: : Hopefully you guys will pardon my tenuous grasp of cosmology, but, what do you think of this? Assuming after the first instant of creation the energy that was converted to matter existed as a plasma, and that time and space do not exist except in the prescence of matter, then in the interval of time(?) that the matter was in the plasma state would allow for a rather significant period of inflation. This seems to suggest that the universe could already be quite sizable by the time all the energy was converted into matter.

: : ::::::::::::: : : Interesting point.

: : The common conception of the Big Bang leaves most lay persons like myself mistakenly thinking of a "space" in which some infinitessimally small point erupted in. I read, and try to understand that this concept is actually wrong. The Big Bang is actually all of currently known "space" being part of what the expansion process is also, so in a sense I think what you are saying here (if I read correctly) is that there was a "sizeability" to the universe itself. The Big Bang forces us to grapple with the difference between "space" and "nothing", a difficult thing to do admittedly. As such, one would have a hard time trying to counter what you say here wouldn't they. As long as we remember that "all" the energy has not been converted to matter otherwise, there would be no present "forces" at all. I think what you mean is all the energy converted to matter WE NOW HAVE, but then matter continues to renew itself thru stellar evolution, and energy is both consumed and emitted in the process, even as we speak.

: : I can't disagree with you on this one, but like other hypotheses at this level of speculation, it would probably be as hard to prove as to disprove.

: Following my line of thought, is it possible that an observer to the creation of the universe would not see anything until the universe was expanded to a sizable percentage of its present size? Also, would that not call into question the age estimation of the cosmos, given that the numbers are based on time/distance?

::::::::::::::: I would have a hard time envisioning just where this observer might be since it seems by the conditions you set forth here that the very existence of any observer would not be possible at the time you hypothesize, but lets allow it for the sake of discussion.

Even if we accept the hypothesis of the age of the universe based on time/distance as revealed by this new theory of the reduction of lightspeed we still have several other obstacles to overcome.

We have radiometric dating process that through various different areas of dating accuracy, tell us the the Earth itself is not only several million years old, but even a few billion. We know these processes and the methods of measurement to be very reasonably accurate since we use the very same technology to construct clocks that time our space missions. If radiometric dating were not accurate, our clocks based on essentially the same technology could not have guided the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft to the tremendous successes they have enjoyed. That would be one problem to overcome.

If we ar going to postulate that the cosmos, and therefore the Earth is any less than about 230 thousand years old, we have to explain the ice core samples from Greenland. The annual seasonal change, slight that it is in Greenland, produces layers in the glacial ice buildup due to the thaw/freeze cycle. Core samples of the oldest glacial ice areas show a continous and unbroken cycle of annual thaw/freeze layers for over the last 230 thousand years.

As far as any written history is concerned, continous documentation from the various Egytian dynasties shows their history to be at least 14 thousand years old. Written records. The earliest of which are referred to in later writings. For just their society alone.

Then from Quantum Theory, where it has begun to overlap into Cosmology and Astronomy, has through various experiments shown that our theories of stellar evolution are indeed quite accurate since the behaviour of various atomic and subatomic particles is now well known, and can be easily duplicated. Some stars live for billions of years, some only a mere few hundred million. The experiments in Quantum Mechanics show why.

Finally we have to ask ouselves why we would want to believe the speed of light has slowed down since there is no evidence anywhere to support the hypothesis that it has. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary.

Thus, are we trying to create a theory that fits some preconcieved idea we have as to cosmological age, or are we willing to simply accept it for what the evidence shows it to be. Why do we want to invent a hypothesis in order to demonstrate that virtually every major core scientific advancement of the last hundred years is wrong? Not just one, but all of them. Why would we want to do that?

• Re: 8,000 year old universe - David/">David - July 19, 1999 - 11:59 UTC
  • Re: 8,000 year old universe - daViper - July 19, 1999 - 19:09 UTC