Sorry for being off topic.)

 

[Bradskii]

Not an agnostic who believes in Creationism. An agnostic who believes in intelligent design.

I'd call him a Theist, except he doesn't believe we can know a god exists. He insists the evidence necessitates some design (without going so far as personifying a designer).

In other words, scientific facts about our world are best explained by the theory there is an intelligence behind the universe. He stops there.

ID isn't a theory. It makes no predictions and it can't be tested. And please, just please don't tell us that there is no designer implied. Such nonsense insults my intelligence.

Method A: Gather facts, propose a theory to explain them, draw a conclusion.
Method B: Start with a conclusion, make up a theory which leads to that conclusion, look for facts that fit the theory.

One of those is science. One is ID. Do I need to tell you which is which?