It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
that 10% uncertainty put the possibility of a 16.4 billion year old universe well within the range of the Hubble Constant.
my biggest issue with people claiming nothing is going to happen, is that they seem to forget that it has already happen multiple times in the past...
to think that some event couldn't wipe 90%+ of all life on Earth(again) just because we are human and we have technology, is preposterous.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
that 10% uncertainty put the possibility of a 16.4 billion year old universe well within the range of the Hubble Constant.
That's bad math. The 16.4 billion is 19.8% out, not within 10%. Also, you are using a 1999 article. I referred to a 2010 article which had a much smaller uncertainty. With time come improvements in precision.
Originally posted by stereologist
First off, not all extinctions were as severe. You appear to be hinting at the Permian event.
Second, the existence of previous events does not mean that another event is going to happen. These events are possibly related, but that relationship is inconclusive. Efforts to find a relationship between extinction events has resulted in a number of different periodicities. Although there may be a relationship between extinction events, it is to date unclear.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
how does 16.4 billion years equate to far from the assumed age of the universe?
The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. The age you're giving is 16.4 billion years. That's an error of 2.7 billion years or close to 20%. Now that's an error.
Does this enormous error affect Calleman's 2011 date?
Another issue is that Calleman has a cellular level. The Maya had no concept of cells. Furthermore, Calleman claims that this is when complex life appeared? Really? Do you know the state of the Earth at that time? Was it a hot tropical lush world ready for complex life or a frozen snowball or something in between? Remember that the earliest Cambrian fossils are sponges from 540Ma. Ediacarian fossils go back to possibly 630Ma.
Calleman's dates and claims do not match actual events - for any of his time periods.
2012: How to spot a prophet’s Maya hoax – designing a personal cosmology
However, as Nielsen and Reunert recently have shown, these are not multilayered heavens and underworlds as once thought. This is a creation by postcontact writers. Thus, Calleman’s whole hierarchical schema is based on Colonial period writers, not on Classic period beliefs.
So this layered scheme is not a part of the Mayan beliefs. The cellular levels and galactic levels are concepts unknown to the Maya. In fact, it appears that mammalian is a concept that was not known to the Maya.
I'd suggest you to actually show your sources. As far as I know, science has been wrong numerous times. How do you know for fact that it's 13.7 billion years old? No one knows how old it is. No one knows how it started. All we have are theories. And again, show me your sources of your claims (the Mayans didn't know about cells, mammalians...ok, prove that to me). I'm not saying what you say is false, but you shout at people to actually come forward with sources, but you are making unsourced claimed.
And a question on a more personal level...Why do you feel the need to be arrogant, and feel like you know everything. You know, you seem to have answers experts have been wondering for a lot of years. What are you doing here on ATS? Go do some scientific research, you seem a valuable mind for mankind. Do you really think you know more on Mayans than people who have dedicated their lives to study ancient civilizations...
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
You are taking in a number of dates from a large range of years. It is clear that as time progresses better measurements are possible. To suggest that older, rougher measurements have the same precision as newer measurements misses the point that any measurement has a quality known as precision.
Here is a recent article in which the precision is 170 million years.
DISSECTING THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS B1608+656. II. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, SPATIAL CURVATURE, AND THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE*
That's amazing and a lot tighter than your 10% claim.
Originally posted by kalisdad
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by kalisdad
You are taking in a number of dates from a large range of years. It is clear that as time progresses better measurements are possible. To suggest that older, rougher measurements have the same precision as newer measurements misses the point that any measurement has a quality known as precision.
Here is a recent article in which the precision is 170 million years.
DISSECTING THE GRAVITATIONAL LENS B1608+656. II. PRECISION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, SPATIAL CURVATURE, AND THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE*
That's amazing and a lot tighter than your 10% claim.
A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
again, even the scientists that you so faithfully rely on don't really know what exactly they are putting forth as 'facts'