Study Finds Universe Is 100 Million Years Older Than Previously Thought

skade88 writes "Reuters is reporting that scientists now say the universe is 100 million years older than previously thought after they took a closer look at leftover radiation from the Big Bang. This puts the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years. The new findings are the direct results from analyzing data provided by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft. The spacecraft is providing the most detailed look to date at the remnant microwave radiation that permeates the universe. 'It's as if we've gone from a standard television to a high-definition television. New and important details have become crystal clear,' Paul Hertz, NASA's director of astrophysics, told reporters on a conference call."

Comments

Important details

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not notice an increase in important details when upgrading to HDTV. Maybe I should get a better HDMI cable with more gold.

Re:Important details

[carys689]

Seriously?!!

Gee, thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I feel 100 million years older than I did before.

Re:Gee, thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is we now know the age of the universe. The bad news is that the warranty just expired.

Re:Gee, thanks

[I'm New Around Here]

God should have gotten the 2-year extension plan.

Re:Gee, thanks

[torsmo]

The denizens of the universe need a better dealership.

Re:Gee, thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, the user's manual has gone missing.

Good ole' Paul Hertz

[Anonymous Coward]

His wife says his speed is exactly one cycle per second.

Re:Good ole' Paul Hertz

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but the amplitude will curl your toes!

Re:Good ole' Paul Hertz

[Sique]

But it was Heinrich Hertz, not Paul Hertz (sorry, no english Wikipedia entry).

Re:Good ole' Paul Hertz

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was Dick Hertz

The difference between science and religion

[Grayhand]

Science can accept new data and adjust theories to match with the new data. Religion requires that we never question the beliefs of a bunch of bronze age shepards and what they wrote is infalible so new data must be ignored.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[wisnoskij]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[narcc]

So... 4017 is still the standard age in Christendom then, yes?

Oh, I see. You've decided that there is such a thing as the "science vs religion debate" outside your tiny little circle and you need to score points for your side at every opportunity. You don't care that your comment is completely off-topic, or that what you're saying is obviously nonsense. Beating up that straw man makes you feel important.

You may want to stop. You're not helping.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

This proves that when presented with *slightly* different data, scientists will happily adjust a measured parameter by less than one percent, without questioning at all any of their presuppositions (or Bayesian priors).

It's like telling a Christian that data proves that Jesus was crucified when he was 32 1/2 years old rather than 33. Not too troubling.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

80 million years is 1.4 standard deviations off of the old error (± 59 million years). The probability of finding an error this large from random measurements is about 15%, so this isn't particularly revolutionary or even surprising.

Note: I'm not sure why this article says 100 million years when most articles on this say 80 million years.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

if the source material is clear on a topic (the age of the universe, its not clear, but things like how to cure leprosy, or whether or not taking virgin rape-slaves is correct, it happens to be quite clear) then its not a straw man. just because a book which says you should kill birds and sprinkle their blood to cure bacterial infections (well it doesnt mention bacteria, but you get the point). then its not a straw man. what it is, is arguing that there is a sophisticated way to interpret that as something that it doesnt say, doesnt imply, never would have been on the minds of the author and being told you are incorrect by inserting modern science into the leprosy question when you say it doesnt literally mean the things that it literally says. we all get to believe what we want, but when a book says (literally) A, you cant argue that it now means B, when the authors had no such information to use. (and the captcha was 'ironies")

Re:The difference between science and religion

[fluffy99]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[femtobyte]

And, once you account for the fact that the new observation *also* has it own error bar of ~50My, the error bar on the difference (assuming no major correlated errors) is sqrt(59^2+50^2)=77My --- so the two results actually only disagree by ~1.0 standard deviations.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[tolkienfan]

That's not a very good argument.

The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words because otherwise it's immoral, self-contradictory, bigoted and doesn't fit with modern understanding, morality or facts.

But let's take an example from science. The equations of motion are used today as they were when they were written. We've learned there are more accurate models, and sometimes need to apply those, but we still read his writings as written.
we've also invented a way to apply his methods and equations to more objects that have been invented since, which is a form of reinterpreting, but a distinctly different one.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[MessageApprovalMan]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

The Bible isn't interpreted. It was compiled.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Samantha Wright]

Yeah, but only into Koine Greek bytecode, so it's kinda on the fence...

Re:The difference between science and religion

[femtobyte]

Well, with some virtual machines some JIT compiling, it's still chugging away as the back-end code on some more modern platforms...

Re:The difference between science and religion

[femtobyte]

Is Slashdot's sarcasm meter broken again today? I'm pretty certain the parent poster was trying to (snarkily) make the point that interpretation of religious texts *has* changed a whole lot (in opposition to the grandparent post indicating religious rigidity back to a "bunch of bronze age shepards"), despite all the replies taking him overly literally.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[letherial]

Trying to defend the bible on the back of newton is a little insulting.

While newtons calculation do well for the most part, we know its not 100% accurate and most scientist will freely admit this. It works well unless your in extreme cases.

The bible however, is just a bunch of text written by people who pretended to know shit they didnt know.

Your analogy is more akin to saying that even though newton was mostly right, we are going to choose another crackpot who never used any scientific methodology to create a new and improved version of the law of motions and just believe that the math is right despite the evidence.

The bible is a bunch of bullshit, its just a fact.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[tolkienfan]

I think you misunderstood my post, because 1. I would never defend the bible and 2. I agree 100% with the rest of your post.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[osu-neko]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.

Re-written?! Half of it hadn't been written for the first time 2000 years ago. For that matter, much of the last half deals with events that hadn't happened yet 2000 years ago. Unless I'm very confused, it's currently 2013AD, so 2000 years ago which would be 13AD, well before the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36AD).

Re: The difference between science and religion

[isilrion]

Trying to defend the bible on the back of newton is a little insulting.

I don't think he was trying to defend the bible:

The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words because otherwise it's immoral, self-contradictory, bigoted and doesn't fit with modern understanding, morality or facts.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[UltraZelda64]

Refined or rewritten bullshit is still bullshit.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[cachimaster]

>The bible is a bunch of bullshit, its just a fact.

You are clearly trolling but I will bite.
I think some of the bible advices are really good if you were born 2000 years ago.
"Eat only this stuff" "Do not kill" "Rest at least a day every 7" all those stuff just makes sense.
Then there is some fantastic stories and other wrong stuff like the age of the earth but hey, they were not scientist, we didn't have the Hubble back then.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[lemur3]

even PAT ROBERTSON thinks the whole 6000 years thing is a bunch of crap... youd think the militant anti-theism folks would give it a break.

Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.
They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. If you fight science you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.-Pat Robertson

http://www.examiner.com/article/evangelist-pat-robertson-no-longer-preaching-creationism

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

Re:The difference between science and religion

[fluffy99]

Yes you are correct that scholars believe most of the new testament was written 45-90 AD, and that is part of the point that I think you missed. Writing first person accounts about events and people that occurred prior to your birth is generally not considered to be highly accurate unless you have a blind faith that God was guiding their hands. Which leads to the next question, was God guiding the hands of all those who've altered or written the bible since then? You can't call it the true word of god if it's been altered since it was written.

Personally, I consider the bible to be a fictionalized version of history of the time. Most religions or believes have something similar. I don't have reason to doubt that a man named Jesus was a notable figure in history. I just don't believe he was the son of god anymore than Indian or Chinese folklore ascribes supernatural powers to some of its ancient leaders.

Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?

Re: The difference between science and religion

[lemur3]

the clearest fact is that the person who said "the bible is a bunch of bullshit, its [sic] just a fact." clearly has not read the bible.. theres tons of useful stuff in there.

just one example of the insight offered in the bible which has nothing to do with faith can be seen in the book of Deuteronomy.

Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. deut23:12-13 (niv)

Now, this might seem silly/simple/obvious at first.. but if you look at the problems that still exist today, it is anything but a bunch of bullshit.

Over 90 per cent of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases due to unsafe water and sanitation in the developing world occur in children below 5 years old.

About 4,500 children die each day from unsafe water and lack of basic sanitation facilities. Countless others suffer from poor health, diminished productivity and missed opportunities for education.

http://www.unicef.org/wash/index_31600.html

Diarrhea, mainly caused by poor sanitary conditions, claims the lives of 1.8 million people annually, 1.6 million of them children under five years old, he said, citing World Bank figures.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/10/04/2003381667

So here we have nearly 2 million people dying a year due to no toilets and sanitation facilities... they openly defecate without burying it.. the flies carry waste around..

One of the best ways to stop the flies from landing on the human waste and contaminating everything? ..burying it.

If people were able to follow this simple bible scripture, one that has nothing to do with God, or Jesus.. we may be able to save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Helping hundreds of thousands of children avoid a horrible death by following a simple scripture, a bunch of bullshit? really?

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.

I'll give you that it's not the largest, but where did you get this notion that it's the youngest religion? Christianity began in the mid first-century AD (or CE, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the largest religon (Islam) didn't get started until Muhammed in 610. So your "youngest religion on the block" argument is off by over half a millenia. And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[aristotle-dude]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.

You are free to believe whatever you wish but the Old Testament that is found in the King James bible is based on the Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures which is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint and it predates AD or (CE if you prefer). You are free to study the differences between the Greek translation, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh and modern translations but please stop spreading your unfounded bullshit as it were fact.

The main gospels of the new testament have manuscripts dating back to around the first century and the epistles are generally considered to be letters to the various congregations written by the apostles and Paul to the various congregations in Asia minor during the first century.

Your objections are nebulous and derivative. I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it. Do you people have a script that you read from?

The modern translations are based on a number of sources including the Septuagint, the Tanakh and any of the oldest manuscript fragments available. Please stop with the bullshit already. You don't need to backup your atheism with lies and self-delusions. Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find? Are you afraid of losing control? Your "self-control" is an illusion. You are a slave to your desires.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[aristotle-dude]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.

Don't mind the person you are responding to. They are not being serious. They are speaking with hyperbole. They have only a passing knowledge of the contents of the bible. They are simply parroting what they have heard other people say about the bible.

Re-written?! Half of it hadn't been written for the first time 2000 years ago. For that matter, much of the last half deals with events that hadn't happened yet 2000 years ago. Unless I'm very confused, it's currently 2013AD, so 2000 years ago which would be 13AD, well before the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36AD).

Re: The difference between science and religion

[bayankaran]

This is nonsense. I live in a country with all the issues of sanitation you can imagine - India.

It is not practically possible to dig a hole and bury your waste in urban environments anywhere in the world. Even in rural environments there are severe limitations.

There are good lessons and moral / ethical fables in Bible and other religious texts, but it is hopelessly outdated.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so there's all this useful information in the bible that everyone ignores and is useless anyway until NGOs explain to them that shitting 5ft outside of the village doesn't work anymore when past a certain population point?

I'm not saying 100% of the Bible is wrong, I'm saying 90% of people who quote the Bible are quoting the wrong parts and have no interest in honest, legitimate, pragmatic improvement of the situation of all man kind. They only want to relieve suffering on their terms, good is only good with a blessing, and the spirit of salvation is only what an old, white, European (still) tells you.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[allypally]

The Bible has been under continual re-interpretation.

Take any Bibical statement:
* don't eat shellfish
* keep slaves
* don't be gay

We can show fuzzy date ranges for which the statement was uncontroversally true through to it being considered symbolic only.

From that, we can scientifically predict the half-life of a Biblical truth. Thus, today:

* we do longer need to kill witches
* we don't really need to keep the sabbath holy
* gays are pretty much normal people to god now
* being wealthy no bar to heaven

And tomorrow? Just apply the Biblical truth half-life test to predict!

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Black Parrot]

Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

And all the thousands of variant interpretations are based on evidence.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're kidding because of your grammar but I'm not sure..? But if you're serious, then by your logic, this statement is not bullshit since it's good advice:
"You should be nice to people, otherwise the giant cat monster from the netherlands will eat your face. So treat others as you would want to be treated."

So you're saying that since the advice is good, it's automatically not bullshit..?

Re: The difference between science and religion

[TapeCutter]

Trying to defend the bible on the back of [N]ewton is a little insulting.

To whom? Among the many hats he wore in public Newton was a respected theologian, he wrote more words on the subject of religion than any other subject, for example he wrote close to a million words on the numerology of 666. He also claimed "Jesus was sent to Earth to operate the levers of gravity". Religion was a major force in his life, He approached both religion and science as if the same subject, to him God was more than a mere assumption, he "knew" God existed because like modern day worshipers he had "conversations with God" (the copious amounts of Mercury he breathed most likely helped with that). History tends to ignore his bullshit and concentrate on what he wrote in what (from a modern POV) is arguably the most important book ever published. However, also from a modern POV, the bulk of his other writings are widely seen as batshit crazy.

Disclaimer(s): I don't think the OP was defending the bible. I've been an atheist for at least 50yrs. I don't believe in God but some of the smartest people who ever lived certainly did. The claims about Newton come from my memory of two biographies I read long ago (don't recall which ones)

PS: If anyone is looking for an interesting programming exercise. Write a program or heuristic to find a 6X6 magic square where the columns, rows, and diagonals all add up to 666, no number is repeated and all numbers must be prime. When you have discovered how difficult that is to do from scratch, know that Newton found one in his head!

Re:The difference between science and religion

[alendit]

Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.

I'll give you that it's not the largest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups FFS, do you research, guys.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Evtim]

What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?

Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians. Moreover I have never seen an unbiased statistics about the only country I can speak off with authority – my own. According to the CIA fact book everyone in my country who belongs to the majority ethnic group (white Caucasian) is Orthodox Christian. Well, at least from my generation more than half are atheists and among everyone else not everyone is Christian. I think the greatest public secret of religion is that one, it loses ground unless extreme peer pressure and violence is used and two, many of those that belong to a particular church follow because of tradition, fashion or conformism, not so much from actual belief. And anyway, can you say that you have a true believer unless he/she is prepared to give his/her life and the lives of anyone (if deemed necessary) for your God? How many such people are out there? What was the saying? If God tells you to kill your kids and you don't, you are an atheist. If you do, you are a madman that should be locked away.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe the Bible is "inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16) you will allow it to interpret itself (Gen. 40:8) and refrain from adding your personal interpretation (2 Peter 3:16).

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Sique]

Christianity is with 2.1 billion followers by far the largest religion (hey, even Catholics outnumber every other non-christian religion!). Islam comes in second with 1.3 billion, Hinduism has 750 million followers, and the different buddhistic traditions are fourth with 375 million.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[TapeCutter]

Is Slashdot's sarcasm meter broken again today?

It a US site, it doesn't have a sarcasm meter! /ducks

Re: The difference between science and religion

[chomps22]

Hi, This is a profound statement "The bible has to be interpreted differently than the plain meaning of the words...doesn't fit with modern understanding" The Bible will never fit with modern understanding. Modern understanding should fit wiuth the bible. The problem with science is that they are desperatly trying to get mankind away from scripture and base everything on our own understanding, which is the wrong approach. The bible will never make sense to the average man (worldly person) it is a manual for the christian like when you by a pc or motherboard you get a manual with it. The average person dowsn't undersatand it. To say the universe is millions of years old is rediculous...they also said the earth was flat at one stage...think about that. The bible was documented way before scientist even existed. Ask yourself: why dont we have any books, scrolls, or documents dating back 1million years or 500,000 years, not even 50,000 years...the oldest documentation we know of dates back about +-7000 years, strange hey, evolutionists are trying to brainwash everyone, and they are doing a great job of it, especialy with naieve nations like America and Europe. Please take some time to study other material and not just man's theories. What does God think of this? Ask Him. It will solve all your problems look at: http://www.infrabyte.com/?p=12 to see how they get to this age

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see. We have documentation back a few thousand years, we should follow a book that is about that age?

I'm about 30... I have some things I wrote 20-25 years ago. Does that mean I should follow my life according to a 7 year old me?

Re:The difference between science and religion

[TapeCutter]

Sorry, not the OP but can't resist...

Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find?

What I may find by spying on a close friend or loved one, certainly, other than that, no.

Are you afraid of losing control?

Sometimes, especially when I feel I am being provoked beyond common decency, but in day to day life I'm not driven by fear, I'm driven by curiosity. On the rare occasions I have lost control as an adult, I have asked for forgiveness from those who I wronged, I do not have an "imaginary friend" to use as a surrogate.

Your "self-control" is an illusion.

Agree, but I have the same attitude to that illusion as you do to your illusory God, ie: I stubbornly refuse to part with it.

You are a slave to your desires.

Agree. Being a social mammal, one of my primordial desires is to moderate my own base desires for the benefit of other members of my species, especially those individuals who happen to belong to my tribe (extended family). Some people are born without that desire and fall under the heading of "sociopaths", sociopaths can be trained to behave normally if they believe a supernatural being is constantly watching their every move and will crush them like a grape if they misbehave.

Now riddle me this God man...
The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe the Bible is "inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16) you will allow it to interpret itself (Gen. 40:8) and refrain from adding your personal interpretation (2 Peter 3:16).

This, of course, is impossible.

Words are a neat but imperfect means of conveying a concept from one mind to another. When you read or hear them, your imagination fills in details based on your prior experience of the world and applies context based on the time and context you live in. There is simply no possible way to glean the "correct" meaning of a text, because it's an interaction between the author and the reader subject to distortion.

Add to that the problems of translation, hermeneutics, abstract concepts, metaphors, allegories, etc. and there is simply no way that any two people will get exactly the same meaning from ANY text. Sorry to disappoint!

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Spugglefink]

I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it.

Uhhhh... You're blind? The only reason I study the Bible at all is to find amusing ways to get proselytizers to leave me alone. Even with just the most casual, basic comparative study of one version against any other, it's extremely and painfully obvious that one translation says one thing, and another translation says something else. This is especially evident if you compare versions in different languages, and I've read bits of the Bible in Spanish, French, Latin and ancient Greek, along with several different English translations. You don't have to look hard at all. Let's just take my favorite example off the top of my head, Exodus 22:18:

Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

maleficos non patieris vivere

A la hechicera no dejarás que viva.

No dejarás con vida a la hechicera.

Tu ne laisseras point vivre la magicienne.

Tu ne laisseras point vivre la sorcière.

[Greek removed by Slashdot]

The word in bold is variously translated into modern languages as something like witch, sorceress, etc. and it's almost always in the feminine in translations. The word [Greek removed by Slashdot] is obscure and hard to translate definitively, but "animal" is a common translation, and the word is neuter in gender. Maleficos in Latin is masculine, and means something like "doers of evil" etymologically, and is translated as things like "evil, wicked, accursed ones." Greek and Latin are as far back as I can go, but there's nothing in either language to suggest the original author intended this to apply only to female wicked people, and yet that is how it has ended up in every modern language I can read. It even ended up that way in Latin eventually, changing gender to feminine in Malleus maleficarum.

So, to summarize, the only bullshit is believing that none of the countless people who have dipped their fingers into the Biblical pie over the centuries have ever let their personal views or the times they were living in color what they did with the text. Sure they have.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[TheDarkMaster]

"The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?"

Very, very well said.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

DO YOU SPELLING!

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, shit.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Charliemopps]

If you think Christians are so beholden to the literal translation of the Bible, then how do you explain the fact that the majority of Christians have never read the Bible and likely couldn't even quote rudimentary passages from it? Until the last few hundred years most Christians didn't even have the ability to read.

Lastly, your conspiracy theories about the bibles authors are misguided. You seem to be missing some rudimentary understanding of Biblical Canonization. I recommend reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_biblical_canons

Re:The difference between science and religion

[gTsiros]

they'll reply "god isn't 'somebody', he is god"

Re:The difference between science and religion

[gTsiros]

not easy to translate greek in other languages, especially by people who do not understand greek. They mostly transliterated, they did not translate. iirc the original word was ÏαÏμαÎÎÏÏ? In that case a rough translation is "the one who poisons".

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you afraid of losing control?

Sometimes, especially when I feel I am being provoked beyond common decency, but in day to day life I'm not driven by fear, I'm driven by curiosity. On the rare occasions I have lost control as an adult, I have asked for forgiveness from those who I wronged, I do not have an "imaginary friend" to use as a surrogate.

Check this out my friend. No one has any control. We are all born into the middle of things and all of us will die the same way. At one point in time, humans didn't even exist in this system. The question is what is the origin of this system we refer to as the universe. How did such chaotic things come into a fine, harmonious balance that allowed for this place to exist and be able to bring about life like us. You and I are nothing compared to the sheer awe of the place we inhabit and only a very small part of it I might add. So I ask you, what is your explanation? Chaos? Random chance? Where did those things come from? We think the universe has a beginning. What was the catalyst that brought it about? What was it like before then? I am a very scientifically minded logician and to me the only reasonable theory as to the origin of the universe is that it was created by something that was more intelligent than the sum total of all comprehension power of the entire human race. The other theories that I know of make far less logical sense and have too many problems associated with them. We like to think we are intelligent but our scientific research has only scratched the surface. We can't even figure out our own bodies to prevent their decay. How smart are we really? We don't like to think about it because it puts us in our rightful place, very infantile. This does however lead us to humbly seek out knowledge and truth and hope that some with be bestowed on us. If many of you arrogant slashdotters really understood this you would have much less hubris.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

No it can't. Science today is religion.

He http://ericdollard.com/ has shown the way. The church of Einstein will have no part of this heresy.

Just ask Steve Jackson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-2s85lO6o, or Eric himself.

The "science" is there, the disciples of matter/energy equivalency will burn you at the stake for questioning their religion though.

http://ericdollard.com/the-3-biggest-lies-about-wardenclyffe-infographic/

http://ericdollard.com/top-5-tricks-bankers-use-to-suppress-tesla/

Go ahead, tell me to go kill myself just like I would expect from the priests of science. Or even better, just delete this. No doubt of the suppression.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[ilguido]

That is the usual ./ do-it-yourself interpretation of the Bible. First of all, the original Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgata) is based on the Greek one and it is known to be somewhat imprecise for the Old Testament, not only because it is a translation of a translation, but also because Jerome did not like literal translations ("non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu" as he wrote). However, while the word is a little obscure, there is no doubt that the original Hebrew word is a feminine term related to kashaf (sorcerer, masculine) and keshef (sorcery), so the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner). It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Riceballsan]

Well when it comes to Newton, using him as a theologian is perfectly reasonable. He did that, and he did it as well as anyone else in his time. However christians toting his name should also keep in mind, he had many views in theology that contradict many parts of modern theology, for instance he thought the trinity concept was bunk. However where we get into issues is when we move towards the "Newton's brilliance in physics, means what he stated about anything else is true" viewpoint. That kind of view makes about as much sense as "because Hannah Gay successfully cured HIV, I'm going to ask her what kind of engine I should put in my car". Newton also did quite a bit of work in the field of alchemy. Long story short, no matter how brilliant someone is in X field, the true measure of the quality of every individual piece of work, is not who wrote it, but how well it stands up in peer review.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[dkleinsc]

According to polls on the subject, atheism / agnosticism / unaffiliated / non-religious is the third largest (non-)religious view in the world, after Christianity and Islam.

I agree that many self-identified Christians aren't exactly devout e.g. most Catholics in the US use birth control. But by the same token, self-identified atheists have been known to get married in a church or ask for a minister on their deathbed.

My basic take on the issue: As long as nobody is coercing other people into or out of religion, and as long as the group in question isn't hurting anybody, I don't have a problem with it. So far, nearly every religious viewpoint has used coercion or violence at some point in their history, atheists included.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[instagib]

It's not fair. Other people always seem to have access to much more potent drugs than myself.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[I'm New Around Here]

What is the "other" section consists off? Jedi, FSM, est..?

Then they are not religious in the traditional sense and suddenly "atheism in respect to any major religion" climbs to number two after the Christians.

So you think there are only 4 religions in the world? Everyone else who thinks they are religious, are just fooling themselves, and are actually atheists? If you actually looked at the article, it lists about two dozen religions. Plus there are hundreds of religions with membership too small to list individually in that article. Maybe that's why they used the blanket category "Other" on a pie chart.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[dchaffey]

I find this page to be a source of inspiration:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatYouAreInTheDark

Re: The difference between science and religion

[wisnoskij]

I was being sarcastic.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[wisnoskij]

Thank you.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[wisnoskij]

Evidence is going a little far, but since any and all morals are completely subjective, and the only way to gauge the current subjective morals is by culture . And Christianity interpretation of the bible has always corresponded quite well to the current societies morality.

Then it is based on evidence, or the closest thing to it for morality, which is what the bible mostly deals with.

They do, at least currently, seem about 10-20 years behind on most issues (contraception, homosexuality). But anything in a 100 year range is pretty close in a historic perspective.

Its interpenetration of history and science also seems to follow this. It was a accurate specific historic account when that was what scholars thought. now it is mostly considered an analogy.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[oh_my_080980980]

You need to stop being a fucking ass-hole. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus Christ and were written primarily by one Apostle and copied by the others. Get over it. There did not exist one definitive Bible until the Council of Trent (1545). At that time the Bible was edited: books and gospels were included or removed based in the decision of the council.

Try doing some research sometime.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[morgauxo]

I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[fredrated]

On the other hand, the position he took at college required that he be a minister. He asked that the requirement be dropped, and it was.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[TapeCutter]

Thanks, my words but credit belongs to Christopher Hitchens.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[tehcyder]

self-identified atheists have been known to get married in a church

Self-identified atheists have been known to go to listen to sacred music in churches. Self-identified atheists have been known to go to children's baptisms. Self-identified atheists have been known to say "oh my god".

So what? Atheists don't deny that religion is intertwined thoroughly in society, there aren't many who refuse to enter the doors of a church, or who can't enjoy some of the religious-related ceremonies and traditions.

As an atheist, I don't refuse to celebrte Christmas.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[tehcyder]

You don't need to backup your atheism with lies and self-delusions. Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find? Are you afraid of losing control? Your "self-control" is an illusion. You are a slave to your desires.

At least I don't believe in a grown-ups version of the fucking tooth fairy.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Sloppy]

The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?

That's a test. Why would mystics ever say it's the ultimate test? As you mention, it's impossible (within their view) for anyone to ever really take that test, so I doubt they would accept it as a meaningful test. The ultimate test occurs at the pearly gates.

Furthermore, what's really awesome about religion, is that even if mystics could take that test, they would always pass it.

You may have noticed that religious people always have exactly identical opinions as their gods. The ones who say "God hates fags" happen to hate fags, and the ones who say, "No, God doesn't hate homosexuals" also happen to share either their god's compassion, or their god's apathy. Opinions line up, exactly, on all issues. And whenever there's ambiguity ("I'm not sure what God says about this, I need to analyze the scriptures in more depth") the person is also on the fence or conflicted.

When did you last hear one of them say they disagree with God, about anything? When did someone say, "That seems like a good act to me, but I heard God is against it, so I've decided to work against my own perception of good, and instead do what I think is evil. Because I'm wrong about what's good and evil." (Or better yet, instead of choosing perceived evil for God's sake, how about this: "I'll be punished in purgatory for my disobedience, but that's a price I choose to pay: it's up to us to make a stand against the divine tyrant, and hopefully, through our acts of conviction and sacrifice, persuade him to change his opinion.") It doesn't happen.

Thus, even if no one were watching or guiding, mystics know the right thing to do. Whatever they decide to do, well, I'm sure God would have decided the same thing. Thus, God watching them doesn't count, because being watched by God is no different than being watched by yourself. A mystic is wise enough and informed enough, compassionate enough and uncompromising enough -- a paragon of ideal virtue in every way -- to be qualified to act as their own divine judge. This makes your "ultimate test" irrelevant and useless.

That Christopher Hitchens would make such an easily-swept-aside argument .. oh .. just another reason he's in Hell now. Just where the people he criticized Knew, in their infinite wisdom, he'd end up. ;-)

Re:The difference between science and religion

[tehcyder]

"The ultimate test of moral fiber has always been "doing the right thing when nobody is watching", how is it possible for someone who believes in an omnipresent god to take that test?" Very, very well said.

Ah, but if a man performs an unwitnessed heroic act and then dies when a branch falls on him in the middle of an empty forest, has an heroic act been performed?

Re:The difference between science and religion

[alexo]

Hebrew speaker here.

the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).

The original word "Mekhashefa" translates as "witch" or "sorceress" (feminine, but see below). Definitely not "poisoner", which derives from a different root -- Resh-Ain-Lamed.

It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).

It definitely was an order to execute witches. The RASHI commentary says:
You shall not allow a sorceress to live: But she shall be executed by the court. [This law applies equally to] both males and females, but the text speaks of the usual, and those who practice sorcery are usually women. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 67a]

Also see Leviticus 20:27
And a man or a woman who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid'oni, shall surely be put to death; they shall pelt them with stones; their blood is upon themselves.

And the RASHI commentary thereof:
[And a man or a woman] who has [the sorcery of] Ov or Yid’oni: Here, regarding those [who practice the sorcery of Ov or Yid’oni,] Scripture states death, while above (verse 6), Scripture states excision. [With] witnesses and warning [not to commit the sin], they incur [death by] stoning, but if [the perpetrators transgress] willfully but without warning, they incur excision; and if they transgress unintentionally, [they must bring] a sin-offering. And this [general principle regarding death, excision or sin-offering,] applies to all who are subject to the death penalty, about whom excision is also stated.

Quotes from http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165

Re: The difference between science and religion

[tehcyder]

I believe the Bible also says something about spreading out and populating the world. Perhaps people shouldn't be crowding together, living in cities if they aren't ready to build a sufficient sanitation system.

Yeah, everybody should just live on their luxury ranches and enjoy the easy life.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[fluffy99]

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

That 33% total for Christianity is achieved by lumping several disparate religions together. It's a stretch to group Christians, Catholics, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Quakers, etc and call them the same religion. It's also relevant to note that they all use slightly different versions and interpretations of the Bible, which was my original point that the Bible has been changed and altered through the years.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[fluffy99]

Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.

I'll give you that it's not the largest, but where did you get this notion that it's the youngest religion? Christianity began in the mid first-century AD (or CE, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the largest religon (Islam) didn't get started until Muhammed in 610. So your "youngest religion on the block" argument is off by over half a millenia. And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.

In the grand scheme of things, both Christianity and Islam are both relatively new religions. I'll repeat my question - What makes the Christian, Islamic, American Indian, Hindu, etc set of beliefs any more correct than the other? Particularly Christianity when it is based on faith in an unprovable god and a history book claiming unprovable supernatural events?

Re:The difference between science and religion

[PhxBlue]

That 33% total for Christianity is achieved by lumping several disparate religions together. It's a stretch to group Christians, Catholics, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Quakers, etc and call them the same religion

No, it's not. They all believe Jesus is the son of God and that he'll one day come back to Earth to judge the quick and the dead.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[jellomizer]

Are you still paying attention to those Nut jobs, then assuming they represent the majority of religions.
Most religions are actually OK with Science, They don't see it interfering with their religion and they don't push science to push a model that fits their view of the universe.

Perhaps the religious people you know never really read past those first few chapters of the bible, and realized it isn't a book of just a bunch of miracles, but more about human interactions. Sure there are a few put in just to keep it interesting.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[fluffy99]

Wow such venomous defense of the bible - you must be Christian right? No I don't have a script. What makes you assume I'm atheist instead of agnostic? Perhaps I am Islamic and share their believe that the Bible has become corrupted? Or perhaps Jewish and don't simply discount the events of the New Testament. (Yes I'm generalizing a bit here, but no worse that automatically labeling me an atheist because I legitimately question the integrity of the bible)

  I once was Christian and after much introspection decided that the storyline just wasn't believable anymore. One of the things that I realized was the indisputable fact that the bible has been altered both deliberately (ala King James) and unintentionally colored through translation between the languages.

As someone here else noted, the vast majority of Christians have not read the bible cover to cover. They rely on hearing the bible through preaching which adds it's own twists, interpretations, and coloring. Or like the Catholics, they pull religious beliefs from other sacred texts as well. I'll even bet real money that the average Christian on the street can't name more than 1/3 of the books the version of the Bible their particular religion uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

Re:The difference between science and religion

[PhxBlue]

Who cares what Pat Robertson thinks? I'm more concerned that about 40 percent of the American population believes it!

Re:The difference between science and religion

[cyberchondriac]

You are free to believe whatever you wish but the Old Testament that is found in the King James bible is based on the Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures which is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint and it predates AD or (CE if you prefer). You are free to study the differences between the Greek translation, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh and modern translations but please stop spreading your unfounded bullshit as it were fact.

The main gospels of the new testament have manuscripts dating back to around the first century and the epistles are generally considered to be letters to the various congregations written by the apostles and Paul to the various congregations in Asia minor during the first century.

I would've modded you informative for this part if I hadn't posted in here already. Most of the Bible (The Old Testament) is older than 2000 years. The new Testament, which is significantly smaller, not so much. FWIW

Re:The difference between science and religion

[cyberchondriac]

Ahh, you beat me to it.
A very detailed article on that whole thing is at http://proteuscoven.com/Suffer.htm

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Specter]

Pffft...you guys are wasting your time.

Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[dkleinsc]

GGP's point seemed to have been that some people marked down as Christians weren't really devout Christians. My counterpoint was that some people marked down as atheists aren't really devout atheists either, so that arguing that non-devout people were skewing the statistics didn't seem valid.

My general impression is that in Europe, the US, and Canada, the trend is that people's religious views are becoming a less significant part of their personal identity and more of an occasional interest or cultural affiliation. The exception is those in the US who's religious views are focused on the concepts of authority and obedience that are really scared that their worldview is dying.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm just going to let others believe what they want to believe, and I will continue believing what I want to believe. No sense telling other people what they should think, it just wastes a lot of energy that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Anonymous Coward]

That should burn quite a few strawmen. Half of /. seems convinced that republican ==christian== believer of young earth hypothesis.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[ilguido]

I think that the difficulty is to put that phrase in the right context. A mekhashefa was not necessarily the same kind of sorceress who practiced Ov and Yid’oni (necromancy and divination, right?), but possibly some other kind of witch (the Old Testament identifies many different kinds of witchcraft, the peculiarities of which are mostly forgotten).

Re:The difference between science and religion

[alexo]

Those features were all deprecated in the last build. See the patch notes.

My OS is incompatible with all such programs.
Therefore my interest is purely academic -- from a historical and anthropological perspective.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[mdielmann]

When did you last hear one of them say they disagree with God, about anything? When did someone say, "That seems like a good act to me, but I heard God is against it, so I've decided to work against my own perception of good, and instead do what I think is evil. Because I'm wrong about what's good and evil." (Or better yet, instead of choosing perceived evil for God's sake, how about this: "I'll be punished in purgatory for my disobedience, but that's a price I choose to pay: it's up to us to make a stand against the divine tyrant, and hopefully, through our acts of conviction and sacrifice, persuade him to change his opinion.") It doesn't happen.

I suppose you've never seen someone say smoking is bad and then light up, or say that sleeping around is bad and then proceed to do so. If you look around a little harder I'm sure you can find people who are morally compromised, by their own standards and not mine, even in the religious realm. After all, religious people are people, too. In fact, we have a whole tradition built around this - it's called the New Year Resolution, which can be loosely defined as: things someone wishes they did, but haven't done before and, statistically, won't do for very long now.

Thus, even if no one were watching or guiding, mystics know the right thing to do. Whatever they decide to do, well, I'm sure God would have decided the same thing. Thus, God watching them doesn't count, because being watched by God is no different than being watched by yourself. A mystic is wise enough and informed enough, compassionate enough and uncompromising enough -- a paragon of ideal virtue in every way -- to be qualified to act as their own divine judge. This makes your "ultimate test" irrelevant and useless.

As for your pious statements, I suggest you read the Bible. Many people who were claimed to be loved by God did some truly horrible things, got called out by it, and acknowledged the error of their ways. Very very few were considered to be good enough to get a direct ticket to heaven. Whether you agree with it or not, your statements have no basis on the actual document in question, and if you wish to categorically criticize something you should choose to become informed first.

I've met plenty of Christians, religious types, and atheists whose worldview can be summed up as "I'm right even when I'm not consistent, and anyone who disagrees with me is hopelessly uninformed (and could benefit from trying to be more like me)." So maybe this is more of a people issue, and a generalization as opposed to a universal truth.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[TapeCutter]

Exactly, it's all love and peace while sitting inside the church, but the mood changes when trying to get out of the church car park. If we atheists had a church with a car park, I'm pretty sure the same phenomena would occur.

Religion is nothing more than a social club suffering from groupthink, most times the club acts like the RSL but on other occasions it acts like the KKK. The majority of people attend church services to socialize, few of them are really interested in all the detailed waffle of the die hard god botherers. The average church goer wears their god hat in pretty much the same way I wore my cowboy hat as a child in the 60's, there is simply no way John Wayne could be the bad guy and I will hurt you if you keep saying otherwise.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[aristotle-dude]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course Bring your questions. Ask your questions. Name any other religion that allows you to question and explore. Jesus himself said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. http://bible.cc/matthew/7-7.htm and "For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." http://bible.cc/matthew/7-8.htm You see, in christianity that is based on the bible, you are encouraged to ask questions and read the bible ourselves.

You don't get it. Nobody is perfect and even christians sometimes stumble. Once you become a christian then you will understand. You have this really distorted view of what christians are supposed to be. People don't "earn" their salvation. It is a gift. People start doing good works to give thanks, grow in their faith and to be an example for others who will then ask them about their faith.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[RockDoctor]

And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.

And to confound your dodgy dichotomy, how about Sikhism, which is definitely a significant religion (around 10^7.5 followers), and established between 1500 and 1600 (Gregorian calendar)?

Not "New Age Fruitloopery", or at least, no more so than every other religion (apart from the CoFSM ; we take the fruit loops of other religions and use them to supply our Beer Volcano, blessed be the Noodly Appendage!)

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?

It is the largest. And it's not the youngest (Islam is 600 or so years younger). Other than that, spot on.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that makes it in any way credible. When adults believe fairy tales you have Religion.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

As an atheist, I don't refuse to celebrte Christmas.

Yay for the Annual Winter Festival..!

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

My fave Chris Hitchens line: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

The New Testament is all very nice, apart from the bizarre nonsensical fever dream at the end (Revelation). Strangely many Christians are reluctant to renounce the quite nasty Old Testament, despite the deeply unpleasant (and frankly ludicrous e.g. Samson) content.

In the Old Testament, for example, slavery is condoned, genocide is condoned, almost unimaginable misogyny (women are basically assets to be traded around) and hard as this is to believe - homophobia. ;) e.g. "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both" Lev. 20:13.

I'm quite curious what an enlightened Christian such as yourself thinks of this kind of content. Are you ever tempted to pick through it for the few nice bits? If so, isn't that intellectually dishonest?

Re:The difference between science and religion

[dark grep]

"Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest. What makes their version of the unexplainable the correct one?"

Except for Islam, which post dates Christianity by about 400 years. There are plenty of 'younger' religions than that too, even if you don't count sects of a main religion. Scientology for example is not even 50 years old.

Christianity is however the largest religion, with 1/3 of the worlds population, and has the largest single denomination - Roman Catholic - with 1 Billion people.

Nor are supernatural powers only attributed to ancient leaders. Today, most reigning monarchs are considered to be appointed, and anointed' by God. The King of Thailand is the Avatar of Vishnu. The Emperor of Japan is of divine descent. And anyone beatified is both the provider and receiver of supernatural miracles.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

It's a fairy story written by bronze age goat herders. Apart from that, you're bang on.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

In general, believing what you want to believe is simply a really bad idea.

Re:The difference between science and religion

[Maritz]

Wackos always feel excluded from the process. They are, because they've got crappy evidence and crappy methodology. Then they scream that they're being victimised. Grow up and take it on the chin. Science is self-corrective. Childish moaning isn't going to convince anyone.

Re: The difference between science and religion

[morgauxo]

LOL, yup, everyone in the country is rich and has a luxury ranch. Ha Ha

Usually people in the country are poorer actually. But.. they do have room to dig a hole and where there are trees to cut, even build an outhouse over it. Personally, I would rather squat in the woods than be poor in the city and drinking shit in my water. (even if the city provides some hope of a factory hiring me for the day now and then) I suppose there might not be enough non-desert country to squat in if everybody in every bad urban environment decided to do that at the same time but that's not what is happening anyway. Populations are moving into the cities, not out of them.

My point though was only meant in regards to the grandparent posts. Does the bible have some wisdom in it? Regardless of the truth or non-truth of the religion part? One guy says the parts about sanitation are a good example of wisdom. Another says such sanitation is impossible under current conditions in some places. I pointed out that if people followed one other bit of wisdom from the bible that condition might not exist today so yes, there does seem to be some wisdom in there.

Blaspheming liars!

[__aaltlg1547]

It says right here in my textbook tha God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Re:Blaspheming liars!

[Dabido]

Young whipper snapper! I remember when it was only 6 billion years ago. I even had an argument with someone (long time ago) when I told them that the 6 billion was just the best estimate based on the facts and it could all change if they got more data, but they insisted 6 billion was a proven scientific fact and I was an idiot for not believing it.

YEC

[Alsee]

The universe is 100,006,000 years old!

-

Re:YEC

[rossdee]

100,006,016 years

Re:YEC

[hcs_$reboot]

Actually 13,700,006,000 years old. Their counter had only 4 digits at the time (engraved on stone).

Re:YEC

[cyberchondriac]

Is that in dog years?

The universe is clearly a female entity...

[sconeu]

Lying about its age like that.

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[femtobyte]

Apparently, the way to determine the universe's real age is to closely scrutinize its wrinkles and stretch marks.

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know there's an anomalous "cold spot" - has our universe been sleeping around?

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Tablizer]

"Does this Dark Matter make my galaxies look fat?"

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually dark matter and dark energy make them look thin and pretty, even though they are in reality fat slobs.

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, when you get much past ten billion years old the time really flies... 100 million is nothing.

Uh oh, I think the universe just told me to get off its lawn...

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[OakDragon]

It doesn't look a day over 13.5 billion years old.

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fired!

Re:The universe is clearly a female entity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh!!! Don't tell shlim about it.

I believe Reuters is fudging

[TheCorporal]

It should be 40 million years older with a margin of error of 50 million years. Ars article much more in depth if you want to know more.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/first-planck-results-the-universe-is-still-weird-and-interesting/

Re:I believe Reuters is fudging

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly. Don't look at Ars. Look at the Planck papers.

http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers

Will be on arxiv, too.

This wasn't like going from regular tv to high def. This was like going from retina vision (wmap) to slightly more retina vision (planck). The age was reevaluated by a trivial 1%.

Re:I believe Reuters is fudging

[rokstar]

More importantly the Planck reevaluation was still in WMAP error range. WMAP calculation was 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years old. The new age, while in the upper part of the that range is still in there. As far as discover goes this refinement to me to be the least important thing in the paper. The analysis of the composition and distribution of matter/energy of the universe is far more interesting.

If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[pterry]

...is known to 3 significant figures, I'll sell you a bridge.

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[femtobyte]

If you currently have more reliable information than the Planck group on this point, I might be interested in buying your bridge. And either your secret scientific space station, or your time machine.

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you understand how the calculation is done?

Or do you just project yourself onto the cosmologists? You'd cheat someone if you could with a fraudulent sale, so they must be that way too.

If you actually care, the statement is much more precise than "this is the age of the universe." The statement is, given the constraints of the 6-parameter Lambda-CDM model, which is the simplest cosmological model that fits the vast majority of the data, the age of the universe is known to this precision. If you allow extensions to Lambda-CDM (including "phantom energy" (w not -1), primordial helium diverging from BBN, running of the scalar spectral index, etc.), you introduce new uncertainties. For any given model, these uncertainties can be calculated in a Bayesian sense.

Or do you want to buy a bridge?

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can put a lower bound on it more or less accurately though.

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[rossdee]

" I'll sell you a bridge."

Does it come with working viewsceens, crew stations, a captains chair and a turbolift?
and a replicator?

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[Black Parrot]

...is known to 3 significant figures, I'll sell you a bridge.

Have you got something in green?

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[steelfood]

It comes with William Shatner.

Re:If anyone believes the age of the universe...

[pterry]

You'd cheat someone if you could with a fraudulent sale

Actually that part was humor. You might want to look that up.

For any given model, these uncertainties can be calculated in a Bayesian sense.

My feeling, as a non-cosmologist, is that we don't even know the correct model. What was the nature of the inflationary epoch, for example?

It's 80 million, widely quoted

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey, it's slashdot. 100 million sounds better so that's what we run with.

Re:It's 80 million, widely quoted

[green1]

That's because of the extra 20 million it took for Slashdot to post this after the news broke in every other media outlet. I find the sad part being that Slashdot used to be the place to go to find this stuff. Now I found out about this in two local news publications first, went to slashdot for more detail only to find that slashdot still didn't know anything about it...

Re:It's 80 million, widely quoted

[Anonymous Coward]

You read Slashdot for stuff like this? Jesus...

Re:It's 80 million, widely quoted

[green1]

Slashdot did at one point bill itself as a news site for nerds...

Re:It's 80 million, widely quoted

[Black Parrot]

Slashdot did at one point bill itself as a news site for nerds...

Now it's a talk site for news sites.

100million or less than 1% older

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything needs its proper scale. 100million appears large. But not so much when it is the difference between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years. That is less than 1%.

Does the title "Universe is a tiny bit older than we thought" or "Less than 1% correction to age of Universe from new Measurements" capture as many headlines.

On the scale of the age of the universe 100million really is not much at all.

 

Re:100million or less than 1% older

[green1]

That's actually the really good news from all of this. The news articles are all highlighting the difference in numbers, when the real news is that this basically confirms that we were right all along. sure the numbers are slightly different for age of the universe, rate of expansion, and amount of matter, but all of the numbers are close to what we already knew. This is confirmation that our models are right, and more detailed data to refine things further.
This is the way science works, and it's really good news!

Re:100million or less than 1% older

[riverat1]

To put this in perspective it's like a year is 2.67 days longer than it was before.

Re:100million or less than 1% older

[Black Parrot]

To put this in perspective it's like a year is 2.67 days longer than it was before.

And your boss wants you to put in 2.67 days more work.

Re:100million or less than 1% older

[Tompko]

Actually it's even better than close, the previous figure had an error of 120 million years either way. So, this new figure while being at the outside of that range is still within it. I haven't seen any error bounds on the new figure, but assuming it's fairly small this observation ties in exactly with what was previously observed.

And Fox will use this as confirmation

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News: "Well scientists clearly don't know how old the universe is, only the other day they said it was 100,000 years older than they previously thought. Now I don't blame the scientists, I blame the Democrats, it's social science that has brought these dithering Thomas's into the field of science. Now the scientists are changing their story on this, how many other so called 'scientific' truths will be changed. What about Global Warming? The other fraud perpetrated on America? Now I don't blame the Democrats for that, I mean I don't blame the scientists for that, they were under a lot of pressure to earn their socialist paycheck.... blah blah blah....30 more minutes of mindless garbage"

Re:And Fox will use this as confirmation

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN: Clearly the universe seems older than it did before due to global warming. Most likely things would change less if we would simply adopt socialism - I mean statism.

Next up: Crazy conservatives frett that Obama wants to take away their guns. Conservatives are not grounded in reality."

In unrelated news: "Democratic Sen. Feinstein introduces gun ban."

reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Good post. It is very useful.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net

But I just want to know ...

[Skapare]

... what was going on 1 attosecond BEFORE the big bang actually popped. I suspect there was leaking condom involved.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

its called an m-brane. and yes, some people say thats roughly what happend. (wow i feel like a certain news organization for not being specific, but it was intentional...wait...)

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Phics]

The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[DigiShaman]

No one knows. It's been stated that the farther you calculate back to the singularity, the math breaks down. It's quite possible that the universe is infinite in the true meaning of the word. That is to say, you can go all the way to the edge of the biginning of time, but never right up to it.

Let that shred your noodle for a moment.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[femtobyte]

More modern cosmological views tend to assume that there wasn't actually a singularity. There's a singularity in our current mathematical models of it --- but that's a problem with the models not having the right parts to describe the very early universe, not an indication that the universe was singular or even asymptotically approaching singular from positive time. The general "mental image" of the early universe as described by modern cosmologists like Stephen Hawking involves a transition from a region where the time dimension is no longer "special" in having a "forward-moving" direction --- in this part of the universe (which forms a smooth non-singular boundary edge to our flowing-time universe), the question "what came before?" no longer makes any sense, because there is no time direction for "before."

That should provide you with even more noodle shredding than an asymptotically infinite universe :)

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Scarletdown]

The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed.

And of course, anyone who has dined at Milliway's know that there will not be a coming of the Great White Handkerchief. Heck, even the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon almost does not happen.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Sigg3.net]

That's just a fancy way of saying that the universe always was (which gives support to other theories in turn; expand contract expand).

Anyway. Anyone else feel like we should begin prefixing the universe now? "Ye Olde Universe."

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey you read a book, how cool are you? You realize you are about as intelligent as a parrot right? Go ahead and mod this Troll, but /. has become nothing but meme's and jokes with a bit of political posturing. News for Nerds indeed.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... what was going on 1 attosecond BEFORE the big bang actually popped. I suspect there was leaking condom involved.

Stephen Hawking says that's about as meaningless as asking what's north of the north pole.

The big bang marks the beginning of space and time. There is no before.

Re:But I just want to know ...

[chris.evans]

The universe existed before the Big Bang I feel that sure about that

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if this universe came from another universe, you end up with an infinite regression of where did that universe come from, and the one before that, etc. Unless you can explain an uncaused cause, there seems to be no way out of the vicious circle. Is existence primary? Is it even possible for "nothing" to exist?

Does God wonder why he exists?

Re:But I just want to know ...

[Maritz]

You're fun. Also, you're amusing, because you blab about intelligence and then stick an apostrophe on "memes". This is amusing because it's ironic. You did a stupid thing while complaining about people being stupid. Basically, you're a hypocrite and a bit of a dick. Yay!

Re:But I just want to know ...

[NemoinSpace]

There is no before.

Yet every person who has ever breathed has wondered this thought. Because intuitively, we know there was something before time. Being trapped in time is a dilemma or a gift. In a few more millenia, I think we'll be closer to the answer.
Stephen Hawkings trick question about what is north of the north pole is just clever misdirection. Because that is not the question at all. But Stephen is very clever, which is why he can totally reverse his opinions on the way the universe work every 20 years, and still be proclaimed the smartest guy in the room. By morons.
When we can stop loading the deck by dividing by zero, thinking of infinity as a real number, and believing in things like a singularity, we are going to be really smart. Science is just religion without the costumes.

The universe looks good for its age

[Anonymous Coward]

You would too, if you had more surgeries than Joan Rivers

Dammit

[linear a]

Dammit! EVERYBODY lies about their age!

Imagine a beowulf cluster 100 million years older

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not notice an increase of inanity when upgrading to the new age-of-the-universe. Maybe I should be cooling with liquid He.

Much older

[Roachie]

So the universe is a woman?

Next we we will find out that it is more massive than previously estimated.

Re:Much older

[femtobyte]

Read the references --- it consists of a bigger fraction of visible and dark matter than previously estimated, with less (dark) energy.

Re:Much older

[cyberchondriac]

Does this Dark Matter make my galaxy cluster look big ..?

ASSTRONOMERS ARE JUST WILD ASS GUESSING !!

[Anonymous Coward]

In 100 years we will look back as these ass-wipe clowns and laugh !!

Re:ASSTRONOMERS ARE JUST WILD ASS GUESSING !!

[Black Parrot]

In 100 years we will look back as these ass-wipe clowns and laugh !!

Yeah, 'cause then it will be 100,000100 years older than we thought it was yesterday.

Re:ASSTRONOMERS ARE JUST WILD ASS GUESSING !!

[Maritz]

I think 6000 years will always be a lot funnier than 14ish billion.

lies

[Anonymous Coward]

it only took G-d 7 days to create the universe.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The universe came into existence last Tuesday. You're almost as bad as the Last Mondayers, fucking heretics.

Gun ban is cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

The gun ban was cancelled , the automatic weapons clause was removed because they couldn't get enough votes to push it through. That effectively kills the bill.

NRA bought a lot of Republican votes.

Re:Gun ban is cancelled

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bothered to do any research you'd have discovered this died in the senate where the democrats have a majority. Reid (D) didn't include it because he couldn't get enough democratic votes. But don't let that keep you from going on hating republicans.

Umm

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I'm going to hazard a guess that 50 years from now - we'll have better detection instruments set up that will change the age of the Universe dramatically.

Just look back 50 years and see the change.

Re:Umm

[femtobyte]

Or, this topic of research is reaching maturity where understanding of the fine details will increase, but no major upheavals in the basic parameters.

From the Wikipedia page on "age of the universe":

The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage.[23] His measured value for the Hubble constant yielded the first good estimate of the age of the universe, coming very close to the value range generally accepted today.

Between then and now, there was a fair amount of work put into searching for reasons why the universe wasn't about twice as old (coming from older models/observations), but the cutting-edge predictions pretty much settled down to where they are now (the speed of light or mass of the electron haven't changed radically in 50 years, either). Now, we have an experiment agreeing on the age of the universe to within ~0.4% of the previous best experiment.

Yes, there's always a nonzero possibility of big scientific upheavals --- but, past a certain point of maturity (once a field moves from pure wild-ass speculation to multiple repeatable experiments), scientific revolutions have historically always occurred out at the Nth decimal place.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems likely to me too. It'll keep getting older as our ability to detect fainter radiation gets better and expands the light cone that is actually visible to us. (In other words, our estimated "age of the universe" is relative to the information available to us.)

And keeping in mind the uncanny effects of gravity on time dilation, I'd also guess that sooner or later somebody (with the right credentials) should predict that the universe ages unevenly. Such that knowing the overall "age" is of limited use.

So will Scientology

[gargleblast]

There really should be a Scientology Proven Right web page in the spirit of Conservapedia's:

Xenu Scientific Foreknowledge: The universe is 4 quadrillion years old.
Liberal claptrap in response: The universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Result: The latest Plank spacecraft measurement is 13.8 billion years. Scientology Proven Right!

Oh That Mann Smell

[Anonymous Coward]

Black Sabbath Mann

What is this that stands before me? [A tree ring ... or his thesis committee]
Figure in black which points at me [Obama ... or the Devil]
Turn around quick, and start to run [Texas highway ... no where to run no where to hide]
Find out I'm the chosen one [KKK]
Oh no

Dark matter

[ceview]

It's the dark matter that is still the key to all of this. Could this new data show some kind of structure to dark matter distribution in the early universe. Can Dark matter as WIMPs be generated as the result of high energy collisions more common at the beginning of the universe? From a press release it noted that "At the same time, some curious features are observed that don't quite fit with the current model. For example, the model assumes the sky is the same everywhere, but the light patterns are asymmetrical on two halves of the sky, and there is larger-than-expected cold spot extending over a patch of sky." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/uoc--pnm032113.php So there is hope yet for some interesting potential new physics and cosmology. M-Theory, Brane cosmology is perhaps going to get a bit more data to back it up.

Care factor zero.

[aristotle-dude]

I really don't give a crap how old some scientist says the universe is. What the actual figure is or how many digits are in it means absolutely nothing to the average person and the quality of their life.

There are far more pressing matters in life to be concerned with. This is simply yet another distraction in a string of distractions to keep everyone from noticing how messed up our society is.

If you think this is relevant to everyday life or important enough to argue about then you have missed the purpose of life entirely.

Re:Care factor zero.

[swilver]

Why are you on /. ?

Re:Care factor zero.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the purpose of life is spending your time telling all other people that they're wrong. Thanks, I was wondering about that, I'll immediately burn all my science books and commence a life of trolling forums for the good of our sick society.

Re:Care factor zero.

[Anonymous Coward]

He obviously came to troll.

Re:Care factor zero.

[Anonymous Coward]

So sceptical and especially negative about some very cutting-edge fundamental research...
And yet you use the name of one of histories great philosophers, why?
In his days he was at the forefront of research by means of his incredible curiosity and for centuries, even millennia, scientists have been using the building blocks he created.

--
Teun

Re:Care factor zero.

[torsmo]

And what is the purpose of life?

Re:Care factor zero.

[Maritz]

I really don't give a crap how old some scientist says the universe is.

I don't give a crap that you don't give a crap. Common sense would suggest you piss off and spend your time more profitably elsewhere.

Da Big Bang...

[bayankaran]

Big Bang is only a theory. As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others.

I have a feeling the Deterministic school of thought which governs science is failing to answer the big questions. I am not saying the alternates available - religion and other other super natural stuff - is better, but we need a third model.

And until a new model is found, lets collectively gasp at da big bang!!!

Re:Da Big Bang...

[Black Parrot]

Big Bang is only a theory. As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others

No, most evidence wins.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[FireFury03]

Big Bang is only a theory.

People who say "$foo is only a theory" probably need to go and look up what the word "theory" actually means...

Re:Da Big Bang...

[wonkey_monkey]

And until a new model is found, lets collectively gasp at da big bang!!!

I don't like this new theme song for the Leonard & Sheldon Show.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[Alioth]

Theory does not mean "guess" or "hunch". If you say something in the scientific sense is "only a theory", you don't actually understand what scientific theory is. Electricity is "only a theory" too.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[TheDarkMaster]

I believe that "theory" is a good label in this case. Given that currently we have several good clues but - as far as I know - no conclusive proof yet. As example, our universe may be just a bubble within an even larger universe, why not?

PS: I do not intend here to "discredit" the theory of the Big Bang, just like to remember how important it is to avoid saying something is "undeniable truth" without absolute certainty that you're seeing all the variables involved.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[alexo]

Big Bang is only a theory.

So is gravity.

As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others.

Which only shows how much you know about science (hint: not a lot).
 

Re:Da Big Bang...

[Anonymous Coward]

Big bang theory is indeed a guess or hunch. The best reasoning for Big Bang "everything started with a bang, but we had no idea what happened before the bang".

The analogy you used - comparing Big Bang to Electricity is stupid...it is not even an apples to oranges comparison.

But questioning Big Bang is sacrilege. That is the lesson.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[PhxBlue]

Big bang theory is indeed a guess or hunch. The best reasoning for Big Bang "everything started with a bang, but we had no idea what happened before the bang".

The question itself is meaningless until or unless we can prove time even existed before the Big Bang. A track and field race starts when someone fires the gun -- before that, there's no race.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[jbengt]

I believe that "theory" is a good label in this case.

I believe that "hypothesis" is the "good label" you were looking for, not "theory" (not that I necessarily agree with you on the point, anyway).

Re:Da Big Bang...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Big bang theory is indeed a guess or hunch. It would be if there were no evidence confirming it. Fortunately we have good evidence like the cosmic background radiation. There's no reason for that to be there if the Big Bang didn't happen. Same with the predominance of hydrogen and helium in the universe, and the distribution of heavy elements. The math of the theory predicts those results, and again, there's no reason for it to be the case without the Big Bang. Once it was observed that the universe is expanding, it was logical to extrapolate backward that the universe was smaller in the past. Then the task became determining how far back you have to go before everything was concentrated in one point of origin. Of course, now we have dark energy and the inflationary hypothesis, so it turns out to be not quite as simple as originally proposed.

Re:Da Big Bang...

[Maritz]

Big Bang is only a theory. As far as I know it is the theory with the most number of followers so it is assumed to be truer than others.

Wrong. It's not a popularity contest.

I have a feeling the Deterministic school of thought which governs science is failing to answer the big questions. I am not saying the alternates available - religion and other other super natural stuff - is better, but we need a third model.

Then propose one. Your vague ill-feeling about the current best available explanation is irrelevant in the extreme.

And until a new model is found, lets collectively gasp at da big bang!!!

You sound skeptical of it. I suggest you read up on it. It sounds like you don't have a clue as to why this is a compelling theory. I'd love, for instance, to hear your take on why every galaxy is moving away from every other, and why if you trace it back 13ish billion years they're all on top of each other.

What if the religion is scientific?

[elucido]

Does it still count as a religion if it relies on science to determine it's beliefs?

Re:What if the religion is scientific?

[Sique]

Yes. Because a belief stops being a belief if there is enough evidence to support it.

Or to quote Philip K. Dick:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

If you don't need a belief to support something, and others can still determine it's there, it's reality, not religion.

Re:What if the religion is scientific?

[narcc]

Yes. Because a belief stops being a belief if there is enough evidence to support it.

Ummm... No. You're clearly confused.

What calendar could they be using??

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Im pretty sure only on earth there are years and ideas of time as a deteriorating or evolving entity. On different planets time would surely be different, and without planetary existence time would neither exist. Even still we could just use earth years as a template for timing the creation of the universe, right? WRONG! The act of making common knowledge out of unprovable facts is a conditioned technique of the slave masters that run our world in to the ground. There's no way to know how old the universe is because it has no time. It revolves around nothing and is itself revolution of time, but the interesting part is that rueters is the largest multi media information conglomerate in the western world. They are also the host to FACTA, (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Enacted March 18, 2010 as part of Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act to combat tax evasion by U.S. persons holding investments in offshore accounts). Thus they are used to supposing lack of proof as common law. STOP BELIEVING THE LIES
www.miscenesetters.com

Off by

[die standing]

just a tad.

No Clue at all

[Whiteox]

Yeah sure. And this news comes from people who gave us Phlogiston and Ether!
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Someone explain something to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we say how old the universe really is?

First, as I understand it we can extrapolate the age of the universe by backtracking light to its origin based on the speed of light
However, when the universe was first expanding, the expansion was going faster than the speed of light
This indicates the laws of physics were fundamentally different when the universe first started to expand
This would also imply that time functioned differently at the start of the universe - This could mean that time was going significantly faster or slower at the start
Time is also distorted by extreme gravitation fields (like black holes). When the universe first started expanding, was it also hyper-dense this further distorting time?

Overall I'm a bit confused that we can determine the age of the universe when the constant of time isn't so constant.

Re:Someone explain something to me.

[jbengt]

However, when the universe was first expanding, the expansion was going faster than the speed of light This indicates the laws of physics were fundamentally different when the universe first started to expand

No, it doesn't.

Re:Someone explain something to me.

[Maritz]

However, when the universe was first expanding, the expansion was going faster than the speed of light

This indicates the laws of physics were fundamentally different when the universe first started to expand

Space isn't subject to the speed of light limitation. It can expand as fast as it likes. Parts of the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light due to this. This is why there is a horizon beyond which we can never see.

That also confirms the sex of the universe

[GodfatherofSoul]

It must be a woman trying to shave off 100 million years on us like that.

You look great!

[einyen]

13.8 billion years?!? Wow you wear it well. I would have sworn you were not a day older than 13.7 billion years.

Surely this is within the margin of error

[Liambp]

How is this even newsworthy? 100 million years is less than 1% of 13.8 Billion years. Given how little of the Universe we have actually see so far the margin of error for any prediction like this has to be huge so a 0.7% change is meaningless.

Over two thousand years ago Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth from measurements taken in the vicinity of ancient Egypt. Given the limitations of his measurements we are amazed that he managed to get an answer that is in the right ballpark. Depending on interpretation his calculation was wrong by between 2% and 16%. The age of the Universe is a much bigger problem and the amount of it we have seen to date is a much smaller proportion than Egypt was to the size of the World so I think it is fair to assume that even if all the key assumptions underlying this age of universe calculation are correct the margin for error is huge. Of course it is even more likely that something we don't know yet will render the entire calculation invalid.

Re:Surely this is within the margin of error

[LateArthurDent]

How is this even newsworthy? 100 million years is less than 1% of 13.8 Billion years. Given how little of the Universe we have actually see so far the margin of error for any prediction like this has to be huge so a 0.7% change is meaningless.

The uncertainty is plus or minus 37 million years. Yep, science is that awesome.

Re:Surely this is within the margin of error

[snadrus]

This means we have another 10x to 100x clearer details about the universe's origins, which should be enough to invalidate some theories & spend time on the more promising ones.

Today's Best Guess

[some old guy]

The beauty of science is that old hypotheses are continually tested and new ones subjected to rigorous proofs, which then gives us the best available solutions. New means of observation and methods of analysis are always welcome.

That being the case, it is a pity that so much attention gets focused on the storm troopers of the Empirical Empire, who are so uncomprehending of the scientific method as to thump their chests and loudly proclaim each new discovery as incontrovertible, absolute fact. The wise and humble Einstein had a lot of embarrassed fanbois when he himself recognized the error of his Cosmological Constant applied to General and Special Relativity.

Astronomy and Cosmology are sciences based on a whole family of fluid, ever-evolving mathematical models and ever-improving means of observation. There is no room in the scientific community as a whole, or in the individual gifted mind, for foolish absolutism.

We have lots of pejoratives for the fanatically religious. What do we call scientific absolutists? Theory Thumpers?

Bad link

[fa2k]

Auto-play audio ad => instant close

Value for the age of the universe hasn't changed

[EdgePenguin]

The CENTRE of the range of values we accept for the age of the universe has shifted, but it has done so well within the 1-sigma boundary of the previous measurement's errors. What has really changed is the error bar is now considerably smaller.

Huh? Isn't time a function of expansion?

[mrthoughtful]

It's been a while since I looked at big bang physics, but I seem to recall that time itself 'begins' at the big bang. Rather than it being like a clock that starts ticking at a constant rate, time itself begins to slow down (so the first few moments of the universe take a very long time, but the time itself is squashed up very tightly). There was no 'first second' - just a space-time singularity. (Apparent time would be infinite but take no time. Apparent space would be infinite but take no space).

Secondly, there is no such thing as a universal clock. We've known this since the beginning of the last century. Even our local time (and it's measurement) varies.
So what does it mean to give an absolute figure (in years, no less) to the age of the universe?

So I would appreciate it if someone can set me straight here.

Re:Huh? Isn't time a function of expansion?

[Sique]

You could still measure the age of the universe as counted by of the oscillations of photons. It would be no universal clock, but at least it gives a good estimate.

Re:Huh? Isn't time a function of expansion?

[mrthoughtful]

Sique, IIRC the frequency of photon oscillation is proportional to their energy. It is the speed (not oscillation) of light which is constant - and speed depends upon distance, which (as mentioned) was infinite (but wrapped up tight) at the big bang.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it really presumptious for the scientific community to presume that they have enough knowledge about the universe to enable them to even come up with a ballpark figure of it's age.

The sky is a big place, so it's unlikely that they have looked enough to see the farthest objects.

If we measure the background radiation in the forms of Gamma or Microwave or X-Ray, or any other types, then the sky is a soup, with many events that cause these radiation types, and we could well be in the middle of the soup bowl. Using radiation as a guage would be problematic at best.

If we look at how long it would take for the stars to form in a galaxy, and the galaxy to spin enough that result in the spiral shapes we often see, and how far those galaxies are from each other, one cannot imagine the universe being any younger than tens of trillions of years.

Re:Really?

[Maritz]

It's painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The primordial radiation is now in the microwave band. It is not in x-rays or gamma rays and never will be again. You might not be able to imagine the universe being younger than tens of trillions of years, but I would say the burden of proof is on you now. Off you go. Best of luck and let me know if you want to bet.

Singularity math is a bitch

[__aasehi2499]

When the previous guy truncated the numbers so that he could have a manageable figure to compute with, the next guy wants more data and suddenly the universe is older....The problem is when you try to translate the infinite into finite values, you end up constantly increasing that value towards infinity, if only people would accept that it is infinite and work back from that...

So that means....

[dskoll]

that the universe is 100,005,300 years old according to Creationists?

No offense, science, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

+100 M years on 14Billion years is almost a rounding error. To treat this as news is just to say "oh...um... yeah, we don't know how old the universe is"
( and to be really nerdy about it, if you think Einstein was right, the curvature of space-time was near infinity at the beginning of the universe, so the "age" of the earth doesn't really matter for anything interesting for a long long while ( ahem, or to put it another way , a short short while )

Damn

[Given M. Sur]

Damn, I just finally got used to writing 2013 on everything too.

Does it matter?

[Dareth]

Does it matter... she still got "big banged" didn't she?

It gets even better

[Gonzodoggy]

It turns out that the universe is 20 years older than they thought it was 20 years ago...

80 not 100

[oh_my_080980980]

"80 million years older than previously thought." http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/349098/description/Universe_is_a_teeny_bit_older_than_thought

Crazy Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if the universe were getting older faster than we're progressing through time. So this year the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Next year it's 13.9 billion years old. What would that imply?

Re:Crazy Thought

[fredrated]

I believe something like that is happening. Time slows down in a gravitational field, so the speed at which time runs for us, who are in something of a gravity well compared to the voids that exist in the universe, must be slower than for the universe as a whole.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

immense progress since late 1990s

[peter303]

The age of current universe wasnt even known until a factor of two then., i.e. somewhere between 9 and 22 gigayears. The two dating methods of recession and low metal stars gave widely different answers. The 3rd method from the background radiation spatial wavelengths clinched it.

Re: religion Re-count

[u64]

How many agnostics are there in the world?
Considering that younger children are, like most animals, agnostic from birth. And when humans
grows up they either discover that religion is bull and becomes atheists. Or joins a religion.

wolframalpha.com/input?i=how+many+children+are+there+in+the+world
Humans age 0-15: 1855 Million, 2009 estimate.

The younger they are - the more likely agnostic. And many adults are agnostic.
Hmmm...

Anyone Mention The Warranty?

[agrisea]

It Expired 13.5 Billion Years Ago, Sorry. Guess the mice should have bought the extended warranty... ;)

Off by 20M years

[whitroth]

Gee, all the reports *I* read yesterday said 80M, not 100M. You could lose homo sap evolving in that gap, y'know.

                    mark

Universe is eternal without beginning and end

[CodeArt]

Universe doesn't have age because doesn't have beginning and end. Universe is the physical manifestation of eternity. This whole Big Bang theory is completely false. See http://www.sensibleuniverse.com/

Re:Universe is eternal without beginning and end

[Maritz]

Being as certain as you are is a massive red flag. It makes you significantly less persuasive. Might be worth bearing that in mind.

Oh how idiots abound

[s.petry]

The age of the universe is pure guess work. It's not even good educated guess work. Hell, go search and you will see numbers from the expanding vacuum theory crowd over 17 billion. The 13 billion is based on big bang models which use as much as 90% made up numbers for dark matter and energy to get close to a valid simulation.

If you are guessing to begin with, it's not a story that your guess is .1% wrong! This is especially obnoxious when others in the field are guessing at 125% differences depending on who's guess work and theory you like.

What is more newsworthy in my opinion is why people are gullible enough to think crap like this is actually "newsworthy". I'll add that it's very sad that the people that believe these models are real when it's admitted to be mostly made of magical materials and energy, and yet those same people make fun of others that believe in theology.

Re:Oh how idiots abound

[Maritz]

The age of the universe is pure guess work.

In your opinion.

What is more newsworthy in my opinion is why people are gullible enough to think crap like this is actually "newsworthy".

Like many on /. you're just too clever for the rest of us plebs, never mind the broad consensus of the discipline of cosmology.

I'll add that it's very sad that the people that believe these models are real when it's admitted to be mostly made of magical materials and energy, and yet those same people make fun of others that believe in theology.

Please specify the magical materials and energy involved.

As a non-expert in cosmology, I veer away from having strong opinions about it. Provisionally accepting the broad consensus is perfectly reasonable. You on the other hand know better. I suspect mount stupid is at work here.

At the very least consider sharing your genuis with the field and help enlighten humankind.

Re:Oh how idiots abound

[s.petry]

The age of the universe is pure guess work.

In your opinion.

Wait, you are telling me that all of the guesses I can find are not also an opinion? There are literally thousands of them within a single Google search. Show me one concrete fact on the age of the Universe, just one. If you could, I would have read such fact and known that we now know which theory is correct and how old the Universe is. Currently we have no proof that either the Big Bang or Expanding Vacuum theory are better than each other. Both are theories based on an "opinion" and both could be incorrect.

Like many on /. you're just too clever for the rest of us plebs, never mind the broad consensus of the discipline of cosmology.

Ahh, so many opinions so little time. Which cosmologist do you believe is working with pure facts, and why are these facts not available to everyone else in the world? Who's speculated numbers are you finding "factual" and who's numbers are fabricated? They are all fabricated by the way, go do some research.

Please specify the magical materials and energy involved.

Dark matter and dark energy are both magical stuff invented to make the models work. Those models are both Big Bang and Expanding Vacuum theory. Funny how we can detect every element in the periodic table from light years away, but we don't have exact measurements of the two biggest components of modelling the Big Bang (most models use 80% of the Universe being "dark", some as high as 90%). Another theory, which I find just as valid, is that we just don't know shit about gravity. There is no magical stuff making it all work. You won't sell many books with a realistic view of the Universe. There is no fanfare in that theory, and you won't hear your favorite cosmologist talking much about that one. People hate admitting ignorance, even when it's profound.

Heavy elements are at least logical. We know that most of an atom is empty space. In higher gravity, this space could be reduced. Magical stuff we can't see or detect is illogical. If you really believe in that stuff, please go find me factual numbers to show something about them. As with the theories of the Universe being created, it's all guess work. Competing theories show such vast differences in the magical materials properties. There is no agreement on the weight and mass of dark matter unless people are using the same models for a big bang for example.

As a non-expert in cosmology, I veer away from having strong opinions about it. Provisionally accepting the broad consensus is perfectly reasonable. You on the other hand know better. I suspect mount stupid [imgur.com] is at work here.

The word delusional comes to mind immediately. Any cosmology you believe in, is a theory and therefor an opinion. While we lack facts, it should be your desire to learn facts. Not take someones word for how the Universe works (This is the exact thing atheists tend to ridicule theists for isn't it?). We could all sit and vote on dark matter's properties, but that does not make it exist. This is what scientists did to make models of the big bang work. Making it a limited democratic process does not make it factual, and believing we know the answers is absolutely foolish.

I don't claim to know the answer by the way. I take a realistic view of what is presented and question it, as we are supposed to be doing with the Scientific Method. The two main competing theories currently render each other invalid. EV means a Big Bang is not necessary and would never have happened. Big Bang means that EV is wrong, and we somehow had enough stuff at the start to make it all go. There are also hybrid theories which combine certain elements of both of those theories. Calling any of those "facts" instead of what they are, opinions, should cause severe cognitive dissonance in an educated person.

Thinking of naming kids 'Previously Thought'

[TheRealHocusLocus]

When they see all the news headlines they'll think it is all about them.

Imagine your name is Previously Thought and check out the hilarious mad-libs in Google News.

An example,
"Polar bears and brown bears, species known to produce fertile hybrids, have much more in common genetically than Previously Thought."

More entertaining than reading about The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.

Old, old, old

[carys689]

As the science gets better, the older the Universe gets. I would not make any bets that the Universe is ONLY 13.8 billion years old and no older.

Scientists are just stupid today layoff Darwin the

[Xman73x]

Lol wrong again you scientists are so stupid in this day of age heck even Eienstein would laugh at you if he was alive today! And sorry to say this only God knows how old the World is! Not you scientists! You might be smart on some things but egnorant on most things today!

why does anyone need age at all?

[srjoshi]

I wonder why anyone wants to know the age of the universe in the first place? Is it just a scientific exercise or does it really have a purpose?

Re:why does anyone need age at all?

[Maritz]

Totally. Why would anyone want to know anything unless they can demonstrate ahead of time that the information would have a practical purpose. You just blew my mind, man.

Re: religion Re-count

[Maritz]

There are some pretty good reasons to think that it's probable that we actually have a biological predisposition to belief in the supernatural. There are areas of the brain that can be stimulated to give someone a strong sense of a 'presence' being there, or to feel 'at one' with everything.

Doesn't meant we're born bible-thumpers, far from it, but it's sad to see how quickly the bollocks takes root when it comes from a trusted source. I honestly believe preaching hellfire-bullshit at kids is tantamount to abuse.

Dumb non astrophysicist asks

[hicksw]

Is that 100 million years longer ago, or is it 100 million light years farther from here to the initial ripple? How far is it in wave numbers? Is that the right space-time measure?

I suspect in SR these questions are meaningless, that you don't measure event separation like that. Does it have any better interpretation in GR?

And what is so hot in the direction of Eridanus? There is no range data, right?
--
Maybe dinosaurs arenâ(TM)t around HERE now because they DO have a space program (apologies to Larry Niven)

Drop in the bucket?

[tripwire45]

Relative to the billions of years the universe has been in existence, 100 million doesn't seem to add much.