Posted on 09/13/2019 6:47:13 AM PDT by Phlap
Looks like the universe has been rode hard and put away wet.
LOL, GMTA.
It doesn’t look a day over 10 billion. It looks great for its age.
Those are just stretch marks. Gives her character.
Infinite has a beginning or an end? Only a finite mind will insist on that for their own comfort.
Florida man deeply saddened.
Politically correct “science” is always settled. Never mind the moveable goalposts.
I know we like to yuck it up here, and be sceptical...
But what’s wrong with science readjusting theories and thinking based on new or further evidence?
Doing so doesn’t make it suspect, it makes it better. And at some point, this too will be revised.
That’s actually the process.
Are you young? New here? The sarcasm you read is due to the outrageous climate change claims of something called settled science. In essence this is some shouting "period" or "full stop" after offering an opinion to shut down dissent.
Rounding error
11.2, 13.7, what difference does it make? (In the shrill voice of Hillary) 8>)
“where ever you are in the universe, the time is always now”
Yes, because time is an extension of consciousness.
There can be no one specific “age of the universe” because there is no such thing as true simultaneity. Simultaneity is an illusion.
The universe appears to contain lots of time, but that time elapses at different rates in different places and for different objects based on things like gravity and velocity.
The traditional formal definition of the age of the universe was based on the shortest rectilinear path from the end point of measurement (here and now) back to the assumed big bang. The problem is that time elapses based on velocity, so an object traversing this path at “near light speed” would experience the elapsing of time at a different pace than an object traveling more slowly relatively speaking.
I think they are wrong. I pointed a laser distance meter at the dimmest star I could find, and it returned -1
Amazing things begin to happen in science when the evidence is looked at in its face value, rather than with a predetermined narrative to align with.
Lyells, Darwins, etc, used the assumption philosophy to conclude that things “looked” really old, but they had an agenda. Real science forsakes agendas and simply lets the chips ( of stone) fall where they may.
How old does the evidence say? Probably not determinable using true science, as observations are not possible, only suggestions based on how things look in relation to others.
Flame away pseudoscience!
First off, I’ve been here 7 years longer than you.
Second, it is kind of stupid, dismissing all science because some not-even-scientists (algore, BillNye, AOC, for example) politicize weather for political control.
It doesn’t bleed over. Without accurate science, how does our great American oil companies find not only new oil, but news ways to get oil?
So don’t confuse my support for hard science with political global warming nonsense.
First off, some of us have had other screen names. But most important, nobody is dissing real science. Many of us have worked in scientific fields.
Applied science vs theoretical science is the key. We can use workable equations to do all sorts of neat things, but once we start looking at origins, all bets are off as they are not testable or repeatable nor even observable is the first person. We use seismology etc because it works, we look up and suddenly it seems our collective brains fall out and we dream which is okay because it is all untestable...
In my economy, God created our universe out of infinity past for a determined time and purpose, man will never “see” the creation act as it supersedes.
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.