|Let's talk about||
parent: The Interesting Thing About Time
Re: The Interesting Thing About Time by Alices Restaurant on 2004-03-09 18:06:37
What I find interesting is the discussions about the age of the universe. But I always want to then say, from who's "time reference" are we measuring the age of the universe? Most of the inferred ages are measured from our own timeframe. But then, all of us are made up of little specks, all coalesced from a first-generation star's supernova remnants. And since they were all thrown out by that star at relativistic speeds, (similar to the original Big Bang's "Big Vomit"), one has to wonder if everyone's actually compensated for the time dialation that occurs when you're travelling so fast. Time slows down, almost to a standstill in fact if YOU are part of what's moving away so fast.
So you really have to wonder whether or not all these scientists have clued into the fact that their age estimates for the universe are so wildly wrong, since we've twice been part of a system that's travelling at relativistic speeds. To an outside observer the universe could be only a couple of billion years old perhaps.
So back to the cesium issue... sure, it oscillates 9x10^9 times per second but the concept of an Earth second hasn't always been that "fixed".
Reply to this
|Re: Re: The Interesting Thing About Time by Kid on 2004-03-09 23:14:39 | Reply to this|
And where do you stand on the multiple dimension theory of the universe? (Its very early, and I'll explain it poorly, so I shan't bother) It would also knack up the scientists ideas of age.
And you have to ask if the second's length hasn't been fixed, why? Because of a) A lack of global communication and b) Lack of precision between the two. The caesium thing provides one, and modern communication the former.