How old is the universe?

[Asmodean]

You can guarantee that a hydrogen atom on earth is the same as any other in the universe, so why not use it for dating the universe.

Because you cannot guarantee it. It may be subject to outside forces, which may or may not be of significance - or the photon you use as a measuring device may. Strong gravity comes to mind as a prime example.

Beyond that, it is a very small unit. It could provbably be very useful for measuring advanced nanocircuits and such like, but far less so for measuring cosmic distances. Stuff like the average distance between the Earth and the sun can be very practical for our immediate surroundings. The distance light travels in a year is good for the cosmic or even galactic neighbourhood. Of course, you could use even Planck lengths as a unit for measuring distance between the Earth and Proxima Centauri B, but quite frankly, it offers a ridiculously high resolution for the purpose.

Earthlings continue to prove they are still living in the Pre-Copernican.

Technically, there is no such epoch. That said though, are you suggesting that the people in question subscribe to the geocentric model of the Universe, with a stationary Earth at its core?

Interestingly, you could adequately express the rest of the Universe relative to a stationary Earth, but that would yield an overly-complex model. The math for calculating orbits and such like... Horrible stuff. Still, it can be made into an adequate model as from the perspective of, say, you and me, the Universe can be said to "go around us."

I suppose my point remains that it's all relative, and relative to a whole host of parameters besides, and it's all a matter of practicality. Sometimes you want the highest possible resolution - other times, you just want to stay within the margin of error. Other times still even an order of magnitude flaw may be of no practical consequence.

That is why you would generally measure the distance from your house to your office in miles or kilometers rather than inches, centimeters or lightyears. You may not be particularly interested in the high-resolution inches - is it 91716 or is it 91872. You may not even be interested that it's rouyghly 1,45 miles - a mile and a half will do "most" jobs in that regard quite sufficiently. The lightyear then suffers from the reverse problem. It's trying to measure a grain of sand with a mountain. It can be done, but why on Earth - or elsewhere, for that matter - would you?

A significant number still believe the earth is 6000 years old and humans walked with dinosaurs.
Ask a Christian about the age of the earth and the cosmos and they will change the subject.

Yeah, well... In interactive matters, such as conversation, it's not what you believe - it's what you can convince others of. To put it this way, it makes no practical difference to me if some guy thinks the Earth is flat and there is a conspiracy to... Keep it that way? I guess..? If he wanted me to share that opinion, however, he'd have what is commonly referred to as "burden of proof." He'd have to make a sufficient case for how his model of the Earth is superior to my own. Tall order when it comes to that specific example, but still, there it is.

[zorkan]

Technically, there is no such epoch. That said though, are you suggesting that the people in question subscribe to the geocentric model of the Universe, with a stationary Earth at its core?

All religious people do.

the Universe can be said to "go around us."

Excuse me.

I suppose my point remains that it's all relative,

Relative to what?

I suppose I'll have to quote from the Book of Zorka, Chapter 1 The Beginning of Time.
This was channelled to earth 5000 years ago by an alien intelligence and subsequently misquoted in Egyptian, Vedic and Hebrew texts.

"In the beginning was the womb (of Zorka} out of which all things came.
Soon after, hydrogen atoms were made.
Zorka saw that the universe was without form and made gravity to fuse hydrogen atoms into stars which gave out light.
This light allowed for life and evolution."

This brief passage explains why the universe is one way and not another.
It suggests that hydrogen is king and should be used for dating.

[billy rubin]

i have other criteria for dating.

good looks are important

[zorkan]

Do you mean dating hydrogen atoms?
And yes, you will need to take a good look at them as they are very small.

[Asmodean]

All religious people do.

Untrue.

Excuse me.

You are excused. ;-)

It's a matter of perspective. From the point of view of a stationary you, other objects move relative to you. People, galaxies... Everything.

Relative to what?

The size and shape of the objects in question. The precision of your measurement. What you are trying to accomplish. So forth. It's relative to quite a few variables. Say, the distance between the Earth and the Moon varies and their individual surfaces are uneven. You could measure it in inches, but that would require a more energy intensive measurement than, say, miles, without necessarily adding any practical value. In some cases, like the example I presented here, you couldn't even reliably argue increased accuracy with increased resolution past a certain point.

So, if you want to measure things in hydrogen nuclei under specific conditions, or in Planck lenghts or what else have you, you may certainly do so. A meter will still be a meter and a mile will still be a mile - just expressed in terms of different units. I see very limited use for it.

[zorkan]

If not all religious people subscribe to the geocentric model then where do they position heaven and hell?
What else can religion work off other than a comfortable or uncomfortable afterlife?

If you pick a flower you move the farthest star, an idea picked out by Paul Dirac from a poem.
Implies there are no distances, no absolute position, no time.

[Asmodean]

If not all religious people subscribe to the geocentric model then where do they position heaven and hell?
What else can religion work off other than a comfortable or uncomfortable afterlife?

Depends on religion and the individual believer. Some would say that Heaven is "up above" while Hell is "underground." Others may say that those are "spiritual" "realms," whatever that means to them. Others still may say something completely different. 

If you pick a flower you move the farthest star, an idea picked out by Paul Dirac from a poem.

This...

Implies there are no distances, no absolute position, no time.

...Does not in any way imply this.

[zorkan]

...Does not in any way imply this.

It also implies there is no motion.
The ancient Greeks knew that before the quantum physicists.

[Asmodean]

Does nothing of the sort, though it would be interesting to hear your reasoning behind the ""implication.""

[zorkan]

You don't seriously think the human brain sees all there is, do you?
A super quantum brain, should it ever evolve would see the hidden reality.

[Old Seer]

...Does not in any way imply this.

It also implies there is no motion.
The ancient Greeks knew that before the quantum physicists.

You might be correct. Reduce it to it's simplest form. IE- There's only one object in the universe, a chunk of rock any size. Which way is up or down, what time is it, how fast is it going, what color is it, How large or small is it?
(that is-reduce the problem  to it's lowest form)

[Asmodean]

You don't seriously think the human brain sees all there is, do you?
A super quantum brain, should it ever evolve would see the hidden reality.

It's quite irrelevant to the point in question. You suggest implications which simply do not arise from the premise.

You might be correct. Reduce it to it's simplest form. IE- There's only one object in the universe, a chunk of rock any size. Which way is up or down, what time is it, how fast is it going, what color is it, How large or small is it?
(that is-reduce the problem  to it's lowest form)

If the Universe is a single unit, that still does not get rid of time, distance and so forth. I suppose it gets rid of position relative to something else, so there is that...

[Old Seer]

If there's only one  object (lets say one atom) it can't be relative to anything. Relativity can only come into existence if there's another object. 

[Icarus]

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/particle-physics/scientists-discover-the-heaviest-antimatter-particle-ever-and-it-could-hold-secrets-to-our-universes-origins?utm_term=0ACB37CC-1B93-4BE0-B3B4-169C34F92E8F&lrh=1c4693e99d5cc0ac5d09fca48f583393fd90dfc83e09d6c9b60899c18ecbe014&utm_campaign=368B3745-DDE0-4A69-A2E8-62503D85375D&utm_medium=email&utm_content=D8B090D6-4978-4C3F-938A-AC920641D1AB&utm_source=SmartBrief

[zorkan]

Do electrons experience time?
John Wheeler suggested there might be only one electron in the universe, going backwards and forwards in time.
He later appeared to retract the idea.
Fact is, nobody knows what time is.

Some book titles.
Reality Is Not What It Seems.
The Hidden Reality.
The Fabric Of Reality.

What is certain.
We don't know what the universe is for.