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.

 

How can we age the universe?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
How can we say the universe is x years old because when it did happen the earth hadn't formed yet and so therefore the "year" didn't even exist.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


Maybe they use carbon dating or something?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


I hope this isn't an attempt at trolling. Looking at your profile, you do seem to be a semi troll.

"Year" is just one of the measurements that we use. There are so many ways to measure time.

So therefore your argument is invalid (I think you know what that means).



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket
How can we say the universe is x years old because when it did happen the earth hadn't formed yet and so therefore the "year" didn't even exist.


In reality we can not date the universe or earth for that matter , the mathematical formulas are based on unknown constants which initself is an oxymoron . They use the decay rate of certain radioactive isotopes that in themselves have recently been found to be inaccurate therefore the dating of the earth or the universe is based on lies , not unlike the theory of evelution . What we can safely say is the earth and universe are at least millions of years old if not much older.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by swampcricket
 


I hope this isn't an attempt at trolling. Looking at your profile, you do seem to be a semi troll.

"Year" is just one of the measurements that we use. There are so many ways to measure time.

So therefore your argument is invalid (I think you know what that means).


Apparently I'm not a troll since I don't even know what the hell that is. I asked a simple question because we base time on how our universe works because we know it. Now please explained time to me but do it on a Jovian scale not earth. You are an idiot.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 

If you are serious about an answer, type "determining the age of the universe" into your browser's address bar.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 30-6-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I have but it makes no sense. We think that lightspeed is a constant but just an any other theory the theory of realitivity is just that a theory. quantum theory jacks that up pretty good.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


Well you could have explained it better in your OP. Are you saying that time is an illusion?

We experience time, correct?

We measure time by our perception in many ways be it hours, years, etc. That's how we measure the age of the universe. It's basic physics and celestial mechanics and even quantum mechanics.

If you are trying to say that time is an illusion, then I'll accept that.

But the way we measure the age of the universe is by our perception of time. And science. What do you think of the vibration of the quartz crystals? After all they are a part of the universe.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


There is a constant for measuring the passage of time. It's called the speed of light. For instance, light that is reaching us now from an object 13 billion light-years away, then that light has been traveling for 13 billion years. If that object happens to be about as old as the universe, then we've got a good estimate for the age of the universe.

In fact, we do have such an "object" -- the Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB was formed very soon after the Big Bang and has been dated to about 13.75 billion years old. That makes the age of the universe about the same.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
That's what I'm getting at we perceive time as we measure it on earth. But can time be proven? I don't mean check you iPhone and say a minute just passed because like you said could be an illusion.

As for the crystals have you ever heard of the piezo electric effect? They use it in guitars and ultrasound transducers. I have studied it quite a bit being an electrical engineer that designs MRI machines. There is a correlation between magnetism and the piezo effect I can go on and on but it gets boring, not the magnet but the crystals since their properties are known.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


I think I get what you are getting at. You could have explained it better in OP.

The "years" are when the earth orbit completely around the sun. Before the earth was formed? Stuff still orbit about the sun. Before then? The stuff that made up the sun still orbit about something else.

See the meaning? It's a measurable thing. Whether or not time is an illusion, it is still measurable.

If all of this is a dream, it won't change the fact. We can still try to determine the age of the universe by our reckoning.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Ok we just found the most known galaxy. It is 13+ billion years old close to the time of the supposed big bang. So tell me when planets rotate in this far away place do they see the universe half of the time and nothingness the other half? Being that the galaxy is that far away it had to have been born during the big bang correct? And about expansion where are we expanding to?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


A year, day, hour, etc., are not measurements of the passage of time. They're references, or delineations of perceived time, based on events. Essentially, they are illusions, exactly as is being suggested.

Things like electron vibrations and the speed of light can be used to measure the passage of time. These are not illusions. These are direct measurement of time.

It's the difference between the temporal metric and a rotational period mapped over the temporal metric. That is, it's the difference between the length of a coffee table and the length of the ruler you're using to measure the coffee table. Time passes, and we use "years" and such to measure the passage of time. One's an illusion, the other isn't.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 

I'm pretty sure even scientists cannot define what exactly time is, other than it's fourth dimension along other three and that time measurement involves the establishment of a time scale in order to refer to the occurrence of events.
So you're not alone in search for an explanation of what time truly is.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


Unfortunately, I have to go for a couple hours, but I'll respond to these when I get back.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


I have but it makes no sense. We think that lightspeed is a constant but just an any other theory the theory of realitivity is just that a theory. quantum theory jacks that up pretty good.

That computer you're using is based on theory too! How much of that theory makes any sense to you? Though you likely don't understand much of it, I'll bet you expect it to "come to life" when you push the "Power" button.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


If the laws of physics are so strong explain wassonite a new element discovered from the Martian meteorite an the on they just found from a meteorite in Mexico. We haven't even scratched physics an quantum mechanics. We are nothing but babies in a grown up world learning to speak.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


It's on and its an iPad. But good point how can one theory disprove the other since both are theories not fact?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


That's what I'm getting at we perceive time as we measure it on earth. But can time be proven? I don't mean check you iPhone and say a minute just passed because like you said could be an illusion.

Without time, there would be no "illusion", perception, or even motion!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


They have measured "year" with "electronic vibration" and determined to be such and such. They are taken to be "average" measurement of time. It has been pretty consistent over time.

Doesn't matter. We use some "direct" measurements of time and it has been pretty accurate.

I just wish the OP would have explained it better in the first place.

I do understand that our perception of time can be an illusion, but those "ticks" or movements are real.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join