Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

There Is Actual Proof That The Universe Is Older Than 13.8 Billion Years


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 12:47 PM

There's actually more than one observation that physically proves the age of the universe is older than LCDM says:

 

Here's two observations that physically prove without credulity or bias in an objective way:

 

 For the first time, researchers have directly  observed an exotic type of radioactive decay called  two-neutrino double electron capture.

The decay, seen in xenon-124 atoms, happens so sparingly that it would take 18 sextillion years (18 followed by 21 zeros) for a sample of xenon-124 to shrink by half, making the decay extremely difficult to detect. The long-anticipated observation of two-neutrino double electron capture, reported in the April 25 Nature, lays the groundwork for researchers to glimpse a yet unseen, even rarer version of this decay: neutrinoless double electron capture.

 

The second one requires you pay attention to the details of the article and that you also know the evaporation rate of black holes:

 

A pair-instability supernova happens when the core grows so hot that light begins to spontaneously convert into electron-positron pairs. The light’s radiation pressure had kept the star’s core intact; when the light transforms into matter, the resulting pressure drop causes the core to rapidly shrink and become even hotter, further accelerating pair production and causing a runaway effect. Eventually the core gets so hot that oxygen ignites. This fully reverses the core’s implosion, so that it explodes instead. For cores with a mass between about 65 and 130 times that of our sun (according to current estimates), the star is completely obliterated. Cores between about 50 and 65 solar masses pulsate, shedding mass in a series of explosions until they drop below the range where pair instability occurs. Thus there should be no black holes with masses in the 50-to-130-solar-mass range.

 

However, if the black hole spotted at 100 molar mass were originally >130 molar and evaporated, then it is possible. In fact, that's the only possibility here. However, it would take longer than 13.8 billion years for this to happen.

 



#2 Kardashev6

Kardashev6

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 11:21 PM

<<<From February 2017 to February 2018, XENON1T picked up the telltale emissions of two-neutrino double electron capture about 126 times. That pegs xenon-124’s half-life at about 18 sextillion years, which is the longest half-life ever directly measured in a radioactive substance — and about 1 trillion times longer than the age of the universe (SN:>>>

I found this article to be a good read, ty! My only concern at the end was consideration of the margin of error. I understand they must extrapolate...especially from such a small sample (Feb to Feb, 126 count capture). How far off can the, "18 sextillion years" be? Maybe I am overly concerned...I guess a small margin of error...+/-3-5% would not drastically change the estimated figure.

Wow...it takes things a little while to settle in with me. 18 sextillion...that is crazy long!

#3 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2835 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 02:00 PM

<<<From February 2017 to February 2018, XENON1T picked up the telltale emissions of two-neutrino double electron capture about 126 times. That pegs xenon-124’s half-life at about 18 sextillion years, which is the longest half-life ever directly measured in a radioactive substance — and about 1 trillion times longer than the age of the universe (SN:>>>

I found this article to be a good read, ty! My only concern at the end was consideration of the margin of error. I understand they must extrapolate...especially from such a small sample (Feb to Feb, 126 count capture). How far off can the, "18 sextillion years" be? Maybe I am overly concerned...I guess a small margin of error...+/-3-5% would not drastically change the estimated figure.

Wow...it takes things a little while to settle in with me. 18 sextillion...that is crazy long!

I suppose it should be an obvious point, but just in case not, the existence of a form of radioactive decay with a half life longer than the age of the universe tells you nothing at all about the age of the universe.



#4 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 11:04 PM

Agree with exchemist on this.



#5 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 07:01 PM

I suppose it should be an obvious point, but just in case not, the existence of a form of radioactive decay with a half life longer than the age of the universe tells you nothing at all about the age of the universe.

In order for us to be aware of the existence of said radioactive decay, means it would have had to have occurred in high enough quantities to have been detected. Even if it was a quarter decayed that's still nearly a trillion times older than the BBT universe.

We've even detected stars as close as 190 light years that are pushing the age of the universe:

https://www.space.co...e-universe.html

If you believe as Michio Kaku and I do that dark matter comes from holeum, than this galaxy is also evidence of black hole evaporation because it lacks both dark matter and a central supermassive black hole.

Now I could go on with the enormous discrepancies in the hubble constant:

https://www.livescie...make-sense.html

#6 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1563 posts

Posted 16 October 2019 - 09:49 PM

In order for us to be aware of the existence of said radioactive decay, means it would have had to have occurred in high enough quantities to have been detected. Even if it was a quarter decayed that's still nearly a trillion times older than the BBT universe.

We've even detected stars as close as 190 light years that are pushing the age of the universe:

https://www.space.co...e-universe.html

If you believe as Michio Kaku and I do that dark matter comes from holeum, than this galaxy is also evidence of black hole evaporation because it lacks both dark matter and a central supermassive black hole.

Now I could go on with the enormous discrepancies in the hubble constant:

https://www.livescie...make-sense.html

 

Half-life by definition is Average decay rate to half the remaining amount that doesn't mean because we detected one atom decay that all a sudden that changes anything depending on the amount of matter that you are taking the half-life of a decay could happen every second that is detectable even if there are a half-life of 1 trillion years or whatever. This does not mean the universe is older it just means that this material has a long half-life of decay like protons will even decay given enough time but that does not mean the universe is a proton half-life older. Basically if you had ‭7,200,000,000,000,000‬‬ Atoms of this material even with a 1 trillion year half life one would decay every second, which  ‭7,200,000,000,000,000‬ Atoms is like nothing compared to Avogadro's number which is  6.022 × 1023 particles per mole. This details that even if you only had 124 moles of the material there would be 6.022 * 10237,200,000,000,000,000 decays per second. This is say that Half-life has no merit for proving age of the universe, several decays per second would still happen even at 18 sextillions years of a half-life making it detectable considering the vastness of the universe or of the sample they used which would be hundreds to thousands of moles of 12454xenon  or in the universe Yottamoles of the substance exist if not more.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 16 October 2019 - 11:51 PM.