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

[AV1611VET]

Pretty simple really. The more unbelievers talk the more foolish they sound.

Of course they're going to sound like fools, because ... well ... as David put it:

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Until they repent, they can't help it.

But after they repent, their whole vocabulary changes:

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

 

[Hans Blaster]

Gee I wonder?!

Rather play coy games than answer? We've already got enough of that on this board.

 

[PeterDona]

I, for one, see no 'serious blow', in the slightest. Please elaborate and explain this 'serious blow'.
F=ma (ie: force).
Yes. The evidence is the observation of rotation in a spatial environment. This is a sufficient physical basis for the purpose of constructing the predictive model.
Not necessarily. This sub-discussion grew from conservation of momentum (which includes rotational).
You originally speculated for reasons of the 'easiness of thought'. The original tentatively held 'truth' of that speculation hasn't changed. There is thus, no counter-rotating object to be found because it was never demonstrated to necessarily exist in the first place. The answer to the question of where a speculated counter-rotating object would be found, is thus physically unconstrained in the speculation. There are too many 'possibilities' .. (including the case of: none at all).
Interacting molecular forces are sufficient to cause rotation .. (as most aspiring physicists would appreciate).

hm, as I get it
Your answer seems to be a mingle of "you cannot convince me", and "I do not consider this to be really an important problem".
BB theory is an exercise in trying to explain the universe based on purely natural causes. So if, at some point "the hand of God" has to be invoked, then the whole exercise falls. I do not have that problem, becuase I have already accepted the fact that God created the universe, and that also effects that I no longer feel the need to believe in a BB theory. Actually there are major problems with the BB theory, but this thread is not primarily a discussion of those problems, and therefore I limit myself to this one objection, and I of course appreciate your counter thoughts.

When discussing how the solar system came into rotation, we are not talking about minor convulsions in a liquid. We are talking about some force that would have to be really massive. So my question is, would we have any independent way to verify that such a force has existed. It is not enough to say that the rotation in itself is evidence enough. That is not independent verification.

In another of your answers I almost get the impression that you do not consider conservation of angular momentum an important matter. Almost we can dismiss the thought (?) But conservation of angular momentum is a law of physics, so there should be a more solid answer to the issue.

 

[PeterDona]

The light from some of the stars we see, took millions of years to get here, stars we see in the James Webb photos, it took billions.

So you are implying that the light was created before the universe was created?

ok, on topic, you are assuming the constant speed of light. It may not be so.

 

[PeterDona]

I haven't seen a "serious blow" so I'm not saving it as the apparent issue is not really of any concern.



The initial fluctuations seen in the CMB indicate some "seed perturbation". (Most versions of the BB model interpret these initial perturbations as "quantum fluctuations" from when the Universe was very very small and in causal contact.) Cosmological models natural develop localized rotations based on such initial perturbations. Later fluid motions such as supernovae or galactic winds can provide the impulses I spoke of.



The solar system formed from a giant molecular cloud. Those are quite turbulent. One feature of turbulent fluids is a large number of localized vortices. Even when the total angular momentum of the whole system is zero, there are localized, random pockets of rotation. So it's not so much as the Solar System having an oppositely spinning twin, but that it is one of thousands of systems randomly oriented in rotation. (The stars have since dispersed through this part of the Galaxy as well.)



Probably, but that's OK.



Even if it were created in a non-rotating, non-turbulent gas cloud by an impulse of some sort, the gases in the cloud interacting with an impulse from an external gas (like a SN remnant, or a jet) involve gas-on-gas interactions. Space is not empty. GMCs are relatively high density regions of interstellar gas (10s to 100s of atoms per cubic cm).



No problem.

The argument about rotation is really a very strong argument. I appreciate that you can point to fluctuations in the CMB. My issue, or maybe our issue, with the CMB, is that we have a poor understanding what it is all about, or how it can be applied. That leaves a lot of room for speculation, but little room for actual investigations.

I will not buy your idea that
"So it's not so much as the Solar System having an oppositely spinning twin, but that it is one of thousands of systems randomly oriented in rotation."
I get the impression, maybe, that you consider the universe to be generally disordered, whereas I consider it to be generally ordered.
I do think that a force that caused our whole solar system to rotate (forget about the 2 planets rotating the other way round at the moment), should be somehow observable, or at least detectable.

Otherwise we are in the land of "it happened long time ago but no longer happens", the magic wand of some BB adherents, something I believe we should avoid. As much as possible, if we want to postulate a past event, then we should be able to find good evidence that said event happened.

 

[SelfSim]

BB theory is an exercise in trying to explain the universe based on purely natural causes.

That is not my understanding, (nor Astrophysicists'), of the so-called BB Model. The model serves as a predictive explanation for the concept of the evolution of the observable universe.

'Natural causes' might be an interpretation of what that model might represent to a philosophically focused person, I suppose .. but that's not what those who created and work with the model are focused on.

So if, at some point "the hand of God" has to be invoked, then the whole exercise falls. I do not have that problem, becuase I have already accepted the fact that God created the universe, and that also effects that I no longer feel the need to believe in a BB theory. Actually there are major problems with the BB theory, but this thread is not primarily a discussion of those problems, and therefore I limit myself to this one objection, and I of course appreciate your counter thoughts.

No one has to believe in the BB model. 'Belief in it' is optional and quite irrelevant, given that it is only a best attempt explanation.

When discussing how the solar system came into rotation, we are not talking about minor convulsions in a liquid. We are talking about some force that would have to be really massive.

.. of astronomical proportions, some might even say(?)

So my question is, would we have any independent way to verify that such a force has existed. It is not enough to say that the rotation in itself is evidence enough. That is not independent verification.

Rotation is concluded from independent observations of cloud velocity gradients, for example the M51 spiral galaxy (see: Rotation of molecular clouds in M 51, 2020).
Firstly, the context:

Assuming giant molecular clouds (GMCs) form from the gravitational contraction of a more diffuse medium, their angular momenta should reflect the dynamics (angular momentum in particular) of the medium from which they formed.

(With gravitational contraction being just one of the forces considered there).

Their conclusion:

5. Conclusions

Cloud velocity gradients are seen within the PAWS sample of clouds. Dominantly prograde velocity gradients are observed in the Colombo et al. (2014a) cloud sample. This in itself, coupled with the similar results found by Braine et al. (2018) for M 33, is evidence that velocity gradients are chiefly due to cloud rotation. 30% of the clouds show retrograde rotation. As in M 33, the rotational energy is not sufficient to support the cloud against gravity, at least at the GMC-scale observed here.

.. conservation of angular momentum is a law of physics, so there should be a more solid answer to the issue.

There is. (See the above paper, as an example).

 

[Andre_b]

There's a ton of evidence for it: the size of the observable universe vs. the recession velocity of the most distant galaxies; age of the moon rocks and meteorites we've collected; the orbital mechanics of certain asteroids indicate that they came from a single location millions of years ago; the age of the stars in distant star clusters; measurements of the cosmic microwave background; measurements of the large scale structure of the universe.

And there's absolutely no evidence for a young universe, other than false conclusions based on erroneous readings of religious texts that were never intended to be used as scientific references.

That’s not evidence. That’s add to the data an assumption. If the universe was created and all the stars created instantly and the light set in It’s position, you would not know the age of the universe. Starlight measurements is a distance not an age measurement. I don’t understand how people cannot understand this. It has always been a distance measurement.

dark matter never found, hole 1
Theory of everything not even close, hole 2
A simple item of matter say the size of a rock has ever been compressed to the size of a proton or remotely close to this, yet people want the entire universe to do this, very big hole 3.
Light distance isn’t necessarily an age measurement. Hole 4
Breaking the laws of physics the first few years after the creation of the universe, hole 5.

We can keep going with the holes of the Big Bang pseudoscience. There’s plenty more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol Brian Greene. Riiiight loaded philosophy. To bad you have all full of holes without your “theory of everything”

Quoted from your own scientists:
“The Big Bang theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.

In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence (yeah right, like they know this ), the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom (). It's thought that at such an incomprehensibly dense, energetic state, the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, were forged into a single force, but our current theories haven't yet figured out how a single, unified force would work. To pull this off, we'd need to know how gravity works on the subatomic scale, but we currently don't.”

now that is a lot of haven’t figured out yet, pull this off, don’t know how gravity works. All in one sentence they are clueless on a few matters. And there’s much more holes to fill. The boat sank a long time ago.

No you didn’t choose life sadly and are deceived. You’ll be in such a shock fir being not humble snd blinded yourself WILLINGLY.

No, when I said I chose life, I was referring to Jesus Christ. And the most fantastic thing about it is, my "being" a Christian requires very little in the way of intellectually convincing you that I am ...

... as for the science, I have dozens of other books by other scientists both secular and Christian who are my guideposts. So, it is what it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just repent of the ignorance you once held. It’s simple. You were arrogant thinking you know how the universe is made in details. 100% arrogance of all scientist.

And which denomination of Christianity, pray tell, should they join when they finally wake up from their scientific slumber, Andre?

 

[NxNW]

There’s no such thing as a geologic column it is all made up:

There is enough in existence to be able to date the material and successfully predict what type of fossils will be found. As I said, find a rabbit in the precambrian and the theory of evolution is defeated.

And yes they find one animal in different layers.

No, they found the Tiktaalik in the exact layer they expected to find it, because it was the correct age.

It’s all about density of animals etc, if the layers were once mud flow then different density of layers could be created one on top of the other and even repeated layers, same for the animals which has been observed.

False. Fossils are sorted by age, not weight or buoyancy.

 

[chilehed]

That’s not evidence. That’s add to the data an assumption. If the universe was created and all the stars created instantly and the light set in It’s position, you would not know the age of the universe. Starlight measurements is a distance not an age measurement. I don’t understand how people cannot understand this. It has always been a distance measurement.

That sounds like a really good argument that the universe and everything in it (including you) is only a microsecond old. All of the memories you think you have were instantaneously created just now, in the same way.

It's a monumentally stupid argument.

 

[Joy]

Mod Hat On

Some Posts and Responses
have been Removed
in
Thread Clean

RV: Flaming and Goading

Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.

Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Please remember to post in accordance with
the Flaming and Goading Rule​

Mod Hat Off​

 

[NxNW]

Zero dating methods are good data.

That sentence is nonsensical. Dating methods use data; nobody claimed they *are* data.

They all use major major assumptions.

(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate[/quote]

Are you claiming the rate of decay changes, and therefore the weak nuclear force is not a constant?

This would undermine the Creationist claim that the universe is finely-tuned. Is that what you're saying?

One such example is found in rock samples were collected from a freshly solidified lava dome observed to form at the Mount St Helen’s eruption in June of 1980. The lab conducted Potassium-Argon radiometric testing that calculated the lava sample to be approximately 350,000 years old.**5** Yet, the sample was only 10 years old at the time of the test.

Sometimes airplanes fall out of the sky, but aerospace technology still works. Sometimes samples are contaminated or equipment is faulty, but dating technology still works.

Your 60-year-old anecdotes from are not significant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When discussing how the solar system came into rotation, we are not talking about minor convulsions in a liquid. We are talking about some force that would have to be really massive. So my question is, would we have any independent way to verify that such a force has existed. It is not enough to say that the rotation in itself is evidence enough. That is not independent verification.

Relative to the scale of a GMC, the velocity fluctuations from turbulence that seed the rotation of new star systems *are* just a "minor convulsion" in a fluid.

Here is a review paper (preprint) describing measurements of turbulence in molecular clouds.

Turbulent molecular clouds

 

[Hans Blaster]

The argument about rotation is really a very strong argument. I appreciate that you can point to fluctuations in the CMB. My issue, or maybe our issue, with the CMB, is that we have a poor understanding what it is all about, or how it can be applied. That leaves a lot of room for speculation, but little room for actual investigations.

I doubt that the "rotation argument" is strong. I've never even heard of it before you mention it and I'm still not sure what it could be.

We know a lot about the CMB fluctuations, how they tie to modern intergalactic structure, and how they constrain the parameters of the cosmological models.

I will not buy your idea that
"So it's not so much as the Solar System having an oppositely spinning twin, but that it is one of thousands of systems randomly oriented in rotation."
I get the impression, maybe, that you consider the universe to be generally disordered, whereas I consider it to be generally ordered.
I do think that a force that caused our whole solar system to rotate (forget about the 2 planets rotating the other way round at the moment), should be somehow observable, or at least detectable.

I gave some information about rotation in a separate post.

It is not a matter of the Universe being "generally disordered" it is a matter of the disorder inherent in a turbulent gas cloud. The solar system formed (as do all star systems) from the collapse of an "overdensity" in one such cloud.

The "forces" that cause the rotation of the solar systems would have been the fluid interactions in the GMC before the collapse started and the conservation of angular momentum of the collapsed cloud. There is no need for any continuing torques on the Solar System to keep our planetary system spinning.

(There aren't two planets rotating the wrong way about the Sun.)

Otherwise we are in the land of "it happened long time ago but no longer happens", the magic wand of some BB adherents, something I believe we should avoid. As much as possible, if we want to postulate a past event, then we should be able to find good evidence that said event happened.

No magic wand. (I don't believe in magic anyway.) There is lots of evidence of star formation, turbulence in molecular clouds, etc. in modern galaxies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doubt that the "rotation argument" is strong. I've never even heard of it before you mention it and I'm still not sure what it could be.

I'm glad I'm not alone on that count. I hadn't heard of it as an argument either. Maybe its just my lack of prowess in Physics, but I'm having a hard time comprehending even why it would be.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That’s not evidence. That’s add to the data an assumption. If the universe was created and all the stars created instantly and the light set in It’s position, you would not know the age of the universe. Starlight measurements is a distance not an age measurement. I don’t understand how people cannot understand this. It has always been a distance measurement.

If some creator also made light in transit to fool us then they are a great deceiver as observation of that light clearly indicates a Universe that is not like the one you claimed is created.

dark matter never found, hole 1

Astronomers have found all kinds of dark matter and in many cases mapped out exactly where it is located and how much of it there is in those places.

Theory of everything not even close, hole 2
A simple item of matter say the size of a rock has ever been compressed to the size of a proton or remotely close to this, yet people want the entire universe to do this, very big hole 3.

"item of matter" and "size of a rock" are very vague. How big is the rock? What kind of matter are you talking about. We can not work with your vagaries.

Light distance isn’t necessarily an age measurement. Hole 4

The time you see all things that you see are seen at a time given by the light travel time from the object. (Plus the optical processing time of your eyes and brain.) You only observe the past.

Breaking the laws of physics the first few years after the creation of the universe, hole 5.

What laws are broken?

We can keep going with the holes of the Big Bang pseudoscience. There’s plenty more.

If any of this had the slightest connection to actual data, I might be concerned about BB theory. There are some serious holes in your argument. (Or maybe your argument is just a bunch of holes.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm glad I'm not alone on that count. I hadn't heard of it as an argument either. Maybe its just my lack of prowess in Physics, but I'm having a hard time comprehending even why it would be.

I'm not even sure the "case" for such a "rotation problem" has even been made in a post. It might just be buried in that 90 minute video no one should be expected to watch to participate in the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

If some creator also made light in transit to fool us then they are a great deceiver as observation of that light clearly indicates a Universe that is not like the one you claimed is created.

Tell me, chief ...

If science today figured out a way to transport a person from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen thousand light years away, in 1/10 of a second, would we be "great deceivers fooling them"?

I have a feeling we wouldn't be.

But let God do it -- and not science -- and look out, here come the jealous whitecoats to accuse Him of deception!

And you wonder why some of us get the idea that science is your god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Tell me, chief ...

If science today figured out a way to transport a person from Earth to Planet Timbuktu, sixteen thousand light years away, in 1/10 of a second, would we be "great deceivers fooling them"?

I have a feeling we wouldn't be.

But let God do it -- and not science -- and look out, here come the jealous whitecoats to accuse Him of deception!

And you wonder why some of us get the idea that science is your god?

Science isn't my god. Also, for my approach to theology and faith in Christ, the findings of modern physical science/astrophysics don't make much difference and arent' the locus wherein I see that there's a hill to die upon ...