Slashdot Mirror
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."
It says right here in my textbook tha God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Lying about its age like that.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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/
"On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami."
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?
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.
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.
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!
The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed.
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
The Bible isn't interpreted. It was compiled.
I'm Message Approval Man, and I approve this message.
" I'll sell you a bridge."
Does it come with working viewsceens, crew stations, a captains chair and a turbolift?
and a replicator?
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.
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.
Life is not for the lazy.
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 :)
Refined or rewritten bullshit is still bullshit.
The good news is we now know the age of the universe. The bad news is that the warranty just expired.
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/
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.
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.
Tat Tvam Asi
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Is Slashdot's sarcasm meter broken again today?
It a US site, it doesn't have a sarcasm meter! /ducks
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
"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.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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).