Sizes

[Pilgrims Drop]

Scale of the Universe (http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/)

Takes a while to load but well worth the wait

[Don Quixote]

Very, very :cool:

[Gnam]

wow.

:thumbup:

[EDwardo]

I feel so large. Wait.


I mean I feel so small.

[SurfaceUnits]

science has no idea how large or old the universe is
the universe has aged 5 to 10 billion years in my lifetime

[datachicane]

science has no idea how large or old the universe is
the universe has aged 5 to 10 billion years in my lifetime
That's quite a stretch to 'science has no idea.'

The ability to correct for error and adjust accordingly is what sets science apart from every other worldview/theology/school of reason on the planet. Even when it's off, it's still your best bet by far, unless you're after something besides accuracy.

Consistency is overrated. You want a never-changing, consistent answer? That's what religion does, but religion makes pretty crappy antibiotics.

[racer2c]

That's quite a stretch to 'science has no idea.'

The ability to correct for error and adjust accordingly is what sets science apart from every other worldview/theology/school of reason on the planet. Even when it's off, it's still your best bet by far, unless you're after something besides accuracy.

Consistency is overrated. You want a never-changing, consistent answer? That's what religion does, but religion makes pretty crappy antibiotics.

Knowing that discussions of religion are not allowed here on OC, I'll try to sneak this in and apologize in advance to the bosses; but being that there are 21 major religions and ~tens of thousands of protestant denominations, each with a unique interpretation of the Christian bible ...I would hardly call that "consistent".
I turn to science for an understanding of the world around me and religion for the world beyond.

[Indy]

Not his point, really. Religions sell you certainty, regardless of which sect you join. The reasoning is ideological and deductive.

Science, unlike any religion on earth, relies on empirical thinking. Hypotheses based in observation, the collection of data, and inductive inferences. Thus the truth is never certain.

If your purpose is effective critical thinking, empirical reasoning is imminently more useful in providing knowledge, theory, prediction, and control of ourselves and our environment.

[SurfaceUnits]

That\'s quite a stretch to science has no idea.



with every new advance in technology the universe magically becomes 1 billion years older over nite. there was a discussion on here last year where the age of the universe was said to be 13.2 biilion years, because that was as far as technology would allow man to see out. now acording to the OP, the date is magically 14 billion years. like i said, they have no idea, just what technology allows at the time.


Subject: History of estimates of the age of the universe
Category: Science > Astronomy
Asked by: toluca-ga
List Price: $20.00 Posted: 26 Nov 2003 18:33 PST
Expires: 26 Dec 2003 18:33 PST
Question ID: 281003

I would like examples how estimates of the age of the universe (or the
the earth) have changed with time. There is a summary of some the 18th
and 19th century estimates in Brysons, A Short History of Nearly
Everything, and I know that in this century estimates have changed
with the incresed understanding of comology. What intestest me is how
much estimates made by very different methods have roughly agreed at
any give time, but have changed with time (mostly upward). I am
imagining enough datapoint to to see this trend clearly , if it
exists, or see that it does not.



Answer

Subject: Re: History of estimates of the age of the universe
Answered By: belindalevez-ga on 27 Nov 2003 08:25 PST
Rated:
<The type of correlation that you describe is shown in the article,
The Age of the Universe is a Function of time. Donald E. Simanek
describes how scientific estimates of the age of the earth and the
universe show a consistent tendency to increase at an increasing rate
as time goes on. The article gives a chronology of the ages of the
earth and universe and plots the figures on a graph showing that over
time the figure calculated for the age of the universe increases.

The following is a list of dates, the method of calculation and links
to where more information can be found.



1642
John Lightfoot (1602 ? 1675)
Constructed a chronology from biblical genealogies and calculated that
the world was created at the equinox in September of 3298 BC.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm

1650
James Ussher (1581 ? 1656)
Calculated a creation day of Sunday 23 October 4004 BC.
Correlated various texts.
http://www.christianity.co.nz/science5.htm

1928, 1929, 1930 ( I have come across various dates) ? 2 billion years
Edwin Hubble (1889-1953)
Red shift of different stars and galaxies.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/RachelHoover.shtml
http://www.govertschilling.nl/nieuws/archief/2002/0204/020424_stsci.htm

1947 ? 2-3 billion years
Uses Hubbles data.
George Gamow (1904-68)

1952 ? 1 to 10 billion years
Bart Jan Bok (1906-83)
Galactic clusters.

1987 - 8 billion years
Harvey Butcher
Measured the ratios of thorium (Th) and neodymium (Nd) in the sun and
20 nearby stars spectroscopically.
Published in Nature
This site has references to various articles about the age of the universe.
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html




1995 ? 9.5 billion
Nial Tanvir
Nature 7 September 1995
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

10 billion years
Barry Madore
Studied Cephoid variable stars
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

1995 - 8-12 billion years.
Distance scale measurements and stellar evolution theory 8 ?12 billion years.
Distance to galaxy M100
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html

Globular clusters and hubble time
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/age.html


1997 ? 13 ? 14 billion years
HST Key Project on the Extragalactic Distance Scale
13 to 14 billion years.
Used supernovae in distant galaxies to calculate the distances to
those galaxies to calulate the universe?s rate of expansion and, thus
its age.
http://www.stardate.org/resources/news/universe/200208.html

1999 ?13.4 billion years
Australian Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales
calculated that the age of the universe is 13.4 billion plus/minus 1.6
billion. The calculation are based on young, independent observations
from which US researchers around Nehta Bahcall of the Princeton
university (new Jersey) newly calculated the form and extension speed.
Published in Science (US magazine). 23 May 1999.
http://www.eurobrasil.at/scientific_cage/archive/cool_reactor_9907.html


1999
12 billion years.
Cepheids
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/hubble_script.shtml
Wendy Freedman
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9905/25/age.of.universe/
Cepheids Between 12 and 13.5 billion years.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/Godandscience/morebang.html

2001 ? 12.5 billion years.
Clark, Stuart
Star date: The minimum age of the Universe is calculated using a new
radiometric approach. New Scientist. 7 February 2001.

2001 ? 12.5 billion
February 7, 2001, Roger Cayrel et al measured amounts of the radioactive
elements thorium and uranium in an ancient star named CS31082-001
using a technique called radioactive cosmochronometry. \\\\\\\"The ages of the
oldest stars in the galaxy indicate when star formation began and provide a
minimum age for the universe,\\\\\\\" Cayrel said. They calculated that
CS31082-001 is about 12.5 billion years old, with an error factor of
about
three billion years.
Cayrel, R et al. Measurement of Stellar age from uranium decay.
Nature. 8 February 2001. Vol 409, No. 6821.
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/2/5
http://www.afterabortion.com/universe.html


Kilkis 14.8 billion
http://www.perkel.com/nerd/relativity.htm

2002 - 12 to 13 billion years.
Harvey Richer of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
Studied the cooling of white dwarfs.
http://www.stardate.org/resources/news/universe/200208.html

2003 - 13.7 billion years
Schwarzschild Bertram
WMAP Spacecraft Maps the Entie Cosmic Microwave Sky with Unprecedented Precision.
Physics Today. Vol 56, No. 4. April 2003.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0206mapresults.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html>




wth does religion have to do with this thread, only that science is your religion. I have observed that the ones claiming to be the most opened minded are usually just the opposite.

[nrc]

Thread trimmed. You two (r2c and Indy) can't talk about the time of day without picking at one another so just cut it out.

[datachicane]

All knowledge (the real stuff, not the made-up kind) is provisional- it reflects the best possible assumption given a set of evidence. As new evidence is introduced, the assumptions change and so does your answer. The ability to modify that answer, far from a weakness, is the unique capability that makes science the powerful tool that it is.

OTOH, you could do what every non-science worldview does and simply ignore the new evidence, or introduce convoluted choreography to ensure that your original answer never changes. Some folks find this comforting, but there is a cost.

Consistency or accuracy?
Pick one.

[SurfaceUnits]

what makes scientists think the Earth is at the center of the universe?

[SurfaceUnits]

All knowledge (the real stuff, not the made-up kind) is provisional- it reflects the best possible assumption given a set of evidence. As new evidence is introduced, the assumptions change and so does your answer. The ability to modify that answer, far from a weakness, is the unique capability that makes science the powerful tool that it is.

OTOH, you could do what every non-science worldview does and simply ignore the new evidence, or introduce convoluted choreography to ensure that your original answer never changes. Some folks find this comforting, but there is a cost.

Consistency or accuracy?
Pick one.

what does that have to do with scientists not knowing the size or age of the universe, my original point

[datachicane]

what makes scientists think the Earth is at the center of the universe?

:saywhat:
They don't.

[datachicane]

what does that have to do with scientists not knowing the size or age of the universe, my original point

You're conflating certainty with knowledge. They are two different things. Everything, and I mean everything, known by mankind is subject to a varying degree of error. Yet, we develop powerful drugs, advance medicine, land men on the moon, explore the universe, etc., etc., because that best guess is either enough to get the job done, or, when not, exposes the error and revises that best guess.

You can be reasonably sure that your speedometer is not completely accurate, but that doesn't mean when you get pulled over you should tell the officer that you have no idea how fast you were going.

You may be uncomfortable at the idea of knowledge being provisional, but I guaran-freakin'-tee you that you enjoy the fruits that come from that provisional knowledge.

[SurfaceUnits]

:saywhat:
They don\'t.

since they put a date on the universe as a result of an observation from Earth, then Earth is their center. If they don\'t know where Earth is located in the universe then they cant put a date on it

[SurfaceUnits]

You\\\'re conflating certainty with knowledge. They are two different things. Everything, and I mean everything, known by mankind is subject to a varying degree of error. Yet, we develop powerful drugs, advance medicine, land men on the moon, explore the universe, etc., etc., because that best guess is either enough to get the job done, or, when not, exposes the error and revises that best guess.

You can be reasonably sure that your speedometer is not completely accurate, but that doesn\\\'t mean when you get pulled over you should tell the officer that you have no idea how fast you were going.

You may be uncomfortable at the idea of knowledge being provisional, but I guaran-freakin\\\'-tee you that you enjoy the fruits that come from that provisional knowledge.

so you agree that science has no idea how large or old the universe is

[racer2c]

so you agree that science has no idea how large or old the universe is

What's he's saying is...science is subject to change...and when it changes...its the new fact. :)

[datachicane]

so you agree that science has no idea how large or old the universe is

No, just pointing out that there's a big difference between room for error and 'has no idea'.

I may not be able to say precisely how tall you are, but that doesn't mean that all possible values are equally likely, or that I have 'no idea' how tall you are. It's a safe assumption, an assumption that's exceedingly unlikely to be disproven, that you're not less than 50cm tall nor greater than 4m tall. Given the vast magnitude of the potential scale, I have a very good idea how tall you are.

[Gnam]

since they put a date on the universe as a result of an observation from Earth, then Earth is their center. If they don\'t know where Earth is located in the universe then they cant put a date on it

The neat-o Universe scale Pilgrims Drop posted has a note at the far right end of the scale that mentions Earth is probably not the center.

It estimates the Observable Universe is 14 billion years old while the Estimated Universe is 90 billion years old.

The Yottameter is named after Yoda, right? ;)

[cameraman]

What's he's saying is...science is subject to change...and when it changes...its the new fact. :)

Or in the case of cosmology, it is the new estimate.

[racer2c]

Or in the case of cosmology, it is the new estimate.

Right! Whatever it takes. :)

[Insomniac]

since they put a date on the universe as a result of an observation from Earth, then Earth is their center. If they don\'t know where Earth is located in the universe then they cant put a date on it

That's not how they did it with WMAP. The observations were made from a satellite and it measured background radiation. Using assumptions they worked backwards to the age of the Universe from the Big Bang. The location of the satellite doesn't mean it is assumed to be the center of the Universe (there really isn't believed to even be one anyway).

Also, it's usually the headlines that make it appear the estimate is intended to be dead on, but the research usually makes it clear that it's an estimate (the latest one is 13.75 billion +/- 110 million years) and what assumptions were used to arrive at that conclusion.

[SurfaceUnits]

The neat-o Universe scale Pilgrims Drop posted has a note at the far right end of the scale that mentions Earth is probably not the center.

It estimates the Observable Universe is 14 billion years old while the Estimated Universe is 90 billion years old.

The Yottameter is named after Yoda, right? ;)

since the universe is, at the least, more than likely some type of spherical object, observation in at least 6 directions, at a minimum, would be needed to make that observation

in a different note, if the starship Enterprise flipped upside down, would Capt. Kirk have ended up on the ceiling

[SurfaceUnits]

That\'s not how they did it with WMAP. The observations were made from a satellite and it measured background radiation. Using assumptions they worked backwards to the age of the Universe from the Big Bang. The location of the satellite doesn\'t mean it is assumed to be the center of the Universe (there really isn\'t believed to even be one anyway).

Also, it\'s usually the headlines that make it appear the estimate is intended to be dead on, but the research usually makes it clear that it\'s an estimate (the latest one is 13.75 billion +/- 110 million years) and what assumptions were used to arrive at that conclusion.

so does the universe consist solely of the debris from the big bang

[cameraman]

so does the universe consist solely of the debris from the big bang
Personally I don't consider myself to be debris but the whole idea is that everything came from the big bang.

[Insomniac]

so does the universe consist solely of the debris from the big bang

I think the idea of the big bang is that an infinite mass occupied an infinitesimal area and then "boom". And everything is expanding. I don't think I've ever understood if the universe is an infinite expanse or that there is an edge (or maybe the ends are connected). And if it's an infinite expanse, then is everything expanding into it? If there is an edge is that constantly being expanded?

Also, going back to Earth as the center. My understanding is that the observable universe is dependent on the time the big bang occurred. If everything that can be seen only existed after the big bang, then the most we can see is 13.75B light years away. Anything beyond that has yet to reach us. So in that sense, we are the center of the observable universe.

Finally, since the distance between everything is expanding, anything beyond 13.2B light years away right now is separating away from us by more than the distance light from it can reach us. Put simply, we will never be able to see it.

For me, learning this stuff is mind boggling. I can't get enough of the universe specials/series they air on Discovery/Science every now and then (we are due for another one soon I hope).

[cameraman]

Finally, since the distance between everything is expanding, anything beyond 13.2B light years away right now is separating away from us by more than the distance light from it can reach us. Put simply, we will never be able to see it.

No, the expansion is not faster than the speed of light, so eventually that light will get here.

[Insomniac]

No, the expansion is not faster than the speed of light, so eventually that light will get here.

The distance between us and that object is growing more than the speed of light can cover. How would it get here eventually?

Edit: Just realized my confusion. Nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. Although the distance between 2 objects is increasing by a distance more than the speed of light can cover, nothing would prevent the light from travelling back to us because that object itself isn't moving faster than the speed of light.

[cameraman]

Pretty much. if you really want to try wrapping your head around the whole expanding universe the fine folks at NASA have cooked up a very informative, if a wee bit dense, web site.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/universe.html