hi Guys,
This thread is getting too personal, please cool it down.

Moderation

Plus, I didn't open it to discuss specific religious views.

 

This thread is getting too personal, please cool it down.

Sorry about that.
When I read something that rankles me (in this case obliquely related to the topic), it's difficult not to answer.
But I understand your concern.

 

Confirmation-Bias Definition.
An extremely valuable concept to understand,
which should be automatically applied to every individual subject as a matter of routine.
.
.
.

 

Confirmation-Bias Definition.
An extremely valuable concept to understand,
which should be automatically applied to every individual subject as a matter of routine.
.
.
.

Just to note, i try to be as open to new suggestions as possible while at the same time keeping in reserve the right to refute anything that seems too improbable, although i must admit that would be very, very few things due to our incredibly incomplete understanding of the Universe and all that it entails and maybe some things it does not seem to entail, yet.

I'll accept whatever they say for now, but i will always have reservations about how true it is until something more dramatic comes up that proves more worthy. The key point is does it tie in with several other ideas. If it does it is more worthy, if it stands alone it's very questionable.

In this case of the age, i have no way of proving either estimate; the lower one around 14 billion years or the new one around 27 billion years.
This does show though that no matter what they come up with, it's probably going to be subject to change in the future, and that's why i always say we have to wait to find out, and it may be a long time.

But what the heck are they going to do with that show, "The Big Bang Theory"?
Are they going to have to change the show's theme song from 14 billion to 27 billion now?
ha ha.

You know this is funny (strange) but this reminds me of that guy (i wont mention any names) who kept "predicting" when the earth was going to come to an end based on calculations drawn from the Holy Bible. He swore up and down that it would be one day, then when that day came he swore up and down it would be more into the future, then when that day came he swore it would be even more into the future.
When will these guys learn you can't predict this kind of thing.
The same with the age of the Universe i think. You just can never be sure until some really groundbreaking theory is found, or to be more exact, some groundbreaking facts are found.

 

The geezer down the road had this massive beautiful boulder on his property. He told an inquisitive passerby that the rock was 3 million and 15 years old. The stranger replied, "Wow, that's old, but how come the 15 years?"

The old man replied, well some guy came by, was excited about the rock, took some samples, and came back the next day and said the rock was 3 million years old. That was exactly 15 years ago.

 

The geezer down the road had this massive beautiful boulder on his property. He told an inquisitive passerby that the rock was 3 million and 15 years old. The stranger replied, "Wow, that's old, but how come the 15 years?"

The old man replied, well some guy came by, was excited about the rock, took some samples, and came back the next day and said the rock was 3 million years old. That was exactly 15 years ago.

I live in a region surrounded by beautiful mountains. One of our national parks (Chipinque) is located atop one of them. That park is about 1,500m above sea level. And there's (among many others) a particularly large boulder right by the side of one of its main trails. That boulder is brimming with incrusted fossils of seashells, anemone and coral. There's also a large cavern system close by full of more diverse fossils of underwater creatures. I can only imagine how the earth looked when the area where I live was below the surface of the sea.

 

Huge 'bubbletrons' post-Big Bang may have shaped early cosmos

​

... However, as the early universe cooled and expanded, the united forces may have gradually started to separate in a series of phase transitions. The enormous bubbles might have formed in between these transitions.

 

Huge 'bubbletrons' post-Big Bang may have shaped early cosmos
View attachment 299510​

Hi,

Yeah, one thing after another after another after another. This kind of thing may never end
I think i saw one of those in my back yard one time.

 

Pretty sure the LowQ quote you were answering was meant to be about his belief in Scientology, not the age of the universe.

Hi,

No, it was about science, regular science, in general, especially guesses about the big bang and age of the universe and stuff like that.
I reason (sort of) if you can't tell us what the weather in Los Angeles was like 1000 years ago then you can't tell us if or when the big bang occurred 14 to 28 billion years ago which is what the most recent debate is about.

I don't comment on 'religion' too much it's an endless debate. I have my own beliefs and that's what I go by personally.

 

The TRUTH is only what YOU have experienced for yourself, not what someone else says it is.

based on the fact that all people are actually Spiritual-Beings, with amnesia, temporarily stuck in a Body.

So, you have personally experienced that statement, purported to be a fact, as "TRUTH"?
Amazing.

 

Yepp .....
.
.
.

 

Yepp .....

 

Please, please, PLEASE keep this thread on topic... or open another thread in which you can discuss personal views to your heart's desire...

 

How much more is there to speculate about the "Age-of-the-Universe"
that hasn't been thoroughly speculated already ?
.
.
.

 

How much more is there to speculate about the "Age-of-the-Universe"
that hasn't been thoroughly speculated already ?
.
.
.

No, it even remotely hasn't. The subject is a very broad one. Especially when one considers the early moments after the Big Bang, and its ultimate fate in the end of Time.

 

Please forgive me for not noticing the fact that You are the Thread-Starter here,
everybody has their own favorite subjects,
I don't want to spoil your creation in any way.
I won't get in the way anymore.
Good-Luck and have fun !!!
.
.
.

 

For reasons already stated, cosmology needs to be taken with a grain of salt (or two). Currently is mostly just speculative hypotheses. Enjoy, but don't take it too seriously.

 

Well, I said I wouldn't interject any further ...........
But I ran into this interview with a very high-end Scientist who has some very interesting
observations to make on how far Science has gotten so far ...........
Interview on YouTube.
.
.
.

 

Does time only exist in the human mind?

Time exists in physics, but the flow of time does not. Physicists do not understand the flow of time. In any given coordinate system, we can be at rest in space, but in that same coordinate system, we cannot be at rest in time. Time has this qualitatively different feature. It progresses.

This movement is currently ignored in physics. The relativistic transformations show that rotations in space-time wind up converting spatial coordinates into time, and time into space. But the space time diagram does not include any sense that time flows, that it is different. It has no special time location for "now" -- a moment of time that is central to our sense of reality because it divides that reality into two realms: that which we cannot influence, and that which we can.

Here is a quote from my book Now - The Physics of Time: "Brian Greene in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos suggests that relativity “declares ours an egalitarian universe in which every moment is as real as every other.” He says that we have a “persistent illusion of past, present, and future”—a perspective reminiscent of Augustine. He concludes that because relativity doesn’t discuss the flow of time, such flow must be an illusion, not part of reality. To me this logic is backward. Instead of insisting that theory explain what we observe, this approach implies that observations must be twisted to match the theory."

Einstein despaired of his inability to explain the flow of time. But Einstein, despite his despair, moved forward and showed that the rate of the flow of time depends on both velocity and gravity. That suggests strongly that the flow of time does not originate in the human mind, but has a true external physical reality.

Another quote from Now: "Space and time together provide the stage on which we live and die; it is the stage upon which classical physics makes predictions. But until the early 1900s, the stage itself wasn’t examined. We were supposed to notice the story, the characters, the plot twists, but not the platform. Then, along came Einstein. His great genius was in recognizing that the stage was within the realm of physics, that time and space had surprising properties that could be analyzed and used to make predictions. Even if he despaired of understanding now, his work is central to our understanding. Einstein gave physics the gift of time."

Richard Muller - Prof Physics UC Berkeley author "Now -The Physics of Time"

 

Does time only exist in the human mind?

Time exists in physics, but the flow of time does not. Physicists do not understand the flow of time. In any given coordinate system, we can be at rest in space, but in that same coordinate system, we cannot be at rest in time. Time has this qualitatively different feature. It progresses.

This movement is currently ignored in physics. The relativistic transformations show that rotations in space-time wind up converting spatial coordinates into time, and time into space. But the space time diagram does not include any sense that time flows, that it is different. It has no special time location for "now" -- a moment of time that is central to our sense of reality because it divides that reality into two realms: that which we cannot influence, and that which we can.

Here is a quote from my book Now - The Physics of Time: "Brian Greene in his book The Fabric of the Cosmos suggests that relativity “declares ours an egalitarian universe in which every moment is as real as every other.” He says that we have a “persistent illusion of past, present, and future”—a perspective reminiscent of Augustine. He concludes that because relativity doesn’t discuss the flow of time, such flow must be an illusion, not part of reality. To me this logic is backward. Instead of insisting that theory explain what we observe, this approach implies that observations must be twisted to match the theory."

Einstein despaired of his inability to explain the flow of time. But Einstein, despite his despair, moved forward and showed that the rate of the flow of time depends on both velocity and gravity. That suggests strongly that the flow of time does not originate in the human mind, but has a true external physical reality.

Another quote from Now: "Space and time together provide the stage on which we live and die; it is the stage upon which classical physics makes predictions. But until the early 1900s, the stage itself wasn’t examined. We were supposed to notice the story, the characters, the plot twists, but not the platform. Then, along came Einstein. His great genius was in recognizing that the stage was within the realm of physics, that time and space had surprising properties that could be analyzed and used to make predictions. Even if he despaired of understanding now, his work is central to our understanding. Einstein gave physics the gift of time."

Richard Muller - Prof Physics UC Berkeley author "Now -The Physics of Time"

Hi,

Very interesting and I'll have to read that a couple more times.

I have thought about time vs movement also. When we throw a baseball, it moves through both time and space. When it sits on the ground though it appears to be moving only through time, but the whole universe is moving, so it's still moving through space and time.
Now bring in Einstein's ideas, when we go faster time slows down, so what about when we go SLOWER? We are all moving right at this moment and presumable the next also, so what would happen if we could come to a complete stop, and is that even possible. Could it be that if we came to a complete stop (not sure how we would know that though) that time would increase to some large value, or would it really be restricted to some unit value (sqrt(1)=1 for non-moving).

This tells us which I think is a fact now, at the very least we are experiencing time as being increased over the smallest possible value it can ever be. We could try to calculate this, but I think it would be hard to do because can we go by the speed references we have now for galaxies or whatever.

Right now we get our time reference from moving objects, and apparently we apply a random number to some movement that appears to us to be constant. We don't even know if it is constant really, it just appears to us to be that way.

Yeah, when you get down deep into physics you start to realize that nothing exists and yet everything exists