Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by redroyal on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:22PM (#36714690)

Astrophysicists clearly don’t know what they’re talking about but won’t admit it. They get paid to gaze at the sky all their lives making up theories nobody has time to prove or disprove and which deliver no productive utility to us tiny human beings whatsoever. It’s a racket

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by notaustinpowers on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:36PM (#36714852)

It's okay to admit you don't understand what astrophysicists do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by psychphysic on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:31PM (#36714800)

Can't tell if you're being tongue in cheek here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by kgwxd on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:40PM (#36714900)

History would imply not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by 7373737373 on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:32PM (#36714816)

Tell that to the dinosaurs

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by dandanua on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:33PM (#36714818)

And what is a productive utility for you, exactly?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by photonerd on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:52PM (#36715057)

Please tell me this is sarcasm

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by areoform on Thursday July 13, 2023 @04:11PM (#36715277)

> no productive utility to us tiny human beings whatsoever. It’s a racket

Do you use GPS?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

Have you ever used a MRI or undergone a CAT scan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDL_(programming_language)#His...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAF

Used anything that involves interferometry - contact lenses, anything with a lens or a laser, optical coherence tomography (OCT) etc?

https://nexsci.caltech.edu/workshop/2003/2003_MSS/07_Monday/...

I can go on, but I think I've made my point.

But even if these fruits didn't come of it, something doesn't have to be "productive" or useful according to your definition to justify its existence. Just like art or music doesn't have to be "productive," useful or even beautiful by your definitions to exist.

There is more to human existence than breathing, eating and leaving bad comments on websites.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by redroyal on Thursday July 13, 2023 @04:25PM (#36715475)

I think you made my point actually

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by jamilton on Friday July 14, 2023 @03:18AM (#36720509)

I'd rather have a billion dollars of art installments than another giant telescope. Or a billion dollars of art installments and a billion dollars of welfare, that'd still be much cheaper than the JWST alone.

Are there any relatively recent societal benefits? These all seem 20+ years old. At first I was thinking it might be because NASA's budget got smaller since the 70s, but it's actually increased slightly.

I think it's completely fair to see astrophysics as somewhat vain. The comparison to art is apt - it's essentially a luxury. And the fruits are somewhat of a bad defense, IMO. Besides satellite technology, they're basically side benefits, not something the money was actually spent for. Presumably if the same amount of money was spent on "make something useful to society" there would be higher yield to society than what we got from "get a rocket to the moon" and "make a better telescope". That being said, satellite technology is incredible and I'm glad we have it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by helsontaveras18 on Thursday July 13, 2023 @04:12PM (#36715286)

Love the idea that it's a racket, that astrophysicists are making millions of dollars watching stars, and we're paying for the fancy cars they drive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by FredPret on Thursday July 13, 2023 @06:36PM (#36717078)

Yeah, down with Big Telescope. This thing goes all the way to the top.

In all seriousness, no portion of my tax payer dollars make me happier than the money that goes to the ISS and JWT and other expensive sciency things in space

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by redroyal on Thursday July 13, 2023 @07:18PM (#36717396)

What about your fellow citizens who can’t afford to eat?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by dev_slash_null on Thursday July 13, 2023 @11:51PM (#36719286)

How much of that food was grown with help from weather satellites, and GPS satellites, among other things?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by redroyal on Friday July 14, 2023 @12:08AM (#36719385)

Astrophysics can’t take credit for satellites and GPS those were built with the primary incentive of guided munitions and have little to do w outer space. The field has become something like a crossover between a religion and a cheap tabloid

[ Parent | on HN ]