Universe is younger than previously thought (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
22,041
Reaction score
45,197
Online
WASHINGTON (AP) — The universe is expanding faster than it used to, meaning it’s about a billion years younger than we thought, a new study by a Nobel Prize winner says. And that’s sending a shudder through the world of physics, making astronomers re-think some of their most basic concepts.

At issue is a number called the Hubble constant, a calculation for how fast the universe is expanding. Some scientists call it the most important number in cosmology, the study of the origin and development of the universe.

Using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, Johns Hopkins University astronomer Adam Riess concluded in this week’s Astrophysical Journal that the figure is 9% higher than the previous calculation, which was based on studying leftovers from the Big Bang.

The trouble is, Riess and others think both calculations are correct.

Confused? That’s OK, so are the experts.

They find the conflict so confounding that they are talking about coming up with “new physics,” incorporating perhaps some yet-to-be-discovered particle or other cosmic “fudge factors” like dark energy or dark matter.

“It’s looking more and more like we’re going to need something new to explain this,” said Riess, who won the 2011 Nobel in physics.

NASA astrophysicist John Mather, another Nobel winner, said this leaves two obvious options: “1. We’re making mistakes we can’t find yet. 2. Nature has something we can’t find yet.”

Even with the discovery, life continues on Earth the way it always has. But to astrophysicists trying to get a handle on our place in this expanding universe, this is a cosmic concern.....................

 
And Young Earth Creationists everywhere open up their I told you so binders in preparation for the YouTube/Facebook/Twitter wars to come...
God I certainly hope not, but it certainly should be a lesson for those who loudly argue about "established science" and "it's been proven" about a lot of things, whether it's climate change, how/when the earth began, or any number of countless issues.
 
God I certainly hope not, but it certainly should be a lesson for those who loudly argue about "established science" and "it's been proven" about a lot of things, whether it's climate change, how/when the earth began, or any number of countless issues.

Wait, what? No one said science is infallible. When new evidence is found, science revises its hypotheses, theories, and even laws. That's a far cry from, "See, since science can change in the face of new evidence, we should never trust science." You're making a logical leap. If you disagree with the scientific consensus, you need to provide evidence to forge a new consensus. In the absence of new evidence, you stick with the existing consensus.
 
Wait, what? No one said science is infallible. When new evidence is found, science revises its hypotheses, theories, and even laws. That's a far cry from, "See, since science can change in the face of new evidence, we should never trust science." You're making a logical leap. If you disagree with the scientific consensus, you need to provide evidence to forge a new consensus. In the absence of new evidence, you stick with the existing consensus.
I was not saying "F" science, i was merely making a point that we only know as much as we think we know...and it should be a lesson to us.
 
And Young Earth Creationists everywhere open up their I told you so binders in preparation for the YouTube/Facebook/Twitter wars to come...

Perhaps but there's a massive difference between making a 10% adjustment in the scientific/physical-cosmology age of the universe and validating young earth theories.

One is still operating in billions of years while the other is in thousands. The order of magnitude remains dramatic.
 
I've thought they figured in the Dark Matter years ago to explain the ever expanding universe and why it hadn't slowed down like they thought it would.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom