[Discussion] How old do you think the Earth is?

[paratise]

The bold shows you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. This question was clearly not for someone of your... Intelligence. Lol.

How did you bring Evolution into how old you think the Earth is?

Because science is a type of anti religion propoganda for some magical reason and evolution is the theory of evil.

OT: Most legimate sources who devoted their brains and work to find out state that it is about 4.5 billion years. For the '6000 years' thing it is near impossible as there are trees, settlements, human skeletons older than that. I am open minded. Being open minded does not mean having a mind open at both ends which gives passage to everything, no need to believe on any given "knowledge" at same amount if bs is bs. Knowing and believing are different things i stressed the idea of earth being 6000 years old and concluded on the fact that it is simply baseless, not proven, not believable.

this is an obvious hot thread attempt why

 

[Brother Numpsay]

When you figure that the universe isn't expanding:

You must be registered for see links

Claims the universe isn't expanding.

Article link states is expanding slowly then we previously thought.

Nice.

 

[Aim64C]

It will be around billions. Science says it's 5.54 billion years. The numerical values of the Quran is 6.1 billion. Just to be clear, the latter is actually an assumption. None of the less, it's in billions.

Surat and Ayah for that count, please.

Although I have a decent question with regards to the physical mechanics of how old the Earth is.

... When do we count the Earth as having "formed?"

Under the classical model of stellar formation (which is basically in place because we have nothing else despite the physics saying it's impossible), the Earth begins as a ball of spinning dust amidst a stellar nebula until it eventually clumps together enough remains of crap that has been thrown off from various stars and is this giant whirling mass of lava.... at what point in that hazy period of time did Earth begin?

Or is it after the speculative cooling of the crust - since that is the theoretical limit of our ability to ascertain age from the half-life radiological components in the oldest rocks?

Then we figure that our current model of stellar formation doesn't work... and we run into huge problems. Angular momentum is missing from the sun that should be there (unless we have a binary companion floating around out there somewhere at about 8% of the sun's mass and a 24000 year long orbital period... which is what the math suggests). Where did the metals and heavy elements that compose the rocky planets and asteroids come from? Some process of stellar fusion had to lead to it - but the pressures for that are only supposed to exist in the core of the sun - so how did it get out here?

There are a lot of things that don't add up in stellar formation models.

The best guesses we can come up with come from the radiological dating of the rocks we suspect are the oldest. The problem is that we use circular-reasoning to reinforce the accuracy of long-term radiological dating. We use sedimentary and metamorphic layers to try and estimate the age of rocks and then also use radiological dating to try and verify... but we use the radiological dating to verify the accuracy of sedimentary layers.... Oh, sure, we throw fossils in there, too - but that's just adding a third wang to the circle jerk.

In the end - we can only assume that our estimates of radiological half-life are accurate and stable throughout periods of time that are several orders of magnitude larger than anything we have experimentally verified.

Perhaps the Earth is 20 billion years old.

What then?

Or perhaps it's only 1.4 billion?

What happens when we discover that plate tectonics are capable of moving far faster than current estimates account for? We -assume- that the plates have moved very slowly and consistently all throughout geological history. This is as insane as suggesting that the wind has always been a mild breeze.

When these new observations lead us to the conclusion that the Earth's crust can "recycle" within a few hundred million years - then where does that leave our "oldest rocks?" We can no longer assume they are indicative of the Earth's age no matter where in the crust we find them.

This assumes that we don't end up with head-turning proofs of things like the hollow earth theory - which would basically implode geology.

I don't personally believe the hollow earth theory - but it is interesting to review their arguments as they do like to probe phenomena that are known to science but left on the back-burner of discussion because no one really knows what to make of them.

The same with a lot of "crazy theories" (like Entropic Gravity and the notion that relativity is incorrect and there is a preferential reference frame). At the end of the day - they may be wrong, but they are very well attuned to things that are not well explained by current theories.

 

[Aim64C]

Claims the universe isn't expanding.

Article link states is expanding slowly then we previously thought.

Nice.

I see you didn't read the article.

The assumption on behalf of the authors of the article is that it is expanding more slowly than we thought.

The reality is that the red shift that was used to calculate the expansion of the universe was due to completely different spectral emissions from supernova in the first place - not due to relativistic redshift.

Which means that there is no reason to assume the universe is expanding via a force of "dark energy" at all.

IE - the burden of proof is back on research teams to illustrate that there is red shift that can be attributed to some kind of mysterious universe-destroying energy.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

You need to brush up on your Quantum Mechanics:

[video=youtube;ayvbKafw2g0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0[/video]

When you figure that the universe isn't expanding:

You must be registered for see links

And that the Big Bang wasn't:

You must be registered for see links

Some of you who have paid attention to me for some years will know that I've been talking about the notion being discussed right now that there was no "beginning" to the universe. In fact - this is precisely what we would expect in terms of behavior from a collapsing superposition.

IE - the universe exists in a "superposition" of countless possible states that are unknowable until a "thread" is extended into that universe to obtain information about it. A photon shot into a small cluster of supercooled gas can give us details about that universe and "collapse the wave function" (what is known as Quantum De-coherence) - at least, partially. The amount of collapse is dependent upon the amount of information that can be carried between the "coherent" system and the "incoherent" system.

This actually holds with the observation that all forms of information are subject to entropy. Without continual efforts to keep the information preserved - information will eventually disappear into a sort of hazy set of possible states with no real means of determining them without an immense expenditure of energy.

Did your G^10 Grandmother of direct maternal lineage have red hair?

The information is unknowable. Even if you were to measure every particle on the planet and attempt to trace the information back - it is gone unless the conditions were correct to preserve it (IE - some kind of genetic sample in an alkaline environment or a written record that has not decayed or has otherwise been preserved).

In this sort of "quantum origins" - there is no end, there is no beginning. Everything exists as a range of possible pasts based upon the energy invested in resolving information about the past.

This is a very uncomfortable view of reality because it introduces reality as being objective only in a sense of mutual subjective experience.

Assume we send two astronauts on long space voyages and then return them. One has been placed into stasis. The other has been allowed to review updates beamed in his direction about what is going on on Earth.

Do the two return to the same experience?

Quantum Mechanics suggests that they may not return to the same experience at all.

Exactly how different would depend upon how much the Earth had become "Coherent" to the astronaut in stasis. While some kind of rearrangement of the Earth's tectonic plates would require many light years of distance and millions of years; more simple things like the outcome of elections, births, etc could potentially be completely different after a much shorter time.

Again - our understanding of exactly -how- things become coherent and to what extent is still a bit unknown - but the idea is that without a constant exchange of energy (information), the details of our universe become muddled together until someone decides to discern those details, at which point one of the possible details forms out of probability.

One of the possible consequences of this type of system is that one must assume one of two possible situations:

"The God of I" - In this situation, this is your world and we're just living in it. (Or, more precisely, this is my world and you all are just living in it). The universe is entirely subjective to the individual - which means that the universe is an individualized experience.

"The Plane of Us" - In this situation, our personalities root from a commonly held plane of existence that interacts with our universe. Perhaps it is a "brane" in the "brane theory" - or perhaps it is something that can barely be described by abstract mathematical concepts. In either case - in this, we all share a common plane of existence that is responsible for creating the decoherence of the universe we are experiencing. In this sense - our sentience can be said to persist throughout time even if the physical details get washed away in the sands of time.

We have honestly entered an area of physics where philosophy can no longer be relegated to its own corner.

Philosophy and Physics have always been intermarried, though the rise of material reductionism had made the relationship distant so to speak, anyways I'm sure you are aware of the concepts of cosmology like Zeno's Arrow of Time, which raises the question does time flow uniformly within the observable universe, or does time even exists? classical mechanics posits the existence of absolute space and absolute time though General Relativity introduced the concept of spacetime, however there are theories and experiments that assumes the veracity of classical mechanics over General Relativity, such as the Horava model that by treating the dimension of time as absolute, a true model of quantum gravity can be formulated.

Anyways like Schroedinger's kitty, superpositioning is solved by the introduction of MWI, it can be high tide in one location and low tide at the same time in another branch of the universe, however we are not able to observe them at the same time because of decoherence, this is accepted by some theorists but does this really solve the problem? because in terms of Popperian standards it is what is called ünfalsifiable and therefore unscientific, of course even String Theory has been called unscientific by a few scientists because of the current impossibility to test its veracity.

 

[UltraPain]

4.5 billion years old. Quasars. Carbon dating. Soil samples. Fossils. Science. LOGIC.

 

[Brother Numpsay]

I see you didn't read the article.

The assumption on behalf of the authors of the article is that it is expanding more slowly than we thought.

The reality is that the red shift that was used to calculate the expansion of the universe was due to completely different spectral emissions from supernova in the first place - not due to relativistic redshift.

Which means that there is no reason to assume the universe is expanding via a force of "dark energy" at all.

IE - the burden of proof is back on research teams to illustrate that there is red shift that can be attributed to some kind of mysterious universe-destroying energy.

Your right I read the title and 1st half of the article. That being said:

Ok so it doesn't discredit the point that the universe did indeed had a beginning and is expanding. Its only discredited the research team that base their claim of how they use their methods to check universal expansion.

 

[Aim64C]

Philosophy and Physics have always been intermarried, though the rise of material reductionism had made the relationship distant so to speak, anyways I'm sure you are aware of the concepts of cosmology like Zeno's Arrow of Time, which raises the question does time flow uniformly within the observable universe, or does time even exists? classical mechanics posits the existence of absolute space and absolute time though General Relativity introduced the concept of spacetime, however there are theories and experiments that assumes the veracity of classical mechanics over General Relativity, such as the Horava model that by treating the dimension of time as absolute, a true model of quantum gravity can be formulated.

This is true. I am aware of several very valid arguments against the notion of Relativity's validity - from analysis of the hardware and data of the orbital experiment to prove dilation does occur to the evaluation of the Sagnac Effect:

You must be registered for see links

I, personally, believe that the "way around relativity" is not to assume that time is relative - but to realize that causality is relative and requires information be exchanged in order to remain intact.

With a preferential - or "absolute" spatial frame, a lot the macroscopic implications of a non-relativistic universe play out through quantum mechanics... which allows us to create something very close to a unified field theory (even if there are a few outliers that suggest we will need to considerably re-evaluate our world).

Anyways like Schroedinger's kitty, superpositioning is solved by the introduction of MWI, it can be high tide in one location and low tide at the same time in another branch of the universe, however we are not able to observe them at the same time because of decoherence, this is accepted by some theorists but does this really solve the problem? because in terms of Popperian standards it is what is called ünfalsifiable and therefore unscientific, of course even String Theory has been called unscientific by a few scientists because of the current impossibility to test its veracity.

I think that there will come a time when we discover new phenomena/forces/relationships that will allow us to put a lot of existing theories to the test about the underlying structure of reality.

Of course - this will just push the boundary further. I believe there will always be the fundamental question in regards to reality.

To this, I've often argued that the biblical quote where God references himself as "I am" represents a fundamental philosophical realization and resolution.

At the end of the day - you have two options:

You can come to the realization/acceptance of life as having an inherent value to its experience - regardless of what mechanics form its structure.

Or you can reject the notion that it has value and consequence.

God's response of: "I am" indicates a resolution to that issue. God is and has decided to act as if the universe has value. It is the only way a practical sentient being can honestly answer the question of "What are you?"

Of course - I could also be reading far too much into it.

I do think, however, that gives us some insight into what the actual "test" of physical theories will be.

All theories ultimately can be tested as to how practical they are - what can they be used to build? What can they be used to predict?

In this sense - the physical theories that have the most value to the human condition and give the most practical of outlooks will likely be the one that prevails even if it is logically incapable of being proven correct.

Even within science - we can never prove a theory correct. We can only eliminate ways in which the theory is incorrect. When faced with two theories, or models, that can't be falsified - the one that forms the most practical platform tends to become the most prevalent.

 

[Saikyokami]

4.54 Billion years old.
Google said so.

 

[Aim64C]

Your right I read the title and 1st half of the article. That being said:

Ok so it doesn't discredit the point that the universe did indeed had a beginning and is expanding. Its only discredited the research team that base their claim of how they use their methods to check universal expansion.

That is where the second article comes into play.

The Big Bang never happened.

You must be registered for see links

"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.

In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.

Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results."

This is precisely what has been argued for quite some time.

I'm not quite on board with the notion of "gravitons" - but the "quantum fluid" idea is very similar to the Dirac Sea that has been very successful at explaining things like the Casimir Effect and the behavior of semiconductors.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

No, not this Sea of Dirac.

If you're more interested in specific criticisms of the Big Bang:

You must be registered for see links

There's a list.

From the insanity of the Cosmic Radio Background being the echoes of an explosion to the fact that we observe stars that are predicted to be older than the Big Bang - it's in there.

The Big Bang simply wasn't.

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

around 4.567 billion years ( this is the age of the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the Solar System ) to 4.404 billion years old ( this is the age of the oldest minerals found in Earth aka Zircon ) so probably somewhere in between .

 

[Ōkami]

I think it's up there.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

I think it's up there.

Up, down, hither, tither, yonder, under, 'tis a mystery of wonder to ponder.

 

[Ōkami]

Up, down, hither, tither, yonder, under, 'tis a mystery of wonder to ponder.

Indeed it is.

 

[DocThao]

the earth is exactly 12,237 years old . . . i kno because i'm over 10,000,000 years old

 

[Brother Numpsay]

That is where the second article comes into play.

The Big Bang never happened.
The Big Bang simply wasn't.

Im not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to this, but by reading (watching) philosophers take on quantum theory vs The Kalam Cosmological argument, whats your take on this video?:

 

[ComplexCity]

Who? Which author in the bible said the world is 6000 years old, period?

Who even re write the Bible to begin with? Where did you get this information and where is your source?

You are literally making things up.



Are you listening to yourself? Your that clueless to whatever your belief is in?

You do know that Adam (in hebrew) means Man and Eve “life” or “life-giving,” or “mother of all who have life,”?

Lol



Except no one has ever ever many that claim. Your making stuff up. It is very clear that doctrine has 40 different authors from three continents, who wrote in three different languages.

Plus quote from scripture claims: "All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

So far all of you seem to get information from the internet or 4th-5th hand/word to mouth sources.



Please share with us what parts were left out. Please share what were mens goal for propaganda. Mis informed after mis informed


OT: Wherever the evidence leads. Most scientist states its billions of years, so I guess its billions. Im open to listen to all the evidence that leads to it

Actually she's right about the third thing. The Book of Jasher is not in the regular KJV bible

 

[Wabbit]

6000 year old,seriously?
Earth is 2015 year old.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Brother Numpsay]

Actually she's right about the third thing. The Book of Jasher is not in the regular KJV bible

Thats because it is non canon, which only holds historic value.

 

[ComplexCity]

Thats because it is non canon, which only holds historic value.

Lol

Did you not just post that all of the scriptures were of God's word?

The book of Jasher has a passage that tells what happened between Issac, Ishmael and Abraham so how is it non cannon?