[LeoK]

Hi, folks

BB, Big Bang is supposed to be 13.7 billion years.
Can anyone in a layman way explain how this 13.7 BY age is
calculated? What are the main data and formulas?

For example, is the BB calculated through formulas for the
oldest star? Or is the BB calculated by the measured amount
of the heat radiation from space and coherent physic formulas?

Wondering.

LeoK

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Totally unproven theoretical math, though it may be quite accurate...

Lloyd

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Totally unproven theoretical math, though it may be quite accurate... Lloyd

The instruments can make precise enough measurements. The experiment data are good fit to match the expectation of theoretical physics. (Occasionally, those irregular data had been depleted or taken as noise.) So, those data can pass peer reviews.

The point is, will those key interpretations of equations of Big Bang really what the universe are practising. The whole Big Bang depends upon the validity of 2 pillars: 1) spacetime rather than space-and-time; and 2) Dopper Effect is caused by cosmic/spacetime expansion, not by any other reasons. In case one of these 2 pillars are invalid, the whole Big Bang Theory becomes invalid.

Rigor math/equational derivations have one trouble -- once the presumed premise is wrong, elegant prototype and its inductions become a weirdness.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi BL, good points...

Originally Posted by bottomlander The instruments can make precise enough measurements. The experiment data are good fit to match the expectation of theoretical physics. (Occasionally, those irregular data had been depleted or taken as noise.) So, those data can pass peer reviews. [Yes, but the entire physics and math communities can not totally agree on the ground position of measure. Where is the ground measure, to be placed? I do accept the standard measures of things, but many do not, and yet I absolutely know there is no universal constant, except change. "Changes, changes, changes, these things too, shall pass away." I-Ching. Yet, I only accept eternal permanent change.] The point is, will those key interpretations of equations of Big Bang really what the universe are practising. The whole Big Bang depends upon the validity of 2 pillars: 1) spacetime rather than space-and-time; and 2) Dopper Effect is caused by cosmic/spacetime expansion, not by any other reasons. In case one of these 2 pillars are invalid, the whole Big Bang Theory becomes invalid. [I think if you truly re-read all of Einstein, you may realize his ideas do not relie on a strict interpretation of spacetime, that is the false interpretations of others. Newton's space was and is always considered almost accurate by Einstein and most physicists. Poincare's time was and is considered accurate by Einstein and most physicists. Lorentz's doppler mechanics was and is considered accurate by Einstein and most physicists. The two pillars are just often confused fundamentals. The big bang still has to be valid in one form or another, either the one bang or the many bangs, yet one would have most likely occured first, as one or the other first star mechanics is absolutely required by any model universe, as the stars are empirically___Here.] Rigor math/equational derivations have one trouble -- once the presumed premise is wrong, elegant prototype and its inductions become a weirdness. [All math can be total abstraction, just add the real substance mechanics to the math, and all becomes clear.] Best Regards. Bottomlander

Hope this helps,
Lloyd

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Lorentz's doppler mechanics was and is considered accurate by Einstein and most physicists. Lloyd

I only notice in internet on a persuasive model with diagram and experimental result to show its new explanation. Its measurements on frequency curve of redshifts are equivalent and good fit to receding Doppler Effect.

Can you give more details on Lorentz's doppler mechanics? In wikipedia, Lorentz factor really appears side by side with Doppler Effect. But no further information on its details nor relationship.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Lloyd Gillespie]

BL, this is an excellent site to answer your questions about Lorentz:
http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Doppler.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Lorentz.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_scanner.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_relativity.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_active.htm
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_Michelson.htm
The entire site is well worth the read. He's an aquaintance of mine. I don't endorse all his ideas, but it's a very good starting place.

Lloyd

Originally Posted by bottomlander I only notice in internet on a persuasive model with diagram and experimental result to show its new explanation. Its measurements on frequency curve of redshifts are equivalent and good fit to receding Doppler Effect. Can you give more details on Lorentz's doppler mechanics? In wikipedia, Lorentz factor really appears side by side with Doppler Effect. But no further information on its details nor relationship. Best Regards. Bottomlander

[bottomlander]

It is really a very good starting place, especially the animations in http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm

It is quite similar to my first TOE (hadn't wrote it down, only by imagination) in 1971.
It is nice that if this is not just for an electron, but for the creation of the universe, it can make small/little to become very very big and energetic. Just like the cyclic bang (rather than a single big bang.) Unfortunately, it breaks the conservation of energy.

A few days later, when I tried to develop any model through drawing and writing, I switched to another model already.

Happy to meet it again.

Thanks.
Best Regards. Bottomlander

[LeoK]

Originally Posted by LeoK Hi, folks BB, Big Bang is supposed to be 13.7 billion years. Can anyone in a layman way explain how this 13.7 BY age is calculated? What are the main data and formulas?

Saw some two years ago an article about measurements of
one or some very old star(s). And this study did estimate the
age of the star(s) to about 14 billion years.

And if you add some million years for the creation of this star(s)
one get a minimun age of about 14.7 billion years to the universe.

So, we got the Big Bang calculated to 13.7 billion years.
And this star(s) universe age calculated to about 14.7 billion years.

Who shall we trust?

Originally Posted by LeoK So, we got the Big Bang calculated to 13.7 billion years. And this star(s) universe age calculated to about 14.7 billion years. Who shall we trust?

Yes, much points to a older universe than the BB 13.7 billion years.
And what do the scientific community do then?

The scientific community now have very strong tendencies to adjust up
the BB age!!!

Isn't this to cheat?
(No the BB isn't 13.7 BY. It's more 14, 15 BY, they say now!!!)
No really proofs, just vague theories and measurements, that they
with a unison consensus make to a truth.

The BB suxxxxxsss..!!!

LeoK

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Leo,I seem to remember a report about finding some distant galaxy,something
like 15/20 billion light years distant! If correct where does that put the BB?


regardsmichael.

[LeoK]

Yes, where does that put the BB?

So now you better understand my concern about the specific measurements
and the specific theory(ies) and mathematics to calculate the BB to 13.7 BY.

One has very hard to point on faults if no objects are on the table - just
a unison consensus about nothing substantial really.

The scientific community are somewhat illogical in this matter?

LeoK