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

Skip to comments.

Study: Universe 13 Billion Years Old
AP | Wednesday, April 24, 2002; 4:21 PM | Paul Recer

Posted on 04/24/2002 6:30:34 PM PDT by longshadow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-222 next last
To: DennisR
Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.

What you are seeing is lots of estimation rather than contradiction. As more measurements are made, the results seem to be in better agreement. There should be error indicators with each estimate, if not, it's sloppy reporting.

101 posted on 04/24/2002 9:20:28 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Just two weeks ago astronomers announced they had discovered the oldest galactic cluster yet, 13.5 billion light years distant. It took at least a billion years for such clusters to form after the Big Bang, putting the age of the Universe at no less than about 15 billion years old. But I do love these contradictions!

It is only a contradiction if you ignore the measurement errors in BOTH. We already know the WHite dwarf methodology has an acknowledged error of 0.5 billion years. We don't know the error estimate for the observation in your linked article because it does mention it, but let's use 5% as a round number.

Taking the White dwarf estimate to it's upper most value (13.7 billion + 0.5 billion) yeilds 14.2 billion years. Taking your estimate of 15 billion years and using the minimum value based on a 5% measurement error, yeilds 14 and a quarter billion years.

Both measurements are within their error limits of each other.

In conclusion, there is no contradiction.

102 posted on 04/24/2002 9:21:02 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
How can one be sure he's found the faintest dwarf?
103 posted on 04/24/2002 9:22:13 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
How faint would a dwarf have to be for the universe to be 20 billion years old? Really really faint, I guess. :)
104 posted on 04/24/2002 9:23:35 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
My understanding is that the acceleration rates in most models have different epochs, with plateus and peaks, rather than being a constant or exponential acceleration. There are more than a few distinctly different epoch models, as far as I know.

I'll have to defer to "Physicist" and ThinkPlease" on details such as those....

105 posted on 04/24/2002 9:26:08 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
There are two articles on yesterday's thread.
"Galaxy clusters consist of thousands of galaxies gravitationally bound into huge structures," said Joseph Mohr, a professor of astronomy at the University of Illinois. "Because of the expansion of the universe, the clusters appear denser at larger redshifts, when the universe was younger and denser."

and from the other article . . .

Inside a gravastar, space-time would be "totally warped," the researchers say. Further, the inner space would exert an outward force, which would enhance the durability of the bubble

and . . .

Mottola and Mazur have taken their extreme idea to a mentally dizzying new level: The say our entire universe may be the interior of a giant gravastar.

For some reason these two articles together got my brain lobes flapping.

106 posted on 04/24/2002 9:28:43 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
As I read the article (dated 25-November-1999), he only proved that it was possible. But I seem to recall some time in 2000 they made more careful measurements of the flatness of space and proved the universe was open-ended and not destined for a big crunch.
107 posted on 04/24/2002 9:29:33 PM PDT by altair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
We think we have seen the faintest ones

I have to admire the guys who wouldn't stop looking until they'd found the faintest dwarf. I guess they had a comfortable number of dwarves to work with.

108 posted on 04/24/2002 9:30:37 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Then I suggest you restrict yourself to logic, Mathematics, and distilled spirits, the only realms in which absolute "proof" is possible.

Now you're talking!

109 posted on 04/24/2002 9:30:54 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.

Maybe it's me, but what I see is lots of potentially out-of-date estimates, and NO scholarly references to back them up.

If I were so inclined, I could put up a website that said the Universe is 13 days old, and it would have as much validity on your list as any other internet website estimate.

Also, you fail to note the error range for each estimate. As I pointed out earlier on this thread, 20 years ago, they thought the Universe was 10-20 billion years old (or 15 +/- 5 billion, if you prefer). Today, they think it is 13.7 +/- 0.5 billion years old. There's no contradiction; the later measurement lies entirely within the earlier estimate.

110 posted on 04/24/2002 9:37:11 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

Comment #111 Removed by Moderator

To: RightWhale
Lot of information there to absorb, but real interesting. If the universe is inside a gravastar, what's outside the gravastar? Is that sitting in a universe of its own? Some of these theories may not be as extreme as they sound. I think anything's possible.
112 posted on 04/24/2002 9:41:21 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DennisR
No doubt about it, as long as these methodoligies are accurate and repeatable.

Exactly; and if there were evidence that these methodologies were erroneous, you'd have posted it by now.

Lacking any evidence that they are erroneous, we conclude this is the best estimate we have, and our confidence in it is much greater than before we had this independent methodology that produces virtually the same answer.

113 posted on 04/24/2002 9:41:59 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
So it can be measured that the universe ends 13 billion light years away? It isn't possible that there are stars way beyond what we can see? If this is the case, I stand corrected for anything I've said.
114 posted on 04/24/2002 9:43:46 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
The idea that our universe might be inside another lifeform isn't so far-fetched. After all, each of us had a mother, why not the universe as well.
115 posted on 04/24/2002 9:45:43 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
It seems that if they'd only found a dwarf that was too faint to be seen, the universe would be far older.
116 posted on 04/24/2002 9:47:40 PM PDT by apochromat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
How can one be sure he's found the faintest dwarf?

Ahhh, excellent question!

In the press conference Wednesday, they described their methodology as using exposures of such long duration that had their been fainter dwarfs, they would have been detected. In other words, the minimum detectable magnitude was below that of the faintest dwarf they saw, sufficiently lower such that they feel confident that they would have seen them if there were fainter ones.

The new Hubble camera is MUCH more sensitive, and they plan to use it to look for much fainter dwarfs (to verify that what they found WAS the faintest (and thus oldest), and to look at dwarfs in a completely differnt type of cluster, and in cluster much more distant.

117 posted on 04/24/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
There are interval estimates and there are point estimates. The two groups' point estimates disagree by about two billion years. Richer said himself his best guess was 13 billion years.

I'm not sure about the error in either of these studies. I've never heard of the 5% standard you cite. For this article, they seem to be using .5 billion ly vs. 5%. But you're definitely right about the contradiction thingy; i.e., I should've said discrepancy instead of contradiction because even if the interval estimates do not overlap we wouldn't necessarily have a contradiction in the strict sense of the word.

118 posted on 04/24/2002 9:49:10 PM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
How faint would a dwarf have to be for the universe to be 20 billion years old? Really really faint, I guess. :)

They apparently are running at the edge of the sensitivity of the old Hubble scope equipment; this is why they selected M4 -- they just didn't have enough sensitivity to see dwarfs that old any farther away that M4 is.

119 posted on 04/24/2002 9:50:24 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: apochromat
I guess they had a comfortable number of dwarves to work with.

Calling Robert Reich!

120 posted on 04/24/2002 9:52:51 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 221-222 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