How does the age of the Universe relate to the Big Bang theory?

[Thor]

http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo1.html"
"The age of the Universe has been a subject of religious, mythological and scientific importance. On the scientific side, Sir Isaac Newton's guess for the age of the Universe was only a few thousand years. Einstein, the developer of the General Theory of Relativity, preferred to believe that the Universe was ageless and eternal. However, in 1929, observational evidence proved his fantasy was not to be fulfilled by Nature."

And ever since that time, astologers have been convinced that since our cosmic neighbors appear to be disbursing into space, the Universe must have "started" about 15 billion years ago.

AW C'MON - GIMME A BREAK.
How Myopic can you get

Even if the phenomenon was the result of a singularity which reached critical mass (and I maintain a strong skepticism of that) it doesn't mean the Universe is finite OR that it "began" when critical mass was achieved. Indeed, it is unlikely that ours would be the only such cosmic engine in the Universe.

Consider this alternative explanation:
Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all objects will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and except for those very few which may be moving at exactly the same velocity in precisely parallel paths, they will all be moving away from each other.

The sound of galloping hooves does NOT mean the Unicorns are stampeding.

PS: I use the term astologer correctly, for those who are convinced Big Bang "created" the universe on the strength of their associated observations are no more "scientific" than the average sooth sayer or oracle.

 

[marcus]

Hi Thor,
you said almost word for word the same thing just two years ago here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=671751#post671751

The thread got put in "Theory Development", a recreational lunacy forum which was once a noble ornament to PF but is now lamentably no longer active.

I really like the title of the present thread "The Unicorns are stampeding"!

Besides the title and some purple prose from superstrings.com, not much seems to have changed.

In that thread "Who needs Big Bang?" you used what is either a strawman or indicates lack of information. You said:

To contend that the Universe had a "beginning" is to posit that "once upon a time there was an after which had no before." Sounds rather silly, doesn't it?[/color]

Contemporary big bang models don't necessarily have a singularity, and don't necessarily assume that time began around 14 billion years ago with the start of expansion. Some models continue back in time to before that.

Try Googling this:
"What happened before the big bang?"
you will get hundreds of references to a recent article in the journal called "Nature Physics".

 

[Kurdt]

I think you should do a little more research into the observational evidence for a finite age universe. Then see if your model can explain the observations as well.

 

[marcus]

I think you should do a little more research into the observational evidence for a finite age universe. Then see if your model can explain the observations as well.

what evidence do you mean, Kurdt?
As far as I know the observational data so far fit an infinite age model exactly as well as a finite age model.

Probably you know how to use the arxiv.org search. Please go to arxiv and find articles by either Bojowald or, recently, by Ashtekar.
As far as I know there does not exist any observational evidence specifically for finite age. If you know of any, please tell me.

 

[russ_watters]

Consider this alternative explanation:
Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities...

You already know that the observed galaxies in the universe are not moving randomly, so you know your idea starts with an assumption that directly contradicts known facts.

Do not repost this.