I disappointed that nobody has made a reasonable case against this. You do not have to be nice about it at all just physically reasonable. I do not even expect this to be right but I can't find an escape within the standard model of physics. I am not so familiar with the standard model of cosmology.
Dan Shiva asked a related question in a more general way and got
this answer from Tim Thompson.
To this I responded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my_wan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Generally speaking, in general relativity, there are two kinds of time: coordinate time and proper time. The former is the one that is gravity dependent, but the latter is not. |
That statement does not really make much sense when coordinate time is nothing more that what proper time would be for an observer at that point. The concept of coordinate time is usefull for speaking about proper times across the entire coordinate system rather than for particular observers. It is not a different "kind of time" or coordinate system. It is not possible to speak of GR being independent of proper time when proper time changes as the depth of field changes and coordinate time is the proper time on the whole coordinate system. |
If Tim could enlighten me perhaps I could wash my hands of this thread.
Bjoern also created this thread, "
To all proponents of a universe with infinite age" To this I responded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by my_wan
I am well aware of the empirical issues with trying to claim the observable universe is older than ~15 billion years. It is silly to expect it on prejudice alone. My own ATM posting in this category was born out of attempts to answer questions on this board and the standard model of physics. It is in no way a claim about age in general or even a claim about the legitamacy of the Big Bang. It is merely an attempt to articulate what the Hubble flow can say about it. |
If you look at my post history I have not always been especially nice. So I'm looking for an arguement here to relieve myself of this idea.