The Age of the Universe

[jamest]

Really, it's obvious that I'm asking him/her a question... essentially because I don't understand the details behind what that person is saying. If I was arguing a point, there would be no need for question marks. I'd just stick the knife in. And if and when I stick the knife in, you will be justified in waving your finger. In the science forum, anyway.

Sorry, it may be the first time you've employed this tactic, but it's a stinker in serious discussion. Just so you know.

I have no 'tactics' in this particular forum. I'm just asking genuine questions... perhaps, with a view to using the absence of any reasonable answers in a future philosophical debate. But hey, don't hold my potential future against me.

Bad luck then that you repeated a real stinker.

Why's it "a stinker"? Could that be because you have your own particular philosophical views that might be at-odds with my own? Or is it because you cannot provide satisfactory [scientific] answers to my QUESTIONS?

[Mysturji]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solutions.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

So, are you saying that the age of the universe is absolute, regardless of the observer's perspective?

Nobody said that. Changing people's words is a foul. Two light year ban for you.

That's what I said, in another thread.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why's it "a stinker"? Could that be because you have your own particular philosophical views that might be at-odds with my own? Or is it because you cannot provide satisfactory [scientific] answers to my QUESTIONS?

Neither, it's because it distorts and misconstrues the position of another person. It's a thoroughly discredited tactic and I really doubt you accidentally hit on it as it's one of the creationists' favorite ways to create strawmen.

[jamest]

Why's it "a stinker"? Could that be because you have your own particular philosophical views that might be at-odds with my own? Or is it because you cannot provide satisfactory [scientific] answers to my QUESTIONS?

Neither, it's because it distorts and misconstrues the position of another person.

No it doesn't, precisely because it was a question. The individual could easily respond with "No, I'm not saying that the age of the universe is absolute. I'm just saying that... "

Fundamentally, all questions seek clarity or fact. They serve no other purpose. And even if I have 'misconstrued' the position of another, I have evidently not used that misunderstanding to announce any conclusions. In fact, all I have done is to seek clarity from that individual. You don't create strawmen by asking questions... you create strawmen by making erroneous statements. Something which you yourself are guilty of at this moment.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why's it "a stinker"? Could that be because you have your own particular philosophical views that might be at-odds with my own? Or is it because you cannot provide satisfactory [scientific] answers to my QUESTIONS?

Neither, it's because it distorts and misconstrues the position of another person.

No it doesn't, precisely because it was a question. The individual could easily respond with "No, I'm not saying that the age of the universe is absolute. I'm just saying that... "

Fundamentally, all questions seek clarity or fact. They serve no other purpose. And even if I have 'misconstrued' the position of another, I have evidently not used that misunderstanding to announce any conclusions. In fact, all I have done is to seek clarity from that individual. You don't create strawmen by asking questions... you create strawmen by making erroneous statements. Something which you yourself are guilty of at this moment.

I'm just telling you that we know about that kind of bullshit, so don't get your hopes up that it will fly.

[jamest]

I'm just telling you that we know about that kind of bullshit, so don't get your hopes up that it will fly.

And I'm just telling you that you don't know the difference between a question and a statement. Further, you are making unfounded accusations against me, which seem to grounded in paranoia. You're out of order.

[Trolldor]

[colubridae]

I just don't see how a relative value of universal age can have any significant meaning to the universe itself. It doesn't add up. And yet we use the values that we are privy to, to construct theories about the universe as a whole - big bang theory, predominantly, is the one I'm thinking of.

Nice one jamest

The BBT is not derived from the age of the universe.

BBT does derive from the age of the universe - since we extrapolate the age of the universe from the events that we witness from the perspective of our own value of time.

How does 'extrapolate A from B' become 'B derives from A'?



Wait a moment it's another jamest post. More semantic jiggery-pokery...
"Don't want to look a fool so i'll post more bollocks..."
How/why do you keep coming up with this stuff?

BBT derived from:-
cosmological expansion
Hydrogen-helium ratio
CMB.

alternatives:-
Steady-state doesn't account for the above, nor olbers paradox.

Big jeebus 'derives' from:-



ie ex recto.

[hackenslash]

BBT does derive from the age of the universe - since we extrapolate the age of the universe from the events that we witness from the perspective of our own value of time.

A major case of cart before horse there. The age of the universe is derived from BBT. BBT is not derived from the age of the universe. That would be silly, because we'd have to put a figure on the age with no point of reference. The point of reference for the age of the universe is BBT, which is derived from cosmic expansion.

[jamest]

BBT does derive from the age of the universe - since we extrapolate the age of the universe from the events that we witness from the perspective of our own value of time.

A major case of cart before horse there. The age of the universe is derived from BBT. BBT is not derived from the age of the universe. That would be silly, because we'd have to put a figure on the age with no point of reference. The point of reference for the age of the universe is BBT, which is derived from cosmic expansion.

How we work out the point of the BB, is by working through time, from our observations of present events. Knowing the age of the universe follows knowing the point of the BB, which follows this process of working back through time. But you're right - I should have said that BBT derives from our understanding/value of time - and not from the age of the universe.

What I'm really trying to say is that BBT is dependent upon there being 'time' itself. It's intrinsically grounded in our notion of time. So, ultimately, BBT is grounded in the value of relative time. But my concern regards as to how a theory can have universal application unless time can be applied universally, also. Certainly, the age of the universe seems to have nothing other than an arbitrary feel about it, since the value of that age depends upon what you are, where you are, and how fast you are moving.

How can we possibly have a theory, for instance, that discusses what happens within a micro-second of the BB, if we're not located within that 'bubble', applying our present relative value of a micro-second to that particular event? It doesn't add up, I think. Hence, all the questions.

[colubridae]

BBT does derive from the age of the universe - since we extrapolate the age of the universe from the events that we witness from the perspective of our own value of time.

A major case of cart before horse there. The age of the universe is derived from BBT. BBT is not derived from the age of the universe. That would be silly, because we'd have to put a figure on the age with no point of reference. The point of reference for the age of the universe is BBT, which is derived from cosmic expansion.

How we work out the point of the BB, is by working through time, from our observations of present events. Knowing the age of the universe follows knowing the point of the BB, which follows this process of working back through time. But you're right - I should have said that BBT derives from our understanding/value of time - and not from the age of the universe.

What I'm really trying to say is that BBT is dependent upon there being 'time' itself. It's intrinsically grounded in our notion of time. So, ultimately, BBT is grounded in the value of relative time. But my concern regards as to how a theory can have universal application unless time can be applied universally, also. Certainly, the age of the universe seems to have nothing other than an arbitrary feel about it, since the value of that age depends upon what you are, where you are, and how fast you are moving.

How can we possibly have a theory, for instance, that discusses what happens within a micro-second of the BB, if we're not located within that 'bubble', applying our present relative value of a micro-second to that particular event? It doesn't add up, I think. Hence, all the questions.

Jim you really are good for the soul. I don't mean that as derogatively as it sounds.

I'm not sure what it is you are after.
I'm pretty sure you are not going to get it amongst a bunch of skepto-atheio-non-wooheads.

but as an analogy... and only an analogy


in 1987 a supernova went off. Thought to be from a progenitor called sanduleak.
IIRC the time is almost exactly known.
Except of course that's only the time light from it arrived on earth.

The exact time it went of is some 160,000 years ago. The exact distance is not known. So the exact instant is not known.
But the profile of events for the first few seconds etc can be worked out.

But when exactly they occured ???

Now please don't start with 'how can we subjectively know etc...'
Alteratively you could just watch the maxtrix. endlessly. Please.

Or are you trying to object to physics being considered the same then as now, or the same here as there?

[jamest]

Jim you really are good for the soul. I don't mean that as derogatively as it sounds.

I'm not sure what it is you are after.
I'm pretty sure you are not going to get it amongst a bunch of skepto-atheio-non-wooheads.

but as an analogy... and only an analogy


in 1987 a supernova went off. Thought to be from a progenitor called sanduleak.
IIRC the time is almost exactly known.
Except of course that's only the time light from it arrived on earth.

The exact time it went of is some 160,000 years ago. The exact distance is not known. So the exact instant is not known.
But the profile of events for the first few seconds etc can be worked out.

But when exactly they occured ???

Now please don't start with 'how can we subjectively know etc...'
Alteratively you could just watch the maxtrix. endlessly. Please.

Or are you trying to object to physics being considered the same then as now, or the same here as there?

Well, my previous post made the point of how we are applying our current value of time to events inside 'the bubble'. How can that be justified, unless we are actually located within that bubble and the exact same values of time still apply to the events taking place therein? That is, since our particular value of a second is relative to our position, here on Earth, how can we talk about what happened there and then, at particular moments just after the BB? It seems to me that our particular value of time would be redundant inside that bubble. Therefore, how can we possibly relate to such an event?

[colubridae]

Jim you really are good for the soul. I don't mean that as derogatively as it sounds.

I'm not sure what it is you are after.
I'm pretty sure you are not going to get it amongst a bunch of skepto-atheio-non-wooheads.

but as an analogy... and only an analogy


in 1987 a supernova went off. Thought to be from a progenitor called sanduleak.
IIRC the time is almost exactly known.
Except of course that's only the time light from it arrived on earth.

The exact time it went of is some 160,000 years ago. The exact distance is not known. So the exact instant is not known.
But the profile of events for the first few seconds etc can be worked out.

But when exactly they occured ???

Now please don't start with 'how can we subjectively know etc...'
Alteratively you could just watch the maxtrix. endlessly. Please.

Or are you trying to object to physics being considered the same then as now, or the same here as there?

Well, my previous post made the point of how we are applying our current value of time to events inside 'the bubble'. How can that be justified, unless we are actually located within that bubble and the exact same values of time still apply to the events taking place therein? That is, since our particular value of a second is relative to our position, here on Earth, how can we talk about what happened there and then, at particular moments just after the BB? It seems to me that our particular value of time would be redundant inside that bubble. Therefore, how can we possibly relate to such an event?

damit I fall for it every time.

Jamest, talking non-sense until everyone gets bored/tired and stops arguing with you is not the same as talking sense.

[lpetrich]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solution.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

So, are you saying that the age of the universe is absolute, regardless of the observer's perspective?

I'm saying that there is a well-defined "cosmic time"; it's the time that one would "see" if one is stationary relative to the overall matter content at one's location.

In the FRW solution, the density/temperature/... of matter is a function only of its its age, the time along a trajectory which follows it, and not of position.

So what's what the age of the Universe means -- that time.

[newolder]

BBT does derive from the age of the universe - since we extrapolate the age of the universe from the events that we witness from the perspective of our own value of time.

A major case of cart before horse there. The age of the universe is derived from BBT. BBT is not derived from the age of the universe. That would be silly, because we'd have to put a figure on the age with no point of reference. The point of reference for the age of the universe is BBT, which is derived from cosmic expansion.

How we work out the point of the BB, is by working through time, from our observations of present events. Knowing the age of the universe follows knowing the point of the BB, which follows this process of working back through time. But you're right - I should have said that BBT derives from our understanding/value of time - and not from the age of the universe.

What I'm really trying to say is that BBT is dependent upon there being 'time' itself. It's intrinsically grounded in our notion of time. So, ultimately, BBT is grounded in the value of relative time. But my concern regards as to how a theory can have universal application unless time can be applied universally, also. Certainly, the age of the universe seems to have nothing other than an arbitrary feel about it, since the value of that age depends upon what you are, where you are, and how fast you are moving.

How can we possibly have a theory, for instance, that discusses what happens within a micro-second of the BB, if we're not located within that 'bubble', applying our present relative value of a micro-second to that particular event? It doesn't add up, I think. Hence, all the questions.

You really need to get to grips with General Relativity theory if you are going to make sense of current observations. A co-moving frame of reference is sometimes referred to as a 'god's-eye view' of the observable universe. However, there is another frame of reference, from 1 dimension 'above' or 'beyond' the 'normal' 3-d of space + 1-d of time, from which the view is even clearer.

If you are truly 99 years old Ned Wright may help you catch up with some parts of current thinking. Enjoy.