Age of the Universe

[bhsmte]

I heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.

You seem to "hear" a lot of things, don't you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sounds like someone appealed to written records to verify a truth.

The older the record, the less likely it is to be reliable. It also varies by country. There are many that claim to be older, but their age remains unverified.

 

[AV1611VET]

The older the record, the less likely it is to be reliable.

So a 122 year-old-woman's birth certificate would be the least likely to be reliable ... right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So a 122 year-old-woman's birth certificate would be the least likely to be reliable ... right?

Amongst all other birth certificates of people alive, yes. And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amongst all other birth certificates of people alive, yes. And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.

Let's say she had 66 separate documents in her profile, written over a period of 122 years, by 66 different people who came from different continents, languages, and backgrounds?

Would that do it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let's say she had 66 separate documents in her profile, written over a period of 122 years, by 66 different people who came from different continents, languages, and backgrounds?

Would that do it?

No, that type of documentation would be very limited, only 66 records for a 122 year lifespan, when there should be yearly tax records alone that take up all of her working years at a minimum, and her school records should take up every year of schooling? Don't forget the census, and other records. And what weird records, coming from all these different places. If anything, this type of record would make it nearly certain that she was a fraud, and a terrible one at that.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that type of documentation would be very limited, only 66 records for a 122 year lifespan, when there should be yearly tax records alone that take up all of her working years at a minimum, and her school records should take up every year of schooling? Don't forget the census, and other records. And what weird records, coming from all these different places. If anything, this type of record would make it nearly certain that she was a fraud, and a terrible one at that.

Then what's this all about?

And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.

Now you sound like you're contradicting yourself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then what's this all about?Now you sound like you're contradicting yourself.

Her records weren't like the ones you describe. Hers were all from her native country of France, and were far more extensive than 66 documents. There are differences between reliable and unreliable documentation beyond just number.

 

[AV1611VET]

Her records weren't like the ones you describe. Hers were all from her native country of France, and were far more extensive than 66 documents. There are differences between reliable and unreliable documentation beyond just number.

Sounds like you know her pretty well.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sounds like you know her pretty well.

Know her personally? No, she died the same year I was born. However, she is well known by many people, due to also being the holder of the world record for oldest actor/actress, at the age of 114. I happen to be a fan of film and trivia.

 

[AV1611VET]

Know her personally? No, she died the same year I was born. However, she is well known by many people, due to also being the holder of the world record for oldest actor/actress, at the age of 114. I happen to be a fan of film and trivia.

Okay.

 

[46AND2]

Of course, some Christians claim that god has limited our longevity to 120 years, per Exodus...

nope, world record for lifespan in humans is 122

I heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.

If technology does get to the point where it frequently allows people to live past 120, it'll be interesting to see if those Christians change their interpretation of that scripture, or go this route where they question the birth date. Probably a bit of both.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.

Rumors have a habit of being false. I have heard people doubt her age, but the only people that do that don't for religious reasons always mention that one of the holders of the title of oldest person on record besides her was found to be a fraud about 10 years after he died. Also, she never had a sister, and you can't throw away death certificates or a governmental copy of a birth certificate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

Also, I have to correct an earlier error. She died they year my sister was born, not the year I was born.

 

[Astrophile]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.htm

In this link, Dr. Schroeder makes the following assertion:

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology ― the deep physics of understanding the universe ― was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American ― the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

Does anybody know anything about this survey, for example where it was originally published, and when it was re-published in Scientific American?

It seems very odd that leading scientists should say that there was no beginning to the Universe eleven years after the publication of the first paper about the 'Big Bang' cosmology ('The Origin of the Chemical Elements', Physical Review, 1948). The year 1959 was also a year after Allan Sandage had obtained a value of 75 km/s/Mpc (to within a factor of 2) for the Hubble constant, implying that the Universe was about 13 billion years old (again, to within a factor of 2).

It also seems very strange that 'leading scientists' should rely for their belief that the Universe was eternal on the authority of Plato and Aristotle, who cannot have had any empirical evidence in support of their opinion. If these scientists had cited the published 'Steady State' cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold (Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 252 and 108, 372) in support of their views, they would have been more convincing.

 

[Astrophile]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.htm

13.772 billion years or 13.82 billion years?

1. In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years.
2. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...bble-oldest-frontier-science-space-astronomy/

How old do you think the Universe is, and what is the evidence for your opinion? The latest result from the Planck Collaboration is 13.799±0.021 billion years, with a Hubble constant of 67.8±0.9 km/s/Mpc.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe, https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589, http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2015/04/08/CRL_APS_2015-03-18_compressed2.pdf, and http://www.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Precision-Cosmology .

 

[essentialsaltes]

In this link, Dr. Schroeder makes the following assertion:


Does anybody know anything about this survey, for example where it was originally published, and when it was re-published in Scientific American?

Nope, but it looks like Schroeder has been using the same story since at least 2002. So the republication in Sciam would have to be before that. Taking a wild guess, it might be this article from 1992, and Google Books shows bits and pieces of it (I assume) as it appears in Sciam's Understanding Cosmology: "In 1959 a survey showed that a majority of astronomers rejected continuous creation, although only a third of those voting actually favored the big bang."

Without more details it's hard to say, but all it really says is that only a third voted for the Big Bang, which is not (necessarily) the same as two-thirds voting for 'it was always there'.

Further Google-fu leads me to think the original publication is:

Science News Letter 76, no. 2 (July 11, 1959)

 

[Shemjaza]

In this link, Dr. Schroeder makes the following assertion:


Does anybody know anything about this survey, for example where it was originally published, and when it was re-published in Scientific American?

It seems very odd that leading scientists should say that there was no beginning to the Universe eleven years after the publication of the first paper about the 'Big Bang' cosmology ('The Origin of the Chemical Elements', Physical Review, 1948). The year 1959 was also a year after Allan Sandage had obtained a value of 75 km/s/Mpc (to within a factor of 2) for the Hubble constant, implying that the Universe was about 13 billion years old (again, to within a factor of 2).

It also seems very strange that 'leading scientists' should rely for their belief that the Universe was eternal on the authority of Plato and Aristotle, who cannot have had any empirical evidence in support of their opinion. If these scientists had cited the published 'Steady State' cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold (Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 252 and 108, 372) in support of their views, they would have been more convincing.

It doesn't sound very convincing, does it?

When someone says "Scientists said..." and what comes out sound like a mix of stereotypical ivory tower straw man and the argument from authority of ancient texts of a religion I'm immediately dubious.

 

[Astrophile]

Nope, but it looks like Schroeder has been using the same story since at least 2002. So the republication in Sciam would have to be before that. Taking a wild guess, it might be this article from 1992, and Google Books shows bits and pieces of it (I assume) as it appears in Sciam's Understanding Cosmology: "In 1959 a survey showed that a majority of astronomers rejected continuous creation, although only a third of those voting actually favored the big bang."

Without more details it's hard to say, but all it really says is that only a third voted for the Big Bang, which is not (necessarily) the same as two-thirds voting for 'it was always there'.

Further Google-fu leads me to think the original publication is:

Science News Letter 76, no. 2 (July 11, 1959)

Thank-you. That is very helpful. I will try to find it for myself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Thank-you. That is very helpful. I will try to find it for myself.

I think the survey had a total N of 33, so it's not like it was a comprehensive poll of astronomers, anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.

Scientists have a way of rigging votes (Pluto), having pictures drawn (Haeckel), or appealing to the Antichrist Lovers Union to push their agendas (Scopes).

Some will downright tell you what you want to hear (L'Auila), bribe authorities to have safety checks waived (Deepwater Horizon), fake test results (Thalidomide), or change nomenclature ("fetus") to their advantage.