Age of the Universe

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Black Monk said:

God actually invented us.

After we invented him.

[Black Monk]

1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

After we invented him.

We didn't invent God. God invented us. We're His creation.

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, Black Monk said:

We didn't invent God. God invented us. We're His creation.

Says his authors. Keep going around and around with your superstitious delusions.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Rlyeh

[Will Due]

25 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Says his authors. Keep going around and around with your superstitious delusions.

The facts of science and the truths of God are NOT in conflict with each other. They're mutually inclusive.

Science and religion will eventually reconcile.

However in the meantime, it is interesting to note that there has developed a rather pervasive and unnecessary attitude, that many scientists, and those who hold the scientific viewpoint subscribe to.

This amounts to a new form of "superstitious delusion" that the facts of science somehow supercede everything else and relegates anything religious that leans toward faith in God, irrelevant and only deserving of being totally ignored.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Will Due

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Will Due said:

The facts of science and the truths of God are NOT in conflict with each other. They're mutually inclusive.

The very methods are mutually exclusive.

 

Just now, Will Due said:

Science and religion will eventually reconcile.

Not as long as science remains science, and when it no longer is it will be a sad day for humanity.

 

Just now, Will Due said:

However in the meantime, it is interesting to note that there has developed a rather pervasive and unnecessary attitude, which many scientists, and those who hold the scientific viewpoint subscribe to.

This amounts to a new form of "superstitious delusion" that the facts of science somehow supercede everything else and relegates anything religious that leans toward faith in God, irrelevant and only deserving of being totally ignored.

Hardly interesting.

That's really all science can do is ignore the irrelevant crap from kooks and charlatans. Creation myths are only good for the study of beliefs.

[Blaid Drwg]

The question in the OP is a very intresting one but it is also a question wich will never ever get an answer. 

Scientists will find new white dwarfs who are older than those that are known today wich will make them adjust there numbers and because they find other white dwarfs that will be colder this means they will be older so that adjusts the age of the universe. On the other hand there is also assumed at one point the universe in its whole got created (read it started to excist at one point and expanded). This means that there is a point somewhere out there that is the actual center of the universe wich you can refer to as some sort of cradle of life because it all began at that point. That point can never ever be found because of 2 simple reasons being. 

1: The universe is such a huge and vast enormous space that we can never ever reach its borders and for that cant calculate the center point of this vast enormous space and because the universe still expands and will keep doing that.
2: The expansion off the universe does not happen at the same speed in every direction wich means you cant imagine that the universe in its whole is like a perfect circle or square and thus you can not pinpoint a location and name it the original centerpoint of it. 

For those who actualy dragged in religion on this topic. Explain what you see as god. Do you see him as some human form being or as some sort of energie form being or is god just nature who created everything. Than ask youreself can anything have been arround before the whole universe got created? Or if god created it and came in existence at the same time as the universe can he be the one who created the universe?

PS: How can scientists tell how old the universe must be at the temperature of a white dwarf. I mean they can measure the temperature but they cant tell what it was before it became a white dwarf. Things like before becoming a white dwarf there are still things like it use to be a red dwarf and a sun and what was it before it became a sun and how big and hot was it. Those things they cant measure because they dont know the facts or history of it to measure it.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Blaid Drwg

[StarMountainKid]

On 9/14/2017 at 5:26 AM, pallidin said:

It's formally considered that the age of our Universe is approximately 14 billion years, I ask why?

Why not 100 billion years ago, or a trillion, or yesterday? Or even in the future?

What makes 14 billion years ago so special?

Obviously, it's special.

About 14 billion years is special for us because it took that long for human life to evolve on our planet and for you to be born. Sort of an anthropic principle, if the universe was older or younger than this, would you be here to ask the question? 

[Wes4747]

I find it interesting we even attempt to measure the age of the universe in earth years vs the conditions everywhere else that may change decay, velocity etc... Nonetheless we have no understandable beginning.

[Black Monk]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Says his authors. 

We're not his authors. We're his creation.

Quote

Keep going around and around with your superstitious delusions.

Well I think your beliefs are delusions.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

The facts of science and the truths of God are NOT in conflict with each other. They're mutually inclusive.

Science and religion will eventually reconcile.

However in the meantime, it is interesting to note that there has developed a rather pervasive and unnecessary attitude, that many scientists, and those who hold the scientific viewpoint subscribe to.

This amounts to a new form of "superstitious delusion" that the facts of science somehow supercede everything else and relegates anything religious that leans toward faith in God, irrelevant and only deserving of being totally ignored.

 

 

Will superstitious thinking and factual thinking are not the same and what you want to do is incorporate the most accurate model of the world into your thinking apparatus. Science seeks to do this because it follows the facts. 

Many people retain a belief in god while at the same time incorporating the facts of science. Science seeks to give the best possible explanation for the facts we have at any given time. 

When a child no longer beliefs Santa is real, it is a wonderful milestone as it indicates  they are incorporating a more sophisticated logical realistic way of thinking it doesn’t mean they lose their sense of wonder. 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by Sherapy

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will superstitious thinking and factual thinking are not the same and what you want to do is incorporate the most accurate model of the world into your thinking apparatus. Science seeks to do this because it follows the facts. 

Many people retain a belief in god while at the same time incorporating the facts of science. Science seeks to give the best possible explanation for the facts we have at any given time. 

When a child no longer beliefs Santa is real, it is a wonderful milestone as it indicates  they are incorporating a more sophisticated logical realistic way of thinking it doesn’t mean they lose their sense of wonder. 

 

Santa won't like what you said.

He's in the other room so I'll keep it to myself. I don't want to hurt his feelings.

 

 

[Parsec]

For goodness sake, could you all please quit derailing the thread going completely off topic, as @Waspie_Dwarf already asked? 

[Parsec]

On 14/9/2017 at 11:26 AM, pallidin said:

It's formally considered that the age of our Universe is approximately 14 billion years, I ask why?

Why not 100 billion years ago, or a trillion, or yesterday? Or even in the future?

What makes 14 billion years ago so special?

Obviously, it's special.

It' s not special, it's simply what data suggest. 

 

I am no expert (I would call @sepulchrave if I were you), but adding to what @Peter B wrote, those numbers are derived from the observation of the cosmic microwave background, that is basically what's left in terms of electromagnetic radiation of the Big Bang (or the very early stages of the universe). 

 

[Parsec]

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Its only that, from our perspective, current estimations are in line with the rest of our understanding of the Universe which is, again, made from our perspective and over research about the observable Universe which could be only one small part of much larger picture.

I like to believe that the Universe is much larger than what we can assume and consequentially a lot older.

Quite possibly (and indeed it has already been theorised several times), but if by definition the universe is "everything we can see", what's outside wouldn't be the universe, rather something else.

For instance a multiverse. 

[taniwha]

No one ever celebrates the birthday of the universe so my guess is it is still in the process of being born.  I mean it's awfully dark in here mostly.

[CJ1983]

On 10/9/2017 at 5:31 AM, Black Monk said:

There's only one God.

And his name is Death.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

20 hours ago, Parsec said:

but if by definition the universe is "everything we can see", what's outside wouldn't be the universe, rather something else.

For instance a multiverse. 

I understand your point, thing is science base everything on the observable Universe, it's logical and only possible with our current level of advancements. But for that same reason we can not apply logic from '' the observable Universe '' over to theory of the Universe as a whole.

Claim such as '' if we can't see it '' doesn't influence the state of the Universe at all. Gotta reference '' the Pale Blue Dot '' talk by Carl Sagan here  with respect to geocentric model of the past.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

15 hours ago, CJ1983 said:

And his name is Death.

And what do we say to death ?

Not today !

[Essan]

On 11/10/2017 at 4:50 PM, StarMountainKid said:

About 14 billion years is special for us because it took that long for human life to evolve on our planet and for you to be born. Sort of an anthropic principle, if the universe was older or younger than this, would you be here to ask the question? 

No, Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old.   Based on evidence.   The universe is ~14 billion years old, based on evidence.  There is no other reason.   If new evidence comes to light to suggest the universe is 500 billion years old, or 5 days old, science will embrace it.  

On the other hand, there is a long held theory that the universe spontaneously appeared exactly 15 minutes ago.   And everything we see, know and observe - including photons from distant galaxies - appeared at the same time,    No-one has yet disproven this theory.

[StarMountainKid]

5 minutes ago, Essan said:

No, Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old.   Based on evidence.   The universe is ~14 billion years old, based on evidence.  There is no other reason.   If new evidence comes to light to suggest the universe is 500 billion years old, or 5 days old, science will embrace it.  

On the other hand, there is a long held theory that the universe spontaneously appeared exactly 15 minutes ago.   And everything we see, know and observe - including photons from distant galaxies - appeared at the same time,    No-one has yet disproven this theory.

I understand the Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old, however it did take the universe ~14 billion years for humans to evolve on the Earth. My original post was vague on this italicized point. 

If the universe were older or younger by some percentage of ~14 billion years, as I said, I'm not sure we personally would be here discussing this subject. 

[Parsec]

58 minutes ago, Essan said:

No, Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old.   Based on evidence.   The universe is ~14 billion years old, based on evidence.  There is no other reason.   If new evidence comes to light to suggest the universe is 500 billion years old, or 5 days old, science will embrace it.  

On the other hand, there is a long held theory that the universe spontaneously appeared exactly 15 minutes ago.   And everything we see, know and observe - including photons from distant galaxies - appeared at the same time,    No-one has yet disproven this theory.

Ah no, they did it. 

16 minutes ago. 

[Mr Guitar]

On 10/9/2017 at 8:31 AM, Black Monk said:

There's only one God.

Or none - depends on your religious point of view. There's a tribe in the south Pacific that worships a model of a WWII aircraft - right or wrong, that's their god. You have to accept that there are other than Judeo Christian  beliefs out there and those beliefs are just as important to their followers  as yours is to you. All gods are human inventions anyway - if there were no humans to invent them, there would be no gods.

[Tatetopa]

On 10/8/2017 at 8:09 AM, Will Due said:

If the universe is expanding, why at some point in the future wouldn't it begin to contract?

Good question.  A lot of physicists have been struggling with that since Einstein.  Well, it might depend on how much mass and energy there is.  If there is enough mass to overcome outward motion, then it slows and reverses,  If there is not enough to apply the brakes, it keeps going.  

[internetperson]

On 10/11/2017 at 10:49 AM, Will Due said:

The facts of science and the truths of God are NOT in conflict with each other. They're mutually inclusive.

Can you give an example? Both change over time and both approach phenomenon using different strategies. Historically the Christian faith has had to adapt to scientific models, not the other way around.

On 10/11/2017 at 10:49 AM, Will Due said:

However in the meantime, it is interesting to note that there has developed a rather pervasive and unnecessary attitude, that many scientists, and those who hold the scientific viewpoint subscribe to.

This much I agree with but not so much as a science vs religion thing so much as folks have weak minds and fear ridicule. Like a nerdy version of jock culture.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, internetperson said:

Historically the Christian faith has had to adapt to scientific models, not the other way around.

Yes, it's been a one sided event so far. 

But evolution can't be stopped. The time has arrived for science to slow down its campaign of removing superstition from religion. It's at the point now of it becoming psuedo-superstituos for scientists to keep the baby in the bath water.