Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: longshadow
Without adding the quotation marks and without referencing the websites, which are easily found by entering +universe +age +billion into the search field on google.com:

1. the age of the universe is apparently 8 to 12 billion years
2. the age of the Universe would be 8-11 billion years
3. the new 13 billion year estimated age of the Universe
4. the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years
5. EVOLUTIONARY AGE OF THE UNIVERSE 14-15 billion years
6. the Hubble constant and the geometry of the Universe typically yield ages of 10-20 billion years for the age of the Universe
7. while previous calculations meant estimates of the universe's age could vary by as much as 10 billion years
8. the "best, ie, most consistent, age of the universe is estimated to be 14-17 billion years
9. the Universe's age drops to 7--15 billion years
10. the age of the universe of 7.5 billion years
11. Present estimates for the universe's age range from eight to twenty billion years
12. Estimates range from as low as about 10 billion years to as high as 40 billion years
13. So it seems safe to estimate that the age of the Universe is at least 15 billion years old, but probably not more than 20 billion years old
14. is determining the age of the universe. Some measurements of the Hubble constant suggest an age as low as 8 billion years
15. and the universe's age at 9 billion years
16. Recent reports on the age of the universe suggest it's only 8-12 billion years old
17. universe might only be eight or ten billion years old
18. The observations of the density of the universe, favorable to a flat universe lead to an age of the universe of 9 billion years
19. project the age of the universe to be 8 billion years 20. the age of the universe may be as small as 8 billion years
21. the age of the universe is about eight-twelve billion years
22. These new results yield ranges for the age of the Universe from 9-12 billion years, and 11-14 billion years, respectively
23. somewhere between about 7 to 10 billion years ago, when the Universe was between a quarter and half its present age
24. At the present time estimates of the age of the universe range between 7 and 20 billion years
25. such as the age of the Universe which ranges between 17 and 18 billion years

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.
98 posted on 04/24/2002 9:15:05 PM PDT by DennisR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]


To: DennisR
Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.

What you are seeing is lots of estimation rather than contradiction. As more measurements are made, the results seem to be in better agreement. There should be error indicators with each estimate, if not, it's sloppy reporting.

101 posted on 04/24/2002 9:20:28 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR
Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.

Maybe it's me, but what I see is lots of potentially out-of-date estimates, and NO scholarly references to back them up.

If I were so inclined, I could put up a website that said the Universe is 13 days old, and it would have as much validity on your list as any other internet website estimate.

Also, you fail to note the error range for each estimate. As I pointed out earlier on this thread, 20 years ago, they thought the Universe was 10-20 billion years old (or 15 +/- 5 billion, if you prefer). Today, they think it is 13.7 +/- 0.5 billion years old. There's no contradiction; the later measurement lies entirely within the earlier estimate.

110 posted on 04/24/2002 9:37:11 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

To: DennisR
Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of contradiction here.

I don't. Assuming the error estimates were done honestly, they will not all overlap. Statistically, we would expect approximately 2/3 of all measurements to include the correct value, and 1/3 of the measurements not to. Do a weighted average of the independent numbers, and then do a chi-squared. You might find that the agreement between them is suspiciously good.

134 posted on 04/25/2002 4:53:38 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson