Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1080384 Posts in 71498 Topics- by 19054 Members - Latest Member: trombonejb
Jump to:  
Poll
Question: How old is the universe?
Billions of years old - 29 (82.9%)
Less than 7,000 years old - 1 (2.9%)
Other - 5 (14.3%)
Total Voters: 35

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Age of the universe?  (Read 2777 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ddickerson

*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 21, 2009
Posts: 9429

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: Aug 24, 2017, 11:10AM »

Nope, just blats :-P

Is there a musical notation for blats?
Logged

Energy City Horizons Symphonic Band
Energy City Big Band
Energy City Dixieland Band
River Pointe Church Praise and Worship Band
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 2964

View Profile
« Reply #101 on: Aug 24, 2017, 11:27AM »

Which scientists? The majority of scientists who hold a purely materialist view of the universe?
We were talking about the age of the universe, so I'll bet I meant the ones that figured it out.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #102 on: Aug 24, 2017, 11:52AM »

We're supposed to have a visit by a NEA on September 1 (according to the NASA Web site).

As to the Big Bang, we need to figure out what the consequences of such an event are and then test the consequences.  Much like finding the Higgs Boson.  Will we prove it this century?  Who knows?  People are looking to model it all kinds of ways.  If we find one that fits what we see we can adjust our model.  Otherwise, just keep looking.
Well, yes and no. Yes... that is the approach. But the other side of it is that you aren't actually testing or using the scientific method against the big bang to see if it works. You are using it to test downstream consequences of what you think the big bang would do.

The caveat is that not only is working around the edges like that a very slow and tedious process... even if you validate what you think the big bang should do and it all checks out, that may or may not be anything like the actual process that began it all.

Basically testing the consequences of abstraction to see if it falls apart, but even if it doesn't, then what is to say the abstraction is accurate?


The whole big bang question often seems like a scientific(ish) way to try to ask the same question religion often starts with. How did we get here? Given the nature of the question as well as the current working theory, it doesn't seem like it can ever be "proven" per say... just looked into and contemplated.

Maybe it's just me, but I never tended to care about that part.

7 billion years? 10 thousand? A few hundred? What's the practical impact of any of it? We now know we live on a sphere and are pulled towards the mass by gravity... yet as a people, we still generally consider up and down fairly set concepts, rather than moving/looking towards or away relative to the sphere. It's hard enough to grasp those concepts... don't know we could ever reasonably expect to fully grasp much much larger ones.

Shoot... even a year is a limited measurement based on our own limited situations and is meaningless most anywhere else.
Logged
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 5920

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: Aug 24, 2017, 01:32PM »

... even if you validate what you think the big bang should do and it all checks out, that may or may not be anything like the actual process that began it all.

"may or may not" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand used to insert a far-fetched doubt about something into a conversation.


"Vaccinations may or may not prevent disease!"

"Free elections may or may not be necessary for democracy!"

"Smoking may or may not cause cancer!"


With "may or may not" you can elevate almost any notion into a discussion and derail it because of the time spent batting it back down.


Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn


Get your Popper, Dotzauer, or Kummer play-alongs!
nemomcnab

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 21, 2013
Posts: 64

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: Aug 24, 2017, 03:04PM »

"may or may not" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand used to insert a far-fetched doubt about something into a conversation.


"Vaccinations may or may not prevent disease!"

"Free elections may or may not be necessary for democracy!"

"Smoking may or may not cause cancer!"


With "may or may not" you can elevate almost any notion into a discussion and derail it because of the time spent batting it back down.




"On many sides...many sides."
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #105 on: Aug 24, 2017, 05:29PM »

"may or may not" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand used to insert a far-fetched doubt about something into a conversation.

And it is distracting... where? exactly?

The big bang theory is an abstraction. We think this happened. We think this would result from what we think happened. Let's see if that resulted.

At no point can the abstraction be tested nor recreated. Were it possible, even a failure would still probably destroy the planet and you with it.

Nor can we ever say that we have "proven" the abstraction, because without recreating it... we can't say the idea was ever fully validated. 

May or may not in this sense is a unknown. How close the theory is, is unknown, nor can it be known by the nature of the theory. No derailment at all. Simply recognition.

If there isn't doubt, you aren't thinking. If you aren't thinking, it isn't science. It's just repeating or agreeing with something you once heard...



And really, at this point, for everything we know... we are still quite a ways off. Einstein's elusive hopes of a theory of everything are still elusive, nor is there even a widely accepted grand unified theory. And for the larger populous... these questions will almost always be either saying something they heard once, or taking it on faith per "science".




On a more realistic possibility per space... if people did land on mars and start a colony... how would they measure time? Earth years would be clinging on to baggage that would serve more to hinder at that point than help. Same with days and hours. All of these are based on earth's rotation around the sun or its own axis, and mars has different ones. Come to think of it because time is central to these physics calculations and such. Even basic things like a light year and distance.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: Aug 24, 2017, 05:33PM »

Which scientists? The majority of scientists who hold a purely materialist view of the universe?

We can't just unequivocally lump all credible scientists into the Big Bang camp.
We were talking about the age of the universe, so I'll bet I meant the ones that figured it out.

And to note, of that 84% poll BillO speaks about... The number of polled that can expertly understand the big bang enough to really critique the theory itself is likely 0, maybe 1, and the respondents are basically taking the big bang on faith.

If you want real, solid numbers... screw the big bang. Let's talk about faith in the big band! Jazz it up!
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12135

View Profile
« Reply #107 on: Aug 24, 2017, 06:39PM »

"may or may not" is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand used to insert a far-fetched doubt about something into a conversation.






And to ascribe equal probabilities to all possibilities, regardless of how far fetched.

Bayes Theorem, anyone?
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 2964

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: Aug 24, 2017, 07:39PM »

Let's get one thing straight here folks.  The determination of the age of the universe is not a consequence of the big bang.  Both the age of the universe and the big bang are the consequence of the same thing.  The measured rate of expansion of the universe got it all started.  That is not an abstraction, it is a measurement.  Mind you, you need more than just the rate of expansion for both, but those other things, like methods of stellar aging and the background ration, etc... are not also not conjecture and have either been measured or proven accurate for many decades.

So, here in a very oversimplified way, is how this is done.  They look around us using the instruments they have at objects, then take a sack full of measurements of the objects, their magnitude, their relativistic red shift, their spectra, their distance, the spectra of the background radiation in their neck of the woods, etc...  They crunch all that information using well understood, tested and trusted mathematics and physics and determine the age of each object.  When they find the oldest objects - currently ~14 billion years old - then they say "The universe must be at least that old".  Only then do they speculate that if there was a big bang, it occurred at least ~14 billion years ago.

Let me repeat, the determination of the age of the universe is not dependent on the big bang.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #109 on: Aug 25, 2017, 03:10AM »

They may say that when asked but I'm not convinced 24% of the population has studied the Bible enough to be sure what is literally in it. 1 out of 4 people are Bible scholars? No way.

It's like how 40% of the population say they go to church every Sunday. Really? If we had 40% of the population getting up and heading to church on Sunday morning we'd have the most ginormous traffic jam of the week in the parts of the city least able to handle the increased traffic. I don't think we even have 40% of the population commuting to work on Monday morning.
Ok, 1/4 of the religious people as religious scholars is seen as too high. A 2-6k old text... relatively simple to understand, we just don't take the time.



Yet... the science community, asking basic questions similar to religion.... where did we come from? how did we get here? etc... you're talking about higher physics. Evolutionary theory that spans not just biology, but geology and a host of other disciplines. And so it goes.

If we poll the same people who said 80 some percent, what is the age of the universe, odds are... they will answer in even great percentages that we came here through evolution.

Yet, maybe 1 might be an expert in either, and almost certainly 0 are expert in both. And that's just two of many questions. So in essence, you have a bunch of people who have little to no clue about the science but say it's right.

Yeah, you can say they could learn it, but odds are they will die and discover if there is a god long before an average joe learns higher physics.


What is that, if not faith in science?
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #110 on: Aug 25, 2017, 03:13AM »

So, here in a very oversimplified way, is how this is done.  They look around us using the instruments they have at objects, then take a sack full of measurements of the objects, their magnitude, their relativistic red shift, their spectra, their distance, the spectra of the background radiation in their neck of the woods, etc...  They crunch all that information using well understood, tested and trusted mathematics and physics and determine the age of each object.  When they find the oldest objects - currently ~14 billion years old - then they say "The universe must be at least that old".

So serious question:

14 billion years is a long time, in which a lot could and did happen.

How is it possible to say with any certainty, much less prove accuracy, that something is billions of years old?
Logged
MoominDave

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Posts: 3284

View Profile
« Reply #111 on: Aug 25, 2017, 03:34AM »

Is there a musical notation for blats?

The conventional method is to write "Trombone" at the top of the page
Logged

Dave Taylor

(me, not the other one)
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: Aug 25, 2017, 04:15AM »

So serious question:
 
14 billion years is a long time, in which a lot could and did happen.
 
How is it possible to say with any certainty, much less prove accuracy, that something is billions of years old?

The first step is to overcome the Dunning-Kruger Effect, if only for a moment, and pay attention to those who know a whole lot more than you do about it.
 
But that first step can be really hard for a lot of people, so the whole process just gets derailed right off the bat.
 
We're seeing the results of that little problem writ large in the current cartoon series set in the White House.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #113 on: Aug 25, 2017, 04:52AM »


The first step is to overcome the Dunning-Kruger Effect, if only for a moment, and pay attention to those who know a whole lot more than you do about it.
 
But that first step can be really hard for a lot of people, so the whole process just gets derailed right off the bat.
 
We're seeing the results of that little problem writ large in the current cartoon series set in the White House.

ie you have no clue, and rather than admit it... prefer to attack and distract.


I can recall a time, granted a long long time ago... but there was a time, when you actually contributed to a conversation rather than just added meaningless commentary about posters or off topic rants. Whatever happened?
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12135

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: Aug 25, 2017, 04:54AM »

So serious question:

14 billion years is a long time, in which a lot could and did happen.

How is it possible to say with any certainty, much less prove accuracy, that something is billions of years old?

Multiple methods converge on the same date.  Isochron is pretty reliable because you don't get a wrong date, when there's error you get no date at all (never get a linear relationship.) 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #115 on: Aug 25, 2017, 04:55AM »

Multiple methods converge on the same date.  Isochron is pretty reliable because you don't get a wrong date, when there's error you get no date at all (never get a linear relationship.) 

Can you elaborate? Multiple methods? such as....
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18421
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: Aug 25, 2017, 05:29AM »

ie you have no clue, and rather than admit it... prefer to attack and distract.

Just cutting to the chase, as they say--going right to the Real Issue™.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12135

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: Aug 25, 2017, 06:14AM »

Can you elaborate? Multiple methods? such as....

First go here:
http://www.krysstal.com/scale_time.html

and get a sense of the scale of what we're talking about.

I find most people who don't believe the science really haven't been exposed to what the consensus is. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5530

View Profile
« Reply #118 on: Aug 25, 2017, 07:12AM »

Just cutting to the chase, as they say--going right to the Real Issue™.
Only you say that. There is no "they". Just like a quick review of your posts shows mostly quick, glib responses. The longer ones are where you detail out what you already think, without thought or care for the actual discussion, and in areas you already like.  No question, no discussion, just... "oh, you have kids? let me tell you aaaaaaaall about mine." It's like you gave up thinking. If you want to cut to the chase, you don't need to post anything if you don't have anything to add.

First go here:
http://www.krysstal.com/scale_time.html

and get a sense of the scale of what we're talking about.

I find most people who don't believe the science really haven't been exposed to what the consensus is. 
Went to the page. Didn't really load much of anything except the title. Maybe blocked by the proxy.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12135

View Profile
« Reply #119 on: Aug 25, 2017, 07:44AM »

Only you say that. There is no "they". Just like a quick review of your posts shows mostly quick, glib responses. The longer ones are where you detail out what you already think, without thought or care for the actual discussion, and in areas you already like.  No question, no discussion, just... "oh, you have kids? let me tell you aaaaaaaall about mine." It's like you gave up thinking. If you want to cut to the chase, you don't need to post anything if you don't have anything to add.
Went to the page. Didn't really load much of anything except the title. Maybe blocked by the proxy.

I had that trouble too, but it worked on my phone though slowly.  It collapses the age of the universe into an equivalent 24 hour day.  Maybe try a different browser?  I'll try at home too and see if it's the PC here. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: