Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Small errors in calculations can make a pretty big difference in the big picture can it not?
If it's actually an error in calculation, then all bets are off regarding the results whatsoever. But a small error in measurement can only have a correspondingly small effect on a properly performed calculation of this sort. This adds only about 6/10ths of one percent tot he age of the universe.
On the other hand, it better aligns what we observe with what we have theoretically calculated. This reinforces the inflation calculations proposed decades ago... meaning cosmologists were on the right track all along.
I think the real joke is the vast effort that has been expended over the past few decades to convince people that they are no more significant than an ant crawling on the ground. And you apparently don't get the punch line.
I swear, gotta love the incomprehensibly idiotic ideas that people will buy into, with the only measure of legitimacy being the perceived credibility of the source, and not the information itself. We've got one segment that will believe anything told them by a clergy person wearing a white collar .... and another segment of people who will swallow anything, hook line and sinker, if it comes from someone wearing a white lab coat.
The Two Stories, compared:
1) The clergy person says .... an all powerful grandfatherly looking fellow with a flowing white beard waved his all magical hand, and poof, the universe appeared from nothing.
2) The scientist says, once upon a time there was nothing other than this thing called a "singularity", about the physical size of a green pea. It exploded in what we scientists refer to as the "big bang", which he insists had nothing at all to do with God's big poof , and this bang was so great that it sent out a stream of explosive debris in all directions, which we now see as our entire physical universe, comprised of billions of galaxies, inside which each of those galaxies contain billions of stars and planets .... all of it from one apparently very compact, green pea.
Now anyone who thinks that story #1 is better than story #2, is labeled as a religious nut who is totally unscientific, by those believers in story #2, who are absolutely certain that their story is true because "science" says it's true. But is either of these stories really true? Story #1 involves magic from an all powerful God ... story number #2 is EQUALLY magical, though it doesn't even bother to name the magician. So we have magic with a magician, and magic without a magician. And the two sides have been arguing endlessly about who's unbelievable fairytale is the most believable.
I choose none of the above, and that makes me an idiot in the eyes of everyone on side #1 and #2.
If you need to believe that there's some dude up in the sky managing things, fine, but the whole idea that to believe in that dude, you not only have to deny science, BUT WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO DENY SCIENCE AS WELL, is beyond absurd. Why don't you just believe your dude-in-the-sky story by yourself? You have no proof of the dude, but that's fine, it's your thing, you like it, so be it. However, science is an established study, it deals with proofs (which religion most assuredly does not), and it continues to study life and add to the existing body of knowledge to further understand life. Not all religions are like yours, that you can't believe your guy-in-the-sky belief without forcing others to do so, and denying SCIENCE. Catholics, for examples, believe in evolution and TEACH evolution in their schools. They don't feel they have to teach fairy tales to kids in order to get them to have a faith.
For Pete's sake, the religions (usually evangelical ones) that can't believe in their bearded dude without forcing others to deny science, are just NUTS!!!!!!!!
No, actually. That's not what happened here. What happened here is that as our technology for measurement improves, the bases for our calculations become more accurate. Nothing was overlooked. We just got a better look.
Sure, but the question was whether or not something could also be overlooked? Not discovered yet? Misunderstood in how it works? All along with better calculations to arrive at another number?
Ah, as I suspected, so this is what the Ron Paul folks are really like! Actually until guys like Copernicus and Galileo came along and stuck their neck out, all those "best scientific minds" risked excommunication, torture or worse... precisley due to ultra-conservative, "true-believer" authoritarian folks just like your ownself! Of course nowadays we just call those kinda authoritarian types the ''Taliban'' (regardless the ''faith'' or methods).
If you need to believe that there's some dude up in the sky managing things, fine, but the whole idea that to believe in that dude, you not only have to deny science, BUT WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO DENY SCIENCE AS WELL, is beyond absurd. Why don't you just believe your dude-in-the-sky story by yourself? You have no proof of the dude, but that's fine, it's your thing, you like it, so be it. However, science is an established study, it deals with proofs (which religion most assuredly does not), and it continues to study life and add to the existing body of knowledge to further understand life. Not all religions are like yours, that you can't believe your guy-in-the-sky belief without forcing others to do so, and denying SCIENCE. Catholics, for examples, believe in evolution and TEACH evolution in their schools. They don't feel they have to teach fairy tales to kids in order to get them to have a faith.
For Pete's sake, the religions (usually evangelical ones) that can't believe in their bearded dude without forcing others to deny science, are just NUTS!!!!!!!!
Steel doesn't exist in nature, yet steel exists.
Do you believe that intelligence, or intelligent design makes steel?
Sure, but the question was whether or not something could also be overlooked? Not discovered yet? Misunderstood in how it works? All along with better calculations to arrive at another number?
The drive for greater accuracy and correction as we challenge existing knowledge isn't a weakness but a strength.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
And yet when it is, there seems to be some that want to accuse you of believing the world is 5000 years old.
Do you believe that intelligence, or intelligent design makes steel?
The same as all we see and beyond.
It didn't just "pop" into existence.
The universe is made of steel? Your analogy is way lacking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and this bang was so great that it sent out a stream of explosive debris in all directions, which we now see as our entire physical universe, comprised of billions of galaxies, inside which each of those galaxies contain billions of stars and planets .... all of it from one apparently very compact, green pea.
