Qinopio

[regarding http://www.aish.com/societywork/scie...e_Universe.asp]

I recently came across this article regarding the age of the universe. It's similar to other "extended day" arguments, but it seems to be written with a real respect for science. I was wondering if anyone here with a better knowledge of the early universe and physics could find any problems with the last part of the article - "15 billion or six days?". It's about 3/4 down.

A discussion of the first parts is more suited for the BC&A board, but it basically says that using only major pre-modern (and thus pre-modern science) scholars' comments on the Creation story, we arrive with some conclusions that are oddly in line with the current Big Bang model.

The last part - correct me if I'm wrong - says that if we were measuring time from the time and place that the Big Bang occured, then about 6,000 years would have passed as compared with our ~16 billion.

Is the expansion constant of one trillion valid?
Is the section "15 billion or six days?" mostly accurate? I'd appreciate any response I can get. Thanks

Bumble Bee Tuna

Well...Since the age of the Universe is not accepted to be 16 billion years, that kind of spoils things..

13.7 billion:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

15 billion?:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ology/age.html

1999 story, 12 billion:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9905/25/age.of.universe/

16 billion seems to be higher than any estimate I've ever heard. But this is not an expert opinion, merely the results of searching Google.

As for the rest of his writing, it was refreshing compared to Christian writings, that's for sure (assuming he's Jewish?).

-B

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Other than he's outright lying there is no problem with it. Except the massive lies.

Qinopio

Yes, 16 billion is a little high. But then again if you add up the generations of the Bible [as the author apparently did], it works out to be 5700+ years, so 6000 is also a little high. Heck, for most of us II members, it'd be a surprise if the Bible were correct about the age of the universe to within 6 orders of magnitude

Lies, you say? Please elaborate.

Tenek

So what exacly is this "place" where the Big Bang occured? How is God somehow "fixed" at what would supposedly be the centre of the universe? Why does this guy, then, throw in relativistic calculations, but then come up with a scenario with what would appear to be an absolute frame of reference? Given a sixteen-billion-year-old universe, what happened to the first 2.3 billion?

Hatchet

There are two key problems with the article that even I, as a lowly layman, can pick right away.

Firstly there is no "point" in space where the big bang occurred. Space and time were created in the big band and space itself expanded to create the universe we have today. So it is not true to say we could find an "origin" point in the universe where only six days had occurred since the big bang from our perspective.

Which brings me to the second and more serious problem with the article. The expansion of space has no effects on relatavistic time dilation. Time dilation only occurs when two observers are moving through space relative to each other, not when the actualy space between the two observers is expanding.

If you read up on Inflation, you'll see that it predicts that early in the life of the universe it was expanding at "faster than light" speeds. Space is special, it's allowed to work this way and isn't constrained in that same way as matter and energy are.

I don't know where he got his 6 trillion number from as far as I can tell it is science fiction.

ttfn,

Hatchet

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Elaborate? Nothing he mentioned was even close to being true. His physics is SO FUCKING BAD, it is unbelievable. When he mentions anythingt about physics, assume it's a rotten lie outright. Me too tired to elaborate other than holy living fuck is it a lie.

Jabu Khan

Aren't there some stars that seem to be 15-16 billion years old even though the universe is currently believed to be 12 billion years old.

Anyways which Genesis creation story would that be the first or the second?

Qinopio

Density-based time dilation also wouldn't happen, then? Oh, and maybe I was wrong to interpret his statement as implying measuning from any specific place. His basic assertion that signals sent at the Big Bang would be dilated is false? If so, why is he saying that you can find this expansion constant in physics textbooks?


JTDC: Telling me to just assume things?

johngalt

Creationists are just wrong. Bunch of lies. 6,000 years old? Yeah, right.