Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By forrest noble
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By forrest noble

Thread: Big Bang potential problems

  1. #1 Big Bang potential problems 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Big Bang Potential Problems.

    Question from wegs,

    What do you think about number 6 in the link below?

    #6)
    The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

    BB top 30 problems

    Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage argued for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again

    wegs,

    #6 from the link you provided, is quoted above. This has been a long time Steady-State argument against the BB model. The simple question is how old are the oldest stars in our galaxy. Some astronomers believe that the oldest individual stars are by measurement, 16 billion years old minimum or older. The vast majority of astronomers who have done the same studies using the same information, conclude that globular clusters are maybe no more than 12.5 billion years old average age. The BB age of the universe is now at about 13.8 billion years, not what is shown in the quote above. The truth is in the details and interpretation of the data, so discussion or argument beyond this point, without knowing all details and interpretations, would make no sense.


    Star age dating can be based upon ratios of observable elements that decay within stars, and knowledge and assumptive extrapolations about decay rates within stars, along with possible corroborative methods.


    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 07:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Re-run. Seen it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Smartest move I made since coming here was putting forrest on ignore.
    shlunka likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Thanks Forrest for posting that in this section.I've read articles that have expounded on it more, I'll post them here for further discussion. (Relating to #6 from the link I sent you above)Alex...if there is a section to discuss these things and Forrest is posting in the appropriate sub-forum, why do you say that? I believe disproving the BB or dismantling the theory will be near impossible, but...it is still possible that as science continues to evolve, we may find some new insights into questions that haven't yet been answered.I'm just curious ...why is it "taboo" to discuss such insights? :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    6)The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

    BB top 30 problems

    Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again
    More BS from FN. I think that there should be a rule: Anyone who persistently cites the same crackpot source should have the post go directly to Trash.

    Citing an unreferenced quotation from a crank website (metaresearch.org is an infamous hangout for crackpots) is an anti-intellectual offense. As an antidote, readers interested in actual science may wish to read Ned Wright's synopsis (with references!): Age of the Universe

    There you will see that the lower bound on the estimates is quite a bit lower than FN would have you believe (~11Gyr). Contrary to FN, Wright doesn't just pull the numbers out of his...hat. He references multiple sources from the peer-reviewed literature. The range of uncertainty for the age of globular clusters is quite large, with much of the range well within the WMAP estimates of the age of the universe by a comfortable margin. There is no age paradox, despite what FN and other pro-steady state fanatics would erroneously wish to argue.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    I cited that source in another thread that Forrest started...and to follow forum rules, he posted it here to answer a question I had on #6 of the list. I didn't want you to have to fall on that sword, Forrest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    tk421,

    This was a question to me by wegs. The source for the question was her own. When contradicting postings without corroboration, is the same as saying nothing at all, nothing but belligerence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I cited that source in another thread that Forrest started...and to follow forum rules, he posted it here to answer a question I had on #6 of the list. I didn't want you to have to fall on that sword, Forrest.
    Hi wegs,

    This is the proper place for any such discussions regarding problems with the BB or any mainstream models. If you have any other questions regarding problems with theory, or my opinions please ask. Ignore the peanut gallery if they provide no links for their statements.

    "Our best ages for all three clusters are about 13 Gyr, and even smaller ages are possible"

    [astro-ph/9603092] The age of the oldest globular clusters

    Those members opposing statements without offering corroborative links, are wasting their own time and everybody else's.




    regards, Forrest
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 17th, 2013 at 11:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    tk421,

    This was a question to me by wegs. The source for the question was her own. When contradicting postings without corroboration, is the same as saying nothing at all, nothing but belligerence.
    Without corroboration? What are you babbling about?

    I gave a link to Ned Wright's site. His site has a full complement of links to the original sources of his statements. These statements contradict yours. Let readers look at the full evidence, instead of selectively cutting and pasting from the web only those assertions that align with your ill-founded beliefs.

    For you to make baseless claims such as "without corroboration" is nothing but belligerence.

    Cut it out.
    Last edited by tk421; August 17th, 2013 at 11:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    @ tk421;

    Ned Wright's site is beyond awesome! Thank you much for posting it. I have a particular interest in the question that prompted Forrest to post this thread...the info is so thorough.To Forrest's credit ..I just think he was explaining the counter argument to me, not necessarily agreeing with it himself.I looked at the tutorials from NW's site, and have a few questions, so maybe I will start a new thread relating to those specific tutorials, as they wouldn't fit in this sub forum.

    Thank u again!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I cited that source in another thread that Forrest started...and to follow forum rules, he posted it here to answer a question I had on #6 of the list. I didn't want you to have to fall on that sword, Forrest.
    Hi wegs,This is the proper place for any such discussions regarding problems with the BB or any mainstream models. If you have any other questions regarding problems with theory, or my opinions please ask. Ignore the peanut gallery if they provide no links for their statements. "Our best ages for all three clusters are about 13 Gyr, and even smaller ages are possible"[astro-ph/9603092] The age of the oldest globular clustersThose members opposing statements without offering corroborative links, are wasting their own time and everybody else's.regards, Forrest
    Hey;

    Did you get a chance to look at the site? I'm not familiar with everyone's stances here; are you not a strong supporter of the BB theory, Forrest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    @ tk421;

    Ned Wright's site is beyond awesome! Thank you much for posting it. I have a particular interest in the question that prompted Forrest to post this thread...the info is so thorough.To Forrest's credit ..I just think he was explaining the counter argument to me, not necessarily agreeing with it himself.I looked at the tutorials from NW's site, and have a few questions, so maybe I will start a new thread relating to those specific tutorials, as they wouldn't fit in this sub forum.

    Thank u again!
    Dear wegs,

    You are a very kind and generous spirit. Alas, FN certainly believes in a steady-state universe, which makes him over-eager to grasp at any tidbit that could be (mis)read either as support for SS theory, or as a "problem" for BB theory. It's quite a job to keep him honest.

    By all means, do ask any questions that arise as you read Ned Wright's pages (or anything else)! His faq and tutorials are quite well written, and point to numerous supporting references so that the interested reader can dive more deeply into the specifics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    These statements contradict yours
    Really?

    Source and quotes please? none of my statements are contradicted by your asserted source(s). Again belligerence, rarely ever civil discussion on your part. Why?

    .......What are you babbling about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    E
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    @ tk421;Ned Wright's site is beyond awesome! Thank you much for posting it. I have a particular interest in the question that prompted Forrest to post this thread...the info is so thorough.To Forrest's credit ..I just think he was explaining the counter argument to me, not necessarily agreeing with it himself.I looked at the tutorials from NW's site, and have a few questions, so maybe I will start a new thread relating to those specific tutorials, as they wouldn't fit in this sub forum.Thank u again!
    Dear wegs,You are a very kind and generous spirit. Alas, FN certainly believes in a steady-state universe, which makes him over-eager to grasp at any tidbit that could be (mis)read either as support for SS theory, or as a "problem" for BB theory. It's quite a job to keep him honest. By all means, do ask any questions that arise as you read Ned Wright's pages (or anything else)! His faq and tutorials are quite well written, and point to numerous supporting references so that the interested reader can dive more deeply into the specifics.
    Yes, I saw that re: the references. Honestly, how many times are you looking something up, you find a decent enough source, but meh...it doesn't have all you need. So you have to go searching again. This site is so well constructed, user friendly (meaning the info is well organized) and THOROUGH! I'm enthusiastic can u tell?

    I will put together my questions and post them...Stay tuned. haha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "Our best ages for all three clusters are about 13 Gyr, and even smaller ages are possible"

    [astro-ph/9603092] The age of the oldest globular clusters

    Those members opposing statements without offering corroborative links, are wasting their own time and everybody else's.
    So now you're contradicting the citation in your first post, which gives an outdated estimate of 16+/-2Gyr, and cite the very paper that corrected that wrong estimate. Nice -- thanks for doing my work for me! [I continue to wonder if you ever read the papers you cite. You have a documented habit of selective quotation, often to the extent that your synopsis conveys precisely the opposite of what the paper says. I notice that John Galt just called you on this in another thread. Bad habit, old chum.]

    So now you can calm down about a lack of corroboration. You've fully supported what I said about what Ned Wright summarizes.

    By extension of that chain, you must now logically withdraw your assertion that there is an age paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    These statements contradict yours
    Really?

    Source and quotes please? none of my statements are contradicted by your asserted source(s). Again belligerence, rarely ever civil discussion on your part. Why?

    .......What are you babbling about?
    Forrest -- quit shouting. It's very rude. And you might also hurt yourself.

    And read my posts. They are very clear. Open your eyes, open your mind. You are much too blinded by a faith in your beliefs.

    This is a science site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Hi wegs

    Did you get a chance to look at the site? I'm not familiar with everyone's stances here; are you not a strong supporter of the BB theory, Forrest?
    Yes, I am quite familiar with Ned Wright's work. He has great tutorials for the mainstream BB model, and he is a good defender of the standard BB model. He has done a lot of good work in astronomy. I think he has been retired for a few years now. He used to be the head of the astronomy department and teach at UCLA, where I also went to school.

    I am an alternative theorist. Since retirement maybe 10 years ago, I write alternative theories in physics concerning my book, the Pan Theory, and I write scientific papers by myself and with others, concerning cosmology, aspects of physics, and related theories. As you can tell it is unhealthy to disagree with mainstream models in many forums, but most science forums have acceptable sub-forums for such discussions, like this one.

    Although many, including myself, can answer mainstream questions in cosmology and physics, almost no members are as familiar with alternative theory and models as I am. So for questions about what might be wrong with mainstream theories in physics today, or what non-mainstream and alternative mainstream theories might assert, this would be the appropriate sub-forum for asking such questions to me or others. People like tk421 might be labeled as the same kind and group that were defenders of the faith 200 and more years ago. Now they do their best to defend mainstream science models if they think these models are being assaulted. I don't think I am that dangerous
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 05:56 PM.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Forrest -- quit shouting. It's very rude. And you might also hurt yourself. And read my posts. They are very clear. Open your eyes, open your mind. You are much too blinded by a faith in your beliefs. This is a science site.
    I notice you provided no source or quotes for your statement asserting that your source(s) contradicted my statements.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 02:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hi wegs
    Did you get a chance to look at the site? I'm not familiar with everyone's stances here; are you not a strong supporter of the BB theory, Forrest?
    Yes, I am quite familiar with Ned Writes work. He has great tutorials for the mainstream BB model, and he is a good defender the standard BB model. He has done a lot of good work in astronomy. I think he has been retired for a few years now. He used to be the head of the astronomy department and teach at UCLA, where I also went to school. I am an alternative theorist. Since retirement maybe 10 years ago I write alternative theories in physics concerning my book, the Pan Theory, and I write scientific papers by myself and with others, concerning cosmology, gravity, and related theories. As you can tell it is unhealthy to disagree with mainstream models in many forums, but most all science forums have acceptable sub-forums for such discussions, like this one. Although many, including myself, can answer mainstream questions in physics, almost no members are as familiar with alternative theory and models as I am. So for questions about what might be wrong with mainstream theories in physics today, or what other theories might assert, this would be the appropriate sub-forum for asking such questions to me or others. People like tk421 might be labeled as the same kind of group that were defenders of the faith 200 years ago. Now they do their best to defend mainstream science models if they think they are being assaulted. I don't think I am that dangerous
    Lol ok, very good. Thx for sharing this. You authored a published book? I'm open minded but think that the BB has too much going for it to be discredited.That said there are some "fringe" ideas that are of interest. The alternative ideas relating to "time" have been curious to me.I posted a link about Lee Smolin in another thread ...can't remember now what thread exactly. Are you familiar with his alternative ideas about time?To me, his argument is the most convincing but the challenge is he can't prove his idea since he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations. Some of his peers have been listening but some consider him a "heretic." Lol

    Check him out if you haven't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "Our best ages for all three clusters are about 13 Gyr, and even smaller ages are possible"

    [astro-ph/9603092] The age of the oldest globular clusters

    Those members opposing statements without offering corroborative links, are wasting their own time and everybody else's.
    So now you're contradicting the citation in your first post, which gives an outdated estimate of 16+/-2Gyr, and cite the very paper that corrected that wrong estimate. Nice -- thanks for doing my work for me! [I continue to wonder if you ever read the papers you cite. You have a documented habit of selective quotation, often to the extent that your synopsis conveys precisely the opposite of what the paper says. I notice that John Galt just called you on this in another thread. Bad habit, old chum.]

    So now you can calm down about a lack of corroboration. You've fully supported what I said about what Ned Wright summarizes.

    By extension of that chain, you must now logically withdraw your assertion that there is an age paradox.
    You're confused. That was wegs link and source and related question in posting #1, not mine. My response was below that. I somewhat disagreed with the statements within quotes.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 05:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Forrest -- quit shouting. It's very rude. And you might also hurt yourself. And read my posts. They are very clear. Open your eyes, open your mind. You are much too blinded by a faith in your beliefs. This is a science site.
    I notice you provided no source or quotes for your statement -- that your source(s) contradicted my statements.
    I didn't realize that your blindness was that profound. Read post #5. There you will find a link -- it's to Ned Wright's site, the one that wegs and I have been talking about for several posts now. Have you not been paying attention?

    In the past, I have accused you of outright intellectual dishonesty. Do I have to resurrect these claims that so offend you? If not, then stop behaving in ways that leave you vulnerable to such charges.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    I will put up a new thread tomorrow to ask questions that I have with respect to the NW site but for now, I will ask this one here:

    On page one, of the site, there is a summary at the bottom. A chart is showing and for WDs, under the column "+error bar", it states "+ infinity". Can someone explain that a bit more? Sorry, I'm on my phone otherwise i'd copy and paste the summary here for easy access. :/

    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Hi wegs
    Did you get a chance to look at the site? I'm not familiar with everyone's stances here; are you not a strong supporter of the BB theory, Forrest?
    Yes, I am quite familiar with Ned Writes work. He has great tutorials for the mainstream BB model, and he is a good defender the standard BB model. He has done a lot of good work in astronomy. I think he has been retired for a few years now. He used to be the head of the astronomy department and teach at UCLA, where I also went to school. I am an alternative theorist. Since retirement maybe 10 years ago I write alternative theories in physics concerning my book, the Pan Theory, and I write scientific papers by myself and with others, concerning cosmology, gravity, and related theories. As you can tell it is unhealthy to disagree with mainstream models in many forums, but most all science forums have acceptable sub-forums for such discussions, like this one. Although many, including myself, can answer mainstream questions in physics, almost no members are as familiar with alternative theory and models as I am. So for questions about what might be wrong with mainstream theories in physics today, or what other theories might assert, this would be the appropriate sub-forum for asking such questions to me or others. People like tk421 might be labeled as the same kind of group that were defenders of the faith 200 years ago. Now they do their best to defend mainstream science models if they think they are being assaulted. I don't think I am that dangerous
    Lol ok, very good. Thx for sharing this. You authored a published book? I'm open minded but think that the BB has too much going for it to be discredited.That said there are some "fringe" ideas that are of interest. The alternative ideas relating to "time" have been curious to me.I posted a link about Lee Smolin in another thread ...can't remember now what thread exactly. Are you familiar with his alternative ideas about time?To me, his argument is the most convincing but the challenge is he can't prove his idea since he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations. Some of his peers have been listening but some consider him a "heretic." Lol

    Check him out if you haven't.
    My book was published in 1983 and has been out of print since 1997. I expect a second edition may be available early next year. I am now working on getting the price down on a trimmed down version of the paper-back book, for about $10.00 . In the meantime the whole book is online free at pantheory.org

    Lee Smolin is an excellent read. His book The Trouble with Physics, was to me very interesting. Time and Space are interesting subjects. In my own models reality accordingly is much simpler than most aspects of mainstream models. In my own model time is no more than a simple definition, and a very simple concept. The mainstream has no consensus theory of time.

    In my model, time elapsed is defined as simply "An interval of relative change." Time is determined by using a measuring device called a clock. The rate of time can vary in different time frames based upon variations of gravity, and relative velocity to the center of gravity. But essentially, in my model, time is no more than the bold-type definition that I provided

    This definition of time would violate present aspects of quantum theory, for instance, but my own model proposes different explanations for the same observations that might contradict this definition. Some equations of QM can go backward in time. This in particular is my disagreement because I believe evidence is lacking to support this aspect of theory.

    Added: I'll give tk421 first crack at answering your above question. If not I will explain it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    So, your theory runs counter to the fact that time "slows down," when gravity and velocity increase? I notice you say "variations" of gravity. So that's why I ask.

    I will see if I can find your book. :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    wegs,
    So, your theory runs counter to the fact that time "slows down," when gravity and velocity increase? I notice you say "variations" of gravity. So that's why I ask.

    I will see if I can find your book. :-)
    No, it doesn't run counter to known causes or changes to time; it simply explains the facts while providing a simple defintion. It explains reasons why time would change under these circumstances. We have known about the dilation and relative changes of time for more than a century.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 02:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    On page one, of the site, there is a summary at the bottom. A chart is showing and for WDs, under the column "+error bar", it states "+ infinity". Can someone explain that a bit more? Sorry, I'm on my phone otherwise i'd copy and paste the summary here for easy access. :/

    Thanks!
    Sure -- happy to oblige. If you read a couple of paragraphs up from the summary table, there's a reference to a paper by Oswalt et al. They first estimate the age of the disk of the Milky Way (they get a value of 9.5Gyr), and then note that the universe ought to be at least 2Gyr older than that (because that's roughly how long it takes for such galaxies to form); it could be more. Thus, the age of the universe, based on that one calculation, is at least 11.5Gyr. It could be any amount greater than that. That's what is meant by a positive error range of infinity.

    NW's table takes a broad look at many ways of inferring the universe's age from a multitude of measurements. Note that those very different measurements all lead to about the same value (around 13Gyr, plus or minus). Then compare that to what BB models yield (around 13.75 Gyr, according to NW). Such close correspondence increases confidence in the BB theory, especially in view of many other verified specific predictions that BBT makes (e.g., light element ratios, which SS theories cannot explain). Heck, I can't even estimate the age of people to that level of accuracy, so it's pretty remarkable that cosmology has advanced to this point.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    The alternative ideas relating to "time" have been curious to me.I posted a link about Lee Smolin in another thread ...can't remember now what thread exactly. Are you familiar with his alternative ideas about time?To me, his argument is the most convincing but the challenge is he can't prove his idea since he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations.
    I haven't had the chance to look into Smolin's new ideas about time, but I doubt that his problem is because he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations. I had the luxury of sitting in on some of his mathematics of quantum gravity class through the internet (these might be freely available now) so I know that the man knows his stuff.

    I find it more likely that Smolin's work on time is a re-interpretation of the mathematics that others feel is unwarranted because it adds little to the physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    wegs,

    On page one, of the site, there is a summary at the bottom. A chart is showing and for WDs, under the column "+error bar", it states "+ infinity". Can someone explain that a bit more? ................... Thanks!
    Link below

    Age of the Universe

    wegs, Above is tk421's good answer to your question above.

    My comments about the study and Summary at the bottom of the page of tk421's reference link, are as follows:

    The discussion involves the analysis of what are believed to be the oldest mean ages concerning types of stars and elements in our Milky Way galaxy. It starts with the "Method." Here method means the thing/object/type of star being age dated. Then it has "error bars." Error bars are determined by the range and probability of their answers using the same or different analysis of the data. So the range of age dating of the oldest mean value of that type of star, to a certain degree of confidence, for a particular type of star, might be between 10.5 and 13.5 billion years based upon the analysis, for instance. This would normally be written as 12 billion years estimated mean value of the stars with an error bar of plus or minus 1.5 billion years. They are not talking about the range of individual stellar ages, they are talking about the possible range of the mean value of stellar ages of the particular type examined.

    The first column discussing the age dating of elements of various types in the oldest stars. They came up with a mean value of 14.5 billion years, with an error bar of plus 2.8 billion years, and a minus of 2.5 billion years. So the range of their estimated age dating concerning the analysis of the elements involved, ranged from 12 billion years to 17.3 billion years estimate of the average.

    The next column they are referring to the oldest stars. Here I'm not sure what type of oldest stars they are talking about but they could be small red stars of various types or other types they believe by their appearance, color, etc. that they are very old. Here they came up with a mean value of 14.4 billion years with an error bar of plus and minus 2.2 billion years. So their estimated range of their ages would be between 12.2 billion years and 16.6 billion years.

    The next column is GC MSTO. Here I think they are referring to GC globular clusters, and the method used for age dating them which is called Main-Sequence-Turn-Off fitting. Astronomers frequently use this method to estimate the ages of star clusters. They came up with a mean value for this category of 12.2 billion years. With error bars of plus and minus 1.3 billion years, the range of possible mean stellar ages studied in this category was estimated to be from 10.9 billion years to 13.5 billion years average stellar age.

    The next column is white dwarf stars (WD) found somewhere in the galactic disc (GD). Their age dated mean value estimate was 11.5 billion years, with a range from 10.5 billion age with no certainty concerning the estimate for the oldest possible average value for these stellar ages. "Infinity" means that the maximum age of the average star in this category cannot be estimated and that it could be at any great age, but the estimated minimum mean value of these stars collectively was estimated to be 10.5 billion years of age.

    The next column is white dwarf stars (WD) found in globular clusters (GC). The mean estimated age of the stars in this category was 12.8 billion years, with an estimated range of their mean value to be from 11.7 billion years to 13.9 billion years of age.

    The last column is "weighted mean." This probably means the average age value of all the types of stars and elements examined. The mean value was determined to be 12.94 billion years, and the range from 12.19 billion years of age to 13.69 billion years.

    The conclusion might be that no type of star or elements in this study, considering their minimum average age dating, could be older than a BB universe of 13.8 billion years of age. Critics might say that the minimum calculated age of some of the oldest individual stars appears to be much greater than the estimated BB age of the universe. This summary, however, does not discuss age dating estimates of individual stars. Concerning the mean value of the age of stars in globular clusters in general: they all appear to have formed about the same time (within maybe a 2 billion year span or less) so that it would seem unlikely for a much older star to be among them.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 05:50 PM.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    The alternative ideas relating to "time" have been curious to me.I posted a link about Lee Smolin in another thread ...can't remember now what thread exactly. Are you familiar with his alternative ideas about time?To me, his argument is the most convincing but the challenge is he can't prove his idea since he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations.
    I haven't had the chance to look into Smolin's new ideas about time, but I doubt that his problem is because he has no way of substantiating his claims with equations. I had the luxury of sitting in on some of his mathematics of quantum gravity class through the internet (these might be freely available now) so I know that the man knows his stuff.

    I find it more likely that Smolin's work on time is a re-interpretation of the mathematics that others feel is unwarranted because it adds little to the physics.
    I watched a video of one of Lee Smolin's lectures. I like his style of teaching a lot. He usually talks of no certainties, but instead uses words such as "Newton's interpretation was .....," "our interpretation has been," our present understandings," "the consensus view seems to be ....", "there are various interpretations of this," "according to General Relativity," "most versions of string theory have proposed ....." and other such guarded statements. You can trust a guy like that
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 25th, 2013 at 01:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    [QUOTE=tk421;452194][QUOTE=wegs;452146]On page one, of the site, there is a summary at the bottom. A chart is showing and for WDs, under the column "+error bar", it states "+ infinity". Can someone explain that a bit more? Sorry, I'm on my phone otherwise i'd copy and paste the summary here for easy access. :/

    Thanks!

    Sure -- happy to oblige. If you read a couple of paragraphs up from the summary table, there's a reference to a paper by Oswalt et al. They first estimate the age of the disk of the Milky Way (they get a value of 9.5Gyr), and then note that the universe ought to be at least 2Gyr older than that (because that's roughly how long it takes for such galaxies to form); it could be more. Thus, the age of the universe, based on that one calculation, is at least 11.5Gyr. It could be any amount greater than that. That's what is meant by a positive error range of infinity.[/quote]

    That's exactly what I wanted to know. I understood the gist of the summary, but didn't quite understand how ''infinity'' was being factored. Thank you very much for clearing it up 4 me.

    Heck, I can't even estimate the age of people to that level of accuracy, so it's pretty remarkable that cosmology has advanced to this point.
    It is indeed, and it will only continue to advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    wegs,

    On page one, of the site, there is a summary at the bottom. A chart is showing and for WDs, under the column "+error bar", it states "+ infinity". Can someone explain that a bit more? ................... Thanks!
    Link below

    Age of the Universe

    wegs, Above is tk421's good answer to your question above.

    I will add a few more comments about the Summary at the bottom of the page of tk421's reference link.

    The discussion involves the analysis of what are believed to be the oldest mean ages concerning types of stars and elements in our Milky Way galaxy. It starts with the "Method." Here method means the thing/object/type of star being age dated. Then it has "error bars." Error bars are determined by the range and probability of their answers using the same or different analysis of the data. So the range of age dating of the oldest mean value of that type of star, to a certain degree of confidence, for a particular type of star, might be between 10.5 and 13.5 billion years based upon the analysis, for instance. This would normally be written as 12 billion years estimated mean value of the stars with an error bar of plus or minus 1.5 billion years. They are not talking about the range of individual stellar ages, they are talking about the possible range of the mean value of stellar ages of the particular type examined.

    The first column discussing the age dating of elements of various types in the oldest stars. They came up with a mean value of 14.5 billion years, with an error bar of plus 2.8 billion years, and a minus of 2.5 billion years. So the range of their estimated age dating concerning the analysis of the elements involved, ranged from 12 billion years to 17.3 billion years estimate.

    The next column they are referring to the oldest stars. Here I'm not sure what type of oldest stars they are talking about but they could be small red stars of various types or other types they believe by their appearance, color, etc. that they are very old. Here they came up with a mean value of 14.4 billion years with an error bar of plus and minus 2.2 billion years. So their estimated range of their ages would be between 12.2 billion years and 16.6 billion years.

    The next column is GC MSTO. Here I think they are referring to GC globular clusters, and the method used for age dating them which is called Main-Sequence-Turn-Off fitting. Astronomers frequently use this method to estimate the ages of star clusters. They came up with a mean value for this category of 12.2 billion years. With error bars of plus and minus 1.3 billion years, the range of possible mean stellar ages, studied in this category, was estimated to be from 10.9 billion years to 13.5 billion years of age.

    The next column is white dwarf stars (WD) found somewhere in the galactic disc (GD). Their age dated mean value estimate was 11.5 billion years, with a range from 10.5 billion age with no certainty concerning the estimate for the oldest possible average value for these stellar ages. "Infinity" means that the maximum age of the average star in this category cannot be estimated and that it could be at any great age, but the estimated minimum mean value of these stars collectively was estimated to be 10.5 billion years of age.

    The next column is white dwarf stars (WD) found in globular clusters (GC). The mean estimated age of the stars in this category was 12.8 billion years, with an estimated range of their mean value to be from 11.7 billion years to 13.9 billion years of age.

    The last column is "weighted mean." This probably means the average age value of all the types of stars and elements examined. The mean value was determined to be 12.94 billion years, and the range from 12.19 billion years of age to 13.69 billion years.

    The conclusion might be that no type of star or elements in this study, considering their minimum average age dating, could be older than a BB universe of 13.8 billion years of age. Critics might say that the age of some individual stars appears to be greater than the estimated BB age of the universe. This summary, however, does not discuss age dating estimates of individual stars. Concerning the mean value of the age of stars in globular clusters in general: they all appear to have formed about the same time (within maybe a 2 billion year span or less) so that it would seem unlikely for a much older star to be among them.
    Thank you for the additional info and the thought you put into it, forrest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    I cannot figure out for the life of me why the quote feature on this site is so messed up. Good grief.
    I tried editing, to no avail.

    :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Pregnancy.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I cannot figure out for the life of me why the quote feature on this site is so messed up. Good grief.
    I tried editing, to no avail. :/
    Hi wegs, one great aspect of this forum is that if postings get messed up for one reason or another, you can edit them.

    If the quotes for some reason are not working properly, you can change them manually. Use "[q u o t e]" at the beginning and "[/q u o t e]" (without spacing the word "quote" letters as I did) at the end of your desired quote wrap. If you use the "go advanced" button below, you can try making changes and see what results, without having to change the posting until you view the results you want. If problems continue you could ask for help from an administrator, or from a member. I have had such problems here once in a while, but because of mistakes, mistypes, etc. I edit postings all the time.

    As you probably know, it is best not to edit a posting after someone has quoted it, concerning an aspect of your posting whereby they are making a point about it, and which you want to change. Just mention your point/ error/ intent, etc. in your next posting.
    Last edited by forrest noble; August 18th, 2013 at 06:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Pregnancy.
    Your "friend"? Are you sure she did the test properly?

    either congrats, or too bad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    I cannot figure out for the life of me why the quote feature on this site is so messed up. Good grief.
    I tried editing, to no avail. :/
    Hi wegs, one great aspect of this forum is that if postings get messed up for one reason or another, you can edit them.

    If the quotes for some reason are not working properly, you can change them manually. Use "[q u o t e]" at the beginning and "[/q u o t e]" (without spacing as I did) at the end of your desired quote wrap. If you use the "go advanced" button below, you can try making changes and see what results, without having to change the posting until you view the results. If problems continue you could ask for help from an administrator, or from a member. I have had such problems here once in awhile, but because of mistakes, mistypes, etc. I edit postings all the time.

    As you probably know, it is best not to edit a posting after someone has quoted it, concerning an aspect of your posting that they are making a point about, and which you want to change. Just mention your point/ error/ intent, etc. in your next posting.
    it would seem that all we are talking about as the content of this thread would prove easier to solve, than the utilization of the quote feature.

    i didn't know that about the 'spacing' so i'll give it a whirl next time. grazie!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm never sure how much confidence to put in it when they say that deep space observations show predominantly young galaxies. Young galaxies are brighter than older galaxies,.... aren't they? Wouldn't that lead to a confirmation bias?

    There was a time when it was widely believed that huge planets, like Jupiter sized, were the dominant planets outside our solar system. But the reason for that was obviously the fact that the method they used to detect them (looking for a star that has a wobble), was more likely to detect a large planet than a small one.

    Why is this same problem not considered a concern with Hubble Deep space observations?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm never sure how much confidence to put in it when they say that deep space observations show predominantly young galaxies. Young galaxies are brighter than older galaxies,.... aren't they? Wouldn't that lead to a confirmation bias?

    There was a time when it was widely believed that huge planets, like Jupiter sized, were the dominant planets outside our solar system. But the reason for that was obviously the fact that the method they used to detect them (looking for a star that has a wobble), was more likely to detect a large planet than a small one.

    Why is this same problem not considered a concern with Hubble Deep space observations?
    are you speaking about the methods being used? just need some clarification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,666
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm never sure how much confidence to put in it when they say that deep space observations show predominantly young galaxies. Young galaxies are brighter than older galaxies,.... aren't they? Wouldn't that lead to a confirmation bias?

    There was a time when it was widely believed that huge planets, like Jupiter sized, were the dominant planets outside our solar system. But the reason for that was obviously the fact that the method they used to detect them (looking for a star that has a wobble), was more likely to detect a large planet than a small one.

    Why is this same problem not considered a concern with Hubble Deep space observations?
    are you speaking about the methods being used? just need some clarification.
    While waiting for kojax to provide his answer, I will offer my interpretation of what he said. He notes, essentially -- and quite correctly -- that you can only detect what you can detect. Objects outside of the range of detectability will be missed, so that basing conclusions on only what you can observe can be faulty. Scientists (good ones, anyway) are well aware of the dangers of sample selection bias, and work hard to guard against it to the maximum practical extent (because if you don't, you get slammed in peer review. Even if you do, you will probably still be slammed in peer review; I speak from experience.).

    There are several strategies that one can employ. For example, you often don't rely on just a single instrument. You can measure spectral distributions, gravitational effects, x-ray fluences, etc. By combining the information available from these multiple sources, one can often do a pretty good job of reducing the probability of gross errors. An example of how scientists handle the details can be found here: [1209.4193] The high-redshift (z>3) AGN population in the 4 Ms Chandra Deep Field South

    Although that paper isn't directly related to the Hubble survey, it is illustrative of the general methods used. As you can tell from the paper, the scientists are well aware of the necessity to avoid and correct for selection bias problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Big Bang or Big Hoax?
    By Manynames in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 28th, 2013, 01:24 AM
  2. Big Bang, Big Schmang
    By Couch Scientist in forum Physics
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: June 15th, 2013, 02:13 PM
  3. Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory
    By suziwong in forum Links
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 02:41 PM
  4. Big Bang or Big Expand?
    By iBlackSunday in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 24th, 2010, 10:09 AM
  5. Problems with the Big Bang theory
    By Fragilezim in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2007, 11:18 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •