Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

Study Finds Universe Is 100 Million Years Older Than Previously Thought 245

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-don't-look-a-day-over-13-billion dept.
skade88 writes "Reuters is reporting that scientists now say the universe is 100 million years older than previously thought after they took a closer look at leftover radiation from the Big Bang. This puts the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years. The new findings are the direct results from analyzing data provided by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft. The spacecraft is providing the most detailed look to date at the remnant microwave radiation that permeates the universe. 'It's as if we've gone from a standard television to a high-definition television. New and important details have become crystal clear,' Paul Hertz, NASA's director of astrophysics, told reporters on a conference call."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Finds Universe Is 100 Million Years Older Than Previously Thought

Comments Filter:
  • by TheCorporal (306071) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @10:36PM (#43242657) Homepage

    It should be 40 million years older with a margin of error of 50 million years. Ars article much more in depth if you want to know more.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/first-planck-results-the-universe-is-still-weird-and-interesting/ [arstechnica.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21, 2013 @10:47PM (#43242739)

    Silly. Don't look at Ars. Look at the Planck papers.

    http://www.sciops.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK&page=Planck_Published_Papers

    Will be on arxiv, too.

    This wasn't like going from regular tv to high def. This was like going from retina vision (wmap) to slightly more retina vision (planck). The age was reevaluated by a trivial 1%.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 21, 2013 @10:57PM (#43242827)

    Do you understand how the calculation is done?

    Or do you just project yourself onto the cosmologists? You'd cheat someone if you could with a fraudulent sale, so they must be that way too.

    If you actually care, the statement is much more precise than "this is the age of the universe." The statement is, given the constraints of the 6-parameter Lambda-CDM model, which is the simplest cosmological model that fits the vast majority of the data, the age of the universe is known to this precision. If you allow extensions to Lambda-CDM (including "phantom energy" (w not -1), primordial helium diverging from BBN, running of the scalar spectral index, etc.), you introduce new uncertainties. For any given model, these uncertainties can be calculated in a Bayesian sense.

    Or do you want to buy a bridge?

  • by tolkienfan (892463) on Thursday March 21, 2013 @11:49PM (#43243149) Journal

    I think you misunderstood my post, because 1. I would never defend the bible and 2. I agree 100% with the rest of your post.

  • by lemur3 (997863) on Friday March 22, 2013 @12:48AM (#43243427)

    even PAT ROBERTSON thinks the whole 6000 years thing is a bunch of crap... youd think the militant anti-theism folks would give it a break.

    Look, I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this, but Bishop Ussher wasn't inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years. It just didn't. You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas.
    They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. If you fight science you're going to lose your children, and I believe in telling it the way it was.-Pat Robertson

    http://www.examiner.com/article/evangelist-pat-robertson-no-longer-preaching-creationism [examiner.com]

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/ [cnn.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 22, 2013 @01:14AM (#43243519)

    Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.

    I'll give you that it's not the largest, but where did you get this notion that it's the youngest religion? Christianity began in the mid first-century AD (or CE, if you prefer). Meanwhile, the largest religon (Islam) didn't get started until Muhammed in 610. So your "youngest religion on the block" argument is off by over half a millenia. And that's just talking about the "mainstream" religions, to say nothing of some of the more modern belief systems.

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Friday March 22, 2013 @01:45AM (#43243635)

    Yep, the bible is interpreted exactly the same as it was 2000 years ago.

    Sure except for the fact that significant portions have been altered, re-translated, or just plain re-written. A perfect example would be the King James version that the purists consider a standard. Or maybe the fact that many of the books of the bible appear to have been written by the same person, well after the dates implied in the writings.

    You are free to believe whatever you wish but the Old Testament that is found in the King James bible is based on the Greek translation of the hebrew scriptures which is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint [wikipedia.org] and it predates AD or (CE if you prefer). You are free to study the differences between the Greek translation, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh [wikipedia.org] and modern translations but please stop spreading your unfounded bullshit as it were fact.

    The main gospels of the new testament have manuscripts dating back to around the first century and the epistles are generally considered to be letters to the various congregations written by the apostles and Paul to the various congregations in Asia minor during the first century.

    Your objections are nebulous and derivative. I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it. Do you people have a script that you read from?

    The modern translations are based on a number of sources including the Septuagint, the Tanakh and any of the oldest manuscript fragments available. Please stop with the bullshit already. You don't need to backup your atheism with lies and self-delusions. Are you afraid of pursuing the truth because of what you might find? Are you afraid of losing control? Your "self-control" is an illusion. You are a slave to your desires.

  • by alendit (1454311) on Friday March 22, 2013 @04:29AM (#43244203)

    Christianity is the youngest religion on the block and certainly not the largest.

    I'll give you that it's not the largest...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups [wikipedia.org] FFS, do you research, guys.

  • by Sique (173459) on Friday March 22, 2013 @04:57AM (#43244303) Homepage
    Christianity is with 2.1 billion followers by far the largest religion (hey, even Catholics outnumber every other non-christian religion!). Islam comes in second with 1.3 billion, Hinduism has 750 million followers, and the different buddhistic traditions are fourth with 375 million.
  • by Spugglefink (1041680) on Friday March 22, 2013 @07:09AM (#43244797)

    I have heard the same bullshit claims about alteration, re-translation and rewrites over and over again. I am really bored and tired of it.

    Uhhhh... You're blind? The only reason I study the Bible at all is to find amusing ways to get proselytizers to leave me alone. Even with just the most casual, basic comparative study of one version against any other, it's extremely and painfully obvious that one translation says one thing, and another translation says something else. This is especially evident if you compare versions in different languages, and I've read bits of the Bible in Spanish, French, Latin and ancient Greek, along with several different English translations. You don't have to look hard at all. Let's just take my favorite example off the top of my head, Exodus 22:18:

    Do not allow a sorceress to live.

    Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

    Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

    maleficos non patieris vivere

    A la hechicera no dejarás que viva.

    No dejarás con vida a la hechicera.

    Tu ne laisseras point vivre la magicienne.

    Tu ne laisseras point vivre la sorcière.

    [Greek removed by Slashdot]

    The word in bold is variously translated into modern languages as something like witch, sorceress, etc. and it's almost always in the feminine in translations. The word [Greek removed by Slashdot] is obscure and hard to translate definitively, but "animal" is a common translation, and the word is neuter in gender. Maleficos in Latin is masculine, and means something like "doers of evil" etymologically, and is translated as things like "evil, wicked, accursed ones." Greek and Latin are as far back as I can go, but there's nothing in either language to suggest the original author intended this to apply only to female wicked people, and yet that is how it has ended up in every modern language I can read. It even ended up that way in Latin eventually, changing gender to feminine in Malleus maleficarum.

    So, to summarize, the only bullshit is believing that none of the countless people who have dipped their fingers into the Biblical pie over the centuries have ever let their personal views or the times they were living in color what they did with the text. Sure they have.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...