FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-2003, 08:27 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,956
Default

I tend to think that the 'time of the universe'(whether at the beginning or not) came mainly from GR ( with the help of Hubble constant). Since Hubble constant was discovered based on the observations that the universe was expanding and all the distant galaxies(on the average) are moving faster than nearby ones, so ,Hubble constant and cosmological equation work just the same in most parts of the universe. Therefore we have good reasosn to believe that the 'age of the universe' that we are talking about 'works' for all frame references except maybe some of the extreme cases.
Answerer is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 08:44 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 1,248
Default

The era before the inflation represents total symmetry, matched particles/antiparticles, matched supersymmetric partners, etc. Therefore there is no basis for any definite observer frame of reference. In a real sense, therefore, the inflation is the actual "creation" event. All vestiges/remnants of the past come from the post-inflation period, when asymmetry begins and stable configurations permit establishing observer frames of reference. If you are idealist and believe in mind separate from matter, then it behooves you to describe how to ideate a frame of reference and justify that choice.
That's my opinion.
Ernest Sparks is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 11:17 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montrčal
Posts: 367
Default the laws of physics at point zero

Eh,

if you believe the laws of physics held true at the instant of the big bang, then those laws would have already have to have been embedded at 10 E -34 secs, sorto wanno makeo youo believe in some kindo GODo. Shh do not let the creationists in on this logic...


Sammi Na Boodie (but would that not be warp time)
Mr. Sammi is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 01:52 PM   #14
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 108
Default

I should also point out that, just as there is no "absolute (or preferred) frame of reference" for space (i.e., it's cool to set up coordinate systems wherever and however you want), there is no "preferred time frame" either. It's just as good to measure time from Earth as it is from by a black hole as it is to measure it from a proton created in the Big Bang.

Ernest: That doesn't make any sense...
cfgauss is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:04 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A Shadowy Planet
Posts: 7,585
Default

That's true for inertial reference frames only.
Shadowy Man is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:12 PM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 108
Default

You can use non-inertial ones, as long as you remember to account for all the problems!
cfgauss is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.