The Age of the Universe

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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

baha. I'm a fool.

Quickly removed that, because it was completely wrong No one can ever know.

Not quick enough - a fucking ridiculous post!! Sylvester Stallone wasn't even in that film!!

[beige]

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

baha. I'm a fool.

Quickly removed that, because it was completely wrong No one can ever know.

Not quick enough - a fucking ridiculous post!! Sylvester Stallone wasn't even in that film!!

Damnit, it was a toss up between him and Dame Judi Dench. I'm terrible at such decisions.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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

baha. I'm a fool.

Quickly removed that, because it was completely wrong No one can ever know.

Not quick enough - a fucking ridiculous post!! Sylvester Stallone wasn't even in that film!!

Damnit, it was a toss up between him and Dame Judi Dench. I'm terrible at such decisions.

Judi Dench was in the sequel, if I remember correctly, along with Hulk Hogan and Kermit.

[jamest]

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.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

We can't 'see' the big bang because there was a period of faster than light expansion of the universe in the first few nanoseconds (or some shit - the scale might be out there.) That is why the universe is quite a bit bigger than 13 - 14 billion light years across. We can only view objects that are within the past light cone of our present (or more accurately, we can only view objects that underwent an event that either emitted or reflected photons in our exact direction exactly on the edge of that light cone) so the earlier events are forever sealed from us - unless we can somehow transcend lightspeed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

[jamest]

We can't 'see' the big bang because there was a period of faster than light expansion...

Isn't this at-odds with what Einstein said? If so, how can you justify it? Further, if so, doesn't this render everything that Einstein said, as incorrect?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

So you're saying you never came to terms with your teddy bear being gay?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

So you're saying you never came to terms with your teddy bear being gay?

I'm saying Sherman was just looking for a beach.

[jamest]

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.

Note the use of a question-mark.
I want to know whether there's any [absolute] significance to whatever he/she said.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Note the use of a question-mark.
I want to know whether there's any [absolute] significance to whatever he/she said.

James, that's a cheap tactic with the "?" and you know it. You said something very different from what the person you quoted said. This is the wrong forum for bluffing.

[jamest]

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.

Note the use of a question-mark.
I want to know whether there's any [absolute] significance to whatever he/she said.

James, that's a cheap tactic with the "?" and you know it. You said something very different from what the person you quoted said. This is the wrong forum for bluffing.

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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

[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.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.