Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I've been wondering about this for a while. I read some of Steven Hawkings work and was involed in a similar discussion here on CN a while back. First, there are numerous theories on the age of the universe. Some say its old and some say its young. And usually the two sides get into heated arguments over it. What I want to know is why can't it be both? Am I right in my understanding that time is essentially relative to mass and speed? Why couldn't the universe be say...6,000 years old? On earth couldn't it appear to us as 6,000 years while from the vantage point of some other galaxy's "time" it may be millions of years? Sorry, I'm no scientist, just curious. Anyone have any ideas? 
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
I don't think there is any serious argument. The earth does not appear to us to be 6000 years old. Geological evidence indicates it's much older.
If you've seen credible argument for the earth being "young," perhaps you could give us some cites (web page links would do) so we can discuss the specifics?
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22470
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
If you've seen credible argument for the earth being "young," perhaps you could give us some cites (web page links would do) so we can discuss the specifics?
I'd suggest that any such links offered be restricted to discussion of scientific evidence.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Here is one very quick one I found...
Magnetic Field
"Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. "
"Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over 150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1400 years. "
It would seem obvious that if this info is true then for the earth to be millions of years old the field would have to have been impossibly huge.
However, that wasn't my real point. (I'm sure we could both find "facts" for the next 5 years on why it is one age or the other. Personally I've come to distrust "science". Too often it pushes theory as fact. And inevitably the theory is based on our current understanding of something which every so many years is usually found to be wrong.) I was thinking more along the lines of "time" theory. Any ideas on that?
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
John...Isn't "scientific evidence" rather relative? When you talk about this kind of stuff, scientist on both sides go into their evidence with preconceived ideas and thus their "evidence" tends to reflect that. I'm sceptical of all 'scientific' evidence.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
"Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. "
I'm not a geologist but as I understand it, there is ample evidence that the earth's magnetic field is cyclic, and that it disappears almost completely between those cycles. The current rate of change is not an indicator of the age of the planet.
Quote:
However, that wasn't my real point. (I'm sure we could both find "facts" for the next 5 years on why it is one age or the other. Personally I've come to distrust "science". Too often it pushes theory as fact.
If you think that, you don't understand what science is. It's not an organized institution, but merely a method of trying to understand the universe. In science, only observations are treated as facts. Every single theory is treated as, well, a theory. If a theory fits all observed facts, we gain more confidence that the theory is a good description of the world. But a scientist never pushes a theory as fact.
Quote:
I was thinking more along the lines of "time" theory. Any ideas on that?
First we need to agree on which obsrvations we are trying to explain. Unless you have observations that contradict pre-existing theories, there's no reason to invent new theories.
Edited by Ken_K (01/09/05 02:36 AM)
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
John...Isn't "scientific evidence" rather relative?
No it is not. Scientific evidence is any evidence that is documented, verifiable and reproducible.
Scientists trust evidence above all else, even their preconceptions. We know that the only way to advance science is to find evidence that does not fit pre-existing theories. To a scientist, there's nothing more exciting than evidence that seems to contradict all our preconceptions and mainstream theories. I've met scientists who spent their whole careers trying to disprove Einstein's theories. Sometimes such research leads to new theories, and other times ends up adding even more weight to the preexisting theories (as has been the case with Einstein's theories so far).
Edited by Ken_K (01/09/05 01:49 AM)
|
Dave Mitsky
Postmaster
Reged: 04/08/02
Posts: 6292
Loc: Pennsylvania, USA
|
|
Quote:
Here is one very quick one I found...
Magnetic Field
"Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. "
"Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over 150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1400 years. "
It would seem obvious that if this info is true then for the earth to be millions of years old the field would have to have been impossibly huge.
However, that wasn't my real point. (I'm sure we could both find "facts" for the next 5 years on why it is one age or the other. Personally I've come to distrust "science". Too often it pushes theory as fact. And inevitably the theory is based on our current understanding of something which every so many years is usually found to be wrong.) I was thinking more along the lines of "time" theory. Any ideas on that?
That quote was taken from a "creation science" web site. If we can't agree that creationism is, in fact, religious dogma and not science, then there is no point in continuing any further with this thread, IMO.
http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/geomag/geomag.htm
Copyright © Creation Evidences Museum, 1995
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/scien_eviden_creatn.html
Dave Mitsky
--------------------
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
You guys are missing my point. This wasn't the discussion I wanted. I was just saying 'what if'. I don't want to try to prove it to you. What you have been led or mis-led to believe is of no concern to me. Maybe I'm not asking the right thing. Thanks anyway though.
|
matt
Vendor (Scopemania)
Reged: 07/28/03
Posts: 10022
Loc: Chaville, France
|
|
I don't get your "what if?"
The problem with "what ifs" (what ives?  ) is that your "if" has to be something still admissible. (you are not a creationist, right, Nathan?)
If we want to say that the universe "aged" in 13 billion years (thanks to they Key project, proponents of the "old" universe (18 bn years) and of the "yound" (8 BILLION years) are now in agreement), but that this time ticked at a different speed on earth, you have to wonder, "how young can Earth be?".
Earth, based on radioactive decay measurements, is at least 4.5 billion years old. So at most time ticked at one third of the rate on earth as in the rest of the universe. Something that would be hard to evidence, but even then it would be too complicated to explain that the Earth was born at the moment of the Big Bang.
quick shots:
- it's StePHen, not SteVen Hawking
- Ken is right in saying that our magnetic field is cyclical. Lava flows show that it changes polarity about once every 200,000 years. Magnetic anomalies over the past few millenia are actually the magnetic field preparing to reverse in a few thousant years. Some "fresh" (200,000 years, i.e.) lava flows show that in the years of magnietic inversion, polarity can change on a daily basis :yikes:.
--------------------
Matt
CI700 mount with various scopes on top.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
It's very dangerous to take data from a short period of time and just extrapolate that over a wide region of time. The assumption is that the magnetic field constantly decreases over time. However, without proof of this assumption the whole reasoning is unproven.
Eg:
World population in 1900: 1500 million people
World population in 2000: 6000 million people
Theory: Because world population increases by 4500 million people every 100 years, 'Adam and Eve' must have lived around 1866, that is, after the invention of the steam engine. Erm.. right.
What is wrong with this theory? The assumption!
Anyway, the person who came up with this magnetic field theory must be aware that his reasoning is flaud, I don't know any self-respecting scientist who would accept that as 'proof'. It's not because you call yourself a scientist, that you actually are one.
I think the reason you distrust science is because you misunderstand the concept; you don't have to accept anything because a scientist says so, as it is the case in dogmatic religion. Instead, you should think for yourself and come to your own conclusion. The task of the scientist is to convince you with experiments that you can repeat and logical reasoning.
If you find an experiment that proves that the world is 6000 years old, you can put it forward and try to convince others. If your 'opponent' finds a flaw in the experiment, your assumptions or your reasoning, he will tell you so, and you will have to come up with a flaw in his reasoning, or adjust your theory.
Edited by Hansvi (01/09/05 10:38 AM)
|
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 1517
Loc: Wisconsin
|
|
Quote:
there is ample evidence that the earth's magnetic field is cyclic, and that it disappears almost completely between those cycles. The current rate of change is not an indicator of the age of the planet.
Exactly. And, there have been many, many, cycles come and gone. 6 thousand years, btw, does not even cover one cycle.
As far as science goes, it is a method.
For anyone not terribly familiar with it, i would recommend the book:
"Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. (Cambridge, 2003).
The word "science" is now commonly appended to any number of old or new ideas that are utterly un-scientific. This is because (i think) of the productivity of science, i.e., useful things come out of it eventually, in everyday life. So regrettably, some religions, astrologers, etc. like to use the world to sound, well, sound, reasonable.
But, the simple matter is, that if it don't use the scientific method, it ain't science.
--------------------
"Gosh, you've... really got some nice toys here"
Dual mount/ambient temperature Hominid Widefield Photon Collectors®
Pleistocene™ ˝ watt Wetware Integration Unit.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Edited by moynihan (01/09/05 11:04 AM)
|
Jim Svetlikov
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/06/03
Posts: 2033
Loc: Crescent Beach
|
|
Am I right in my understanding that time is essentially relative to mass and speed?
Time is relative to the observer.
If one observes an object moving at increased or decreased velocities relative to the observer, a clock on the moving object will appear to tick at a different rate relative to the observers clock.
If one is immersed in a gravitational field and observes a clock in a higher or lower gravitational field, that clock will tick at a different rate relative to the observers clock.
Why couldn't the universe be say...6,000 years old?
There is far too much evidence to suggest that not only the universe, but the Earth itself is much older than 6000 years.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the universe is only 6000 years old.
On earth couldn't it appear to us as 6,000 years while from the vantage point of some other galaxy's "time" it may be millions of years?
Herein requires the concept of a reference frame.
If another galaxy were moving away from us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, we would view that galaxies clock as ticking at a particular rate. We are in a stationary (inertial) reference frame relative to that galaxy. However, if that galaxy were to look back at us, they would view us as moving away at the same velocity as we see them moving away from us. In other words, they are the ones that are stationary and we are the ones moving away and vice versa.
When we transform the information from one reference frame to the other, both galaxies will agree on how much time has passed for the other.
So, if one galaxy views another's time as having passed 6000 years or millions of years relative to their time, the other galaxy will conclude the same.
--------------------
It is better to build a boy than try to mend a man.
|
MaritimeSky
professor emeritus
Reged: 11/18/04
Posts: 571
Loc: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
The reason the universe cannot be merely 6000 years old is the same reason I cannot say that the universe is only 30 years old. I was not alive 30 years ago, and thus if I wanted to be so naive I could also say that nobody else was either - thus making ME the center of the universe.
I can imagine all the over 30 folks getting a REALLY big laugh at me claiming something like that, because they WERE alive and I was not, and time was ticking away for them as the world turns round and round just like it still does today. It is a flaw in perspective to believe that the universe was created "aged".
In fact, if we examine the clues left all over our universe which hint at its true age, we find evidence to support the "old universe" theory in almost all branches of science and mathematics.
Anything which is now alive or was at one time contains carbon (thus the term carbon-based life) and carbon has a radioactive decay rate which remains very constant. This decay rate allows us to place an age on anything from a 3 year old chicken carcass to ancient dinosaur fossils. We know dinosaurs roamed the earth for 200 million years because we can carbon date the fossils, but also because they are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock forms through very well understood processes, the oldest layers being formed first and deposited lower in the strata than the newer upper layers. Like we build a pile of dirt, so does the earth - from the bottom up. We can use magnetoscopes to determine the orientation of earth's magnetic field at the time each layer of rock was deposited, and evidence shows that our magnetic field reverses itself about every 200,000 years, and it has done so upwards of 15 times through the history of this planet.
We do not need to rely on living or once-living creatures to find evidence of an old universe either. Ice from the polar caps which is breaking free and floating out to sea this very moment is releasing gaseous pockets of our ancient atmosphere into our world today. We all know how ice is made. Chances are you make ice all the time. When ice forms it traps air bubbles, and in that air are clues to when the ice was formed - a chemical snapshot of history being made.
Then there are things like light. We know how fast light travels, and with that knowledge we can estimate (as accurately as any of us would eyeball 1 cup of sugar) the distance to remote objects, and with that their age as well. That same light reveals to us nearly ALL states of the universe in its evolution, simply by looking at something closer or further away. We have stars being born, stars forming solar systems, stars growing and engulfing solar systems, stars destroying themselves, and exploded stars dissipating over time in the form of planetary nebulae. This is no different than seeing infants grow to toddlers, toddlers to children, children to teenagers, teenagers to delinquents, delinquents to adults, adults to seniors. The process is evident and logical, if we believe what we know to be the most obvious to be also the most likely.
What is inherently MOST obvious in all of this is that the universe, and everything in it is in a CONSTANT state of evolution, whether the subject be living, dead, or completely and entirely devoid of life whatsoever. The universe IS mostly non-living stuff, but it still evolves.
So the point I am basically trying to make is that no one fact, no one piece of evidence, no one argument for or against any one detail of the big picture will be enough to disprove the "old universe" theory. The story of the universe is like an infinitely complex jigsaw puzzle to which we acquire more relevant pieces each and every day. Saying that one piece here and there does not fit, simply is not enough to change the whole picture, and it never will be.
Y'all can rub your eyes now. 
--------------------
Jamie D.
Antares 8" F/6 Dobsonian
Skywatcher 130mm F/5 EQ2
Antares 90mm F/5.5 achro AZ1
Celestron SkyMaster 15x70
Vortex Stokes Talon 8x42
Bushnell Legend 8x26
|
MikeS
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 04/06/04
Posts: 916
Loc: Quakertown Pennsylvania
|
|
I am glad you reached out to learn more about this stuff. One persons myth is often another persons percieved fact. And it is good to see someone question things so they can discern fact from myth.
Yes, many scientists debate the age of the universe, but most estimates in recent years have ranged between 10 billion and 15 billion years. Last year, data supplied by the Hubble Space Telescope led to an apparently refined estimate of 13 billion to 14 billion years.
So many times, the average person says things like "It's only a theory and cannot be proven." Like a theory is a wild guess.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle that explains and predicts natural phenomena.
Scientific theory is based on careful and rational examination of the facts.
Now for the age of the Earth, the generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%).
reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Please check it out, as it addresses the magnetic field story.
Mike
--------------------
Mike Snisky
8" F5 Newtonian/Moonlite CR2
Orion Sirius EQ-G Mount
Orion 100mm F6 Achro on SVP w Intelliscope
Orion 100mm ED on LXD55 Mount
Denkmeier Standards
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Jim....thanks for the reply! Lets leave out all evidence of age right now. Would it be possible that earth "age" is different than the universe age? I'm still confused on this. I'm trying to get a better grasp on the whole space/time thing, reference frames and all that! Thanks for the comments.
|
matt
Vendor (Scopemania)
Reged: 07/28/03
Posts: 10022
Loc: Chaville, France
|
|
Jim aced the answer I botched on the reference frame thing. I stand corrected on my answer.
But, given that Earth is part of the universe, how can it be older than the universe itself? Even if it was the oldest object in the universe, it would at best formed at the same time.
For the record, proponents of the "old" universe thought the universe was 18bn years old because some stars (especially those in globular clusters) seemed to be that age; it was in contradiction with proponents of the young universe who based their work mostly on redshifts and measurements of Hubble's constant. Finally MAP and HST put the battle to rest by finding that the universe was middle-aged, at 13.7 billion years.
--------------------
Matt
CI700 mount with various scopes on top.
|
Jim Svetlikov
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/06/03
Posts: 2033
Loc: Crescent Beach
|
|
Would it be possible that earth "age" is different than the universe age?
Yes, of course. The universe MUST be older than the Earth. Galaxies, stars and planets had to form AFTER the universe came into existence. A variety of methods are used to measure the age of both.
I'm trying to get a better grasp on the whole space/time thing, reference frames and all that!
A reference frame can simply be defined as a system that uses coordinates to establish postions. In spacetime, there are 4 coordinates: 3 dimensional coordinates and 1 time coordinate.
A more detailed explanation is as follows:
Take an infinite number of rods of equal length, and an infinite number of identical clocks. Connect these up in a cubical lattice, so that each cube is constructed from 12 of the rods. At each corner of each cube, place one of the clocks.
The resulting (imaginary) structure stretches over the whole universe.
Now, suppose that each rod is L metres long. Follow the procedure below to synchronise the clocks.
1. Designate 1 particular clock as the coordinate (x,y,z) = (0,0,0)
The "nearest neighbour clocks" of this clock exist at the following coordinates:
(L,0,0) , (0,L,0), (0,0,L), (-L,0,0), (0,-L,0), (0,0,-L).
2. At time T on the (0,0,0) clock, send a light signal from that clock outwards in all directions.
3. When the light signal is received by a clock at distance nL from the (0,0,0) clock, set the clock receiving the signal to read T + nL/c, where c is the speed of light.
For example, when the light signal reaches the clock at (L,0,0), the time on that clock should be set to T + L/c. This is the same time as is displayed on the (0,0,0) clock at the time the (L,0,0) clock receives the signal, since the time taken for the light to travel distance L is L/c.
4. Once the synchronisation procedure has been carried out, we have an infinite set of clocks spread throughout space, all of which display the same time.
This system of synchronised clocks and rods is a reference frame.
--------------------
It is better to build a boy than try to mend a man.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Quote:
Jim....thanks for the reply! Lets leave out all evidence of age right now. Would it be possible that earth "age" is different than the universe age?
Of course the earth is younger than the universe iself.
If you're still asking whether time flow can be significantly different on earth vs. the rest of the universe, there's no reason to suspect such is the case. It's possible in the sense that we can't disprove it, but why take the time to ponder a theory that goes against everything we know, and does not explain the universe any better than the mainstream theories?
Quote:
I'm still confused on this. I'm trying to get a better grasp on the whole space/time thing, reference frames and all that! Thanks for the comments.
If you're talking about relativistic effects, it has negligible effect on the age of the earth vs. the age of the rest of the universe. It would be different if the earth were moving through the universe at speeds close to c, but that is not the case.
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Jim...Thanks again, well over my head but thanks! I think this is very interesting stuff. Looks like I need to find some books or something!
Ken..."but why take the time to ponder a theory that goes against everything we know" Now what sense of adventure is it to believe everything your told? If christopher columbus didn't ponder a theory against everything that was known, things may have been alot different today. Everything we know is only right within what we currently know. Something new could come along and invalidate current knowledge. Anyway, this post was only a pondering of mine to pass time. I can ponder what I please!
Thanks everyone for the input!
|
|
3 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: llanitedave
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 3234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 