The Universe Could be Younger by 2 BILLION Years???

[Curious George]

Hello @Polymath257. I expected you.
Why should it not?

We are talking about evolution on earth right? Taking 2 billion years off the age of the universe does not necessarily affect anything on earth save perhaps the ratio of when the earth formed in years to when the universe formed in years.

How do you think it does affect evolution on earth?

 

[Kenny]

Science does not propose that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago. You math is dismal. The earliest life is estimated at between 3.7 and 4.2 billion years ago.

Careful the science used here negates anything much younger. Our solar system is pretty much over 4,5 billion years old.



Wishful thinking among Creationists, but no. Actually if you read all the research there is a range of estimates, some a little older. Actually if the universe is indeed younger there are stars that are older, and if so they are from other older universes. Also be advised read your reference carefully.

You missed the point totally.

 

[Kenny]

Oh @KenS, I'm going to thank you for this OP, for one reason.
For some scientist, who wear their PhD like a badge, it causes them to shake at the knees a bit (even if only temporary ).
Why? Because, if it were to become accepted it would be to them like
They don't like to know they argue so strongly that something is correct, and accurate, then to hear it is not... despite being reminded, it could change tomorrow.

THAT was my point! But some people get really nervous and go off the deep end just because someone knocked off 2 billion.

Personally, I think its a big deal if but for what you just mentioned. Touting off that they are secure in what they know and then someone finds out they knew nothing at all.

 

[nPeace]

We are talking about evolution on earth right? Taking 2 billion years off the age of the universe does not necessarily affect anything on earth save perhaps the ratio of when the earth formed in years to when the universe formed in years.

How do you think it does affect evolution on earth?

I like your questions, and the fact you did not assume a particular evolution.
Let's start first with the evolution of our solar system, and see where that takes us.
Also, let's chop of more than 2 billion, because that's an estimation, and could be even more. So let's say 10 billion, as I find supporters of theories tend to always make things seem more simple than they really are.
Something has to give right? What?
The expansion rate? The cooling time of the CMB? The time of the BB? What about the formation of the solar system?
One can affect another, and... we can get to the earth shortly, based on how these shape out.

 

[nPeace]

THAT was my point! But some people get really nervous and go off the deep end just because someone knocked off 2 billion.

Tell me about it. I think we hear the faint knocking of knees, or maybe that's my heart beating with excitement when I see a hair stick up on their head.

Personally, I think its a big deal if but for what you just mentioned. Touting off that they are secure in what they know and then someone finds out they knew nothing at all.

I know what you mean.
I don't mind those who say, as it is, 'The current calculation... etc., based on etc.' ... but when one dogmatically sticks out, 'We know ABCD blah blah blah.' and someone is saying, 'Well years ago you also knew XYZ, and it's no longer XYZ', you would think the person would at least acknowledge that that is true, and it is possible that current estimations could also be off... but nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You missed the point totally.

Really? There was a point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell me about it. I think we hear the faint knocking of knees, or maybe that's my heart beating with excitement when I see a hair stick up on their head.

Actually those are your knees, The laughter does not cover it.

I know what you mean.
I don't mind those who say, as it is, 'The current calculation... etc., based on etc.' ... but when one dogmatically sticks out, 'We know ABCD blah blah blah.' and someone is saying, 'Well years ago you also knew XYZ, and it's no longer XYZ', you would think the person would at least acknowledge that that is true, and it is possible that current estimations could also be off... but nope.

I cannot help you with this concept. I can help you to understand how we know that the Earth is roughly 4.55 billion years old. This story has no effect whatsoever on the age of the Earth.,

 

[nPeace]

See what I mean @KenS... "How we know..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

See what I mean @KenS... "How we know..."

And the typical creationist response. Make a snide comment, run away, and hide.

It is sad that creationists are so afraid and most are too dishonest (at least when it comes to the sciences) that they will not even let themselves understand the very basic concept of scientific evidence. Of course there is a sound reason for them to do that. If they do not understand the concept of scientific evidence they cannot be accused of lying when they deny it.

So rather than mock what you will not let yourself understand, why not try to learn? The ostrich defense is not too impressive.

 

[nPeace]

And the typical creationist response. Make a snide comment, run away, and hide.

It is sad that creationists are so afraid and most are too dishonest (at least when it comes to the sciences) that they will not even let themselves understand the very basic concept of scientific evidence. Of course there is a sound reason for them to do that. If they do not understand the concept of scientific evidence they cannot be accused of lying when they deny it.

So rather than mock what you will not let yourself understand, why not try to learn? The ostrich defense is not too impressive.

When someone starts wrong, what can one learn from them... other than... 'How to start wrong"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When someone starts wrong, what can one learn from them... other than... 'How to start wrong"?

Then you should send your ways and start over again. That you have to rely on dishonest and failed scientists should tell you something.

 

[Curious George]

I like your questions, and the fact you did not assume a particular evolution.
Let's start first with the evolution of our solar system, and see where that takes us.
Also, let's chop of more than 2 billion, because that's an estimation, and could be even more. So let's say 10 billion, as I find supporters of theories tend to always make things seem more simple than they really are.
Something has to give right? What?
The expansion rate? The cooling time of the CMB? The time of the BB? What about the formation of the solar system?
One can affect another, and... we can get to the earth shortly, based on how these shape out.

I agree that if we had good reason to suppose the universe were 10b years younger than we believe it to be, then we would definitely need to rethink our concept of evolution on earth.

I just see no reason to suppose it is that much younger. Do you?

I wonder if you also agree that if we had good reason to suppose the earth were older than 6k years then people who believed it to 6k years definitely need to rethink their beliefs?

 

[wellwisher]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

Einstein's theory of Relativity has determined that observational reference is relative to the observer. That being said, the current age of the universe is based on observations from the earth, which is a relative reference but not an absolute reference.

In essence science unconsciously assumes the earth is the universal reference. Or the earth is the divine gold standard in terms of universal reference; absolute reference. This earth as the center of the universe assumption; absolute reference for God's creation, dates back to before science. The earth is the most convenient reference, but it should come with a relative reference qualifier meaning this is not the same all over the universe.

If we assume the Big Bang Theory is correct, and the universe begins from a singularity, the initial universal reference, was singular in nature and was at that time absolute. This reference was highly space contracted and highly time dilated, compared to the modern universe. This is based on GR or General Relativity.

The earth reference did not yet exist at time=0 and did not exist for billions of years after that. The expanding universe means that space and time was more contracted before the earth was formed so time ran slower. At time-0 and sightly beyond, the only reference and clock in the universe ran extremely slow. Theoretically, the first billion years, based on modern relative earth reference, may have only lapses as a day, in the original slow universe reference clock.

When the bible says the universe was formed in a day, theoretically, God was not using an earth reference that had yet to be formed. Rather he would have needed to use the original singularity reference, at a time, when only one reference existed. Genesis appears to be using GR, while also avoiding the relative reference pitfall.

The trap that Evolutionists and Cosmologist fall into is they assume the earth or the earth reference was always around, even before the universe formed, or started to expand. This is claim is based on false mythology. If we claim the universe is 15 billion or 11 billion years old, you need to state this is based on a relative reference, that did not even exist when the universe began. The make believe relative reference time, is coming back to bite everyone in the butt.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah. Your fear is evident.
Knock two billion years off, and you change the evolution time table.
Knock ten billion off

You need to learn to do your math. life is only about 3.7 to 4;2 billion years old, The universe is billions of years older than our solar system in the range of the estimates. Your source noted that the estimates in this research were still within the previous range of the estimates for the age of the universe.

In other words basically no significant change.

 

[shunyadragon]

You missed the point totally.

There is absolutely no point here in your assertions based on a religious agenda.

First, get your math straight then come back with a coherent response.

The source you used specifically said that the estimates of this research are within the range of the previous age of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah. Your fear is evident.
Knock two billion years off, and you change the evolution time table.
Knock ten billion off

Nope. Knock off 2 billion years and nothing really changes for the Earth and solar system (which didn't form until 4.5 billion years ago). So we are talking about the universe existing 7 or 9 billion years before the solar system started to form. Both are plenty of time to have the generation of stars required to form the elements we see.

And there is NO reason to knock off 10 billion years. When I was a kid, the estimates for the age of the universe ranged from 10 billion to 20 billion years.

 

[Polymath257]

I like your questions, and the fact you did not assume a particular evolution.
Let's start first with the evolution of our solar system, and see where that takes us.
Also, let's chop of more than 2 billion, because that's an estimation, and could be even more. So let's say 10 billion, as I find supporters of theories tend to always make things seem more simple than they really are.
Something has to give right? What?
The expansion rate? The cooling time of the CMB? The time of the BB? What about the formation of the solar system?
One can affect another, and... we can get to the earth shortly, based on how these shape out.

I don't know why you jump to 10 billion years off. That makes no sense at all.

You could easily take 4 billion years off the age of the universe with no effect on the formation of the solar system.

 

[Polymath257]

The trap that Evolutionists and Cosmologist fall into is they assume the earth or the earth reference was always around, even before the universe formed, or started to expand. This is claim is based on false mythology. If we claim the universe is 15 billion or 11 billion years old, you need to state this is based on a relative reference, that did not even exist when the universe began. The make believe relative reference time, is coming back to bite everyone in the butt.

No, Cosmologists do NOT assume the Earth has always been around. And no, it isn't the standard used. The 'standard' is a co-moving observer in the expansion. In other words, an observer that is moving along with the expansion.

 

[We Never Know]

I don't know why you jump to 10 billion years off. That makes no sense at all.

You could easily take 4 billion years off the age of the universe with no effect on the formation of the solar system.

Being it took 9bys after the universe formed for the solar system to form, IMO taking 2bys off the universe would have a timeline impact on the formation of solar system as well.
However it wouldn't impact evolution as it would still happen once life started.

 

[Polymath257]

Being it took 9bys after the universe formed for the solar system to form, IMO taking 2bys off the universe would have a timeline impact on the formation of solar system as well.
However it wouldn't impact evolution as it would still happen once life started.

But the reason it took that long before the solar system formed is that a generation of stars needed to go through their cycle first to form the elements for the solar system. That actually happened fairly quickly ( a few billion years at most since the stars involved were large and went through the cycle quickly).

Are people thinking the solar system started to form just after the Big Bang and was in the process of formation the whole time????