100 years ago, the Patent Office in England wanted to shut down because everything that could be invented already was.

they were wrong.

100 years ago physicists decided that researching physics was a waste of time because they thought that they discovered everything and explained everything.

they were wrong.

150 years ago it was claimed that there was no need for another genius on the level of Isaac Newton because there was nothing left to be explained.

they were wrong.

We will always continue to learn, without coming to an absolute final conclusion to anything because we always make wrong predictions.

As we said before, science does not give definative answers. However, what is does give are explainations from which future knowledge and practical uses can be derived. Theories are very rarely 'wrong.' They are often just part of the truth, or a incomplete explaination of the truth. Theories often start out fairly vague and way off from reality, such as Phlogiston theory or the theory that matter is made up of the 4 elements, and then proceed to increase in both accuracy and usefulness for predicting natural phenomena.

Sure, we will never know 100% but we can get fairly close if we try hard enough. That is why the universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years plus or minus 120 million years and not 13.78595894 billion years with plus or minus 4 years. The estimate we have is fairly close, and the margin of error will keep shrinking.

Saying all science is wrong because it tends to go from inaccurate to less inaccurate is completely and utterly WRONG.

ya, but recently scientist have turn camps to the universe as we know it might have came from another bubble of another universe, and since 14 billion light years is the limit of our telescopes could go so far, there is no knowing how much longer it could have exsisted

couple with talk of parallet univers, there is no knowing how big or how old, the universe really is

Just imigine, we don't even know how the brain works(well, the complex stuff, how memory is store, etc) or even how do cells know when to self divide, also, we are still trying to break down matter into even simplier, subatomic particles,  and figuring out how they fit into the GUT (Grand Unification Theory), how are we suppose to know how the universe was born?!

then there is the debate of who actually created the universe, people on one hand say god, and on the other people say the big bang. Yet, even the brightest minds in astrophycis and physics are still debating over that issue itself, which already include bright minds such as (put in the computer voice) Steven Hawking.

Asking a physicist if he's ever heard of or read the writings of Paul Dirac is like asking a post-revolution US founding father if he had ever heard of Benjamin Franklin or George Washington. 

I'm just going to quote always here, because I can't say it any better than he already has:

Decent theories tend to get some things right and some things wrong. Newton's Laws are not perfect - but aspects of them are just fine. For one, we know for a fact that if you apply Newton's Laws to any relevant system (not relativistic or quantum-scale), you will get an answer so accurate that our finest measurements wouldn't be able to show the error. Also, even if his actual equations aren't universal, the principles do indeed appear to be. The Law of Inertia, Newton's 2nd Law, and the Law of Reciprocal Actions - they are all present in relativistic and quantum physics. The equations change, but the some of the fundamental principles, in this case, do not.

Now yes, maybe in 100 years we'll find out that these principles aren't exact - there is always a chance of that. But the fact that they aren't perfect doesn't make them completely wrong anyway - they would still be correct within the appropriate domain. It's called Reductionism.

That is totally untrue. Saying we invented time is exactly the same as saying we invented space. Time and space would both exist even if humanity or even sentience did not. We experience time, and have invented ways to measure and quantify time - but its existence is independent of our own. 

Ahahaha I love it when people say things like this. Just because you mistakenly believe that something is unknowable does not, in fact, mean it people more informed than you cannot understand or know it. We can indeed know how old the universe is (within any definition of the word 'universe'). And for one, the universe isn't necessarily infinite - either in time or in space; extraordinarily incredibly mind-bogglingly huge is just as far from infinity as the size of an atom - such is the nature of infinity. And even if it were infinite in either, it wouldn't necessarily make it any less knowable - just stranger in some ways.

That needn't be exactly the case, though. Yes, the physical laws should remain constant across all universes (if indeed this bizarre theory is correct), but the fundamental constants would be able to vary, potentially resulting in some very bizarre scenarios. So while the principles would indeed be the same, the results needn't be and it becomes very difficult to find anything at all that would actually be 'impossible.'

Also, the expansion of the Universe actually reduces the probability of most things. As the universe expands, matter becomes more and more separated, meaning there are fewer and fewer interactions and thus fewer opportunities for any given event to occur. If the universe were in a steady state (not expanding, not contracting) and would exist forever, then any event with non-zero probability would indeed occur at some point in time. However, if the universe expands forever (resulting ultimately in heat-death or a big-rip), then even if it exists forever, the probability of any given event still remains finite and might not ever happen.

To understand this, take the curve y = 1/x. As x approaches 0, the curve approaches infinty, and as x approaches infinity the curve approaches 0. This curve is infinite in extent, and yet the area under the curve is finite - it actually equals π. A similar thing would occur with probabilities in an infinitely expanding universe that exists forever.

So the chance that identical copies of ourselves in this universe exist (or will exist) is still, I would wager, effectively 0 (our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate). The chance that other intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe in my opinion is rather high; however the chance that life exists close enough to us to enable meaningful communication is effectively 0, pending major scientific discoveries into FTL travel and/or communications - if possible. 

Sorry! Fixed.

Not quite right! It is of course possible for an identical Earth to arise somewhere, sometime. The chances of it happening though are so small that we wouldn't ever expect it to occur. That said, things that have effectively zero chance of occurring likely happen all the time somewhere out there. The rationale behind this is that there are so many things that are 'effectively' impossible that we would actually expect some of them to happen.

And even with that said, the chances of an identical copy of something as large as the Earth are so so so so so so so small that it probably has never nor will ever happene. Based on the average atomic weight of the earth and its total mass, I estimate the number of atoms in the Earth to be something like 10^50. That's a big number. For 10^50 atoms to arrange themselves in exactly the same configuration as another set of 10^50 atoms (which also means you'd need the same number of each element and isotope..)... well I don't want to even think about how small the chance of that is. If you then factor in issues such as the fact that the electron configurations and even the quark configurations could have an affect on the final result - and even worse, the fact that the Earth isn't a closed system and is constantly being affected be the sun, surrounding stars and, well, everything. For all those factors to be identical, or at least arranged to have an identical ultimate affect - well let's just say it ain't gonna happen

Well, the more interesting part about this curve (and many others) is that for infinitesimal values of x, y actually reaches infinity - and yet the area under the curve is still finite. Maybe a better example would actually be the delta function - it's a function that equals 0 everywhere, except it equals infinity at x = 0. If you then compute the area under the curve, you'll discover that its area equals 1. An infinitely thin, infinitely tall region has a finite and determinable area. It's weird, isn't it.

Oh but it most definitely is. It didn't used to be, for sure - just as ancient math wasn't designed to deal with concepts such as zero. But modern math is extraordinarily adept at dealing with concepts such as infinity - and concepts that are even weirder than infinity. Actually, our system of mathematics wouldn't function anymore if you tried to separate the concept of infinity from it.

Most scientists agree that there probably is more of the same beyond the observable universe, but that has nothing to do with its age. We can't see the region beyond the horizon because that region was not thermally coupled to the region we're in at the time of the big bang, or perhaps inflation.

Parallel or other universes would not affect the age of our own universe. At all. It would just mean that there is an even bigger concept of reality, of sorts, usually called a 'multi-verse'. 

And what makes you think that estimating the age of the universe is a more difficult problem than figuring out how the brain works, finding ever smaller particles of matter or trying to work out a GUT? That is, in fact, an incorrect assumption. We have observational, cosmological data tracing back to when the universe would've been just a few hundred thousand years old. And we have experimental data (from particle accelerators) about what the universe should have been like all the way to less than one nano-second after the big bang. Any earlier than that is pure, and I mean pure, speculation. 

Also, just to set you straight, the search for ever smaller particles (and new particles in general - they needn't be smaller) and GUTs are fundamentally tied to the search for understanding of the beginning of the universe. Please, don't go around imposing limitations and uncertainties about things you really don't understand.

Haha no you're making your own estimates of the age of the universe? Nice. And come on now, no one has any clue how much 'time' it might take for 'it' to explode into the big bang. No one has any real idea of what existed (if anything) before the big bang occurred, nor how long it might take for a big bang to occur. Hell, no one even knows if any concept of time would have existed before the big bang. That "as we understand it" is hilarious - because we downright don't understand what you're trying to pass off. All you do is make things up, man - does it make you feel smart?

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with fusion whatsoever. Pretending that we have even the most remote clue about conditions or requirements for the big bang to occur. It's so far beyond anything we've seen. The farther you go, the more you prove how little you know and how much you make up.

And what the hell is that supposed to mean? I can't even begin to guess... Seriously, when are you going to stop making things up?

Ooo yay this again! I especially love the "refer to a previous post" where your previous post about it was even more nonsensical than this one. You're funny.

Now you're even more funny.

Why not? I love how you pretend to know things that no one in the world has any way of knowing. Find a new hobby. You're no good at pretending to be intelligent on forums.

Me, Zyxpsilon, Mooster or someone else?

Depends, who's contradicting anything & everything they can put their eyes on this time around?

What for, it's a big-blast-bang of a ride already!

Say again. Hold it, i'm not sure if i get this whole sentence such as what it is meant somehow. There is a Before & How Long in there. Deduction; you are claiming TIME was effectively present during the Big-Bang or was it a result of the activity itself?

There HAD to be a cause - a rational provable condition where ALL matter was created, given detectable mass, submitted to THE heat, and spread around into existence.

I'll risk the 6th dimension if you're willing to tag along with the implications. And even submit to your sharp intellect (which seems to be waaaaayyyy beyond mine), the hypothesis of some tricky but probably real Mega-String(s) snapout factor as a bonus for your kind considerations.

PS; All of the above quotes were clipped from pigeonpigeon post #112 above. Just to make sure, i don't confuse anyone else smart enough to detect (or pretending to find) my own carefully planned but imperfect human mistakes.

Don't put %s on them... There are no probabilities which can accurately be assigned to any theory. And 'mere theory?' In science, theory is the result of a hypothesis which has been repeatedly tested and has shown to be true in every known circumstance to which it applies. 

The whole 'just theories' argument is pretty much a logical fallacy based on the difference of the scientific definition of theory and the layman's definition of theory. These things are tried and true methods for getting at the truth, or at the very least as close as we can possible get with the available information. As I said above, science for the most part goes from innacurate to accurate but the original theories are almost always still useful in a huge number of instances.

The example someone gave above about newtonian physics is a good one. Einstein made a theory that is much better at predicting phenomena than Newton's theory, however we still use Newton's theory and teach it in schools simply because it is easier to use than relativity in almost every instance without sacrificing to much accuracy. Think about the number pi for example. We have millions of digits of it calculated, but you don't go around using all known digits when computing a circle. This is because the margin of error for using 5 or 10 digits is low enough for just about every purpose you can think of. The same goes with theories.

I got my Mathematics degree in 1983, so enough already with your attitude and raging against anyone who doesn't share most or any of your opinions while you wisely insert personal insults just for kicks. I'm no professional either in *THAT* field as everyone knows diplomation doesn't automatically equal real permanent jobs in this world. I had to borrow my life away from banks at 23+% (trust me, i understand much about finance and accounting subjects) interest rates of the mid-80's.

I went through two distinct recessions, tough on global economies and on true people. Scrapped three cars. Divorced twice. Saw two wonderful girls grow up to be smarter (and given solid manners, food & clothing by parental autority) than even just i.

And here you come, flashing around the facts - to me ***AND*** everybody to witness?

You're simply not worth any more of my attention, i guess... but i still can suggest something important if you'd want to listen only at least this once; my past (or how high of an education i managed to succeed) has absolutely nothing to do with the casual conversations we all have here. In fact, the Age of the Universe thread has turned around into a battle of wits & impolite remarks since the moment you began contradicting not only my own stuff, but whatever could fit your mood swings.

I may be wrong about certain things in life but i can detect blowing air flows too.

Water under the bridges of life, Bye and take care.

Send a tiny sprinkle of Humanity's best engineering probe to a Saturn moon and you'll miss your exact target by a good chunk (abort, failure, destroyed, adrift, bazillions of investment LOST!) if you skip even just one as many digits as possible for the calculations.

Didn't the British Beagle plunged to Mars surface while Spirit & Opportunity rovers were still riding along just fine waaaayyyy beyond their expected energy supply range?

You NEED an almost constant ∏, not a variable... to devise an exploration try at Pluton. That's not a sub-atomic level educated guess of some boron particules infinitesimal presence glimpse here, it is a proper trajectory that must flyby through an Asteroids belt, meet with Jupiter gravitational pull at the right angle & location, and find the proverbial needle in the extremely vast emptiness of space.

Like I said, I was never trying to say that you're stupid or uneducated or whatever. I was merely making the point that you don't really know very much at all about physics, and yet you make post after post pretending that you do. I'm sorry, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people pretend to know things they don't.

Someone asked a question, and hoards of people with little or no understanding descended on it, unintentionally misleading. From there other questions were asked, and the same thing happened. Like I said, pet peeve of mine. If you (in the general sense, not targeting you here) don't know, don't pretend to know... It's not very difficult to grasp.

I just don't see why casual conversation needs to denigrate into 'let's make up answers to every question about science people ask!' Really I think the real 'problem' is that even after you were called out for making up answers to people's questions, you continued to do it, over and over. Some people are actually curious as to the actual answers to their (and even other people's) questions - and quite frankly, I think they deserve to get actual answers and not a pack of falsehoods (whether intentional or not).

Wow pigeonpiegeon you are taking this debate too seriously

If you ask me the age of the universe can be infinate, just because the big bang cuase this universe to exsist doesn't mean there aren't any other universe, we could be part of an experiment about the universe in another universe