Question About the Universe

quote:

---

Spiritual and natural laws are harmonious, and nature is based and operated on spiritual principles.

---

Anyone can speculate about phenomena. It is not the evidence that is contestable (real evidence) it is the interpretation.For instance there is at least 300 cosmologies that provide adequate explanation for the existence of the universe without using dark energy or dark matter. These cosmologies are consistent with what observations show and GR.Some of those cosmologies (like the 5d universe) are completely comparable with the Biblical account of creation.Remember God is in the details. Faith is not inconsistent with science (real science).Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

The big bang has become so ad-hoc that it is now a tautology amongst scientists.Let us ignore reality for what we believe to be true that is not science.Did you know that the cosmological principle now provides less of a explanation of the universe than a galactic center for the milky way.

Good post... Cheers!

The age of the universe is ~13.4 billion years, yet we can view objects as far as 47 billion light years away. That proposition is based on the current expanding universe, which relies on dark energy, which relies on a hypothetical form of energy. The density of dark energy (1.67 10−27 kg/m3) is very low (wiki) it has two popular hypothetical possibilities: quintessence and a cosmological constant, the latter was disavowed by Einstein.Is quintessence the hand of God?

quote:

---

And in any case, all of those numbers are greater than 6,000 years, which is what you seem to be trying to document in other posts.

---

Since inflation is arbitrary and assumed to have occurred in a fraction of a second, nothing says the universe can not be 6000 years old under arbitrary inflation. There are several cosmologies based on relativity that provides a explanation via gravitational time slowing.

quote:

---

Just as a very simple example, the tree-ring sequences in various parts of the world establish ages of 12,500 to over 25,000 years.

---

I am familiar with most of the tree ring arguments Do you have a citation for the 12,500 to 25,000 year claim?A bit off topic but it is good information for me.

quote:

---

However long inflation took, it is not currently happening at nearly that rate within the visible portions of the universe. That means that we have plenty of evidence for ages of the visible portion of the universe.

---

Most of those evidences you refer to are better described by other cosmologiesLet us take on one example at a time. Point on point.You choose the starting point.

quote:

---

I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make with this information.

---

Like chess, a offense is built three moves in advance.

quote:

---

I've already given you two examples. Evidence from SN1987A and the age of the moon.

---

Those are two cases here but I think we can take on SN1987A... not knowing this in particular... does this prove the age of the universe? Please specify...Must take care of some business right now... will get back.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

RAZD is great, but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?

quote:

---

The facts related to SN1987A do what is required; namely, establish that the age of the universe is greater than 6000 years with a high degree of certainty. Your task is to show that you have a cosmological explanation that is more plausible than the currently accepted explanation and further that SN1987a does not actually show that the universe is older than 6000 years.

---

When Hubble proposed that the redshift is proportional to distance, it was under the assumption of no inflation. In an arbitrary inflation period time is not distance related.

quote:

---

In the big bang Universe the comoving Hubble length is always increasing, and so all scales are initially much larger than it, and hence unable to be affected by causal physics. Once they become smaller than the Hubble length, they remain so for all time. In the standard scenarios, COBE sees perturbations on large scales at a time when they were much bigger than the Hubble length, and hence no mechanism could have created them. Inflation reverses this behaviour, as seen in Figure 2. Now a given comoving scale has a more complicated history. Early on in inflation, the scale could be well inside the Hubble length, and hence causal physics can act, both to generate homogeneity to solve the horizon problem and to superimpose small perturbations. Some time before inflation ends, the scale crosses outside the Hubble radius (indicated by a circle in the lower panel of Figure 2) and causal physics becomes ineffective. Acceleration of the Universe - A.R. Liddle

---

If there is a good mathematician in the house maybe they can explain the context for the mathematical explanation given in this article. I do not have the mathematical background for that.The trouble is not worth the benefit of figuring the particulars out. Inflation is kind of like telling Alice in wonderland how much potion to drink to grow ten feet tall.In essence, Hubble’s relationship works fine now but did not during inflation. The CMB isotropy shows matter had a much closer distribution than can be explained by the estimated age of the universe so BB had to have inflation. With an arbitrary inflation current red shifts may or may not predict current distances (I can explain this latter), but do not prove anything about how long it took for matter to reach those distances, that only relies on other assumptions that have empirical problems.In other words the distance of SN1987A proves noting of how old the universe is by its current distance.

quote:

---

But inflation occurred between 10 to the -36 seconds and 10 to the -32 seconds after the Big Bang, before the formation of protons at 1 microsecond and long before the formation of the first stars about 500 million years after the Big Bang

---

How long does it take to form a star? A bigger question is how a star is even formed in the first place. There is no accepted working model for star formation in physics. Cloud collapse does not work because of problems encountered in jeans mass/radius. Triggered star formation assumes unreal mechanisms like supernova, where does a supernova happen before star formation?

quote:

---

That and the fact that ALL the various branches of science point to a very old earth - it's not enough to attempt to cast doubt on - say dendrochronology - you also have to deal with radio dating, the fossil record and geology. You have to explain why they all reconcile and back each other up - and in specific, evidenced-based terms. No vague hand waving. Good luck with all that.

---

Let us slow down by attacking one problem at a time, an ad-hoc monster like BB must be examined a piece at a time in the light of logic and fact. Patients is required, this forum has some very good minds, let us consider all the points of view.

quote:

---

No, but far less is required to meet your challenge. Your claims are that 1) nothing shows the universe to be greater than 6000 years old and 2) that there are alternate cosmological explanations that provide a more plausible age of less than or equal 6000 years. Not just an alternate, a more plausible explanation. I will be challenging you on every single aspect of your claims.

---

First of all I never made any such claims about 6000 years, on the contrary the Bible is not explicit about the age of the universe. You are in knee-jerk mode. I would expect nothing less than your comprehensive intellectual arguments. One point at a time. First age of the universe.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are mistaken. You made exactly the claims that I stated you made. Perhaps you want to restate your position? No problem, just say so. But don't accuse me of lying or knee jerking.lying or knee jerking.

---

Since you cannot recognize a hyperbole, I will be specific. My point is that you can not ascertain the age of the universe by star formation or redshift under a arbitrary inflation. The Bible never said the universe is 6000 years old. So since I was not present at its beginning that statement is meaningless.Now tell me how a star is formedEdited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.