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.
That is one of the bigger shames of science... have to make findings to "keep your funding" and scientists integrity comes into play when they spent there lives on a theory, and their theory starts to fall apart, they look into it more.
You know that computer you're typing on, it was developed by scientists.
Yep.
Hate science, why are you using it?
If they were wrong before, why should I believe them now?
They were not wrong, just not as accurate. There is a distinction. The formula Hubble originally developed in 1923 to calculate the age of the universe was, and still is, correct. He used inaccurate data at the time to calculate the universe's age. We have been refining that data and collecting more detailed information since then.
Using the WMAP image alone the age of the universe works out to 13.69±0.13 billion years old. However, by combining the data from WMAP with measurements from Type Ia supernova and the Baryon acoustic oscillations data, the age of the universe works out to 13.72±0.12 billion years old. Same formula, different data.
The 50-million pixel, all-sky image data gathered by ESA's Planck satellite refines that data further. It is essentially the high-definition version of the WMAP image. Combined with the other data, they are now estimating the age of the universe to be 13.80 billion years old. You will note that 13.8 billion years is within the margin of error they already included in previous estimates.
And since they are always being proven wrong, why should we imagine that they are correct this time?
When you say ''they'' are you referring to those people whose intelligence vastly exceed your own ? What's great about ''them'' is they could care less what you wanna believe! They're not used car salesmen.
Whether or not you believe them has no bearing on their findings.
Besides, educated guesses are not a source of ridicule in the scientific community. It's not like getting your biblical verses wrong in sunday school.
I love this stuff. The universe is still expanding from the big bang. And for the record, not that anyone cares, I can reconcile my belief in God to by belief in science.
God or science, why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both?
Did the climate ever change during that time or was NJ always muggy and hot in the summer.
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.
