Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Discovering a more precise age of the universe
Los Angeles Times ^ | June 13, 2009 | John Johnson Jr.

Posted on 06/13/2009 12:04:51 PM PDT by OldNavyVet

Wendy Freedman, director of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, and two colleagues were named this month as recipients of the $500,000 Gruber Prize, one of the world's top awards in the field of cosmology.

The Freedman team's work helped scientists to arrive at the currently accepted age of the universe: 13.7 billion years.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; cosmology; evolution; notasciencetopic; oldearthspeculation; physics; propellerbeanie; spammer; spontaneouslifers; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
The age of the universe, and how it's being measured, is covered in the source article.
1 posted on 06/13/2009 12:04:51 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

I wonder what occupied all that space 14 billion years ago.


2 posted on 06/13/2009 12:11:26 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Why is the yellow-bellied coward, David Letterman, afraid of Governor Palin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Can anything really “occupy” space? The Universe is still expanding... what is it expanding into?


3 posted on 06/13/2009 12:13:32 PM PDT by MyTwoCopperCoins (I don't have a license to kill; I have a learner's permit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Our capability to “see” distant things is a function of mam-made instruments.

There’s probably far more out there than seen so far.


4 posted on 06/13/2009 12:17:30 PM PDT by OldNavyVet (The essence of evil lies in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins
“Can anything really “occupy” space? The Universe is still expanding... what is it expanding into?”

That's the dilemma that both Einstein and Hawking came up against; science has no explanation for the other side of the big bang.

5 posted on 06/13/2009 12:19:59 PM PDT by snoringbear (Government is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear
science has no explanation for the other side of the big bang.

Not only don't we know, we can't know. Some things are unknowable.

People have beliefs about such things, but they don't have knowledge.

6 posted on 06/13/2009 12:25:12 PM PDT by poindexter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear
It was void.

(I know)

7 posted on 06/13/2009 12:25:30 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 145 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer; PDT; Physicist
In the words of famed Freeper Physicist:
This question comes up regularly, but it's based upon a misconception that, unfortunately, physicists do more to perpetuate than to correct. Let me see whether I can set you straight.

The problem is that the expanding universe is typically visualized as something like a stretching rubber sheet, or a raisin-laden plum pudding expanding as it bakes. The problem is that these are physical objects that exist in--and take up--some region of space. Over time, these growing objects take up more space, leaving less space for other objects, and either displacing those objects or reaching the limits of the available space. Once the plum pudding fills the oven, there's a problem.

The expansion of the universe isn't like that. The universe is not an object; it doesn't "take up space". It is space. As it grows, it doesn't mean that there is less space for objects; it means there is more space for objects. Nothing needs to be displaced to admit its expansion.

I can tell by the look on your face--as I imagine it--that you aren't satisfied. So here's another way to think about the problem. Don't say that the universe is expanding. Insist that it remains fixed. Say instead that the things in the universe--galaxies, rulers, paper plates, Brooklyn (sorry, Mrs. Allen), atoms, people, Dukakis/Bentsen campaign buttons--are all shrinking. It's mathematically equivalent, right? But it doesn't require you to postulate that anything is "outside".

So why don't you have the same conceptual problem that you had when you viewed it the other (equivalent) way? Think about it.--Physicist


8 posted on 06/13/2009 12:26:22 PM PDT by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

under this theory - nothing.


9 posted on 06/13/2009 12:32:17 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
I once had a guy with a masters in physics try to explain all of this to me during one of our discussions. What is out there where the universe ends? He used a paper model of the infinity symbol to try to explain it all. Still, it is hard for the human mind to contemplate that nothing exists where the universe ends. To me,even nothing is something.

This is a great thread with excellent replies. This subject has always fried my mind when I try to think about it.

10 posted on 06/13/2009 12:35:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Why is the yellow-bellied coward, David Letterman, afraid of Governor Palin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

People don don’t know how big or how old the universe is.

It’s nothing more than speculation.

These people that claim the earth is 13.7 billion years old know about as much about that as those people that believe it is 6000 years old.


11 posted on 06/13/2009 12:37:06 PM PDT by lmr (God punishes Conservatives by making them argue with fools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

It’s more like dividing by zero


12 posted on 06/13/2009 12:39:57 PM PDT by clamper1797 (FUBO ... the Anti-Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MyTwoCopperCoins

What’s it expanding through?


13 posted on 06/13/2009 12:40:54 PM PDT by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: poindexter

“Not only don’t we know, we can’t know. Some things are unknowable.

People have beliefs about such things, but they don’t have knowledge.”

Why don’t they just ask Helen Thomas?


14 posted on 06/13/2009 12:50:06 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Space itself is expanding into nothingness. Nothingness has no characteristics at all, not even location.

Spooky, no?

15 posted on 06/13/2009 1:03:08 PM PDT by muir_redwoods ( Hey, remember the last head of state who dictated the design of automobiles?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

My dating for the age of the universe (13,700,000,005 billion years and counting) is more accurate so I should get some of the prize money.


16 posted on 06/13/2009 1:09:27 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Agreed. We think of “space” being an object, when in reality, it is the lack of something. The universe can expand, because it expands into an infinite nothing. Also, the idea that the basic law of physics is incorrect by asking the question: “If the universe came from the Big Bang, were did the material for the Big Bang come from?” Nothing cannot become something, per se.
17 posted on 06/13/2009 1:28:23 PM PDT by TheBlueMax ("Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty. " (Ronald Regan))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lmr

“These people that claim the earth is 13.7 billion years old know about as much about ...”

Actually, the Moon rocks collected on Apollo missions provide the best estimate of Earth’s age — 4.7 billion years.

Scientists tell us that the Moon and Earth were once one, and that some gigantic collision separated the original mass into two spheres.

The physical analysis of Moon rocks tell us that the composition of Earth and Moon rocks are similar, and - since little to no erosion happens on the Moon - that Moon rocks provide the best estimate for Earth’s age.

Radioactive dating tells us that rocks from the bottom of the Grand Canyon are not quite 2 bilion years old, and that Moon rocks are 4.7 billion years old.


18 posted on 06/13/2009 1:56:22 PM PDT by OldNavyVet (The essence of evil lies in the irrational.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: snoringbear

The Universe is creating the very space that it is expanding into???


19 posted on 06/13/2009 2:18:50 PM PDT by jesseam (Been there and done that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I wonder what occupied all that space 14 billion years ago.

divine realm?
supernatural realm?

20 posted on 06/13/2009 3:13:25 PM PDT by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson