'Time is linear, memory is a stranger, history is for fools....'

[scherado]

When I read, "the universe was at an age of 300,000 years" in a post in another thread, I wondered how could anyone determine that number. Well, one might think an age was determined and then it was expressed in terms of years--so that the reader could understand.

And how would someone determine that particular duration?

What is the basis for any expression of duration.

Anybody?

Time is linear,
memory is a stranger,
history is for fools....

Roger Waters, Perfect Sense, Part I from Amused To Death

[Silvestru]

You will find everything and more in the link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

I know you are expecting a philosophical entertaining explanation but you posted in the physics section. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Silvestru

[scherado]

Thanks, but I don't acknowledge that site as legitimate.

I will be more than happy to go to any other sources. I've been boycotting that source since.....I don't really know,  probably over ten years.

Thank you.

And I'm not here for entertainment.

 

Do you not know the answer to the question? (I don't mean "anybody?")

Edited September 26, 2017 by scherado

[Silvestru]

Sorry about that,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403196.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.02480.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.00002.pdf

Here are a few papers which look at this from different perspectives but I'm sure you will find them interesting.

There are many models that describe this. The most accepted one is the Lambda-CDM model. In the links above you have a description of this and others as well.

[scherado]

I'm not interested. Look at my OP

Do you know the answer to the question. What is the basis for any expression of duration.

Do you understand the question?

Edited September 26, 2017 by scherado

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, scherado said:

And how would someone determine that particular duration?

What is the basis for any expression of duration.

Anybody?

I am not clear as to the exact nature of your question, but you seem to be asking how to put numbers to the time axis.
In particular you mention duration.

 

Can you explain your question further please?

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, scherado said:

I'm not interested.

Do you know the answer to the question. What is the basis for any expression of duration.

Do you understand the question?

I really don't think you understand the questions. Do you want me to paste the equation?

Will it make you feel better instead of reading about it? I feel like you are trying to read Faust in German without speaking a lick of it.

[scherado]

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am not clear as to the exact nature of your question, but you seem to be asking how to put numbers to the time axis.

I am not asking "how to put numbers to the time axis." Are you serious?

Read and comprehend the first sentence in the OP, then reconsider, please.

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.

 

12 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I really don't think you understand the questions. Do you want me to paste the equation?

Will it make you feel better instead of reading about it? I feel like you are trying to read Faust in German without speaking a lick of it.

Do you want to be the first person on my ignore list?

Do you understand that question?

Edited September 26, 2017 by scherado

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, scherado said:

And how would someone determine that particular duration?

To put it simply, we have a model that describes the universe evolving from an early hot, dense state. We can determine the physical characteristics of the universe at each time, and hence work out when it was cool enough for recombination to occur. The timeline is derived from multiple lines of evidence; the simplest being an interpolation of the expansion we currently see. But this is confirmed by things like the temperature of the CMB.

49 minutes ago, scherado said:

Thanks, but I don't acknowledge that site as legitimate.

That seems a bit silly. The science pages generally reliable. And you can just use it as a list of references to the the sources of the information if you don't trust the editors to have summarised it accurately.

27 minutes ago, scherado said:

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.

That sounds more like a question for philosophy than physics. 

[scherado]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

To put it simply, we have a model that describes the universe evolving from an early hot, dense state. We can determine the physical characteristics of the universe at each time, and ...

No, not simply. You can not determine anything in terms of time at that stage of development of the universe. That you think you can, apparently from your statement, suggests that you don't know the nature of 'time'. I'm not using a philosophical term with "nature of."

You should not be alarmed, many many people have disparate conceptions of 'time', including physicists and other eggheads, to use a word.

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, scherado said:

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am not clear as to the exact nature of your question, but you seem to be asking how to put numbers to the time axis.

I am not asking "how to put numbers to the time axis." Are you serious?

Read and comprehend the first sentence in the OP, then reconsider, please.

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.

I didn't comprehend the first sentence, and I said so.

So please don't be insulting, just answer my question.

[scherado]

Just now, studiot said:

I didn't comprehend the first sentence, and I said so.

So please don't be insulting, just answer my question.

What is your question? And you did NOT say anything that I heard.

[studiot]

Just now, scherado said:

What is your question? And you did NOT say anything that I heard.

I asked you to explain your opening post because, as I siad, I was not sure what you were after.

Reading your replies to myself and others I am still not sure, although I now have a list of what you are not seeking.

So please explain your opening post.

You never know, you may be pleasantly suprised.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, scherado said:

No, not simply. You can not determine anything in terms of time at that stage of development of the universe.

Why not?

Quote

That you think you can, apparently from your statement, suggests that you don't know the nature of 'time'. I'm not using a philosophical term with "nature of."

Then what is the "nature of time"? I look forward to being enlightened by your greater knowledge of the subject.

[scherado]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

When I read, "the universe was at an age of 300,000 years" ...

And how would someone determine that particular duration?

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I am not clear as to the exact nature of your question, but you seem to be asking how to put numbers to the time axis.

I was referring to the duration that elapsed from singularity to 300,000 years. You should notice that I do not use the word 'time', but instead use the phrase "duration that elapsed".

Now do you understand?

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then what is the "nature of time"? I look forward to being enlightened by your greater knowledge of the subject.

You will make that determination. When you do, you will, I suspect, realize that you've always known.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

I was referring to the duration that elapsed from singularity to 300,000 years. You should notice that I do not use the word 'time', but instead use the phrase "duration that elapsed".Now do you understand?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. However, as noted previously, the duration (not time) is determined by looking at the current rate of expansion (e.g. how the distance of galaxies increases with time duration) and the current temperature of the CMB radiation (and therefore how much it has cooled in the time duration since recombination).

We can trace the evolution of the universe over time duration back to a much earlier time point (our current physical theories no longer earlier than that time point). And so we know that there is a time duration of about 360,000 years from the earliest time point we can model to the time point when recombination happened.

But I am curious as to why you say it is impossible to know this? Is that based on a flaw in the physics? Or a philosophical/religious belief? Or ... ?

Quote

You will make that determination. When you do, you will, I suspect, realize that you've always known.

Disappointed that you are not willing to share your knowledge. How, exactly, will I make this determination?

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

Do you want to be the first person on my ignore list?

Do you understand that question?

Take a breath of fresh air and let's try to be civil.

15 minutes ago, scherado said:

I was referring to the duration that elapsed from singularity to 300,000 years. You should notice that I do not use the word 'time', but instead use the phrase "duration that elapsed".

The fact that you omit the word time and make a sentence make no sense what so ever while still referring to the term "years" does not make it better. duration of what? Do you have a substitute for time?

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Silvestru said:

Do you have a substitute for time?

When I am supposed to be working, chocolate makes a good substitute.

[Silvestru]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

When I am supposed to be working, chocolate makes a good substitute.

Perfect. So maybe scherado can use that as the term "time" is so overused and out-dated.

I am also really interested and willing to change my ignorant views scherado. Can you please explain how all of this works? It wont take you more than a few chocolates.

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Disappointed that you are not willing to share your knowledge. How, exactly, will I make this determination?

I too am disappointed. +1

[Strange]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

My question requires one to know the nature of 'time'.

As you are unwilling to reveal this secret, I don't see how anyone can answer the question.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

scherado, you've been asked for clarification in a mainstream science section, by members who've taken time to join this discussion. Either be civil and answer questions put to you, or this thread will be closed. We don't tolerate trolling here, and you are obligated to clarify and support your assertions. 

Please lose the attitude. We're all here to learn. And don't bother responding to this modnote. Please use that TIME responding to the thread topic.

 

[EdEarl]

I'd like to know why the word "time" is inadequate for "duration that elapsed." Perhaps he is trying to understand the nature of the "duration that elapsed," as some scientists are trying to relate time and entropy. However, the OP includes other things that are not directly related to the meaning of "duration that elapsed," and confound the question.

That he doesn't trust Wikipedia is a little suspicious, but perhaps that is because Wikipedia has known errors and he is cautious. He is asking on scienceforums, perhaps he does trust science. I'd also like to know the nature of his mistrust for Wikipedia.

Edited September 26, 2017 by EdEarl
grammar

[scherado]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

scherado, you've been asked for clarification in a mainstream science section, by members who've taken time to join this discussion. Either be civil and answer questions put to you, or this thread will be closed. We don't tolerate trolling here, and you are obligated to clarify and support your assertions. 

Please lose the attitude. We're all here to learn. And don't bother responding to this modnote. Please use that TIME responding to the thread topic.

 

Please close the thread. Thank you.

1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

I'd like to know why the word "time" is inadequate for "duration that elapsed." Perhaps he is trying to understand the nature of the "duration that elapsed," as some scientists are trying to relate time and entropy. However, the OP includes other things that are not directly related to the meaning of "duration that elapsed," and confound the question.

That he doesn't trust Wikipedia is a little suspicious, but perhaps that is because Wikipedia has known errors and he is cautious. He is asking on scienceforums, perhaps he does trust science. I'd also like to know the nature of his mistrust for Wikipedia.

I've asked for the thread to be closed.

 

Thank you for your correct sentence, the first sentence.  The second sentence is not correct.

 

I will start a thread about wikie-pee-D-uh, if necessary

Edited September 26, 2017 by scherado

[J.C.MacSwell]

Pleasant fellow.