Posted on 04/24/2002 6:30:34 PM PDT by longshadow
Then I'd say that the anti-intellectual left has achieved its purpose.
Which is exactly what the Astronomers have done here:
First, several groups of astronomers developed methodologies based on the Hubble expansion to estimate the age of the Universe. There value was about 14 billion years, plus or minus a billion or so.
This is then used as the basis of a prediction: the prediction is that a completely different methodology (one that does NOT rely on measuring the expansion of the Universe, or things related thereto) for measuring the age of the Universe should give the same result.
The experiment conducted by the Canadian scientists (when they weren't busy at "curling practice" at the local ice arena) was to see if this prediction is correct.
The result: it IS correct!
[snip] In fact, I'd just as soon fund wymyn's studies as quantum physics.
Who's stopping you?
If you have a beef with the claimed accuracy of the measurements regarding the age of the Universe, by all means post the evidence. This thread is over 150 post long, and not a single naysayer has provided a scintilla of evidence that the methods used by the scientists were defective.
The skepticism would be much more useful if the skeptics could specify which of the observations of astronomy and cosmology they dispute, and state the specific reasons for the dispute. If you accept the observed data but doubt the conclusions, it would be very interesting if you would provide us with an alternative model which better accommodates the data. That's how the game is played.
First of all, weather prediction, cancer, AIDS and the common cold are all very hard problems compared to measuring the age of the universe. The latter is simply a matter of undergraduate math and a sufficiently powerful telescope. Second of all, the scientists who work on one problem are not the same people who work on any other. What you've said is rather like upbraiding a dentist for the slow pace of research into treating pancreatic cancer.
I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.
Certainly, as long as it's backed by substantive thought.
Forsooth, the Church forbade them from thinking otherwise.
As a practical matter, there really weren't any scientists around before Copernicus. Stargazers, yes; mathematicians, yes; but not scientists -- as we use the term. Not too many were around after Galileo either, certainly not in the lands ruled by the Inquisition, as they all fled to the north. Science is a relatively new human endevour.
[to which you replied] Who's stopping you?
Actually, I already pay for both. So do you, if you're a taxpayer.
Through coercive taxation and overflowing government grants, I am forced to fund both wymyn's studies and quantum physics. All education should be privatized.
In my view, both departments--wymyn's studies and quantum physics--produce drivel of similar uselessness. Both contribute equally (i.e., nil) to the betterment of man.
[to which you replied] Then I'd say that the anti-intellectual left has achieved its purpose.
Hmmm...I must disagree. Is it not well established that most major universities are replete with leftist professors?
Further, wasn't one of physics' icons, the late Carl Sagan (currently a resident of Hades, in my estimation), an avowed anti-Reagan leftist?
Isn't Steven Hawking a bit of a Clintonista?
Sorry, no one of that name is or was an icon of physics.
I doubt we will ever find out.......
That's probably because they aren't. I personally don't doubt the intelligence of these people and what they're doing. My only argument that hasn't been refuted either is that they're only measuring what they can see. If there are galaxies or other objects in space farther out than what we can now detect, objects whose light is too faint, or hasn't reached us yet, that would throw their whole discoveries out of whack, because that would mean the universe is older than what they're saying. That's why I'm skeptical of stories like this.
I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.
On this, I am in full agreement with you.
In my view, both departments--wymyn's studies and quantum physics--produce drivel of similar uselessness. Both contribute equally (i.e., nil) to the betterment of man.
Well, one out of two isn't bad. I agree that "wymyn's studies" and other PC claptrap is essentially useless garbage.
But QM on the other hand is extremely useful. Do you think we would have personal computers, the internet, and a myriad of other electronic devices and technologies if we did NOT study and understand QM?
How so? IF there were objects further away that we can't see, how does that make the Universe older that what has been measured?
I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.
I dare say that would be extraordinarily unlikely, as I'm quite sure there are observational data that place an UPPER bound on the possible age of the Universe, and that bound is much lower than 100 billion years. I wish I could remember the exact observational data that tell us this, but at the moment I can't recall what it is. Perhaps "Physicist" knows.....
Yeah and when he made his discovery they all probably thought he was a nut case who should be committed to a mental hospital.
Like h*ll it is, you SLIMER!
WE all know you're just positioning yourself to get reply # 200!
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.