I'll discuss these, but they are calculable so anyone who doesn't believe me can do the math for themselves.
Age of the Sun:
If you assume the Sun is a First Generation Star, and start with hydrogen to helium ratio equal to the background compositon of the Universe, which is 96% Hydrogen (Protium) and 4% Helium, then you arrive at a strange conclusion.
At the beginning of Hydrogen Fusion, the Sun's average rate of burning is "Near Zero" right? So presently, the Sun burns about 8 to 10% brighter per billion years, and in several billion more years is expected to run out of hydrogen fuel and eventually start burning Helium 4 fuel. However, if you assume the Sun started as 4% Helium and 96% Hydrogen (Plus some other trace elements) then you can calculate the average rate of burning of Hydrogen from ignition to present, and then calculate how long it would take to burn the amount of hydrogen that has already been burned. Fortunately for you, I have already done this, and I reached the conclusion that a "First Generation Sun" would need to be 27.4 Billion years old.
Now you may be thinking, "Wade, the Universe itself is only 13.8 Billion years old, so how could the Sun be twice as old as the Universe that contains the Sun?"
Well obviously I have more evidence to support my position, right? I already thought of that.
The Universe is Twice as old as the Standard Model, and here's why.
First Cosmic Age Argument:
Several years ago, on Phys.org, there was an article about a Galaxy which appeared to be older than the Universe itself, which I "seconded" after reading the evidence. Namely, the Galaxy appeared to be 11 Billion years mature, according to computer models, even though it was red-shifted in such a way as to suggest the light in the telescope left the galaxy 11 Billion years old, this would suggest the Galaxy was at least 22 Billion years old....yeah, older than the accepted age of the Universe.
Second Cosmic Age Argument:
Using round numbers, the Light Horizon of the Universe is thought to be approximately 15 billion light years radius in every direction. The farthest observable galaxies were 13.something billion light years away at the time light left them to travel to our telescope, but during that time, the galaxy has moved both in proper motion and space-time motion to a distance of over 46 billion light years distance, mostly because space-time is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light due to Dark Energy. However, before the Galaxy left the Light Horizon, it was moving an average of half the speed of light, which means it would take on average 27.6 Billion years for the galaxy to move from the point of the Big Bang to the point 13.8 billion light years away, where it should have been 13.8 billion years ago, and so on, which means the Universe must be at least 27.6 Billion years old, and probably more like 41.4 billion years old.....but for the sake of argument I'll stick with 27.6 Billion years old...
Now Cosmic argument suggests the Universe is 27.6 Billion years old.
The Sun as a First Generation Star suggests the Universe is 27.4 Billion years old.
It is not an accident that these two otherwise unrelated values come out as being virtually identical, and the only difference could be a matter of margin of error in the original data I used to do these calculations.
Thus I have every reason to believe the Sun is 27.4 Billion years old, and the Universe is 27.6 Billion years old.
How Old is the Earth?
Presently, Geologists WANT to use 6 Billion years as the age for the Earth. This value is derived from Super-Computer models running the four known force laws to determine the internal structure of the Earth. When comparing the computer model to seismic data, it is determined it would take at least 6 billion years for the primordial Earth to reach it's modern condition using only the 4 known force laws. However, we know of at least 3 unknown force laws too which the computer can't model yet: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Dark Flow. Anyway, you'll never find a 6 billion years old rock on the surface of the Earth, because it has been subducted into the Mantle by now, or else destroyed by erosion by now. I personally believe the Earth is actually 8 billion years old, but that's by Divine Revelation, which I can't claim to be able to prove yet at this time...but I can prove that the present text book age of the Earth is too young.
The only reason they don't use that 6 billion years value is they haven't been able to find rocks that old. The oldest Earth rocks ever discovered are certain multi-celled Eukaryotic fossils from Australia which are 3.8 billion years old, which were discovered a few years ago, which re-wrote the history books, previously biologists claimed multi-cellular life evolved from prokaryotes about a billion years ago. In reality, Eukaryotes are a completely different order of Creation than Prokaryotes, as they are not biochemically compatible. Eukaryote sand Mitochondria use a different type of Ribosome than Prokaryotes, which is why Broad Spectrum Antibiotics kill bacteria and other Prokaryotes and don't harm Eukaryotes nor Mitochondria. So the Atheists were just dead wrong and ridiculous to begin with. At any rate, the 4.56 Billion years figure doesn't come from Earth Rocks, that comes from a logical fallacy based on the fact Meteorite fragments are dated to 4.56 billion years old. Well, it is a logical fallacy to assume the Earth or the entire Solar System is the same age as the radioactive elements of the Asteroid field. Different planets or different asteroids could have been created at different times by different entirely unrelated processes.....the only reason the 4.56 billion years is used in text books and encyclopedias is again they can't find any Earth Rocks as old as the Computer models say the Earth should be, and so they just use the oldest thing "dateable" that they've ever discovered ON the Earth, which is a meteorite fragment. Now again, the Earth could be twice as old as the Asteroid Field, as I think it is....and that doesn't mean the other planets are all the same age either, they could have all been created at different times by different processes. For all I know, Mercury could be 27 billion years old, and Venus and Mars could each be 12 billion years old, and the EArth could be 8 billion years old, etc, especially if it turns out ot be true that the Sun is in fact a 27.4 Billion years old First Generation Star...
So those are my arguments, summary of conclusions:
Earth is 6 to 8 Billion years old.
The Sun is 27.4 Billion years old.
The Universe is at least 27.6 Billion years old. (It's not necessarily the case that the Cosmic Microwave Background should be as old as the Universe itself).
Again, if you don't believe me, just do the calculations I described, they are repeatable and testable.
Age of the Sun:
If you assume the Sun is a First Generation Star, and start with hydrogen to helium ratio equal to the background compositon of the Universe, which is 96% Hydrogen (Protium) and 4% Helium, then you arrive at a strange conclusion.
At the beginning of Hydrogen Fusion, the Sun's average rate of burning is "Near Zero" right? So presently, the Sun burns about 8 to 10% brighter per billion years, and in several billion more years is expected to run out of hydrogen fuel and eventually start burning Helium 4 fuel. However, if you assume the Sun started as 4% Helium and 96% Hydrogen (Plus some other trace elements) then you can calculate the average rate of burning of Hydrogen from ignition to present, and then calculate how long it would take to burn the amount of hydrogen that has already been burned. Fortunately for you, I have already done this, and I reached the conclusion that a "First Generation Sun" would need to be 27.4 Billion years old.
Now you may be thinking, "Wade, the Universe itself is only 13.8 Billion years old, so how could the Sun be twice as old as the Universe that contains the Sun?"
Well obviously I have more evidence to support my position, right? I already thought of that.
The Universe is Twice as old as the Standard Model, and here's why.
First Cosmic Age Argument:
Several years ago, on Phys.org, there was an article about a Galaxy which appeared to be older than the Universe itself, which I "seconded" after reading the evidence. Namely, the Galaxy appeared to be 11 Billion years mature, according to computer models, even though it was red-shifted in such a way as to suggest the light in the telescope left the galaxy 11 Billion years old, this would suggest the Galaxy was at least 22 Billion years old....yeah, older than the accepted age of the Universe.
Second Cosmic Age Argument:
Using round numbers, the Light Horizon of the Universe is thought to be approximately 15 billion light years radius in every direction. The farthest observable galaxies were 13.something billion light years away at the time light left them to travel to our telescope, but during that time, the galaxy has moved both in proper motion and space-time motion to a distance of over 46 billion light years distance, mostly because space-time is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light due to Dark Energy. However, before the Galaxy left the Light Horizon, it was moving an average of half the speed of light, which means it would take on average 27.6 Billion years for the galaxy to move from the point of the Big Bang to the point 13.8 billion light years away, where it should have been 13.8 billion years ago, and so on, which means the Universe must be at least 27.6 Billion years old, and probably more like 41.4 billion years old.....but for the sake of argument I'll stick with 27.6 Billion years old...
Now Cosmic argument suggests the Universe is 27.6 Billion years old.
The Sun as a First Generation Star suggests the Universe is 27.4 Billion years old.
It is not an accident that these two otherwise unrelated values come out as being virtually identical, and the only difference could be a matter of margin of error in the original data I used to do these calculations.
Thus I have every reason to believe the Sun is 27.4 Billion years old, and the Universe is 27.6 Billion years old.
How Old is the Earth?
Presently, Geologists WANT to use 6 Billion years as the age for the Earth. This value is derived from Super-Computer models running the four known force laws to determine the internal structure of the Earth. When comparing the computer model to seismic data, it is determined it would take at least 6 billion years for the primordial Earth to reach it's modern condition using only the 4 known force laws. However, we know of at least 3 unknown force laws too which the computer can't model yet: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Dark Flow. Anyway, you'll never find a 6 billion years old rock on the surface of the Earth, because it has been subducted into the Mantle by now, or else destroyed by erosion by now. I personally believe the Earth is actually 8 billion years old, but that's by Divine Revelation, which I can't claim to be able to prove yet at this time...but I can prove that the present text book age of the Earth is too young.
The only reason they don't use that 6 billion years value is they haven't been able to find rocks that old. The oldest Earth rocks ever discovered are certain multi-celled Eukaryotic fossils from Australia which are 3.8 billion years old, which were discovered a few years ago, which re-wrote the history books, previously biologists claimed multi-cellular life evolved from prokaryotes about a billion years ago. In reality, Eukaryotes are a completely different order of Creation than Prokaryotes, as they are not biochemically compatible. Eukaryote sand Mitochondria use a different type of Ribosome than Prokaryotes, which is why Broad Spectrum Antibiotics kill bacteria and other Prokaryotes and don't harm Eukaryotes nor Mitochondria. So the Atheists were just dead wrong and ridiculous to begin with. At any rate, the 4.56 Billion years figure doesn't come from Earth Rocks, that comes from a logical fallacy based on the fact Meteorite fragments are dated to 4.56 billion years old. Well, it is a logical fallacy to assume the Earth or the entire Solar System is the same age as the radioactive elements of the Asteroid field. Different planets or different asteroids could have been created at different times by different entirely unrelated processes.....the only reason the 4.56 billion years is used in text books and encyclopedias is again they can't find any Earth Rocks as old as the Computer models say the Earth should be, and so they just use the oldest thing "dateable" that they've ever discovered ON the Earth, which is a meteorite fragment. Now again, the Earth could be twice as old as the Asteroid Field, as I think it is....and that doesn't mean the other planets are all the same age either, they could have all been created at different times by different processes. For all I know, Mercury could be 27 billion years old, and Venus and Mars could each be 12 billion years old, and the EArth could be 8 billion years old, etc, especially if it turns out ot be true that the Sun is in fact a 27.4 Billion years old First Generation Star...
So those are my arguments, summary of conclusions:
Earth is 6 to 8 Billion years old.
The Sun is 27.4 Billion years old.
The Universe is at least 27.6 Billion years old. (It's not necessarily the case that the Cosmic Microwave Background should be as old as the Universe itself).
Again, if you don't believe me, just do the calculations I described, they are repeatable and testable.