I find it interesting that the planet Earth has been around for most of the time the universe is estimated to have existed after the Big Bang (6 billion years, if I recall correctly). Even if life wasn't around for most of that, it's still impressive.
14 billion IIRC. (edit: yep.) I think the oldest galaxy we've discovered via redshift is around 13 to 12 billion years old. I'm not sure.
A few years ago there was a 30 second visible large star-sized flareup that was detected and found to be a gamma ray burst from 7 billion light years away, considering it was able to show up as visible light here tells us just how powerful of a burst it came from. Also we're in the same neighborhood of a very, very, very unstable star (Eta Carinae) that is capable of such a thing. Sleep tight
What I'm saying is, the universe is big. Really really big. And really, really, really old. We're going to need a lot more than what we have to get the universe's age.
"I could be wrong, but I believe *religion* of three hundred years ago said Earth was 6,000 years old."
What I'm saying is, the universe is big. Really really big. And really, really, really old. We're going to need a lot more than what we have to get the universe's age.
Not really. Just because it's big doesn't mean it's hard to do.
The known universe, but do they know how far the entire thing reaches? Last I checked it was only a sphere of visible light that reaches us, but I may not have read things on that that are up-to-date.
Because of "redshift." I've probably got this kind of wrong but whenever light is moving away from us, it shifts to visible red. That's how we can tell the age of shit we find in stuff like the Hubble Deep Field.
The known universe, but do they know how far the entire thing reaches? Last I checked it was only a sphere of visible light that reaches us, but I may not have read things on that that are up-to-date.
Because of "redshift." I've probably got this kind of wrong but whenever light is moving away from us, it shifts to visible red. That's how we can tell the age of shit we find in stuff like the Hubble Deep Field.
We can't observe past a certain point because the light from that point hasn't reached us yet.
See, the further away something is, the older we see it because light only travels at a finite speed. And because the universe is of a finite age, eventually we hit the cosmic background radiation, which is from way closer to the big bang, at a point where everything was pretty much undifferentiated fuzz.
Judging from the red shift of the background radiation, we can see how long ago that was, and use that to estimate how old the universe is by extrapolating backwards!
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
I wanna go see the Cetus Dwarf!
I probably should be more caught up in this subject than I am. I guess that's just what happens when you specialize in a few areas of knowledge.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Isn't the surface of Jupiter pretty small compared to the rest of the planet, though? They are called the gas giants, after all.
I'd love to see the surface of Venus. Now if only we could invent cameras that are heat and acid-resistant enough to get there.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
Jupiter is thought to consist of a dense core with a mixture of elements, a surrounding layer of liquid metallic hydrogen with some helium, and an outer layer predominantly of molecular hydrogen.
So we have a guess, but nothing conclusive. I didn't know it involved a metallic hydrogen layer, though. That sounds interesting too. Kinda like the mantle under the Earth's crust, maybe?
Science is interesting. Just using a bit of math and some observation you can extrapolate and predict almost any natural phenomena.
At the same time, I've kinda become bored of it. It isn't as facinating once you know how it's done, y'know? It's just a set of tools, simple, astoundingly elegant ones to be sure, but still it's the same set applied to different problems. That's why I've become more interested in philosophy, which is sorta the opposite, tackling a small number of problems with an endless array of tools.
Isn't the surface of Jupiter pretty small compared to the rest of the planet, though? They are called the gas giants, after all.
I'd love to see the surface of Venus. Now if only we could invent cameras that are heat and acid-resistant enough to get there.
Good news, we've already mapped the entire surface of Venus. Also, I'm pretty sure that there's some actual camera pics by the Russians some years back, before the lander melted under the intense heat.
As for Jupiter, I can't remember if the "surface" is liquid or whatnot. There's stratified layers of gas clouds but I don't know what goes on below that.
Because I think it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll be wrong. After all, cutting age technology three hundred years ago said that the earth was six thousand years old.
No
That was the ramblings of some Irish Bishop who used the Bible to date the Earth. The Date he came up with was that the Creation of the Earth happened on the 23/10/4004 BC.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
You know, now would be a perfect time to mention one of the underlying principles of modern science: "All ideas are tentative." Scientists are well aware that we may discover new things that change our way of thinking. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make estimates like this, as long as they're reasonable, based on observations and evidence from the natural world, and can be tested.
You know, now would be a perfect time to mention one of the underlying principles of modern science: "All ideas are tentative." Scientists are well aware that we may discover new things that change our way of thinking. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make estimates like this, as long as they're reasonable, based on observations and evidence from the natural world, and can be tested.
While it's true that scientific theories are open to being revised and updated (this is the problem of induction), I think it bears noting that it's generally assumed that we can at least be reasonably confident in anything we have consistently observed (e.g. the sun will rise tomorrow). Although human error is quite possible, it must be stressed that science is rigorous.
Which is to say, Kexruct, that a scientific theory might be wrong, but it's more likely to be right than a gut feeling, even when scientific findings seem counterintuitive.
That was the ramblings of some Irish Bishop who used the Bible to date the Earth. The Date he came up with was that the Creation of the Earth happened on the 23/10/4004 BC.
That figure was far from accepted by everybody, and it contradicted the geological evidence too severely for geologists to take it seriously.
There was actually a pretty complicated controversy surrounding the age of the Earth. By the 19th century most educated people accepted that it was millions of years old, but they still tended to severely underestimate it. Lord Kelvin's assumption that the sun would have burned out by now if it was more than a few hundred million years old confused matters somewhat.
Remember back in the 50s when they'd record like Elvis singing YOU AIN'T NOTHIN BUT A HOUND DOG and then they'd turn the record over and reverse it and it was all NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP NYERP and people were all like, "That is actually the voice of Satan coming from that song."
^That's what I was trying to get at. I had meant to say something along those lines earlier, but I couldn't find the right words. You explained it a lot better than I could have. Thanks!
There was apparently a Hellenistic Jewish scholar during the first millennium B.C. who estimated the age of the universe at somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten billion years old based on an unusual interpretation of the use of the Hebrew word usually translated as "day" in Genesis.
Really, this whole "Young Earth" thing is a pretty new concept.
Well, my thing is that I will accept the answer I'm given as right for the simple reason that I have nothing better, but ther has to be more out there, y'know?
Well, my thing is that I will accept the answer I'm given as right for the simple reason that I have nothing better, but ther has to be more out there, y'know?
All I'm saying is that I don't like the idea of attaching numbers to something as big wonderful as the universe. The known universe? That's fine. The entire universe? That I don't like.
Comments
What I'm saying is, the universe is big. Really really big. And really, really, really old. We're going to need a lot more than what we have to get the universe's age.
"I could be wrong, but I believe *religion* of three hundred years ago said Earth was 6,000 years old."
Religion and science.
Judging from the red shift of the background radiation, we can see how long ago that was, and use that to estimate how old the universe is by extrapolating backwards!
Easy as cake.
At the same time, I've kinda become bored of it. It isn't as facinating once you know how it's done, y'know? It's just a set of tools, simple, astoundingly elegant ones to be sure, but still it's the same set applied to different problems. That's why I've become more interested in philosophy, which is sorta the opposite, tackling a small number of problems with an endless array of tools.
....Maybe that's just me, I dunno.
That was the ramblings of some Irish Bishop who used the Bible to date the Earth. The Date he came up with was that the Creation of the Earth happened on the 23/10/4004 BC.
My point exactly.
Some people believed the ramblings of an Irish Bishop
Some did not
The dude used documents and loads and loads and loads of research, all the best historical data he could find.
Give the man some credit, he did the equivalent of inventing a typerwriter that can post messages to someone who lives on the moon.
Hard work and relentless effort + the best historical research and information available = SCIENCE.
Bow before the Irish Monk before his army of Illuminated Manuscript Robots bends you into submission!
Muahahaha!
All shall kneel before my robots!
Which is to say, Kexruct, that a scientific theory might be wrong, but it's more likely to be right than a gut feeling, even when scientific findings seem counterintuitive.
That figure was far from accepted by everybody, and it contradicted the geological evidence too severely for geologists to take it seriously.
There was actually a pretty complicated controversy surrounding the age of the Earth. By the 19th century most educated people accepted that it was millions of years old, but they still tended to severely underestimate it. Lord Kelvin's assumption that the sun would have burned out by now if it was more than a few hundred million years old confused matters somewhat.
By universe I mean all encompassing everything.
Its original meaning.
All I'm saying is that I don't like the idea of attaching numbers to something as big wonderful as the universe. The known universe? That's fine. The entire universe? That I don't like.