The Universe is ~13.8 Billion Years Old

Firstly I will say that I misunderstood my opponent when he claimed that redshift does not correlate with speed. While my opponent meant 'of astronomical objects,' I interpreted that as 'of all objects.' No one, however, is doubting the validity of the Doppler Effect. However, my little mistake does not validate Halton Arp's hypotheses about intrinsic redshift and quasars being ejected from galaxies and all: his work has never been published in a reputable source and there exists evidence against his claims. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (which is publicly available), Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang tested the predictions made by Arp's hypotheses (1). As the paper is a bit technical and I have only a basic understanding of astrophysics in general, I am admittedly not entirely sure what their procedure was, although it is my understanding that the SDSS data fit the currently accepted model for quasars much better the two leading intrinsic redshift models. Nevertheless, the last sentence of their abstract could not be clearer: Arp's theory doesn't work. This is how the scientific method operates. Someone comes up with a theory, which makes certain predictions. Those predictions are then tested by experimentally-obtained data. If the predictions don't match the data, there is no reason to believe the theory is true. Intrinsic redshift has failed this test. Thus, I think my opponent's intrinsic redshift argument is invalid: Hubble's Law holds and points to a 13.8 billion year old Universe. My opponent also is very concerned about possible contaminations in the CMB. These certainly do exist, the most prominent of which is due to the redshift of the CMB due to Earth's motion through space (2). Due to this, we perceive the CMB to be: (3) However, there are ways to filter out both the redshift and the galaxy. The redshift can be easily mathematically corrected, but the galaxy is a bit harder. However, it is possible, and can be done by measuring the angular power spectrum of the sky not contaminated by the galaxy and using that to figure out which part of the radiation is coming from the galaxy and which from the CMB. (4). Angular power spectra themselves are too complicated to explain here, but included below this argument is a good reference I found whilst doing research for this debate for those who are interested. And while you are right in that we cannot infer a 13.8 billion year old Universe from the larger range supported by radioactive dating, we know the age of the Universe is not outside that boundary so long as that method remains valid. This lends credence to the more precise methods of determining the age of the Universe which all point to around 13.8 billion years old (whether you doubt their validity or not), such as the CMB, Hubble's Law, and the size of the observable Universe (which we have not discussed as it is a bit more conceptually complicated than simply how far we can see). My opponent's last argument was that information is being concealed from the public by the scientific community. Firstly, my opponent has absolutely no evidence of such a thing occurring (although it has happened in the past). Secondly, rejecting the entirety of the Big Bang theory is a very big claim to make, and as such requires much evidence. If someone found ample evidence that the Big Bang theory was incorrect (which Halton Arp did not " see above), it would win the researcher worldwide recognition. The scientists that proposed ideas that turned out to be right (such as Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift) were initially rejected as they lacked proper evidence, which was later obtained. My closing argument will recap what has been said throughout this debate. So, why do almost all cosmologists say the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Let's start with the less contentious, but less precise methods. Firstly, we look at the amount of rhenium that has decayed into osmium here on Earth, and through simple algebra, we find that the Universe is between 11 and 17 billion years old. We can get a slightly more refined estimate by looking at the amount of thorium in old stars using the same method. This argument falls apart only if our understanding of nuclear physics is severely flawed, as even if radioactive decay rates vary periodically as my opponent contends, the result is hardly changed. More precise methods of determining the age of the Universe only further support this. There is, of course, the redshift of the CMB, caused by the stretching-out of light as the Universe expands. My opponent has stated his contention to this concept, but research has been done on the exact claim he makes, revealing the results he claims creates doubt of redshift's correlation with distance and the Big Bang theory are consistent with the current understanding of cosmology " their purported evidence is invalid. There is also Hubble's Law, which relies on the same principle. Combining Hubble's Law with the basic definition for velocity and doing a bit of algebraic manipulation results in a very, very similar age estimate: 13.8 billion years. It is also fitting to mention the size of the observable universe. It is not 13.8 billion light-years in radius, but correcting for the accelerating expansion of the Universe, we find that the light from the farthest objects we can see was emitted 13.8 billion years ago. (5) This stems from the speed of light in a vacuum being constant, which has been experimentally verified many times over (and cosmological redshift of course, but as we have said, intrinsic redshift is a flawed theory). So, in order for all the evidence pointing towards a 13.8 billion year old Universe to be invalid, we would have to have misunderstood the theory of blackbody radiation, cosmological redshift, the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, the speed of light, and many other well-understood astronomical laws. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,' as astronomer Carl Sagan used to say, and denying so many known phenomena is certainly an extraordinary claim. My opponent has not provided much reliable evidence other than outright denying the validity of the cosmologists' methodology, and thus my opponent has failed to create a reasonable doubt of the scientifically-estimated age of the Universe. Angular Power Spectrum Explanation: http://cosmoquest.org... Sources: 1. http://adsabs.harvard.edu... 2. Wright, Edward L. 'Cosmic Microwave Background.' University of California, Los Angeles, 24 Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Aug. 2014. 3. 'Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background.' Wilkonson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. NASA, n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2014. 4. Baccigalupi, Carlo. 'Cosmic Microwave Background.' Transregional Collaborative Research Centre TRR 33, n.d. PDF file. 5. Halpern, Paul. 'How Large is the Observable Universe?' Nova. PBS, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.