Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New corroboration for age of universe
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 1 of 7 (8967)
04-25-2002 12:36 PM


New observations using the Hubble space telescope have corroborated estimates of the universe's age at 13-14 billion years old ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1950000/1950403.stm
A previous estimate had been based on the observed rate of expansion ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_352000/352563.stm
We now have three corroborating evidences of the age of the universe:
rate of expansion, not including cosmological constant: 11-13 billion
observation of aged stars: 13-14 billion
estimates from the cosmic microwave background: 11.8-15 billion
It's always kinda satisfying to see a theory based on a largely mathematical extrapolation confirmed by observation. Mucho kudos to the orginal teams, who must feel pretty damn good about it
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-25-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 6:14 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 7 (9022)
04-26-2002 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
04-25-2002 12:36 PM


I saw this documentary on last night, rather boring I must say after watching too much of it, but interesting none-the-less. Atleast now there seemingly is some type of mainstream agreement on the age of the universe instead of that picky-choose what you want 10-20 billion argumental approach often seen at times.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-25-2002 12:36 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-26-2002 9:08 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 3 of 7 (9030)
04-26-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by TrueCreation
04-26-2002 6:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
... Atleast now there seemingly is some type of mainstream agreement on the age of the universe instead of that picky-choose what you want 10-20 billion argumental approach often seen at times.

D'oh! You spoke too soon, TC! The very next day the same site has this story theorizing an eternal universe with a continuing sequence of big bangs and big crunches. Not entirley new, but they do provide some new insights.
Tehy telling say they have discussed their ideas with peers and have received a positive, but 'cautious', response. 'The ultimate arbiter will be Nature,' they write in the journal Science.
Which rather leads one to to wonder, if the ultimate arbiter is "Nature" why publish in "Science"? (groan!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1951000/1951406.stm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 6:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 9:45 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 04-27-2002 9:50 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 6 by scarletohairy, posted 05-08-2002 2:45 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 7 (9031)
04-26-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mister Pamboli
04-26-2002 9:08 PM


"D'oh! You spoke too soon, TC! The very next day the same site has this story theorizing an eternal universe with a continuing sequence of big bangs and big crunches. Not entirley new, but they do provide some new insights."
--No way! They thought it up all that fast, whew, when they say time flies, it sure flies. But hey, time is just a figment of my imaginative universe isn't it. Reminds me of the energizer battery, it just keeps on going and going and going...
--And Wouldn't you believe it, THe first proposition on inflation theory was brought forth by a 15 year old!
A bit of a succor to the young mind such as my own.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-26-2002 9:08 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 5 of 7 (9054)
04-27-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mister Pamboli
04-26-2002 9:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Which rather leads one to to wonder, if the ultimate arbiter is "Nature" why publish in "Science"? (groan!)

--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-26-2002 9:08 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
scarletohairy
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 7 (9373)
05-08-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mister Pamboli
04-26-2002 9:08 PM


'Which rather leads one to to wonder, if the ultimate arbiter is "Nature" why publish in "Science"?'
Because you gets your pubs wherever you can get them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-26-2002 9:08 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
christ_fanatic
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 7 (243958)
09-15-2005 9:46 PM


To the original poster.
I must admit that you do your hw. Your knowledge CBR (or CMB), rate of expansion, and keeping up with the "age" of stars proves that. But, when dealing with this theory, you must remember that the COBE satellite data forced scientists to reenigineer the big bang model to accommodate the fact that the CBR inhomogeneities that were found were an order of magnitude lower that the predictions of the model predicted, and even then, these scientists were trying to detect the inhomogeneities had to apply powerful statistical methods to find them (Universe by Design by Dr Danny Faulkner). I have no issues with the rate of expansion. With the age of stars, however, do you know that a globular clusters age had to be reengineered to fit a new Hubble constant (same ref)? Please respond point by point.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024