The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 08:39 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 11:03 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's the point I was making. How can you date something as large as the universe when it's components from start to finish don't all carry the same age?

What does that even mean?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 11:03 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's the point I was making. How can you date something as large as the universe when it's components from start to finish don't all carry the same age?

What does that even mean?

It means Shane is about as skilled at communications as he is with critical thinking...

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:52 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 09:01 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 11:03 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That's the point I was making. How can you date something as large as the universe when it's components from start to finish don't all carry the same age?

What does that even mean?
I wrote this in the post before but I will repeat it for you:
"Any photon that existed since the epoch end of CMB radiation can be less than 1 second old based on the formula for time dilation.
The epoch of CMB radiation is believed to have existed at the beginning of the universe as per the overall scheme of things.

The formula for time dilation uses a scientifically recognized method for dating the age of an object based on the object's own frame of reference.

Here is an example of two things that existed at the same time from since the beginning of the universe
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015...rse-egs8p7
The time taken for the photons we now see to reach us from the Galaxy is believed to be around 13.2 billion years but the scienitific age of the photon itself can be less than 1 second due to the effects of time dilation.

Hence the galaxy in it's present state (if it still exists) is believed to be 13.2 billion years old but the light it emitted 13.2 billion years ago can be less than 1 second old today based on the frame of reference used to date the photon.

Age varies based on frame of reference, thus the photon can be both 13.2 billion years old while it can still be less than 1 second old.
There isn't an objective age for a photon & by extension the universe.

It's not the first time this topic has been discussed:
https://www.quora.com/How-old-is-the-pho...n-universe

Hence the question:
"How can you date something as large as the universe when it's components from start to finish don't all carry the same age?"
Would you care to answer my question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 09:04 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My whole debate is based on the fact that the thing in question is comprised of distinct parts that carry different ages even though they were all assumed to begin it's existence at the exact same time.

Anyone giving the universe a distinct age bracket of 13.8 billion years (+- 21 million years) is going to have to ignore certain parts of the universe and thus there answer isn't fulfilling the requirements of the question.

No.

Again, you do not actually understand relativity or how the age of the universe is determined. Do some basic research before posting.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
22-03-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
In much the same way it is possible to construct frames of reference in which the Earth is stationary and the sun orbits it, it is possible to construct frames of reference in which different parts of the universe have very different apparent ages.

They do unfortunately turn out not to be physically possible, but why let that stop you?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-03-2016, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 10:08 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 09:04 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My whole debate is based on the fact that the thing in question is comprised of distinct parts that carry different ages even though they were all assumed to begin it's existence at the exact same time.

Anyone giving the universe a distinct age bracket of 13.8 billion years (+- 21 million years) is going to have to ignore certain parts of the universe and thus there answer isn't fulfilling the requirements of the question.

No.

Again, you do not actually understand relativity or how the age of the universe is determined. Do some basic research before posting.
It's the philosophy behind the claim that concerns me.
I asked a question in an effort to understand the philosophy of which relativity is he most valid to use when determining the age of the universe.
Why should general relativity be used instead of special relativity to date the age of the oldest known object?
The age of the oldest thing in the universe when dated with general relativity yields a totally different age to that of an object dated with special relativity.

Why should dating an age using general relativity be more valid than dating an age using special relativity.

P.S. I am not speaking about expansion in this post, but I'm guessing someone is going to assume that anyway and claim I don't know physics as a result of their incorrect assumption. Let's see who will be the first to do it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Repost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 10:25 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-01-2016 09:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I believe it can be.

Pretty sure you're wrong. I'm not going to bother to explain why; you're online, educate yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 10:25 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(21-01-2016 09:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I believe it can be.

Pretty sure you're wrong. I'm not going to bother to explain why; you're online, educate yourself.
I did. My education tells me you're wrong might be wrong.
Can I borrow your logic for a moment?
"I'm not going to bother to explain why; you're online, educate yourself."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 10:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I asked a question in an effort to understand the philosophy of which relativity is he most valid to use when determining the age of the universe.

And the answer has been given to you, repeatedly and at length, in multiple threads. You simply fail to understand it, because you do not understand relativity.

Quote:Why should general relativity be used instead of special relativity to date the age of the oldest known object?
The age of the oldest thing in the universe when dated with general relativity yields a totally different age to that of an object dated with special relativity.

Case in point. Do you actually know what those theories are, Shane? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: