Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Time is a function of the frame of reference.

Doesn't everyone with at least a half-ass education know that these
days?

What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...
Exactly what most people think it means.


Jim:

Too bad really, most people are wrong ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

If we lived on Mars, the unit of time would be different too because
the defined conditions for the standard would have changed.

So if we ever colonize Mars, how do we keep Earth and Mars clocks
in sync?

Simple, we define a set of standard conditions that applies to every
place. Any place that doesn't have those standard conditions gets
a correction, just like GPS satellites do.

The second becomes whatever it is defined to be.

Using a relative time standard that obeys the rules
of relativity to assert the absolute age of the
universe seems really strange to me.

Your're playing semantic games Cecil.

All measurments of everything are relative to some standard which is
pretty arbitrary and doesn't matter as long as everyone uses the
same standard.

The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What does it mean when someone says the age of the universe
is 12.5 billion years?

Exactly what most people think it means.

Seems like an argumentum ad populum. If we lived
near a black hole, our seconds could be 10^6 times
longer than they are now. What would most people
think then?

Since that would change the defined conditions for the unit of time,
the number would probably change.

But, since we couldn't live that close to a black hole, the point is
moot.

Most of the points in theorectical physics are moot.

Jimmie D wrote:

...
Most of the points in theorectical physics are moot.



Jimmie:

True, VERY true. Indeed, before Einstein that same fact was true--but
still, good some men ignored that and continued ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:

...
The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?


Jim:

No one can dispute your, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" argument.

Anyone would be fool to throw away our present theories, equations, etc.

However, your argument of, "I am only worried about what happens in my
backyard" would halt progress and advancement towards the real and
correct understanding of these things.

But hey, if what we have right now is working, "Use it!" is my motto ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...
The standard for time for human beings is based on a particular
property of cesium on a defined Earth.

Using that standard, the age of the universe is what it is.

Use a different standard, you get a different answer.

So what?


Jim:

No one can dispute your, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" argument.

That isn't my argument.

Anyone would be fool to throw away our present theories, equations, etc.

Nonsense.

Theories are constantly changed as better data is obtained.

Newtonian physics is good enough for designing bumper jacks but not
GPS systems.

However, your argument of, "I am only worried about what happens in my
backyard" would halt progress and advancement towards the real and
correct understanding of these things.

That isn't my argument.

But hey, if what we have right now is working, "Use it!" is my motto ...

Warmest regards,
JS

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.