>the universe is 13.6 billion years
>time is relative
contradiction
if absolute time doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense talking about the age of the universe
>>7978927
Time is absolute, how quickly it appears to pass for an observer is relative
>>7978935
>Time is absolute nonsense
ftfy
>>7978927
>years
Excuse us for having a relative system of measurement.
>>7978935
define "observer"
if by "observer", you mean "someone looking in a particular point of the spacetime", then it doesn't make sense to talk about the "age of the universe" since every point in the spacetime belongs to the universe and every point in the spacetime has a different "time"
so we should say the universe is 13.6 billion years relative to us right now, not "the universe is 13.6 billion years"
for all I know, our Earth could have experienced strong gravitational pulls in the past or relativistic speeds compared to the rest of the universe and then that means the "relative age" we found is distorded
>>7978927
>The universe... 13.2bn yrs.
Well. The basis for this assumption is the fact that the light from a higher percentage of distant galaxies is red shifted so they are moving away from us - thus the universe is expanding, everywhere, all at once. A lot of debate has gone on about this, at the quantum level particles are 'popping into existenz' filling in the gaps and so on.
The fact is, the universe is not expanding, everything moves in orbits, even galaxies, our super cluster is rotating around itself and many local clusters rotate around whatever the great attractor is. However the red-shifting we observe is simple statistical aberration of galaxies on a retrograde orbit. In X million years we would see them coming towards us and freak about the universe contracting. The age of the universe is thus still indeterminate.
i don't even need to go on /b/ for cringe threads any more
>>7978976
>>7978989
you're the degenerate for going to /b/
>conformal time
>>7978986
This is /sci/, not a soapbox for your delusional fantasies. Get out.
>>7978935
That's a subject for philosophers who understand physics (Putnam, Quine, Feyerbend, Einstein, Kripke, etc.) not physicists. The fact that relativity has predictive power does not (trivially) suggest anything about "absolute temporality". And before you try to intentionally misrepresent me, I'm not saying that science don't real and relativity doesn't tell you any important things about the actual geometry of space-time, I'm saying this isn't one of those things
>>7979000
>>7978927
Sure it does. The universe is so many billions of years old... in our reference frame.
>>7979133
>The fact that relativity has predictive power does not (trivially) suggest anything about "absolute temporality"
While technically true, the idea of having absolute time but the laws of nature just happening to be arranged in such a way as to make it impossible to notice seems awfully contrived. Not actually a *disproof*, but it doesn't seem like a natural line of thought.
Also, relativity does have absolute temporality, in a sense. Simultaneity may be relative, but only for events separated too far in space for light to pass from one to the other; for events close enough that causality applies, there's a definite absolute ordering.
>>7979133
No, im saying that in physics, time itself is not relative to the observer, only how "quickly" a certain chunk of time seems to take.
>>7979660
Also wrong; given two events A and B separated by a space-like interval (too far apart in space compared to separation in time for light to pass between them), an observer could percive A as following B while another could percieve B as coming before A, and a third could percieve them simultaneously.
>>7978927
how is OPs pic not obviously the inside of the building getting pushed out by the pressure caused by the weight of all the debris falling inwards...
but I bet it's implying something else
>>7980428
you're correct, it's pressure going down elevators and stairways and blowing out windows
the building's inside was pure hell during the collapse. everyone still in the buildings died except for some lucky ones in a stairway
and most of the bodies were chopped up in several pieces
OP's pic is probably implying detonations, which is wrong
