How Old is our Universe?

On Jun 17, 8:50 pm, Scott Miller wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, you still have nothing to share, except the usual infomercial
crapolla of a Zion.

Obviously intelligent design simply doesn't apply in your DNA/RNA of
Old Testament naysayism.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 17, 8:48 pm, Scott Miller wrote:
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.

The best SWAG of an open mindset, as based upon physics and the best
available science, is looking at 20+ billion years, although obviously
this is not the one and only universe that's out there, especially if
ours emerged from a mega black hole that obviously had to have
coexisted within a much greater mother universe.

However, 20 billion years is not suffiicient for complex DNA/RNA to
evolve via happenstance into the highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy
sorts of Zion folks like yourself, much less of the millions of other
life forms that are complex and having been so much smarter about
their survival than us humans.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 18, 5:16 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Scott your thinking is going with our most powerful telescopes that can
see galaxies 12 billion LY away.Now that's from our view point. Now
lets take these great telescopes to one of these 12 billion LY away
galaxies and look in the direction away from our Milky Way . Do you
think we would see the universe's horizon? After all it would only be
2.8 billion LY out. I say we would see what we see now. To tricky for
you to comprehend Scott and you are lost for its not in the books on
your desk Sad but true bert

Scott is a devout naysay Zionist, thus anything ET or otherwise off-
world doesn't matter, especially if there's any intelligent design
involved.

The best SWAG of an open mindset, as based upon physics and the best
available science, is looking at 20+ billion years, although
obviously
this is not the one and only universe that's out there, especially if
ours emerged from a mega black hole or God fart that obviously had to
have coexisted within a much greater mother universe.

However, 20 billion years is not suffiicient for complex DNA/RNA to
evolve via happenstance into the highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy
sorts of Zion folks like Scott Miller, much less of the millions of
other
life forms that are complex and having been so much smarter about
their survival than us humans.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

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, AA, as mentioned before. You're looking into a
region deep within a black hole's gravity well wherein time would be
*nearly* standing still relative to us 'out here'. But in its own
referance frame, its clock would be running at the normal rate.

OK, you're also looking back into the newly-emergent zone near the
BigBang and equating it with looking into a BH's gravity well. And i
didn't catch it yesterday (late-day brain fart:-)).

The emergence zone near the BB would be the *opposite* of a gravity
well. The pressure/density of the spatial medium would be the
*highest* there, and the clock rate the highest, relative to us 'out
here'. Thus many more "ticks of the clock" have transpired since the
BB than have been assumed. And what does this say about the age of the
visible universe?

Of course if there is 'no medium' and space is a void-nothing, none of
the above applies. :-)
oc

Scott My evidence I posted. The deeper we can probe the older gets the
universe. The very first photons created by the big bang have not hit
the Earth yet. go figure Beert

Scott and Zan Light speed is always constant. Gravity can cause the
photon's wave to be blue entering a strong gravity field. Gravity can
Change it to red when leaving a strong gravity field. Motion does the
same thing. That is why motion and gravity are equivalent. That is what
SR and GR are all about. bert

Scott In Cambridge Mass. super cold sodium had photons measured speed
at 3mph. I'm sure you will tell us how it got back to 'c'?? bert

Scott it was my knee that got sprained so you were going in the right
direction. Einstein did not like QM,and I say its humankind's best
theory. Einstein said people in a space ship could not tell if they were
moving or the background;. I could tell if I was inside a fast moving
space ship. bert

Zan We have Guth's inflation theory Hmmmm We have accelerating
expansion of space Hmmm We have the intrinsic fabric of space that had
to exist before the first universe Hummmmmm .. bert

Frames of referance, AA, as mentioned before. You're looking into a
region deep within a black hole's gravity well wherein time would be
*nearly* standing still relative to us 'out here'. But in its own
referance frame, its clock would be running at the normal rate.

Everybody here knows this, but that is not the issue here.

Rather, the issue is that supermassive black holes must be extremely
young locally, if they have any age at all.