The Universe Could be Younger by 2 BILLION Years???

[Kenny]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

 

[nPeace]

Just another debate.
But Jee's approach is only one of a few new ones that have led to different numbers in recent years, reopening a simmering astronomical debate of the 1990s that had been seemingly settled.

 

[Curious George]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

Does that mean the universe will appear in 1987 billion years or so?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

From the linked page:

"Lensing approach to the Hubble constant
The current expansion rate of the Universe is parametrized by the Hubble constant, H0. Different methods of measuring H0 produce results that disagree with each other, which could be a sign of new physics or of systematic errors in the methods. Jee et al. have analyzed two gravitational lensing systems to determine their distances (see the Perspective by Davis). They use these as benchmarks for a measurement of H0. The precision is not sufficient to resolve the debate but does bypass some of the systematic uncertainties. Observations of more lensing systems will be required to narrow down the value of H0."

this provides some perspective on what the study was attempting to do, to measure the Hubble Constant using a new and different method.

The abstract of the article:

"Abstract
The local expansion rate of the Universe is parametrized by the Hubble constant, H0" role="presentation">H0

, the ratio between recession velocity and distance. Different techniques lead to inconsistent estimates of H0" role="presentation">H0. Observations of Type Ia supernovae (SNe) can be used to measure H0" role="presentation">H0, but this requires an external calibrator to convert relative distances to absolute ones. We use the angular diameter distance to strong gravitational lenses as a suitable calibrator, which is only weakly sensitive to cosmological assumptions. We determine the angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses, 810−130+160" role="presentation">810+160−130 and 1230−150+180" role="presentation">1230+180−150 megaparsec, at redshifts z=0.295" role="presentation">z=0.295 and 0.6304. Using these absolute distances to calibrate 740 previously measured relative distances to SNe, we measure the Hubble constant to be H0=82.4−8.3+8.4" role="presentation">H0=82.4+8.4−8.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec."

So, what the authors have done is develope a new method to determine the Hubble constant, which has resulted in a value that would lead to an estimate of the universe's age that is in the lower range of the current estimates.

This being science, others in the field will read and test both their model and their data, which will be the subject of other future studies.

 

[Skwim]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

Curious as to where the 15% error figure comes from. Care to share?

.

 

[Kenny]

Curious as to where the 15% error figure comes from. Care to share?

.

Look at the scientific sight and figure out percentages.

 

[We Never Know]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

I'm guessing you mean "2000 million years" which would be "2 billion years".
It very well may be an error however even at 11 billion years, that's quite a bit more than the 6000 years in the bible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does that mean the universe will appear in 1987 billion years or so?

You rascal.....making fun of a grossly misplaced decimal point.

 

[shunyadragon]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

Science does not propose that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago. You math is dismal. The earliest life is estimated at between 3.7 and 4.2 billion years ago.

Careful the science used here negates anything much younger. Our solar system is pretty much over 4,5 billion years old.

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

Wishful thinking among Creationists, but no. Actually if you read all the research there is a range of estimates, some a little older. Actually if the universe is indeed younger there are stars that are older, and if so they are from other older universes. Also be advised read your reference carefully.

 

[shunyadragon]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change? If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

The journal article is not available so I doubt you read it nor understand it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just another debate.
But Jee's approach is only one of a few new ones that have led to different numbers in recent years, reopening a simmering astronomical debate of the 1990s that had been seemingly settled.

Not really, just speculative wishful thinking of Creationists. There is no question our planet and universe is over 4,5 billion years old. The universe is billions of years older regardless of how you wish to try and manipulate science with blue smoke and mirrors.

 

[shunyadragon]

Look at the scientific sight and figure out percentages.

The article is not available, but nonetheless it could be 15% older by your loosey goosey math. The average is likely what works. Sort of like your head in the oven and your feet in the freezer.

 

[nPeace]

Not really, just speculative wishful thinking of Creationists. There is no question our planet and universe is over 4,5 billion years old. The universe is billions of years older regardless of how you wish to try and manipulate science with blue smoke and mirrors.

I'm not wishing anything. This means nothing to me.
You seem to think that it matters to me how old the universe and the earth is. it doesn't. Why should it? I am no YEC.
So you got me as to why this post is to me.

So sorry. your attack back-fired, and your accusations missed their target.

 

[nPeace]

@KenS this is the article. Your link shows no information.

 

[shunyadragon]

From the linked page:

"Lensing approach to the Hubble constant
The current expansion rate of the Universe is parametrized by the Hubble constant, H0. Different methods of measuring H0 produce results that disagree with each other, which could be a sign of new physics or of systematic errors in the methods. Jee et al. have analyzed two gravitational lensing systems to determine their distances (see the Perspective by Davis). They use these as benchmarks for a measurement of H0. The precision is not sufficient to resolve the debate but does bypass some of the systematic uncertainties. Observations of more lensing systems will be required to narrow down the value of H0."

this provides some perspective on what the study was attempting to do, to measure the Hubble Constant using a new and different method.

The abstract of the article:

"Abstract
The local expansion rate of the Universe is parametrized by the Hubble constant, H0" role="presentation">H0

, the ratio between recession velocity and distance. Different techniques lead to inconsistent estimates of H0" role="presentation">H0. Observations of Type Ia supernovae (SNe) can be used to measure H0" role="presentation">H0, but this requires an external calibrator to convert relative distances to absolute ones. We use the angular diameter distance to strong gravitational lenses as a suitable calibrator, which is only weakly sensitive to cosmological assumptions. We determine the angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses, 810−130+160" role="presentation">810+160−130 and 1230−150+180" role="presentation">1230+180−150 megaparsec, at redshifts z=0.295" role="presentation">z=0.295 and 0.6304. Using these absolute distances to calibrate 740 previously measured relative distances to SNe, we measure the Hubble constant to be H0=82.4−8.3+8.4" role="presentation">H0=82.4+8.4−8.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec."

So, what the authors have done is develope a new method to determine the Hubble constant, which has resulted in a value that would lead to an estimate of the universe's age that is in the lower range of the current estimates.

This being science, others in the field will read and test both their model and their data, which will be the subject of other future studies.

Note highlighted the actual conclusions of the research is the estimated age of the universe is within the current range of estimates, and subject to further studies.

 

[nPeace]

Note highlighted the actual conclusions of the research, and subject to further studies.

Ah. Your fear is evident.
Knock two billion years off, and you change the evolution time table.
Knock ten billion off

 

[nPeace]

Oh @KenS, I'm going to thank you for this OP, for one reason.
For some scientist, who wear their PhD like a badge, it causes them to shake at the knees a bit (even if only temporary ).
Why? Because, if it were to become accepted it would be to them like
They don't like to know they argue so strongly that something is correct, and accurate, then to hear it is not... despite being reminded, it could change tomorrow.

 

[Polymath257]

A measurement of the Hubble constant from angular diameter distances to two gravitational lenses | Science

What does that translate into besides it being about a 15% error?

First, 2 billion years, not the 2000 billion years of the thread title.

From the article:
"Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it's possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger."

Looks to me like the uncertainties in the measurement of the Hubble constant still are consistent with the numbers obtained from the background radiation.

Does it mean that the calculations of when things existed on earth change?

No. The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. These measurements have no effect on the age of the Earth.

If before they believed that the first organism existed 13 billion years ago and now it is only 11 billion how do we factor the changes in when they believed everything else existed?

Organism? No, the first *organisms* existed about 3.8 billion years ago on Earth. The times mentioned in the article are about 10 billion years earlier.

If there is a 15% error, are there other errors that could make it even younger?

Things that make your mind go "hmmm" with thought.

Only if you don't read carefully or understand what is being discussed.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah. Your fear is evident.
Knock two billion years off, and you change the evolution time table.
Knock ten billion off

Why would knocking 2 billion years off the age of the universe affect evolution at all?

 

[nPeace]

Why would knocking 2 billion years off the age of the universe affect evolution at all?

Hello @Polymath257. I expected you.
Why should it not?