What is the age of the universe? ? Ahh Good Question!!!

fellowshipfellowship
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
You know it is just amazing the more I study and read the more I am excited and empowered. Gerald Schroeder has some very mind blowing data concerning the age of the universe.



Who is Gerald Schroeder?



Gerald Schroeder Info



Read what he has to say about the age of the universe and be amazed. I never knew how to articulate it as he has but I always thought of the age of the universe as how he states it.



I know it is 3:10 in the morning Dallas time but curious minds never sleep.



Please weigh in with your thoughts over this matter.



Fellowship



The age of the universe just wait until you read this....
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 75
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook



    I know it is 3:10 in the morning Dallas time but curious minds never sleep.





    Go to sleep Fellowship...you shouldn't be up so late unless your nieces are fussin.

    Sleep as God & nature intended..



    What...? Oh the question..How old is the universe ?



    Depends..If its throwing a tantrum it is 2 years old.

    If it is being considerate...then its more like 30 years old. '



    Here is an interesting analogy..re age measured in length.



    If we were to lay out a chalk line to measure the age of the universe in proportion to the amount of time that has already passed and take into account the full potential age of the universe as being 1 Mile in duration..then we have moved about the first 3 feet.

    Ain't stuff like that immense ?
  • Reply 2 of 75
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Here's something interesting: Linky.



    This is no less valid.



    On a sidenote, once again we have an example of starting with "the answer" and warping the universe around you to make it coincide. Bad science as usual.
  • Reply 3 of 75
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    I believe that those scientists who are not hindered by the belief in some mountain spirit high up agree that the universe is 4.5 billion years old. I didn't take the time to read your links though, so don't grill me.
  • Reply 4 of 75
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    I believe that those scientists who are not hindered by the belief in some mountain spirit high up agree that the universe is 4.5 billion years old. I didn't take the time to read your links though, so don't grill me.



    Actually they believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The age of the universe is believed to be roughly 13 - 15 billion years old.



    Anyway, the moldy tome states that the earth was created on the 3rd day. According to that crackpot's calculations, that places the Earth's age between 3.75 billion and 1.75 billion years. Nope. Doesn't work. Of course, I'm sure other crackpots are going to attempt to warp the history of the earth in order to fit those numbers.
  • Reply 5 of 75
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I will ask Binky the Magic Space Clown when I call him tonight.



    All existence comes from Binky.
  • Reply 6 of 75
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Re Universe age..Some scientists esitmate it to be as low as 10 Billion...



    More recently Prof Sandage et al working with Hubble are thinking maybe upwards of 18 Billion..



    Either way, its not an exact measure yet......not by a long shot..



    The basic truth is the figures are all still pretty rubbery when you consider such a large variability coming from highly qualified astro-physicists.



    " the universe may still be lying about its age "



    http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/s...rse990525.html
  • Reply 7 of 75
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    While the currently held belief is that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, even this enormouse amount of time has it's problems. For example the time it took for galaxies, the clusters of galaxies, and super clusters of galaxies to form exeeds the theoretical age of the universe. By a factor of 20 or more. General simulations show that much more time is needed for the huge super clusters to form. I don't have an online link, but there is a book that should be in your local library called The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner that goes deeper into it. I think I shall take another read...
  • Reply 8 of 75
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Age of the earth? Yikes!



    I think that if space is expanding, then that would play hell with "time".



    Somebody correct me, but they haven't found the edge of the universe, have they? "They" just keep finding more of it. Curious.
  • Reply 9 of 75
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Age of the earth? Yikes!



    I think that if space is expanding, then that would play hell with "time".



    Somebody correct me, but they haven't found the edge of the universe, have they? "They" just keep finding more of it. Curious.



    They find quasars at what they think is the edge of the universe.
  • Reply 10 of 75
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    I believe what we know currently about wavelength, the doppler shift, and the big bang the estimate is around 18 billion years. It was 12 billion only a few years ago but they found more stuff farther away.
  • Reply 11 of 75
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Gerhardt Schroeder?



    I thought he was the Deutsche chancellor.



    Wow.
  • Reply 12 of 75
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Gerhardt Schroeder?



    I thought he was the Deutsche chancellor.



    Wow.



    no he is the biblical scientist chancellor
  • Reply 13 of 75
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    no he is the biblical scientist chancellor



    LOL Gretings Powerdoc!



    The more I study his theory the more I question it. I always love to entertain theories however. It seems to me his logic and math have some flaws. I would have never guessed a man of his education would get some simple logic concepts wrong with his ideas. However I am all the better for reading over his perspective and idea.



    Peace



    Fellowship
  • Reply 14 of 75
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    LOL Gretings Powerdoc!



    The more I study his theory the more I question it. I always love to entertain theories however. It seems to me his logic and math have some flaws. I would have never guessed a man of his education would get some simple logic concepts wrong with his ideas. However I am all the better for reading over his perspective and idea.



    Peace



    Fellowship





    Everyone can lose their mind...



    Think Linus Pauling brilliant chemist that he was... by the end of his life he was exhorting the virtues of vitamin c as the future cure all...
  • Reply 15 of 75
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    Quote:

    but they haven't found the edge of the universe, have they



    The universe does not necessarily have an edge - but it does have singularities, which upset the conception of the universe as a boundaryless manifold.
  • Reply 16 of 75
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Rick1138

    The universe does not necessarily have an edge - but it does have singularities, which upset the conception of the universe as a boundaryless manifold.



    In addition to this above post, you also have to realize that the conception of a beginning is a reminant of the culture in which the science that predicts such a beginning is found. For instance, fairly recently Science published a model that has no beginning except a constant rebirth and life and death etc etc, guess where the scientist were from and their exact religious background? Anybody? Anybody?



    I personally dont believe there was a beginning...
  • Reply 17 of 75
    xenuxenu Posts: 204member
    From the link given by fellowship :



    "Hubbell", um, yeah.



    Age of universe given as 15 bilion years.

    Is this the minimum age, or maximum age.

    What technique was used to determine this age, simply

    astronomical observation, or was chemical analysis also

    included in the calculation?



    I ask this as he seems to be very loose with his science. Picking and choosing, much like fellowship.



    "51 years ago leading medical scientists were asked about DNA structure."

    "What the hell are you talking about?" was the common answer.



    I might also point out that galaxies and expanding universes are also recent concepts.



    I tried to read this, but it was a joke. He was trying so hard to slip and slide in order to get something from nothing.



    I wonder if fellowship posted this as a trick. To see if we could see poor science when it was put in front of us.



    No doubt he will be adding this to his list of fraudulent science.



    edit: I'm guessing he is pulling creationist leg here, to see how gullable creationists can be. And as we know, they can be very gullable.
  • Reply 18 of 75
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by xenu

    From the link given by fellowship :



    "Hubbell", um, yeah.



    Age of universe given as 15 bilion years.

    Is this the minimum age, or maximum age.

    What technique was used to determine this age, simply

    astronomical observation, or was chemical analysis also

    included in the calculation?



    I ask this as he seems to be very loose with his science. Picking and choosing, much like fellowship.



    "51 years ago leading medical scientists were asked about DNA structure."

    "What the hell are you talking about?" was the common answer.



    I might also point out that galaxies and expanding universes are also recent concepts.



    I tried to read this, but it was a joke. He was trying so hard to slip and slide in order to get something from nothing.



    I wonder if fellowship posted this as a trick. To see if we could see poor science when it was put in front of us.



    No doubt he will be adding this to his list of fraudulent science.



    The ONLY calculation they can use to determine the age of the universe is to plot the backwards course of the galaxies back to the general area at which they all come together and how fast and how far they are from our frame of reference. That's why the age varies so much depending on where you go to find the answer. Usually between 12 and 20 billion years.
  • Reply 19 of 75
    xenuxenu Posts: 204member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    The ONLY calculation they can use to determine the age of the universe is to plot the backwards course of the galaxies back to the general area at which they all come together and how fast and how far they are from our frame of reference. That's why the age varies so much depending on where you go to find the answer. Usually between 12 and 20 billion years.



    Other analysis can give a minimum age and a maximum age.

    Plotting backwards is one way.



    Having many ways is good, as it gives independent confirmation of the age of the universe.



    For example, stars cannot be older than the universe.
  • Reply 20 of 75
    lolololo Posts: 87member
    Occams Razor:

    "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is usually the right one."



    Now, let's see. Was the universe created in a matter of days by an almighty God who somehow exists outside of that universe, but whose existence cannot be proven? Or was it the result of a phenomenon soon to be explained by science?

    Hmmm, I wonder...

Sign In or Register to comment.