<Universe 13 billion years old

Excerpts and comments interspersed:

Earlier studies had established the rate of cooling for these stars, said Richer. By looking at the very faintest and oldest white dwarfs possible, astronomers can use this cooling rate to estimate the age of the universe.

This is priceless.

Not only have we not reached the end of our ability to find galaxies and stars as peer deeper and deeper into space - but then someone can take an arbitrary number of stars at some unknown distance from the bogus big bang origin theory and calculate by it's theoretical cooling the age of the universe!

Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, Richer said the dimmest of the white dwarfs are about 12.7 billion years old, plus or minus about half a billion years.

Yes...plus or minus about half a billion years!

Richer said it is estimated that star formation did not begin until about a billion years after the Big Bang.

Yes "It is estimated", "We guess" and "some other folks think" ... always a mighty big if based upon another big if...based on another big if.

He said this means his best estimate for age of the universe is "about 13 billion years."

Yes, his best estimate. ;-)

"Our results are in very good agreement" with Richer's estimate, said Wendy L. Freedman, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., and a leader of the group performing the universe age calculations three years ago.

If you are going to engage in the worst form of guesstimate scientific pursuits - it feels much more comfortable when others are support eachother with similar guesses. ;-)

Bruce Margon, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, said both conclusions are based on "a lot of assumptions"

A lot? Really? No? The whole thing is based on assumption - no real-life validation or falsification is possible - it is not science at all!

Some religious scholars make similar a--es of themselves when they point to a spot on the riverbed where they have determined God scooped the mud up to make man!

but the fact that two independent methods arrived within 10 percent of the same answer is important.

Ahem...ahem..cough..cough..

...ANYBODY can take an arbitrary time period of "X" billion years - point telescopes at some objects in space and work some theoretical processes to come up with ANY age they want...and then claim they are in agreement.

I know some folks who go around conjuring up projects to "fit in" with existing theories - the people who composed the original BS theories don't mind if someone else supports their BS - as it makes it harder to tear down.

They are the worst sort of scientists - because they use science like a lawyer does to get a criminal free. Using existing theories you patch together another theory - magnitudes weaker because it can be tumbled down by one of a hundred theoretical components it is based upon! Then you throw in a few hours worth of observation at one of the observatories to add "hard observational data" - then you write your paper, send a few to peers to catch and edit anything which will make the sheepish editors stand off from printing it, and hope the cards fall right.

It's like a BS marathon out there...all to get a headline, better positions and more grant or money for future projects.

The BS is so thickly piled on previous BS that it is clear a cow's posterior is the center of the big bang. ;-)

Yes, Drudge posts these articles up and gives em lots of press - they must be loving it - but a scientist Drudge ain't.

----

It takes about 5 minutes to disprove this theory:

Relativity has provided EVIDENCE that time is not fixed. When objects move at the speed of light the object experiences a slowing of time, therefore time is relative - it is subject to SPEED.

13 billion years is NOT thirteen billion years when an object is moving at light speed. Therefore starlight from these "primordial" galaxies which is assumed to be traveling for thirteen billion years is not traveling for thirteen billion years at all - but for the light itself a shorter time has elapsed.

Light now originating from any object - will age slower than the original object.

So all light is actually younger than the objects they are carrying data from in their wave forms.

If it is possible for a galaxy to exist for 16 billion years, while it's light experiences only a fraction of this time - then we have illustrated that two objects (or energy manifestations) which formed simultaneously - age at different rates.

If energy can age at different rates - we have to know why.

Things moving at light speed, the fastest thing we have observed and measured - experience time dilation. The natural assumption must be that speed or frequency of energy waveforms MODIFIES the passage of time.

The recorded time difference in atomic clocks put in space in experiments to test relativity illustrated that this time displacement exists even before lightspeed is reached - we can see that all moving objects carry their OWN time with them based upon their speed.

Therefore any energy which is oscillating at lightspeed is younger than things oscillating slower than lightspeed. If lightspeed is not the finite limit - we can assume that something ten times lightspeed must be even younger than things moving at lightspeed.

Taken to the extreme, we can presuppose that energy that oscillates at a billion times light speed is almost eternally "newborn" and time for this energy barely passes at all.

If the "expansion theory", which is currently accepted and used to explain large discrepancies in the big bang, is accurate - and that mass and energy was at some point moving faster than lightspeed - we have evidence that conditions can exist where unlike Einstein's postulation - lightspeed is not the final limit.

If this is true than each and every one of the forming galaxies are TIMELESS to us. No accurate age can ever be determined for any single one of them! If they were moving faster than light than they may have sprung into existence almost instantaneously - since the time for their formation, and the distance they have traversed in this state, would be IMPOSSIBLE to scientifically determine.

Once your "13 billion year age" theory is already based on something which has a HUGE "X-factor" which is scientifically impossible to determine - why bother?

13 billion years plus a hundred billion years?

13 billion years plus a billionth of a nanosecond?

13 billion years plus five trillion years?

13 billion years plus a googol years?

You see now...how such a paper is really just the worst form of guesstimation. and utterly pointless. (And for all this I am even assuming that their estimates for time and measuring star cooling are correct!)

Rational scientists really hate the expansion theory and would love to get rid of it - yet it was the desparate conjuring of the big bang proponents who could not otherwise explain the uniformity of the background radiation.

The big bang has forced these scientists into a corner. All of their calculations are pure BS...and deep down the intellectually honest ones know it. But science, for some, is not about honesty - but about making a name and a buck.

In a nutshell:

The most rational universal age can be explained in 10 seconds, and is this:

A)Energy is indestructible it cannot be created or destroyed but is continually changing form.
B)Energy therefore MUST be eternal
C) The universe, which is comprised solely of energy in different forms, is therefore eternal.
D) Relativity has already illustrated that time is passing at infinitely diverse rates as each energy wave form has it's own time with them - which is relative to each and every other expression.
E)The universe is absolutely ageless - time is meaningless to the greater whole of the universe and is only a tool of relativistic measurement between two or more varying speed energy expressions.

If you can destroy any energy and prove it - then this is not true.

If you can't IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE.

The conservation of energy principle is perhaps the most fundamental truth held by science and which we have a humongous mountain of evidence to support.

How can scientists blatantly ignore it?

Well for the same multitude of reasons supposedly rational, modern people can believe in hocus pocus:

Tradition?
Sheepishness?
Conformity?
Indoctrination?
Ignorance?
Fear?

I'll let you choose.

Yes, science has bumped into infinity in all its advanced calculations - and has tried to smash it, discard it and recalculate again to come up with finite results. Infinite answers were considered "wrong" answers and the result of some error in calculation.

This can be compared to some cavemen creating a fire accidentally and trying to exterminate it, put it out - without ever understanding or realizing they had made the biggest discovery of their lives, simply because they didn't understand what the heck it was or how to use it!

Every now and then I have to take these folks to task...it's nothing personal!

;-)

SDAI-Tech1