The Age of the Universe is a Function of Time

[theweaselking]

Abstract: Scientific estimates of the age of the earth and the universe show a consistent tendency to increase at an increasing rate as time goes on. This relation has been surprisingly consistent during the last three centuries. The implications of this are, of course, profound, for they impact on both the future and the past history of time itself.



Figure 1. The estimated age of the universe as a function of the time the estimate was made. Estimates earlier than 1850 are too near the axis to plot, and their error estimates are untrustworthy at best.

by Donald E Simanek

Comments

[maelorin]

^_^

[publius1.livejournal.com]

So, what is the conclusion we are to draw here? That the age of the universe is infinite, and we just haven't reached the singularity yet?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

No, no. The age of the universe isn't infinite YET, but the evidence shows that it's approaching that. As time goes on, the age of the universe increases faster than the rate of time passing, thus showing that the begining of the universe is *receding* from us at a furious ever-increasing rate.

FTFA:

Since these results are, at present, based entirely on data from the past, this age increase must be happening in the past. Therefore that point in time representing the birth of the universe, the "Big Bang", may be moving backward in time at an ever-increasing rate.

The rapidly rising trend of the age curve (Fig. 1) strongly suggests that at some finite time in the future the universe's calculated age will be infinite.

Spooky!

[publius1.livejournal.com]

There's another possible explanation here: Our calculations, and our data, are getting better over the years.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Now that's just being silly.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Yes, let's not go there, it is a silly place.

[waryoptimism.livejournal.com]

Eh, only three data points (of which only two are on this graph) actually measure the age of the universe - the first few are geneological biblical estimates of the date of creation, and the middle few are geological dating of the age of the earth. Lumping them all in one graph is misleading. With only three data points, you can't determine the relationship at any accuracy. Let's not go nuts here :P

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that they might have just been talking completely out their asses?

Shocked! Shocked I am! No, I'm afraid your hypothesis is simply inconceivable and the correct answer MUST be that the universe is getting older as we watch.

[fridgepunk.livejournal.com]

Actually the middle few are based on pre-radioactivity physics based estimates on the age of the earth based on its current temperature and known laws of thermodynamics – the geologists of the periods had physical evidence for the age of the earth that was closer to hubble than kelvin, but were poo-pooed because of Kelvin's silly theoretical workings that fluctuated wildly between a few million and few hundred million years (his first guesses were higher than his later guesses) in comparison to the few hundred billion the geologists were looking at and reporting in the fossil and geological records.

Fortunately Geologists just went "whatever" and ignored the physicists and creationists until they were proven right.

[pappy-legba.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately Darwin paid heed to Kelvin's estimates, and spent much of his later career trying to model evolutionary theory that fit within tens of millions of years instead of thousands of millions.

The geologists who were vocal about their estimates of the age of the earth were a distinct minority at the time; it's hard to blame Darwin for not crediting them. Still, one wonders what he could have accomplished if he didn't spend so much effort doing time compression on evolution.

[ardys-the-ghoul.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to come back and think about this when I'm not massively sleep deprived... O_O