I believe there's life out there somewhere, seems to me the universe is too massive for it not to be possible.

When someone asks if you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, it is knd of a trick question.

 

Many think of it as a intellectual being that can communicate etc with its own species at least and things like that, but in reality life could consist of bacteria of something like that in space.

It is obvious that you have no idea how the age of the universe has been estimated. It has nothing to do with radioactive elements and decay rates.

 

To answer your question about repeatability, there is very broad consensus among scientists that the age of the universe - at least since the Big Bang - is 13.8 billion years +/- a couple hundred million years.

 

As for theories about the existence of parallel universes (plural, and possibly infinite in number), there is much less agreement among scientists. I find it hard to believe many scientific theories, but experimental evidence has repeatedly supported Einstein's theories, despite the fact that the technology did not exist during his lifetime to test key parts of his theories.

 

For example, atomic clocks have been used to measure the effect of speed on time. Traveling into the future is possible and it can be measured. That defies common sense but it is still true.

 

Yep, your wiki search you have spit out is nice. Even the top astrophysicists at UC/Berkely have questions about the age of the universe up to a +/- of a couple billion years when trying to work back from current expansion to Big Bang. Again, theory.

Pages of threads of differing opinions on topics like the age of the universe, parallel universe, etc.

 

Oh, and there is some great sniping back and forth just like Mitch and I have enjoyed.:lol2:

 

 

 

Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums

 

 

 

Yep, your wiki search you have spit out is nice. Even the top astrophysicists at UC/Berkely have questions about the age of the universe up to a +/- of a couple billion years when trying to work back from current expansion to Big Bang. Again, theory.

Maybe you should just admit that you did not know what you were talking about and confused methods used to estimate the age of the Earth with those used to estimate the age of the universe. You have gone from dismissing the estimates that others have quoted as "guesses" to quibbling with the margin of error.

 

Here is what NASA says

 

Measurements by the WMAP satellite can help determine the age of the universe. The detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations depends on the current density of the universe, the composition of the universe and its expansion rate. As of 2013, WMAP determined these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 1.5%. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!

How does WMAP data enable us to determine the age of the universe is 13.77 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 0.4%? The key to this is that by knowing the composition of matter and energy density in the universe, we can use Einstein's General Relativity to compute how fast the universe has been expanding in the past. With that information, we can turn the clock back and determine when the universe had "zero" size, according to Einstein. The time between then and now is the age of the universe. There is one caveat to keep in mind that affects the certainty of the age determination: we assume that the universe is flat, which is well supported by WMAP and other data. If we relax this assumption within the allowed range, the uncertainty increase a bit. Inflation naturally predicts a very nearly flat universe.

The expansion age measured by WMAP is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test using data independent of the type collected by WMAP. If the expansion age measured by WMAP had been smaller than the oldest globular clusters, then there would have been something fundamentally wrong about either the Big Bang theory or the theory of stellar evolution. Either way, astronomers would have needed to rethink many of their cherished ideas. But our current estimate of age fits well with what we know from other kinds of measurements.

Maybe you should just admit that you did not know what you were talking about and confused methods used to estimate the age of the Earth with those used to estimate the age of the universe. You have gone from dismissing the estimates that others have quoted as "guesses" to quibbling with the margin of error.

Sure.

I've enjoyed it to

Pages of threads of differing opinions on topics like the age of the universe, parallel universe, etc.

 

Oh, and there is some great sniping back and forth just like Mitch and I have enjoyed.:lol2:

 

 

 

Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums

 

 

 

I have also enjoyed the sniping back and forth about the age of the universe and probability of alien life. I don't pretend to have a deep understanding of theoretical physics, but I enjoy reading about it from time to time.

 

One of my favorite authors is Michio Kaku, despite the fact that he is an obnoxious, egotistical, atheist. He does a great job of explaining complex concepts without too much jargon. I work with one of Dr. Kaku's former students. Here are a couple of his books that I recommend:

 

Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel

 

Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos

We are not alone. Boom.

 

 

End of argument. Close the thread. Shut it down.

I have also enjoyed the sniping back and forth about the age of the universe and probability of alien life. I don't pretend to have a deep understanding of theoretical physics, but I enjoy reading about it from time to time.

 

One of my favorite authors is Michio Kaku, despite the fact that he is an obnoxious, egotistical, atheist. He does a great job of explaining complex concepts without too much jargon. I work with one of Dr. Kaku's former students. Here are a couple of his books that I recommend:

 

Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel

 

Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos

 

Ironincally, I never had any interest in any of it until I went to the Creation Museum. We were on an AAU trip on their opening weekend and we decided to go. Travelled through all of the protesters, kinda fun. But I couldn't get the young earth approach they profess in their Answers in Genesis stuff. So, I began to try to morph what my faith was teaching and what science taught. Sadly, both were too vague for me to pick a side firmly. And not to skew this into a religious debate, but I firmly believe that there is an answer in between. Too much variation in the mathematic extrapolation to make it settled in my own mind, and the young earth idea is totally far fetched IMO. I do believe that no matter how you arrive at an estimated age, and while they refer to the beginning as "big bang", I don't think any will offer evidence contrary to intelligent design.

We are not alone. Boom.

 

 

End of argument. Close the thread. Shut it down.

 

You seem so sure. How do you know? ...have you been probed? :lol2:

You seem so sure. How do you know? ...have you been probed? :lol2:

 

I noticed PP was walking a little funny at Walmart the other day :lol2:

Ironincally, I never had any interest in any of it until I went to the Creation Museum. We were on an AAU trip on their opening weekend and we decided to go. Travelled through all of the protesters, kinda fun. But I couldn't get the young earth approach they profess in their Answers in Genesis stuff. So, I began to try to morph what my faith was teaching and what science taught. Sadly, both were too vague for me to pick a side firmly. And not to skew this into a religious debate, but I firmly believe that there is an answer in between. Too much variation in the mathematic extrapolation to make it settled in my own mind, and the young earth idea is totally far fetched IMO. I do believe that no matter how you arrive at an estimated age, and while they refer to the beginning as "big bang", I don't think any will offer evidence contrary to intelligent design.

 

Protesters? Why should they give a crap what the museum believes? This is no statement on what I believe (no matter what I believe I can't prove it anyhow), but what's so wrong with anyone believing what they believe? It's sorta silly for protesters who can't prove anything concretely to oppose others who too can't prove anything concretely, and even if any of them could, what do they stand to gain or prove by protesting except them just magnifying their own ignorance.

 

I very much find the discussion of our universe extremely interesting, and knowing the ultimate truth about it would be fascinating, however I'm not holding my breath that anytime in the near future I'll be offered all the answers.

 

No matter which way I might lean with my beliefs I've got no problem with what anyone believes about it. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time trying to force others to believe opposite of what they currently do.

 

Even if science can little by little learn more (which I'm all ears to see what they can arrive at), the likelihood is that folks on either side of the argument will be dead and gone before anyone will ever know with any certainty, and through death they may or may not discover more.

 

My gut feeling is that our existence is in itself proof that life does exist, and since the universe is so vast I tend to think that it could be extrapolated that the likelihood of life elsewhere is very possible. Even with that gut feeling I certainly have nothing else to go on to say anything with any certainty. It's all merely guessing on my part.

 

I suppose that everyone can have a personal cause on just about any topic. I can certainly see what could draw all or most of humanity to find great interest towards these such topics, but to take that interest on so strongly to shove signs in others faces is a bit ridiculous.

Protesters? Why should they give a crap what the museum believes? This is no statement on what I believe (no matter what I believe I can't prove it anyhow), but what's so wrong with anyone believing what they believe? It's sorta silly for protesters who can't prove anything concretely to oppose others who too can't prove anything concretely, and even if any of them could, what do they stand to gain or prove by protesting except them just magnifying their own ignorance.

 

I very much find the discussion of our universe extremely interesting, and knowing the ultimate truth about it would be fascinating, however I'm not holding my breath that anytime in the near future I'll be offered all the answers.

 

No matter which way I might lean with my beliefs I've got no problem with what anyone believes about it. I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time trying to force others to believe opposite of what they currently do.

 

Even if science can little by little learn more (which I'm all ears to see what they can arrive at), the likelihood is that folks on either side of the argument will be dead and gone before anyone will ever know with any certainty, and through death they may or may not discover more.

 

My gut feeling is that our existence is in itself proof that life does exist, and since the universe is so vast I tend to think that it could be extrapolated that the likelihood of life elsewhere is very possible. Even with that gut feeling I certainly have nothing else to go on to say anything with any certainty. It's all merely guessing on my part.

 

I suppose that everyone can have a personal cause on just about any topic. I can certainly see what could draw all or most of humanity to find great interest towards these such topics, but to take that interest on so strongly to shove signs in others faces is a bit ridiculous.

Ah, it was cool for my boys to see. Folks out there chanting "Science". One guy came up to the window as traffic stopped. I rolled down my window (my wife begged me not to). He started to put his hands on the door and lean in, then I took my .45 out of the holster. He went to the car behind me.:lol2:

My oldest son said, "that would have hurried his 'every knee shall bow'".

We are not alone. Boom.

 

 

End of argument. Close the thread. Shut it down.

 

How Glenn Beck of you.