Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

It's a crackpot theory, therefore you have got it all right. Any answer
will do.
In fact, when YOU say the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, it is
the time as measured today because YOU want it to be.
IN FACT, *we* do not make any such claim.
The question is, whose time are YOU talking about?

Some people will believe any crap...

On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, vibh...@gmail.com wrote:

If indeed the 13.7 billion years is with today's clock, then a
hypothetical clock which came into existence with the BB and has
measured the time all along (at the universe's rate of the time-flow)
up to now would show a much smaller time. Right?

On Jul 22, 7:04 pm, vibh...@gmail.com wrote:

That is cosmology. Unless you were there personally with
your trusty wrist watch, it isn't a good basis for physics
which we can measure on a table top.

<<invariance with respect to time translation gives the
well known law of conservation of energy >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem#Applications

The Pound Rebka Snider experiments show that atomic
clocks are affected by gravity, not time.

<<Field theories with a finite continuous symmetry
group have what Hilbert called `proper energy theorems'.
Physically in such theories one has a localized, conserved
energy density; and one can prove that in any arbitrary
volume the net outflow of energy across the boundary is
equal to the time rate of decrease of energy within the
volume. As will be shown below, this follows from the fact
that the energy-momentum tensor of the theory is
divergence free. In general relativity, on the other hand,
it has no meaning to speak of a definite localization of
energy. One may define a quantity which is divergence
free analogous to the energy-momentum density tensor
of special relativity, but it is gauge dependent: i.e., it is
not covariant under general coordinate transformations.
Consequently the fact that it is divergence free does not
yield a meaningful law of local energy conservation.
Thus one has, as Hilbert saw it, in such theories
`improper energy theorems.' >>
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~cwp/articles/noether.asg/noether.html

I suppose if you know how to sell books you can make
a career of bending the table top physics to fit your
favorite observations an a theory that supports them.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Cosmology.html

Sue...

< and in the beginning the universe was extremely

Go ahead - fill a desperately needed gap in the literature.

Ahhhh... but what of the date?

Try this: Time is measured at the center where gravity cancels.

Look up "relativistic red shift" and "gravitational red shift".

You got it wrong from believing in the "big bang" itself.
A gigantic explosion from a "nothing" is a gigantic joke
to even think about.

Time is not something that "started" and "time" will never end.
There is no physical thing that "IS" time itself.
Time is simply a human invented periodic counting method
and nothing more than such.

  We use current time units of seconds, and earth years.

  On cannot assume that the "mass" existed prior to inflation.

This is not right.  More precisely, it is not a meaningful statement.  It
is physically meaningful to compare the rates of two clocks at different
locations.  You can do it by bouncing light signals back and forth.  How
would you go about comparing the rates of clocks at two different times?

It is as measured by a hypothetical clock that lived through the whole
process.

See above.  Hope this helps!