Philisophcal musings. Age of the universe.

[Triumph]

Until an example is found where the formula doesn't work, I'd say it's valid.

I'm not a statistician, but I do have a bit of common sense, and if you (you third person) tell me that your formula is right 95% of the time, because it includes an incredibly large range of estimations, well then I'm telling you that your formula is garbage. It's like me saying that I am 95% confident that the number of members on AT is between 1 and 6 billion. Am I right? Yes. Is my estimation worth anything? No.

 

[sourceninja]

there is a possibility of failure.

That formula says I will live AT LEAST 30 more years and NO MORE than 90 more years.

It is obvious I will die before I'm 120 years old, but is it obvious I won't die until I'm 60?

 

[Triumph]

That does sound interesting, but what about your other example, the lifespan of the Conservative gov't in England? Between 4 months and 500 years, that really isn't making any profound proclamations. 4 months goes by in a flash, 500 years is longer than the entire lifespan of modern Parliament.

 

[Fritzo]

There is no way to measure the lifespan of a star accurately, let alone the universe.

I hope you don't believe that.

 

[preslove]

This thread inspired me to buy a book I had in my amazon wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Cosmos-Le...tt_at_ep_dpi_3

I put it in my wishlist after watching a discussion with the author: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31407

Basically, he thinks that blackholes eventually create new universes and some form of natural selection leads to some universes (with the right natural laws) creating more new universes than others. From amazon:

Smolin (Physics/Penn. State Univ.) suggests that an evolutionary principle has been at work, that the Big Bang was only the most recent in a series of creations, and that the laws of physics can vary (although only a tiny bit) with each new bang. Universes that tend to create many stars (and thus many black holes, as those stars die) can give birth to more descendants than those with a paucity of stars. Thus the universe evolves according to a principle similar to natural selection.

 

[sourceninja]

That does sound interesting, but what about your other example, the lifespan of the Conservative gov't in England? Between 4 months and 500 years, that really isn't making any profound proclamations. 4 months goes by in a flash, 500 years is longer than the entire lifespan of modern Parliament.

It's just meant to illustrate a point more than to a measure of exact time something will exist. It's purpose is to show that the longer something exists, the longer it will exist (baring you are not special when observing it).

The author was using 95% theory, which ends up with much greater time spans (too achieve 95%) where as I use 50% theory which gets smaller range of numbers, but less accuracy (I could very well die before I'm 60 years old).

The point is the formula holds true (even if not useful) and thus can be applied to the existence of anything you know the age of. Another example in my post was the existence of the human race (5k and 5 million years). I think it is very convincing that we will no longer exist before 5 million years and also very promising that the human race will live on in some form for at least 5000 years. Had the formula produced 2 days and 5 million years you might have a point.

 

[McWatt]

OP, you might find this book very interesting. It's a detailed astrophysical description of the epochs expected for the universe, from the beginning to the end.

 

[DrPizza]

The only troll here is obvious. I was not the one to bring up religion, I didn't even imply it. My comment is entirely contained in science.

But of course you only understand insults and being condescending. Even if everything you believe is wrong, you will never accept someone else to be right because of pride. You seriously need therapy.

I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't seen you troll plenty of science threads, constantly posting incorrect information, throwing doubt (through incorrect information) any time aspects of evolution or the big bang are brought up. The post of yours that I quoted was nothing short of sheer ignorance. However, having judged you as somewhat (at least) intelligent, I doubt such an error was made out of ignorance.

 

[Triumph]

There is no way to measure the lifespan of a star accurately, let alone the universe.

How so? Depends on your definition of accurate. From parallax change over a period of time, we can determine the distance. By observing pairs of orbiting stars, we can determine their mass. By observing the frequency of their light output we can tell what they are burning (hydrogen or heavier elements). If we know its mass and we know what it is burning, we can deduce how long it takes to burn. By observing different stars at different phases of their life, we can get an idea of the life cycle of an individual star. Now all of this is fairly scientifically sound, most of the math comes from Newton and Kepler, equations that have been around for 100's of years that describe everyday occurences, and not always needing relativity to explain it, and certainly not fancy unproven theoretical physics like string theory or multiverses or whatever.

I took an astrophysics class in college and was surprised to learn how much of it is simply an application of Physics 101. So there are definitely ways to measure the lifespan of a star, but if your definition of accurate is different than mine, then sure I can see how you might say that we can't do it "accurately."

 

[Modelworks]

On the subject of time who decided there would be 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in 1 hour ? Seems like odd numbers to use.

 

[Fritzo]

On the subject of time who decided there would be 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in 1 hour ? Seems like odd numbers to use.

The Sumerians had a funky counting system that resulted in this.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I don't think that anyone seriously speculates that anymore though. In the 80's, it was wondered if the rate of expansion was sufficient to keep it expanding or not. It was later discovered that not only is it sufficient, but the expansion is accelerating.

In the 80s, really? lol

As far as - while it seems simple, it's wrong. The vast majority of humans cannot fathom how long a billion years is, let alone 13.72 billion years. That span of time is so long that it's beyond most people's comprehension. Hence, they can't understand how processes that take an incredible amount of time to happen actually do happen (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.)

Counting to one billion would require most of your life, but imagining a billion is fairly easy to do for people today, since so many things these days are measured in billions and billionths. A number most people however can not comprehend is the age of the universe at life extpectancy, which is when the very last proton distintegrates, thus ending the rule of regular matter, 10^35 years away. Also, there will be nothing at this point to retrun to anywhere. The big crunch is very debunked these days.

"The universe is 3 times as old as our Sun." That's amazing to stop and ponder for a few minutes. When you stop and realize that every atom higher than (Lithium?) in our solar system was formed within another star, which eventually "went boom." Wow. In a few billion more years, the Andromeda Galaxy will probably collide with the Milky Way Galaxy. Who knows what's in store for what's left of our solar system then. And billions of years after that - will Jupiter continue to orbit around what's left of our sun? Will the solar system be pulled into a passing black hole? Will life re-emerge in this general vicinity of the universe out of stars yet to form from remnants of supernovae that haven't even become stars yet?

We are currently coliding with some galaxies.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

How so? Depends on your definition of accurate. From parallax change over a period of time, we can determine the distance. By observing pairs of orbiting stars, we can determine their mass. By observing the frequency of their light output we can tell what they are burning (hydrogen or heavier elements). If we know its mass and we know what it is burning, we can deduce how long it takes to burn. By observing different stars at different phases of their life, we can get an idea of the life cycle of an individual star. Now all of this is fairly scientifically sound, most of the math comes from Newton and Kepler, equations that have been around for 100's of years that describe everyday occurences, and not always needing relativity to explain it, and certainly not fancy unproven theoretical physics like string theory or multiverses or whatever.

I took an astrophysics class in college and was surprised to learn how much of it is simply an application of Physics 101. So there are definitely ways to measure the lifespan of a star, but if your definition of accurate is different than mine, then sure I can see how you might say that we can't do it "accurately."

We can only measure very close stars' distances with paralax, and with low accuracy, as in not accurate enough to get there. We had no clue how large the universe really was until we discovered the standard candle. Our estimates of star mass are very inaccurate, even brightness is difficult. We are getting better at it, which is how I know almost everything you learned in college is flawed, because since then all these ideas have been challenged and improved or discarded.

 

[DrPizza]

In the 80s, really? lol



Counting to one billion would require most of your life, but imagining a billion is fairly easy to do for people today, since so many things these days are measured in billions and billionths. A number most people however can not comprehend is the age of the universe at life extpectancy, which is when the very last proton distintegrates, thus ending the rule of regular matter, 10^35 years away. Also, there will be nothing at this point to retrun to anywhere. The big crunch is very debunked these days.



We are currently coliding with some galaxies.

I disagree. It seems that a majority of people think nothing of 3 billion, but a number like 862 million seems larger to them.

 

[Triumph]

We can only measure very close stars' distances with paralax, and with low accuracy, as in not accurate enough to get there. We had no clue how large the universe really was until we discovered the standard candle. Our estimates of star mass are very inaccurate, even brightness is difficult. We are getting better at it, which is how I know almost everything you learned in college is flawed, because since then all these ideas have been challenged and improved or discarded.

I want my money back.

 

[Malak]

I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't seen you troll plenty of science threads, constantly posting incorrect information, throwing doubt (through incorrect information) any time aspects of evolution or the big bang are brought up. The post of yours that I quoted was nothing short of sheer ignorance. However, having judged you as somewhat (at least) intelligent, I doubt such an error was made out of ignorance.

So basically what you are saying that I am completely self-aware and intentionally posted something with the intent of trolling?

 

[Malak]

How so? Depends on your definition of accurate. From parallax change over a period of time, we can determine the distance. By observing pairs of orbiting stars, we can determine their mass. By observing the frequency of their light output we can tell what they are burning (hydrogen or heavier elements). If we know its mass and we know what it is burning, we can deduce how long it takes to burn. By observing different stars at different phases of their life, we can get an idea of the life cycle of an individual star. Now all of this is fairly scientifically sound, most of the math comes from Newton and Kepler, equations that have been around for 100's of years that describe everyday occurences, and not always needing relativity to explain it, and certainly not fancy unproven theoretical physics like string theory or multiverses or whatever.

I took an astrophysics class in college and was surprised to learn how much of it is simply an application of Physics 101. So there are definitely ways to measure the lifespan of a star, but if your definition of accurate is different than mine, then sure I can see how you might say that we can't do it "accurately."

We have a insignificant amount of information, many of the formulas are based on assumptions we can't prove, and we have no way of testing the theory. To make assumptions on data and then claim to accurately predict a lifespan of millions of years is... arrogant at best. We simply don't know or understand enough to say we can accurately predict something like this. Even the ranges that people predict are huge.

It is not unusual to see an article about some scientists discovering that something they always believed was actually wrong, or hearing a scientist even say, "This shouldn't happen." We don't need to make a definition of everything right away, it's okay to say that we don't know something.

 

[darkswordsman17]

So basically what you are saying that I am completely self-aware and intentionally posted something with the intent of trolling?

I think he can retract his statement that you're at least [somewhat] intelligent. STFU and get out of threads where you clearly have no business because you just derail them and try to inject your own bullshit ideas that have no basis in anything whatsoever.

Stop playing the victim too. He brought up religion because that's always been your excuse for being such a dumbass in topics like these.

 

[Malak]

Stop playing the victim too. He brought up religion because that's always been your excuse for being such a dumbass in topics like these.

He brought up religion because that is his excuse. I have never brought it up in any scientific thread ever in the history of my time on this forum. Feel free to check on that.

 

[darkswordsman17]

We have a insignificant amount of information, many of the formulas are based on assumptions we can't prove, and we have no way of testing the theory. To make assumptions on data and then claim to accurately predict a lifespan of millions of years is... arrogant at best. We simply don't know or understand enough to say we can accurately predict something like this. Even the ranges that people predict are huge.

It is not unusual to see an article about some scientists discovering that something they always believed was actually wrong, or hearing a scientist even say, "This shouldn't happen." We don't need to make a definition of everything right away, it's okay to say that we don't know something.

Ah, yes, the great old, "we don't know it absolutely right now, so we never will, so it makes no sense to even consider it" argument. The same is true of your beliefs, but even moreso, because there is nothing to gain from those, whereas all this science based stuff you try to trash does actually have benefits.

Your first paragraph is basically just complete bullshit too. You have such little understanding of science that you can't understand this stuff, so you think no one else can either.

Also, its hilarious that you act like scientists being willing to change their ideas as they gain more knowledge and information is negative, when that is one of the greatest strengths of science.

 

[Malak]

Ah, yes, the great old, "we don't know it absolutely right now, so we never will, so it makes no sense to even consider it" argument. The same is true of your beliefs, but even moreso, because there is nothing to gain from those, whereas all this science based stuff you try to trash does actually have benefits.

I never said we will never know. My point was that we don't actually know it now and we shouldn't act like we do. My beliefs have nothing to do with this in any way, so once again you are trolling based on religion and not taking this seriously at all.

Also, its hilarious that you act like scientists being willing to change their ideas as they gain more knowledge and information is negative, when that is one of the greatest strengths of science.

I never said it was negative, nor implied it. Again, my point is that we don't actually know a lot that we say we know. We try too hard to jump forward.

 

[micaturbo]

I fail to see where Malak's religious beliefs come in to play in any of his posts. Based on some of the replies he's getting, it looks like his beliefs seem to be blinding some of you and not him.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

On the subject of time who decided there would be 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in 1 hour ? Seems like odd numbers to use.

Someone else mentioned it, but if you want more reading you can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't think there's anyone here who hasn't seen you troll plenty of science threads, constantly posting incorrect information, throwing doubt (through incorrect information) any time aspects of evolution or the big bang are brought up. The post of yours that I quoted was nothing short of sheer ignorance. However, having judged you as somewhat (at least) intelligent, I doubt such an error was made out of ignorance.

Just to make a pertinent contribution, it is true to say that we can measure our distance in time from the Big Bang with relative accuracy, but it is another set of assumptions to postulate that the Big Bang is "the beginning of the universe." That we cannot presently see past a point is not a sound justification for deciding that nothing exists past it to be seen.

The cosmological models en vogue right now propose that the Big Bang represents the origin of our local patch of space-time, while conceivably infinite similar "bubbles" of space-time co-exist within a larger manifold. In this case, there arises a semantical debate about what the word "universe" describes. Personally, I've always taken it to mean "the collection of everything that exists," in which case the Big Bang would not represent "the beginning of the universe," strictly speaking.

It is unclear if this circumstance was the impetus to Malak's comments, however.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Well, the current model is a bit of a hybrid, saying that eventually everything will be sucked into black holes, and then all of those black holes will eventually merge, creating another universal singularity.

Current where? LMFAO