The scale of the universe

So let me get this straight. The website admits that we can't see beyond a certain point. Then it goes on to assert that it knows the age of the universe. Based on what? Their limited knowledge? lol.

 

Heh. I did the same when I saw that the Giant Earthworm was 8m (or something like that) long.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2011 4:32 PM ---

No, based on the "constant" that there is nothing faster than the speed of light. If you can't see beyond X lightyears, then it is logical to conclude that the universe is not older than the same X lightyears limit.

There are reasons to severely doubt the legitimacy of the estimated age of the Universe, but your arguments are certainly not good reasons for such doubt.

EDIT: The best reason out there so far, is that the speed of light (c) may not be a constant, as most scientists presume it is.

 

You mean like the fact that we have no idea how big it is?

 

Actual size of the Universe has nothing to do with anything here. Good that you're on the same page, though.

 

It's obviously beyond your ability to understand, Eddie.
If you're truly interested in grasping the concept, I suggest you do some research rather than make silly, ignorant comments about
what others already understand.

 

So the fact that we have no idea how big the universe is or the fact that we have no idea what sort of matter or lifeforms exist beyond our scope of view is irrelevant? Ok. Let's just state facts based on an extremely limited knowledge of that which we are measuring.

 

We're talking about the age of the Universe here, not the size or what else it may contain. Way to stay relevant to the issue in question.

 

How can you define something if your knowledge of it is limited only to what you can see? How do you determine the age of x if you can't define x? In order to define x you need to know all of its characteristics.

 

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific studies involving all sorts of measurement methodology to ascertain the approximate age of the Universe, and yet Mr. Travel 100 here holds all the arguments as to why they're wrong and how they lack logical coherence in their approach.

I actually mentioned a reason as to how the age approximations of the Universe may be wrong. You question the data's factual value based on no knowledge whatsoever as to why they could be wrong.

As with the Gaddafi thread, I'll ignore your idiocy in this one as well until you make arguments based on relevant and legitimate issues.

 

Based on one characteristic that has been defined - the constant speed of light - the universe is at least 13.75 billion years old. If it's one day discovered that the speed of light can exceed 299,792,458 miles/second - it may be revealed that the age of the universe is older.

Why do all characteristics of anything need to be defined to determine a single characteristic?

 

The universe is undefinable at this time. You can't measure something that you can't define.

 

Eddie, it's called a "theory". And it's developed using the available data. And the available data points to the fact that it's ~14 billions years old and at least ~28 billion light years in diameter.

That's what science does. It's the reason you haven't died of smallpox.

 

Oh, I know it's a theory. I just wish people wouldn't state it as fact. The universe could be trillions or quadrillions of years old. We don't know. So to throw out a figure based on our limited knowledge of the universe just seems foolish.

 

So, the argument is that you can't know anything about anything unless you already know everything about it. Gotcha.

Not quite true though, is it?

Can I measure the depth of the sea without knowing how big it is? Oh, yes.

Can I determine the age of a piece of rock without knowing how large the overall rock it was taken from is? It seems I can.

I'm not convinced that there is a point that you are trying to make. Maybe you are just playing with the subject. If you have a point, why not state your position?

 

The important part (the hover text): "I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

 

You're confusing acceptence of widely accepted theory with flat-out statements, which actually makes you look foolish in my eyes. You know where folks are coming from and the evidence they're citing and you're splitting hairs to turn this thread into some sort of half-assed debate of some ill-conceived notion of your own. The above basically reads as "we shouldn't even try to guess." That's classic internet troll behavior. Don't think that it's gone unnoticed.

Trolls rank just slightly higher than spammers for me. Just sayin'.

 

Theory - "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine".

In other words, beyond a hypothesis.

 

You can measure the depths at known points. But you can't measure the depths at unknown points.

That reinforces my point.

That people shouldn't state theories as fact. That's my point. The age of the universe is unknown, period end of story. Scientists estimate the universe to be 14 billion years old when the fact is they could be countless trillions of years off in their estimation. That's why it seems foolish to me to give estimations.

 

OK. I'm now convinced that you are just trolling rather than interested in discussion. I'm out.

 

i enjoyed the site linked in the op until the music started it ran the whole thing into a thick thick band of awful cheese.

why do people associate questions of scale and the universe with such shitty music?
who made up this cosmic music thing?
is there an office that controls it?
can we burn it down?