Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 11:31 PM
Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
For those of you who have been following the thread in the Colosseum, Shane has posted some conjecture regarding what he considers a plausible six day creation mechanism. Due to the high response volume the resulting discussion has been a bit hard to follow so I'm creating this one-on-one to try and discuss it in a clearer, simpler manner.

According to it's Wikipedia entry, the observable universe has the following current conditions:

Diameter 8.8×10^26 m (28.5 Gpc or 93 Gly)
Volume 4×10^80 m^3
Mass (ordinary matter) 10^53 kg
Density 9.9×10^−30 g/cm^3 (equivalent to 6 protons per cubic meter of space)
Age 13.799±0.021 billion years
Average temperature 2.72548 K

Contents
- Ordinary (baryonic) matter (4.9%)
- Dark matter (26.8%)
- Dark energy (68.3%)

Yes, that's a shameless copy-N-paste. The little "^" symbols indicate that a number hs been raised to an exponent. e.g.: m^3 is meters cubed, 10^6 is ten to the sixth power and so on. Sadly TTA does not support superscript notation.

Shane, could you kindly provide as many of the starting parameters as possible.

Specifically, I understand that you posit a "bubble", which I will assume is a more or less spherical universe(?) which is expanding at the speed of light. Please clarify. Which point is expanding away from which at the speed of light? Is the outer edge of the "bubble" expanding away from the center at c? Or is a point on the surface of the "bubble" and its antipode receeding from each other at c?

Any other initial conditions will be greatly helpful and will reduce confusion further down the road.

That should suffice to kick us off.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
22-01-2016, 11:44 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Note: My credentials on this topic are limitted to an intro physics course in university and some stuff that I've read here and there. My apologies for any pain and suffering I cause to anybody who actually understands cosmology.

I am a geologist and have done my own geochron dating so I know a fair bit about the age of the Earth, which I suspect will be one of the major points in this matter.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
23-01-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Since this is Shane's first time in The Boxing Ring I should mention that, aside from the 1-on-1 format, there are no actual rules above and beyond the general TTA forum rules.

That said, it is considered poor form for either party to bring in material from another discussion. That risks turning this discussion into the sort of horrid cross-thread snarl that this 1-on-1 discussion is supposed to be the opposite of.

I make no accusations. I simply want to avoid any misunderstanding.

To that end I intend to start this conversation from the very beginning ignoring anything said elsewhere. I know that this will result in some repetition but it will vastly improve the clarity and potential for understanding.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2016, 03:25 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2016 03:16 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(22-01-2016 11:31 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  For those of you who have been following the thread in the Colosseum, Shane has posted some conjecture regarding what he considers a plausible six day creation mechanism. Due to the high response volume the resulting discussion has been a bit hard to follow so I'm creating this one-on-one to try and discuss it in a clearer, simpler manner.

According to it's Wikipedia entry, the observable universe has the following current conditions:

Diameter 8.8×10^26 m (28.5 Gpc or 93 Gly)
Volume 4×10^80 m^3
Mass (ordinary matter) 10^53 kg
Density 9.9×10^−30 g/cm^3 (equivalent to 6 protons per cubic meter of space)
Age 13.799±0.021 billion years
Average temperature 2.72548 K

Contents
- Ordinary (baryonic) matter (4.9%)
- Dark matter (26.8%)
- Dark energy (68.3%)

Yes, that's a shameless copy-N-paste. The little "^" symbols indicate that a number hs been raised to an exponent. e.g.: m^3 is meters cubed, 10^6 is ten to the sixth power and so on. Sadly TTA does not support superscript notation.

Shane, could you kindly provide as many of the starting parameters as possible.

Specifically, I understand that you posit a "bubble", which I will assume is a more or less spherical universe(?) which is expanding at the speed of light. Please clarify. Which point is expanding away from which at the speed of light? Is the outer edge of the "bubble" expanding away from the center at c? Or is a point on the surface of the "bubble" and its antipode receeding from each other at c?

Any other initial conditions will be greatly helpful and will reduce confusion further down the road.

That should suffice to kick us off.
Reply in progress... don't respond yet.
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

Topic of debate:
How do we know the Universe is 13.799 Billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

My answer is: "We don't know"

One might try to dismiss the 6 day creation period as impossible, claiming that all scientific evidence suggest the earth is at the very least older than 6 days. I agree that it is also part of the discussion but it still doesn't prove how we know the universe is 13.799 billion years old. I will get to proving that it is possible (using only science) that both the universe and the earth can be 6 days old but for the start of this debate let's discuss the 13.799 billion year old Universe claim.

Here is how I prove that we do not know that the Universe is 13.799 Billion years old.

I would like to draw attention to the question.
Science never claimed that the Earth is exactly 13.799 billion years old.
The instant you start to defend that claim you will not have science on your side.

I don't want to end the debate before it even get's started so I would like to suggest we change the word "is" to "is almost"

Age (google):
The length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.
A distinct period of history.

The "age of the Universe" of about 13.799 billion years you frequently hear about is a good approximation for any observer whose peculiar velocity is non-relativistic at all times. In practice these are the only observers we're interested in, since peculiar velocities for any bulk object (like galaxies) tend to be non-relativistic. If you happened to be interested in the time experienced by a relativistic particle since the beginning of the Universe, it wouldn't be terribly hard to calculate but it would not be anywhere close to 13.799 billion years relativistic to all particles we know of.
Therefore the Age of the Universe is not objectively defined by science. It is highly dependent on certain factors and does not remain the same for everyone and everything.

That could end the debate right there but you are probably going to want proof and since I don't want to end the debate this early in the presentation I will put the proof at the end of this post.

Let's try to figure it out on our own for a bit:
So how do you determine the average age of something?
By determining the time taken between the start & finish of an event. Even your life span is an event. The event in question is the expansion of the universe & not creation of the universe. Science has never proven that the Universe came from nothing. What they say is it came from nothing we "know" of.
All evidence suggest that the present state of the universe came from a singularity.
I will use the singularity as the the event start & the present state as the event end.
The Age we are discussing here is the age of one event from start to finish. Namely the expansion of the Universe.

Science has never observed the creation of something from nothing. The Conservation of Mass-Energy
When we speak about Age of the Universe, we are speaking about the points in time between two states of the Universe.

If you have any issues with this please provide a better start and stop event so that we can at least know what we are debating here.

Now for some maths:
Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Therefore we need to know the distance and relative velocity of the universe to know the age of the universe.
If Time = Distance/Velocity then the age of the universe is unknown unless you provide data.

So is the age of the universe almost 13.799 billion years old?

Let's apply the formula.
Time = Distance/Velocity
Go get you science books we need to find the following:
1. Distance of the Universe
2. Velocity of the Universe

I immediately see some major setbacks:

How do you determine the distance of an object let alone the universe?
First of all, the expansion of the universe doesn't consist of galaxies moving through some static space, but rather the "stretching" of the space itself. The object is moving through this expanding space and has to travel the initial distance plus whatever distance is added due to the universe's expansion during the course of the journey. It's like running on a racetrack that is being stretched -- if the racetrack started off 100 meters long but got stretched to a final length of 400 meters as you were running from start to finish, then the total distance you've run is more than 100 meters.
In fact, when you talk about the "distance" between the start and finish lines in this racetrack, you might mean several different things:
(1) You could mean 100 meters, since that's the distance when you start running; it's also what the markings on the track say the distance is.
(2) You could mean 400 meters, since that's the distance between start and finish at the moment you reach the finish line.
(3) You could mean the actual distance you've run, which is more than 100 meters (since the track stretches while you're running on it), but less than 400 meters (since some of the stretching happens on parts of the track you've already passed through).
You can see from the above example that when astronomers talk about the "distance" to a faraway galaxy, there are several things they might mean! Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a comprehensive technical discussion of the different types of distances that astronomers use some of these distances are similar to those discussed above for the racetrack, while others are completely different.

How do you determine Velocity of the Universe?
The velocity of an object is the rate of change of its position with respect to a frame of reference, and is a function of time.
What is the velocity & acceleration rate of the Universe at Event Start +1 second?
It's assumed to be faster than light speed but decreasing in acceleration
Do you know what happens to the formula for time when you don't know the velocity? You get an unusable formula.

The formula for time is unusable to determine a definite age of the universe because of the following reasons:
1. We are lacking data to determine Velocity & Acceleration of the Universe at Event Start +1 second.
2. The definition of Distance has too many alternate meanings to ever give an exact distance.

What about average age then?
One might argue that Distance has a ± range within the values of known distances based on expansion that can still be used to accurately predict the age of the Universe so that we would know it's closer to 13.799 billion years than it is to 6 days or even 46 billion years.
Agreed, but there is no ± range on an assumed velocity & acceleration.

You work the formula with unknown variables if you like and tell me when you get the velocity & acceleration part figured out ok?
Change in velocity = final velocity - initial velocity
or (Vf - Vi)
If you want the change in velocity over some time, that's equal to the acceleration. In that case, you have acceleration = (final velocity - initial velocity) / (final time - initial time)
or (Vf - Vi)/(Tf - Ti)
Have fun.

Debate Over yet?

So how is it possible to prove that it CAN be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

We know the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest known speed

Time = Distance/Speed

Let's argue that velocity = speed of the fastest known thing in the universe.
Let's try to assume that the universe expanded at this speed since science believes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Let's assume that the photons of the past are only now catching up with us because the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
Dont you see how absurd that sounds? Science already proved that the universe expands faster than the speed of light. The velocity of some things in the universe (by the very definition of velocity) has a speed faster than light based on the current expansion of the universe).

Still let's ignore that expansion part and assume that light is the speed limit of the universe's expansion (which it clearly is not).
We now have data right?
Wrong again.
If you are going to ignore expansion to determine velocity then you have to ignore expansion to determine distance also.
This would mean the universe creation is instant if you ignore expansion. When you speak of age it means a period between 2 events. Event 1 would be the beginning of expansion & event 2 would be the current state of expansion.
If you don't assume the universe expanded then we cannot get to event 2 without the assumption of another type of event.
That would rule out the Big Bang instantly.

But lets still ignore all these points (as I'm sure most of you will do anyway)
Let's just brute force our way into the formula.
Let's assume (why stop now?) that the universe expanded consistently at the known speed of light in a vacuum.
Let's also assume (ikr?) that the farthest distance of anything in the universe would be the 2 ends of the universe's radius.
Let's find time

Age of the Universe (Light speed) = 14.25 gigaparsecs / 299,792,458 m/s
This means the oldest the universe CAN be is roughly 42 billion years old at light creation speed.

If we are to assume (it's getting old cliche) that the universe is 13.799 billion years old then we also have to assume (...) that a 13.799 billion year old universe can have things inside it that is older than itself.
I have proven it CAN also be 42 billion years old based on a mountain of assumptions all backed by science.

I don't know how many of you realize it but when scientist actually observe the universe (the observable universe) we are only looking in one direction. Towards the center of the universe). We are looking at the past.
In fact any attempt to look for the edge of the Universe is an attempt to see the future of the universe.
In fact when we say the Universe is 13.799 billion years old what we are speaking about is the current age and not the actual age of the future universe.
In fact if the universe really did expand further than our position in the universe with respect to space time it would mean the future already exists and we don't live in the present. Or to be more accurate, we don't exist in a present universe, we actually exist in a past universe.
That's ofcourse another topic for us to debate.
We are still debating the age of the universe on the assumption that we are the oldest things in the universe.
Yet again another assumption.
It would be more accurate to say "observable universe" whenever you speak about what science knows about the universe.

Oh and one more thing.
We don't have any proof that we aren't already at the edge of the universe's expansion.
Even if we start seeing things suddenly appearing after not having been observed to exist in that exact location in the cosmos ever before it could just as easily be past light now catching up with us.
Any claim that the Universe has an Age is a claim that we are the edge of the universe.
That my friend is the biggest assumption backed by science.
Maybe Scientists should start using Philosophy more often and they wouldn't make so many assumptions that just confuses the crap out of the way the average man understands something.

This is the evidence I spoke about at the start of my presentation:
An observer with zero comoving velocity (i.e. zero peculiar velocity). Such an observer can be defined at every point in space. They will all see the same Universe, and the Universe will look the same in all directions ("isotropic").

Note that here I'm talking about an "idealized" Universe described by the FLRW metric:


ds2=a2(τ)[dτ2−dχ2−f2K(χ)(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)]
ds2=a2(τ)[dτ2−dχ2−fK2(χ)(dθ2+sin2⁡θdϕ2)]
where a(τ)a(τ) is the "scale factor" and:

fK(χ)=sinχif(K=+1)
fK(χ)=sin⁡χif(K=+1)
fK(χ)=χif(K=0)
fK(χ)=χif(K=0)
fK(χ)=sinhχif(K=−1)
fK(χ)=sinh⁡χif(K=−1)
and ττ is the conformal time:

τ(t)=∫t0cdt′a(t′)
τ(t)=∫0tcdt′a(t′)
The peculiar velocity is defined:

vpec=a(t)χ˙(t)
vpec=a(t)χ˙(t)
so the condition of zero peculiar velocity can be expressed:

χ˙(t)=0∀t
χ˙(t)=0∀t

The "age of the Universe" of about 13.799 Billion years you frequently hear about is a good approximation for any observer whose peculiar velocity is non-relativistic at all times. In practice these are the only observers we're interested in, since peculiar velocities for any bulk object (like galaxies) tend to be non-relativistic. If you happened to be interested in the time experienced by a relativistic particle since the beginning of the Universe, it wouldn't be terribly hard to calculate but it would not be anywhere close to 13.799 billion years relativistic to all particles we know of.

Photons are one of those particles.
Photons in a vacuum can be defined at every point in space. They will all see the same Universe, and the Universe will look the same in all directions. The universe will be Zero Time old.

This proves that the Universe CAN be less than 6 days old dependent on frame of reference.

Now for the final piece of evidence that will finally prove that the Universe can also be 6 days old:

If the universe was inflated (not created) at near the speed of light would it be possible to be 6 days old?
Yes.
Lets take a look at the mathematics of special relativity! The famous equation that describes the amount of time dilation you experience is given by:


t0
T = --------------------
[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]^1/2

where T is the time interval experienced by you at the beginning of expansion, and t0 is the time interval experienced by you presently in the universe at a relative velocity of v. Lets now use the approximation formula for relativistic speeds in the limit where v = c - e where c is the speed of you and e is how close you are to the speed of light in the same velocity units. Lets also assume that t0 is one second as measured on the clock carried by you.

'Warp factor' V e T
....................................................
1 0.9c 2.29 sec
2 0.99c 7.08 sec
3 0.999c 22.36
4 0.9999c 70.71
5 0.99999c 223.6
6 0.999999c 707.1
7 0.9999999c 2236.0
....................................................
At 'Warp 7' you are traveling at a speed which is within ( 1 - .9999999) x 300,000 kilometers/sec = 30 meters/sec of the speed of light. It will take you 4.2 years/2236 = 16.2 hours to travel 4.2 light years distant, but present you will see it take you 4.2 YEARS. 26,000 light years distance will take you only 11.6 years to cover at this speed. An electron sitting in your frame of reference will be seen as having an energy of 2236 x mc^2 = 1.1 GeV which is the mass of a proton! We can push this story even further:
Warp Factor e t0
..................................................
9 3 cm/sec 22360
16 300 Angstroms/sec 71 million
25 ..... 2.2 trillion
30 ..... 700 trillion
37 ..... 2 billion billion
...............................................................
At Warp 16, you cover the distance of the observable universe (the current distance of the visible horizon to the universe) in 212 years. At Warp 25, this takes only 2.4 days, and at Warp 37 ( 0.99999...37 times) the universe's age is only 0.2 SECONDS! The expansion may only take less than a second at your old speed, but at your current speed in present day it would have taken 13.799 billion years. At light speed the universe will literally have passed in and out of existence in no time at all.

Were you around when the universe was created? No!

If something (say dark energy & matter) did expanding the universe at warp 25 speed which is still slower than the speed of light & you were somehow there to witness the whole thing:
How would you describe it to me?

I saw something expand the universe in 2.4 days
or
I saw something expand the universe in 13.799 billion years?

One of these statements will be a lie and one will not.
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
I just got home from throwing rocks at things and can't help but think that somebody from a developping nation in Africa would consider curling to be an extremely odd passtime.

(23-01-2016 03:25 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Reply in progress... don't respond yet.

OK. Let me know when you're ready to go.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2016, 10:33 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation

Challenge accepted.

Seconds away.

[Image: 2c3a76ae10dfa735889856b1f656c434.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
24-01-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(23-01-2016 03:25 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Reply in progress... don't respond yet.

Hi Shane,

Still not replying, but if I may make a suggestion?

First I'd like to say that I really do appreciate the amount of effort that you're putting into this. It's refreshing to have an opponent who is actually interested in the topic.

That said, this might be better done in small bites. If you spend days constructing a vast argument in its entirety and I poke a glaring hole in it with a five minute reply that is going to be extremely frustrating for you. Less frustrating if you only spent five minutes on it yourself. This is a discussion where we can bat ideas back and forth.

Also, the large format tends to turn into a TL;DR wall of information for the spectators. It's not the best way to get you points across to the wider audience. My replies will be even larger. Skimming through what you have written now I suspect that I will have to break my response into several posts.

My approach to these Boxing Ring matches is that the only way to lose is to fail to understand. I may have to concede a point or even the entire match. In that case I will have gained knowledge and cannot consider that a loss by any reasonable standard. As a result, I try and take a very non-adversarial approach so feel free to pop off half-baked ideas.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
24-01-2016, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 02:43 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(22-01-2016 11:31 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  For those of you who have been following the thread in the Colosseum, Shane has posted some conjecture regarding what he considers a plausible six day creation mechanism. Due to the high response volume the resulting discussion has been a bit hard to follow so I'm creating this one-on-one to try and discuss it in a clearer, simpler manner.

According to it's Wikipedia entry, the observable universe has the following current conditions:

Diameter 8.8×10^26 m (28.5 Gpc or 93 Gly)
Volume 4×10^80 m^3
Mass (ordinary matter) 10^53 kg
Density 9.9×10^−30 g/cm^3 (equivalent to 6 protons per cubic meter of space)
Age 13.799±0.021 billion years
Average temperature 2.72548 K

Contents
- Ordinary (baryonic) matter (4.9%)
- Dark matter (26.8%)
- Dark energy (68.3%)

Yes, that's a shameless copy-N-paste. The little "^" symbols indicate that a number hs been raised to an exponent. e.g.: m^3 is meters cubed, 10^6 is ten to the sixth power and so on. Sadly TTA does not support superscript notation.

Shane, could you kindly provide as many of the starting parameters as possible.

Specifically, I understand that you posit a "bubble", which I will assume is a more or less spherical universe(?) which is expanding at the speed of light. Please clarify. Which point is expanding away from which at the speed of light? Is the outer edge of the "bubble" expanding away from the center at c? Or is a point on the surface of the "bubble" and its antipode receeding from each other at c?

Any other initial conditions will be greatly helpful and will reduce confusion further down the road.

That should suffice to kick us off.
Sorry for repost, I can't edit the last post.
Reply in progress... don't respond yet.
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

Topic of debate:
How do we know the Observable Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

My answer is: "We don't know"

One might try to dismiss the 6 day old observable universe as impossible, claiming everyone reading this is probably older than 6 days old. It doesn't prove how we know the observable universe is 13.799 billion years old. I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 days old but for the start of this debate let's discuss the 13.799 billion year old observable universe claim.

Age (google):
The length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.
A distinct period of history.

The "age of the observable Universe" of about 13.799 billion years you frequently hear about is a good approximation for any observer whose peculiar velocity is non-relativistic at all times. In practice these are the only observers we're interested in, since peculiar velocities for any bulk object (like galaxies) tend to be non-relativistic. If you happened to be interested in the time experienced by a relativistic particle since the beginning of the Universe, it wouldn't be terribly hard to calculate but it would not be anywhere close to 13.799 billion years relativistic to all particles we know of.
Therefore the Age of the Universe is not objectively defined by science. It is highly dependent on certain factors and does not remain the same for everyone and everything.

The average age of an event is found by determining the time taken between the start & finish of the event. The event in question is the expansion of the observable universe. All evidence suggest that the present state of the observable universe came from a singularity.
For the purpose of this debate I will use the singularity as the the event start state & the present state as the event end state.

Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Therefore we need to know the distance and relative velocity of the universe to know the age of the universe.

Let's apply the formula.
Time = Distance/Velocity
1. Distance of the Universe
2. Velocity of the Universe

This is how they actually did it:
"You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law. The distance between two galaxies is D. The apparent velocity with which they are separating from each other is v. At some point, the galaxies were touching, and we can consider that time the moment of the Big Bang. If you take the separation between the two galaxies (D) and divide that by the apparent velocity (v), that will leave you with how long it took for the galaxies to reach their current separation. The standard analogy here is to consider that you are now 300 miles from home. You drove 60 mph the entire time, so how long did it take you to get here? Well, 300 miles / 60 mph = 5 hours.
So the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t = D / v.
But from Hubble's Law, we know that v = H0 x D.
So, t = D / v = D / (H0 x D) = 1 / H0. So you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe.
The best estimate for H0 = 73 km/s/Mpc. To turn this into an age, we'll have to do a unit conversion.
Since 1 Mpc = 3.08 x 1019 km, H0 = (73 km/s/Mpc) x (1 Mpc/3.08 x 1019 km) = 2.37 x 10-18 1/s.
So the age of the Universe is t = 1/H0 = 1 / 2.37 x 10-18 1/s = 4.22 x 1017 s = 13.4 billion years.
Hubble's Velocity:
V = Ho D
V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec
H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc
D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc
If the universe has been expanding at a constant speed since its beginning, the Universe's age would simply be 1/Ho.
Find the inverse of your value of Ho.
Multiply the inverse by 3.09 x 1019 km/Mpc to cancel the distance units."

Look at the parts I bold out. They have admitted assumptions to determine velocity of the universe yet later on they claim they "know". Why the dishonesty?

The formula for time is unusable to determine a definite age of the universe because of the following reason:
We are lacking data to determine CMB/Photon Velocity & Acceleration from Event Start to the oldest known measurement of the galaxies' distances. The oldest known galaxy EGS8p7 is 13.2 billion years old. Cosmic Microwave Background & Photons is observed to be the only thing that existed before that, so the question now becomes what is the distance/velocity of CMB & Photons from the singularity

In the explanation of the calculation of Age of the Universe they specifically stated that the hubble constant was inferred and that the velocity is roughly 74.2 km/sec/mpc +/- 3.7 km/ sec. The Hubble constant isn't a constant. Unknown changes in velocity will affect the age of the event start to event observable.
The Hubble constant that was used to calculate velocity would put the universe far older than 13.799 billion years old if we assume the radius of the observable universe is 14.26 gpc.

What is the initial velocity (Vi) of event start + 1 second?
Change in velocity = final velocity - initial velocity
or (Vf - Vi)
Vf = Present Universe velocity
Vi = ?

We have no evidence pertaining to the velocity except the assumption that the expansion rate is constantly decreasing all the way back to the singularity. In fact we have never observed or gathered data from the singularity called the event start so how can we claim the observable universe starts at event start? If the observable universe does not start at the singularity, why claim that it does? The data we have gathered which points in the direction of event start having a constantly increasing acceleration rate is merely an assumption & is therefore not part of the observable universe.

We end up with this equaltion:
Age of the Universe = d/ v
Where d = 28.5 gpc & v = unknown
Age of the Universe = unknown

Age of the Observable Universe = 28.5gpc / ... Km/S
Age of the Observable Universe = ... years old

Why make a claim of certainty when there are unknown variables in the equation?

So how is it possible to prove that it CAN be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

Firstly I would like to make it very clear that proving something "can be" is not the same as proving that it "is".
Evidence:
The speed of light.
Time dilation.

These two equations has given me an opportunity to set a speed limit on the expansion and has given me a +- range for the Age of the universe.

We know the absolute speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest known speed. We could argue that the fastest known speed the universe can expand is the speed of light based on that statement & thereby get a limit on the age.

Time = Distance/Speed

Let's argue that velocity = speed of the fastest known thing in the universe.
Let's try to assume that the universe expanded at this speed since science believes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Let's assume that the photons of the past are only now catching up with us because the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
Dont you see how absurd that sounds? Science already proved that the universe expands faster than the speed of light. The velocity of some things in the universe (by the very definition of velocity) has a speed faster than light based on the current expansion of the universe).

Still let's ignore that expansion part and assume that light is the speed limit of the universe's expansion (which it clearly is not).
We now have data right?
Wrong again.
If you are going to ignore expansion to determine velocity then you have to ignore expansion to determine distance also.
This would mean the universe creation is instant if you ignore expansion. When you speak of age it means a period between 2 events. Event 1 would be the beginning of expansion & event 2 would be the current state of expansion.
If you don't assume the universe expanded then we cannot get to event 2 without the assumption of another type of event.
That would rule out the Big Bang instantly.

But lets still ignore all these points (as I'm sure most of you will do anyway)
Let's just brute force our way into the formula.
Let's assume, (why stop now?) that the universe expanded consistently at the known speed of light in a vacuum.
Let's also assume (ikr?) that the farthest distance of anything in the universe would be the 2 ends of the universe's radius.
Let's find time.

Age of the Universe (Light speed) = 14.25 gigaparsecs / 299,792,458 m/s
This means the oldest the universe CAN be is roughly 46 billion years old at light creation speed.

If we are to assume (it's getting old cliche) that the universe is 13.799 billion years old then we also have to assume (...) that a 13.799 billion year old universe can have things inside it that is older than itself.
I have proven it CAN also be 46 billion years old based on a mountain of assumptions all backed by science. Why does Hubble get to assume a constant & I don't?

Unrelated:
I don't know how many of you realize it but when scientist actually observe the universe (the observable universe) we are only looking in one direction. Towards the center of the universe). We are looking at the past.
In fact any attempt to look for the edge of the Universe is an attempt to see the future of the universe.
In fact when we say the Universe is 13.799 billion years old what we are speaking about is the current age and not the actual age of the future universe.
In fact if the universe really did expand further than our position in the universe with respect to space time it would mean the future already exists and we don't live in the present. Or to be more accurate, we don't exist in a present universe, we actually exist in a past universe.
That's ofcourse another topic for us to debate.

Back on topic:
We are still debating the age of the universe on the assumption that we are the oldest things in the universe.
Yet again another assumption.
It would be more accurate to say "observable universe" whenever you speak about what science knows about the universe and not use the big bang theory in the same sentence.

We don't have any proof that we aren't already at the edge of the universe's expansion.
Yet another reason why the observable universe should not be confused with the actual age of the universe.

This is the evidence I spoke about at the start of my presentation:
An observer with zero comoving velocity (i.e. zero peculiar velocity). Such an observer can be defined at every point in space. They will all see the same Universe, and the Universe will look the same in all directions ("isotropic").

Note that here I'm talking about an "idealized" Universe described by the FLRW metric:
Link to site with formula
The "age of the Universe" of about 13.799 Billion years you frequently hear about is a good approximation for any observer whose peculiar velocity is non-relativistic at all times. In practice these are the only observers we're interested in, since peculiar velocities for any bulk object (like galaxies) tend to be non-relativistic. If you happened to be interested in the time experienced by a relativistic particle since the beginning of the Universe, it wouldn't be terribly hard to calculate but it would not be anywhere close to 13.799 billion years relativistic to all particles we know of.

Photons are one of those particles.
Photons in a vacuum can be defined at every point in space. They will all see the same Universe, and the Universe will look the same in all directions. The universe will be Zero Time old.

The Universe CAN be less than 6 days old dependent on frame of reference.

If the universe was inflated (not created) at near the speed of light would it be possible to be 6 days old?
Yes.
Lets take a look at the mathematics of special relativity! The famous equation that describes the amount of time dilation you experience is given by:
t0
T = --------------------
[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]^1/2
where T is the time interval experienced by you at the beginning of expansion, and t0 is the time interval experienced by you presently in the universe at a relative velocity of v. Lets now use the approximation formula for relativistic speeds in the limit where v = c - e where c is the speed of you and e is how close you are to the speed of light in the same velocity units. Lets also assume that t0 is one second as measured on the clock carried by you.
'Warp factor' V e T
....................................................
1 0.9c 2.29 sec
2 0.99c 7.08 sec
3 0.999c 22.36
4 0.9999c 70.71
5 0.99999c 223.6
6 0.999999c 707.1
7 0.9999999c 2236.0
....................................................
At 'Warp 7' "past you" is traveling at a speed which is within ( 1 - .9999999) x 300,000 kilometers/sec = 30 meters/sec of the speed of light. It will take "past you" 4.2 years/2236 = 16.2 hours to travel 4.2 light years distant, but "present you" will see it take you 4.2 YEARS. 26,000 light years distance will take "past you" only 11.6 years to cover at this speed. An electron sitting in your frame of reference will be seen as having an energy of 2236 x mc^2 = 1.1 GeV which is the mass of a proton! We can push this story even further:
Warp Factor e t0
..................................................
9 3 cm/sec 22360
16 300 Angstroms/sec 71 million
25 ..... 2.2 trillion
30 ..... 700 trillion
37 ..... 2 billion billion
...............................................................
At Warp 16, "past you" covers the distance of the observable universe (the current distance of the visible horizon to the universe) in 212 years. At Warp 25, this takes only 2.4 days, and at Warp 37 ( 0.99999...37 times) the universe's age is only 0.2 SECONDS for "past you". The expansion may only take less than a second at "past you" speed, but at "present you" speed it would have taken 13.799 billion years. At light speed the universe will literally have passed in and out of existence in no time at all.

Is all the evidence for the Age of the Universe being 13.799 billion years +- 21 million years assumption free? No!
Can we still use assumptions once it does not contradict science to determine the limits of the age of the universe? Yes!

Now I have another topic of debate bed on the outcome of this one.
If something did expand the universe at warp 25 speed which is still slower than the speed of light & you were somehow there to witness the whole thing:
How would you describe it to me?

I saw something expand the universe in 2.4 days
or
I saw something expand the universe in 13.799 billion years?

One of these statements will be a lie and one will not.
Find all posts by this user
25-01-2016, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 11:27 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

Topic of debate:
How do we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

My answer is: "We don't know"

The Age of the observable Universe is not objectively defined by science. It is highly dependent on certain factors and does not remain the same for everyone and everything. I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 days old but for the start of this debate let's discuss the 13.799±0.021 billion year old observable universe claim.

Part 1: Is the Universe 13.799±0.021 billion years old?

Age (google):
The length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.
A distinct period of history.

The average age of an event is found by determining the time taken between the start & finish of the event. The event in question is the expansion of the observable universe. All evidence suggest that the present state of the observable universe came from a singularity.
For the purpose of this debate I will use the singularity as the the event start state & the limit of the expansion as the event end state.

Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Therefore we need to know the distance and relative velocity of the universe to know the age of the universe.

Let's apply the formula.
Time = Distance/Velocity
1. Distance of the Universe
2. Velocity of the Universe

This is how they actually did it:
"You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law. The distance between two galaxies is D. The apparent velocity with which they are separating from each other is v. At some point, the galaxies were touching, and we can consider that time the moment of the Big Bang. If you take the separation between the two galaxies (D) and divide that by the apparent velocity (v), that will leave you with how long it took for the galaxies to reach their current separation. The standard analogy here is to consider that you are now 300 miles from home. You drove 60 mph the entire time, so how long did it take you to get here? Well, 300 miles / 60 mph = 5 hours.
So the time it has taken for the galaxies to reach their current separations is t = D / v.
But from Hubble's Law, we know that v = H0 x D.
So, t = D / v = D / (H0 x D) = 1 / H0. So you can take 1/H0 as an estimate for the age of the Universe.
The best estimate for H0 = 73 km/s/Mpc. To turn this into an age, we'll have to do a unit conversion.
Since 1 Mpc = 3.08 x 1019 km, H0 = (73 km/s/Mpc) x (1 Mpc/3.08 x 1019 km) = 2.37 x 10-18 1/s.
So the age of the Universe is t = 1/H0 = 1 / 2.37 x 10-18 1/s = 4.22 x 1017 s = 13.4 billion years.
Hubble's Velocity:
V = Ho D
V is the observed velocity of the galaxy away from us, usually in km/sec
H is Hubble's "constant", in km/sec/Mpc
D is the distance to the galaxy in Mpc
If the universe has been expanding at a constant speed since its beginning, the Universe's age would simply be 1/Ho.
Find the inverse of your value of Ho.
Multiply the inverse by 3.09 x 1019 km/Mpc to cancel the distance units."
Formula to determine CMB velocity:
cH0300105 km s−173 km s−1 Mpc−141103 Mpc so that relativistic effects can be ignored because the universe is spatially homogenous and isotropic

In the explanation of the calculation of Age of the Universe they specifically stated that the hubble constant was inferred and that the velocity is roughly 74.2 km/sec/mpc ± 3.7 km/ sec.

Assumptions are used to determine velocity of the universe, but it is also stated that they "know that v = H0 x D.".
Why make a claim of certainty when there are unknown variables in the equation?

The cosmological principle:
The observable universe is very large, but it is probably very small compared to the whole universe, which may even be infinite.

Part 2: CAN the Universe be 46 billion years old?

Firstly I would like to make it very clear that proving something "can be" is not the same as proving that it "is".

The observable universe should have an age limit:
v < c
Age of the observable Universe = 14.26 gigaparsecs / < 299,792,458 m/s
Age of the observable Universe < 46 billion years
It cannot be ≥ 46 billion years because time does not exist at the speed of light.

Part 3: CAN the Universe be 6 days old?

The Universe CAN be less than 6 days old if inflated at near the speed of light dependent on who the observer is due to the effects of time dilation.

Does the expansion of the observable universe cause time dilation?
Yes
A non-co-moving observer measures a smaller time interval. So whereas all co-moving observers agree that the observable universe is about 13.8 billion years old, a non-co-moving observer measures the age of the observable universe to be younger, how young depending on how fast he moves with respect to the co-moving observers.

Lets take a look at the mathematics of special relativity! The famous equation that describes the amount of time dilation you experience is given by:
At Warp 37 (less than light speed) the observable universe is less than 1 second old.
If you inflated the observable universe at warp 37 speed how long did it take you?

Next debate topic:
If a finite bubble inflates at light speed in the vacuum of space & then collapses, would the resulting data mimic our own universe?
Find all posts by this user
25-01-2016, 11:32 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Still at the office. I'll try and get a response to this tomorrow evening.

'Night all!

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: