How was the age of the universe determined?

[CerebralEcstasy]

Who cares if our calculation for the Universe being 15 billion years is only accurate to a few hundred million years or even 1 billion years? Also, who cares if the Earth is 5 billion years or 4.5 billion years.

 

I thought I'd address this thought in another blog. So as not to confuse the two.

 

I care about accuracy. Let's take physics as an example. If you fail to retain all of the numbers after the decimal, are the answers to your equations always correct? Sometimes, sometimes not right?

 

Then, say if you take those incorrect answers and use them, does it affect the outcome of the equation they're used in? Most often it does.

 

My point here is that, I don't like the fact that there is so much uncertainty. It makes the theory seem like we're taking a random stab in the dark, and we may or may not be correct.

[Little Bang]

Keshav, show us your supporting evidence of a decelerating universe.

[Eclogite]

I care about accuracy. Let's take physics as an example. If you fail to retain all of the numbers after the decimal, are the answers to your equations always correct? Sometimes, sometimes not right?

You say you care about accuracy, but you immediately abandon the topic and start discussing precision. This confused me.

 

Equally, the numbers after the decimal are irrelevant; what is important are the number of significant figures, based upon the precision of our measurement.

 

Error bars on that measurement, then give us a feel for its accuracy. I see nothing intrinsically flawed in having an initially inaccurate, though quite precise, answer that is refined over time.

[cwes99_03]

EC, actually, accuracy deals not with numbers but with methods and calculations. If I were to say that the universe were only 15000 years old then my accuracy would most likely be subject to question as other's calculations point to 14.5 billion years.

Precision deals with numbers and how precisely they can be measured (number of sig figs.) This means is it 14.5 billion years plus or minus 100 million, or is it 14.5 billion years plus or minus 1 billion.

 

Often times these are confused because someone will ask how accurate is your calculation to mean how precisely can you make your calculation, counting sig figs.

 

As to the earlier posts concerning my thought of putting the discussion in strange claims. This is a separate forum on this website of forums. I did not say don't discuss it at all, but discuss it in the proper place. If you get somewhere then you can ask that it be moved back into the proper forum, or you can start a new thread with your fully developed ideas and mathematically supported data. Unfortuneatly there are those on this website that have ideas that are way out there and have no scientific basis except in that person's mind. Their discussions are moved to strange claims until such time that their ideas are more supportable.

This method is particularly helpful to them because the people who frequent the strange claims forum are able to put their heads together and find understanding with each other to work on their theories, while the rest of us don't bother them for having such unusual ideas (which usually come from a lack of understanding current theory.)

 

Thus a discussion of throwing out H_0, belongs in strange claims until the person developing the idea has a firm grasp on the existing data, or data of their own to support their claim.

[InfiniteNow]

I predict that the Universe is ageless. That time is an illusion, a very elaborate one, but an illusion none-the-less. So "I don't by it jack".

 

What implications does this prediction have, and how can your prediction be tested?

 

For example, I predict that tomorrow will be nearly 100 degrees in Austin, Texas, but will not exceed 100 degrees (F). The accuracy of this prediction can be tested with a thermometer tomorrow.

 

How can you verify the accuracy of your predictions above about the Universe being ageless and time an illusion?

[EWright]

EC, actually, accuracy deals not with numbers but with methods and calculations. If I were to say that the universe were only 15000 years old then my accuracy would most likely be subject to question as other's calculations point to 14.5 billion years.

Precision deals with numbers and how precisely they can be measured (number of sig figs.) This means is it 14.5 billion years plus or minus 100 million, or is it 14.5 billion years plus or minus 1 billion.

 

Often times these are confused because someone will ask how accurate is your calculation to mean how precisely can you make your calculation, counting sig figs.

 

As to the earlier posts concerning my thought of putting the discussion in strange claims. This is a separate forum on this website of forums. I did not say don't discuss it at all, but discuss it in the proper place. If you get somewhere then you can ask that it be moved back into the proper forum, or you can start a new thread with your fully developed ideas and mathematically supported data. Unfortuneatly there are those on this website that have ideas that are way out there and have no scientific basis except in that person's mind. Their discussions are moved to strange claims until such time that their ideas are more supportable.

This method is particularly helpful to them because the people who frequent the strange claims forum are able to put their heads together and find understanding with each other to work on their theories, while the rest of us don't bother them for having such unusual ideas (which usually come from a lack of understanding current theory.)

 

Thus a discussion of throwing out H_0, belongs in strange claims until the person developing the idea has a firm grasp on the existing data, or data of their own to support their claim.

 

This some of the most frustrating bullshyt thinking... People are pursuing new ideas and theories in an effort to build upon them and gain feedback. Let's be realistic, those seeking to advance serious ideas are not visiting the strange claims forum in order to resurect them. If you disagree with the poster's view then perhaps you should offer corrections or direction, as opposed to banishment to the strange claims. In doing so you cast judgement and dismiss ideas that are important to others. Just because they offer ideas contrary to current theory doesn't mean they don't have some understanding of current theories. How are we to advance theories if we aren't "allowed" to offer alternative ideas?

[IDMclean]

What implications does this prediction have, and how can your prediction be tested?

 

For example, I predict that tomorrow will be nearly 100 degrees in Austin, Texas, but will not exceed 100 degrees (F). The accuracy of this prediction can be tested with a thermometer tomorrow.

 

How can you verify the accuracy of your predictions above about the Universe being ageless and time an illusion?

 

Well that is the question ain't it? Well, one way is to go outside our galaxy, instantious and see what that galaxy sees, relative to us. Another way is to measure the corona of a Blackhole. For Distance Contraction, I don't know the specifics of it.

 

The real pickle is that, any time we can descearn is dependent on a previous happenstance. A sun exploding or a major body collision. Galaxies mixing. Big things that are really outside our scope.

 

I will buy aging scemes for our locality, the earth, the sol system, the milkyway. Other galaxies. However In my view we are a closed loop universe, or at least that is what Physics would seem to say. I can't say that the universe is this or that age because it has no age, like a photon, time means zilche to it. If at some time some one can show, conclusively that the physical constants vary, then I'll believe in a timed universe that has to have begun and will have to end.

 

In short, the material that brought me to that prediction, would take literally years to sort through, and as such I encourage you to believe whatever you are going to believe, but my prediction remains, the universe is was will and always has been. Time for the Universe = 1, things relative to the earth have variant ages and times but the universe is at "rest" in regards to itself, can it be in motion in regards to anything else that we can measure, that encompasses the whole of existance?

 

So the methods to either prove or disprove said prediction do not lie in the hands of human kind at the moment.

[Pyrotex]

While normally I would agree with you.... there remains the fact that there is not one scientist on the planet that can pinpoint the exact age of the universe using the currently known methods. So that theory itself could be considered a strange claim.... *laughs*...

The fact you cite is a meaningless "fact". The "exact age" is not a meaningful concept. You should say, "the age with a margin of error less than ___".

 

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to "pinpoint" the age of the planet. Having a reliable and well-supported age within a margin of error of, say, 50 million years (<1%) is already a spectacular achievement and more than adequate to understand the timescales of the the solar system, our planet, its geology, and life.