Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1080817 Posts in 71542 Topics- by 19060 Members - Latest Member: Areon Tomek
Jump to:  
Poll
Question: How old is the universe?
Billions of years old - 29 (82.9%)
Less than 7,000 years old - 1 (2.9%)
Other - 5 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 35

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Age of the universe?  (Read 2844 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18429
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:03AM »

Only you say that. There is no "they". Just like a quick review of your posts shows mostly quick, glib responses. The longer ones are where you detail out what you already think, without thought or care for the actual discussion, and in areas you already like.  No question, no discussion, just... "oh, you have kids? let me tell you aaaaaaaall about mine." It's like you gave up thinking. If you want to cut to the chase, you don't need to post anything if you don't have anything to add.

It's hard to read with your knees flailing about wildly (makes the head and the view all shaky).
 
If you can calm yourself I'm sure you'll do better.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 2983

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:04AM »

So serious question:

14 billion years is a long time, in which a lot could and did happen.

How is it possible to say with any certainty, much less prove accuracy, that something is billions of years old?
Easy question to ask.  In that piece you quoted from my last post I gave you a list of some of the measurements and methods.  My question to you is, how deep do we need to go here before you say we're done?  A lot of the theory involved is based on prior theoretical work.  How much of it do you need to understand before you'll be comfortable with the response?

For instance I can tell you that if you look at the magnitude of a star (how bright it is) and measure it's distance and spectrum you can tell what kind of star it is.

TO determine it's distance you need to measure is spectrum.  Once you've recorded the spectrum, you can determine the redshift.  This tell you how far away it is.  Hubble's law will then tell you when that light was emitted (call this X).  In this video (easy to watch)  Eylene Pirez explains how old the light coming from a galactic object is.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/MUevlAk88Rs" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/MUevlAk88Rs</a>

Now you need to determine the age of the object at the time the light was emitted.

So we know at his point the magnitude of the star and its distance as well as the composition of it's spectrum.  This information is enough to determine specifically what kind of star it is (where it lies on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram) and which of stellar dating techniques can be used to precisely determine it's age.  For instance, main sequence stars have a very predictable rate at which they consume hydrogen and produce helium.  Using the spectrum of the light emitted by the star will give you precisely the ratio of hydrogen to helium and hence the age of the star.  Other kinds of objects, like cephied variables and supergiants have different methods.

Of more interest to ageing the universe though is in determining the age of composite bodies like galaxies.  This is done using the methods to date very large objects in the the galaxy like super giant stars.  The reason super giants are needed is that, for very far galaxies individual objects are impossible to make out, but you can see the influence of exceptionally huge objects by the way they effect to light fluctuation of the galaxy.  Once you've aged your galaxy you can call that Y.

Get your oldest X and add to the the corresponding Y of that object, then you know the age of the universe is at least X+Y.

Using that method you'll get pretty close.

You can also use the methods described in the wikipedia article to make your estimate more precise.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe where they go into great detail about the background radiation measurements.

If this does not give you a good idea Bob, or is unacceptable to you, you have a choice with 2 options as far as I can see.  Option #1 - enroll in your nearest university and take a graduate school track degree program in physics.  You probably don't need to get a masters or PhD. if the undergraduate program is intended for students that want to go all the way and become astrophysicists.  That should be fine.  Option #2, keep to your current beliefs about this because to go further we need to get into it deeper than I'm prepared to do on this forum.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12140

View Profile
« Reply #122 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:15AM »

The krysstal "long day" (no relation to Joshua's long day!) is worth looking at.

It shows in a clear, graphic way that there can be no alignment of Genesis and current science.  You cannot make days into eons or harmonize any historical interpretation of Genesis with the evidence.  If you want to retain Genesis you have to consider it allegorical.
Logged

Tim Richardson
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12140

View Profile
« Reply #123 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:18AM »

Here's a graphic that does load.  It's not as detailed as krysstal's but tells the same story.

https://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/

Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #124 on: Aug 25, 2017, 09:01AM »


It's hard to read with your knees flailing about wildly (makes the head and the view all shaky).
 
If you can calm yourself I'm sure you'll do better.
Are you on drugs currently? Even your attempts at pithy remarks show less and less coherence.  Don't know
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #125 on: Aug 25, 2017, 09:02AM »

Here's a graphic that does load.  It's not as detailed as krysstal's but tells the same story.

https://flowingdata.com/2012/10/09/history-of-earth-in-24-hour-clock/

Maybe I'm missing something? This is the age of the earth in a relational diagram... ok. Seen a number of similar things before. But how does that relate to the age of the universe?
Logged
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11324

View Profile
« Reply #126 on: Aug 25, 2017, 09:15AM »

Are you on drugs currently? Even your attempts at pithy remarks show less and less coherence.  Don't know
Nah. it's Logorrhea
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12140

View Profile
« Reply #127 on: Aug 25, 2017, 09:41AM »

Maybe I'm missing something? This is the age of the earth in a relational diagram... ok. Seen a number of similar things before. But how does that relate to the age of the universe?

It gives you a sense of how old the universe is in comparison to humans. 

It should be basic high school science - it was when I was in school. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #128 on: Aug 25, 2017, 10:04AM »

Easy question to ask.  In that piece you quoted from my last post I gave you a list of some of the measurements and methods.  My question to you is, how deep do we need to go here before you say we're done?  A lot of the theory involved is based on prior theoretical work.  How much of it do you need to understand before you'll be comfortable with the response?

Thanks Bill. Explanations make sense as far as putting the calculations together. And maybe it's because I'm the odd duck who hated math until I got to calculus and figured out what was behind all of the formulas before... But the thing I have always been suspicious of as far as length and dates, is what is behind them?

Distance and age for example. In context of just our own galaxy, we haven't traveled at all really. We've barely made the extent of our own solar system. So how well can we really calibrate those great distances? Presumably, we take some aspect we can measure locally and expand that. Like trying to measure the distance from coast to coast using a wheel that is an inch in circumference and then adding the inches to get the number of miles. Or age? Billions of years? Based on how much time to actually study and calibrate? Once you have those assumptions, the calculations make sense, but the assumptions themselves... dunno.



Oh the other side, as you note... want to know more? Go take a graduate physics track. Ok. So if it really is that high of a bar to understand, much less to work with... How is that much different than taking these numbers on faith? Faith that the methods are right and that the people know what they are doing, and faith that others are thoroughly checking? Because most people can say, oh yeah, the universe began with the big bang and is __ years old, and we came here via evolution... But to say that and understand what it means will be a tiny tiny fraction of a percent. At that point, for a regular Joe, is there really much of a difference putting faith in science than in a god?
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12140

View Profile
« Reply #129 on: Aug 25, 2017, 10:58AM »

Faith that the methods are right and that the people know what they are doing, and faith that others are thoroughly checking? Because most people can say, oh yeah, the universe began with the big bang and is __ years old, and we came here via evolution... But to say that and understand what it means will be a tiny tiny fraction of a percent. At that point, for a regular Joe, is there really much of a difference putting faith in science than in a god?

Yes, that's true.  There are theories that can be understood by nonspecialists without math degrees; the last one dates to 1847 or whenever Darwin wrote his book. 

It's not blind faith.  The eclipse did happen at 2:44 PM in my location exactly as the science predicted.  There is a pretty good track record.  But this stuff is not something any of us could verify on our own.  Well, maybe a couple of us. 

What is a bit curious is the large number of people without any math or science background who can instantly spot flaws in theories that the scientists who study them can't detect.  (I'm not putting you in that category.)  You only have to look at any evolution debate or climate debate, or for that matter vaccine debate, to see that. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 2983

View Profile
« Reply #130 on: Aug 25, 2017, 11:37AM »

Thanks Bill. Explanations make sense as far as putting the calculations together. And maybe it's because I'm the odd duck who hated math until I got to calculus and figured out what was behind all of the formulas before... But the thing I have always been suspicious of as far as length and dates, is what is behind them?

Distance and age for example. In context of just our own galaxy, we haven't traveled at all really. We've barely made the extent of our own solar system. So how well can we really calibrate those great distances? Presumably, we take some aspect we can measure locally and expand that. Like trying to measure the distance from coast to coast using a wheel that is an inch in circumference and then adding the inches to get the number of miles. Or age? Billions of years? Based on how much time to actually study and calibrate? Once you have those assumptions, the calculations make sense, but the assumptions themselves... dunno.



Oh the other side, as you note... want to know more? Go take a graduate physics track. Ok. So if it really is that high of a bar to understand, much less to work with... How is that much different than taking these numbers on faith? Faith that the methods are right and that the people know what they are doing, and faith that others are thoroughly checking? Because most people can say, oh yeah, the universe began with the big bang and is __ years old, and we came here via evolution... But to say that and understand what it means will be a tiny tiny fraction of a percent. At that point, for a regular Joe, is there really much of a difference putting faith in science than in a god?

This then comes back to a definition of words like faith and trust.

As you alluded to, things like the size, brightness and spectrum of stars and what they tell us about their age, and the special theory of relativity which allows us to calculate the relativistic redshift, and Hubble's law and the measurement of the Hubble constant, our ability to interpret the background radiation - they have all been tested multiple times locally and at distance and have been verified time and time again.  However, this repeated success in their predictions does not give us any right to put faith in them, but it does allow us to build a confidence in them.  When they have never proved wrong repeatedly we begin to stop verifying them through other means each time we use them.

For instance, I no longer have to repeatedly prove F=mA via experiment.  It has earned it's right to be trusted because it has never been wrong outside of the relativistic or sub-atomic realms for nearly 400 years.  It's probably even better to say I have confidence in it, rather than I trust it.

Faith, to me, is a stronger expression than confidence or trust.  Faith, like faith in God, is given without question or proof because of what God represents.  Nothing in nature can command that.  Scientists learn to build confidence slowly.  Right from the start we are expected to do experiments to show F=mA.  Everything in science is questioned, over and over again.  We don't even call something a 'theory' unless it has shown itself to be right.  Until then it gets labelled with being a mere hypothesis.

The only places I know of in the imagined world of humans where proof is actually claimed is in mathematics and logic.

As for the regular Joe and complex physics, I'm not sure.  I would not advise them to just have faith in it, but maybe read as much as they can understand about it and ask questions.  If they can grasp the higher level details then I'd suggest they can have some confidence in the results, but until it produces more and more verified results, remain skeptic.  Heck, I'm always skeptical of scientific results, just like any scientist worth his salt.  In areas where I have expertise I'll actually check the math.  This will give me a high degree of confidence in the results.  If it's in an area I have little clue, I'll have little confidence in it.  But I do have some confidence in the scientific method so I'd be likely willing to give them some credence.  As an example - string theory - I'm really weak there and have not even tried very hard to get a hold of it.  I'm very skeptical of anything that comes out of string theory.  That doesn't mean I'll dismiss it entirely, but you wont see me trying to explain it or having a discussion in support of it.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18429
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: Aug 25, 2017, 11:49AM »

This then comes back to a definition of words like faith and trust.

Don't forget equivocation.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11324

View Profile
« Reply #132 on: Aug 25, 2017, 01:28PM »


Don't forget equivocation.
Please forget equivocation. It's irrelevant.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: