How Old is our Universe?

On Jun 17, 6:10 pm, Double-A wrote:

...we try to
translate this time into the time measured by our present day clocks,
we would have a problem, because we would reach a time way back near
the beginning when the original clock would have been running
infinitely slow compared to our present day clocks. And there is a
problem:

How could the Big Bang have occurred while time was standing
still?

Frames of referance again, AA. The clock rate in that near-the-
beginning referance frame may have been running near-infinitely slow
relative to us 'out here'. But within its own referance frame, its
clock was running at the normal rate.
oc

wrote:
The WMAP data is as good as it gets right now, and the value for the age
of the universe is less than 14 billion years. The error bars on the
data are quite tight too.


That is pure nonsense, from a species of mortal little human beings,
that doesn't even know how to prolong their short lifespans for more
than 100 years.

God is more knowledgable in every possible way, than your mortal
little species can even imagine.


That, of course, assumes that such supernatural beings exist. As to you
not being a mortal, you are delusional.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott Reality is humankind guessing the age of the universe with the
detectors we have now makes the guess come out of
probability(uncertainty) Bad approximation. bert


Let's see. Based on available data, the conclusion drawn is the
conclusion drawn. Based on nothing, other than you don't like the
current age predicted by current theories and supported by current
observations, you pick a completely different number. So, unless you
can provide scientifically validatable evidence to the contrary, you
really have no leg to stand on (no pun intended based on your mention of
your recent fall).

wrote:
The WMAP data is as good as it gets right now.


The universe is composed of:
4% ordinary baryonic matter
22% an unknown type of dark matter, which does not emit or absorb
light.
74% a mysterious dark energy, which acts to accelerate expansion.

4% known, and 96% unknown? Yes, that is how good as it gets for your
pathetic little brain.


But, not knowing what it is is not the same as not knowing what it does.
Observations will likely reduce the lack of knowledge of what dark
energy and dark matter are. That and more logical thinking than what
you are capable of demonstrating.

Double-A wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:48 am, wrote:

The WMAP data is as good as it gets right now.

The universe is composed of:
4% ordinary baryonic matter
22% an unknown type of dark matter, which does not emit or absorb
light.
74% a mysterious dark energy, which acts to accelerate expansion.

4% known, and 96% unknown? Yes, that is how good as it gets for your
pathetic little brain.



The need for these unknown types of matter and energy stem from the
assumption that GR is correct and complete. Einstein tried to account
for more factors in his equation of gravity than Newton did, but that
doesn't mean that he took everything into account. Local differences
in the pressure and flow of space could explain the discrepancies
without resorting to unknown forms of matter and energy.

Double-A



Nah, not likely. But hold onto that dream if you must.

wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message ps.com...

On Jun 17, 7:48 am, wrote:

The WMAP data is as good as it gets right now.

The universe is composed of:
4% ordinary baryonic matter
22% an unknown type of dark matter, which does not emit or absorb
light.
74% a mysterious dark energy, which acts to accelerate expansion.

4% known, and 96% unknown? Yes, that is how good as it gets for your
pathetic little brain.


The need for these unknown types of matter and energy stem from the
assumption that GR is correct and complete. Einstein tried to account
for more factors in his equation of gravity than Newton did, but that
doesn't mean that he took everything into account. Local differences
in the pressure and flow of space could explain the discrepancies
without resorting to unknown forms of matter and energy.


Bingo. Give the man a prize.

Wait til we discover c is relative, and infinite in absence of all
gravitational influence. Anyone know what that will do to age
estimates of our universe?



And what universe would you like to conceive of in which the absense of
gravitational influence exists? Not this one.

oldcoot wrote:
On Jun 17, 2:21 pm, wrote:
energy.

Bingo. Give the man a prize.

Wait til we discover c is relative, and infinite in absence of all
gravitational influence.


Bingo on c being relative. But where do you come up with c being
*infinite*?

oc



Relative to what? And, of course, you can prove this? And please don't
bring whatiswhosits into it, as he lacked the courage to publish
anything on this topic, which is likely proof he was wrong anyway.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott what age did astronomers give for the universe 160 years ago. It
got a lot older in our spacetime,and it will get a lot older in the next
50 years bert


160 years ago, there was still the influence of religious thinking in
age determination. But, if you can prove the current observations are
in error, please step up to the plate.

BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 17, 6:04 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Scott what age did astronomers give for the universe 160 years ago. It
got a lot older in our spacetime,and it will get a lot older in the next
50 years bert


Our Scott Miller is another devout Zion naysayer, or otherwise that of
a brown-nosed Atheist rusemaster of a minion to those Zions that are
in charge of just about everything that matters. In other words, if
it's not scripted as within their Old Testament, it simply doesen't
exist.
-
Brad Guth


Brad, have you finished those calculations of the position of Sirius in
the future yet? Too stupid I guess. I have done so - no need for
supercomputers to do it. Did it to check your math. But, that assumed
you were intelligent enough to do multiplication and division.
Apparently I overestimated you.

wrote:
The value is derived from observations by people more knowledgeable in
this stuff than you can even approach.


That is not an answer to my questions. I have never seen any
difference is the measurment of the lightspeed due to gravitational
influence by your scientists.

But I have seen what your scientists claim to be empirical proof on
that time flows slower with increased gravitational influence.

If that is true, then the lightspeed must also decrease with
increased gravitational influence.


More delusional garbage. If you haven't seen it, you simply haven't
been paying attention.