1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by KenS, Sep 13, 2019.

  1. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,925
    Ratings:
    +2,121
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,886
    Ratings:
    +2,560
    Does that mean the universe will appear in 1987 billion years or so?
     
    • Funny Funny x 5
  3. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    16,970
    Ratings:
    +5,137
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,314
    Ratings:
    +10,442
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Curious as to where the 15% error figure comes from. Care to share?

    .
     
  5. KenS

    KenS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    7,925
    Ratings:
    +2,121
    Religion:
    Judeo/Christian
    Look at the scientific sight and figure out percentages.
     
  6. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,424
    Ratings:
    +854
    Religion:
    It exists
    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    151,321
    Ratings:
    +42,887
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    You rascal.....making fun of a grossly misplaced decimal point.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,689
    Ratings:
    +5,217
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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.

    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.
     
    #9 shunyadragon, Sep 13, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  9. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,689
    Ratings:
    +5,217
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The journal article is not available so I doubt you read it nor understand it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,689
    Ratings:
    +5,217
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,689
    Ratings:
    +5,217
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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.
     
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,791
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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. :p
     
  13. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,791
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    • Like Like x 1
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,689
    Ratings:
    +5,217
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,791
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Ah. Your fear is evident.
    Knock two billion years off, and you change the evolution time table.
    Knock ten billion off :eek:
     
  16. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,791
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    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 [​IMG]
    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. [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,023
    Ratings:
    +11,656
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    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.

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

    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.

    Only if you don't read carefully or understand what is being discussed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,023
    Ratings:
    +11,656
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Why would knocking 2 billion years off the age of the universe affect evolution at all?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,791
    Ratings:
    +1,324
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Hello @Polymath257. I expected you.
    Why should it not?
     
Loading...