Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You really have to ask that?Images of what?
Images of what?
This is exactly why I asked if you were drunk, or intoxicated right now, etc?You really have to ask that?
"Of things in the universe at a distance."
Is that simple enough for you to understand, etc?
Are they also that "old", or are they not?
Yes or No?
God Bless.
I'm content to go with AI's response to what I think you're asking (my underline):You really have to ask that?
"Of things in the universe at a distance."
Is that simple enough for you to understand, etc?
Are they also that "old", or are they not?
Yes or No?
God Bless.
What? You can't answer or think for yourself?I'm content to go with AI's response to what I think you're asking (my underline):
'The JWST's first deep field image, known as "SMACS 0723," shows a vast array of galaxies, including thousands of faint objects, as they were 13.5 billion years ago. This image, captured by the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI), reveals a cluster of galaxies and faint structures in extremely distant galaxies, along with other features like promient arcs and star clusters. The light in the image has been traveling for about 13.5 billion years, allowing us to see these ancient galaxies'.
This is just the very beginning of some of my points, etc.What? You can't answer or think for yourself?
Ok, well then maybe you should ask AI if the images are also that old or not then, etc?
Even though it basically right now just told you that they were also "that old", etc.
"As they were 13.5 billion years ago", etc.
God Bless.
You still don't get it, the travelling observer's clock will read differently to a clock in the cosmic rest frame, did the universe age according to the travelling observer or the cosmic clock?Which is 13.7-8 billion years no matter where you are at in it, correct?
Glad we agree here.
For that observer in that rest frame traveling, everything else appears to be moving/aging slower for them temporarily, but in reality, for all other observers in their own rest frames not going that fast, it is only the flow rate of time for that other person/entity/obesrver only that has changed at all temporarily actually, etc.
So, just don't get all caught up with the whole being able to theoretically do it by just only physically exceeding the speed of light using some kind of physical matter or material that is being propelled or pushed through normal space at speeds that exceed the speed of light then? Because that might not be the only way, etc.
Well, I already know, it is around 13.7-8 billion years young/old equally everywhere, and that much is obvious, etc.
God Bless.
In my opinion, the universe never ages according to the travelers clock, etc. The traveler will age or experience time slower, and so will his clock, but his clock will have to be reset once he slows back down to relatively the same speeds as everything else in the universe again. But the rest of the universe itself didn't ever change, or experience time any differently, but only how he experienced time did when he was in motion at those speeds temporarily, etc.You still don't get it, the travelling observer's clock will read differently to a clock in the cosmic rest frame, did the universe age according to the travelling observer or the cosmic clock?
Yes, I think I understand that. Everything is in motion (probably) and nothing is truly 100% at rest (probably) and therfore experiences some small (but very, very small probably) measure of time dilation, etc. But it is extremely, extremely small until you can reach speeds that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally unless it's somehow created by man trying to push a person or an object at speeds getting closer and closer to the speed of light that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally. Therefore time dilation remains mostly insignificant in most places in the universe, and the flow rate of time is still pretty much normal, or is still pretty much the same, in most places in the universe everywhere, with a few exceptions, etc, but exceptions mainly having to do with very strong gravity that you have to be in very close proximity to mainly, etc.The cosmic rest frame is the preferred frame of reference but it is not an absolute frame of reference in a Newtonian sense where time is absolute and independent of the motion of the observer.
Yes, I know that everything becomes "crazy" and pretty pointless to try and postulate, especially when discussing pushing a person, or a spaceship, or an object, or anything with mass or matter or physical material, at, especially speeds beyond the speed of light, etc. I'm not at all disagreeing with you there, etc, but it's also not at all what I was trying to discuss here either, etc, as I'm already aware that almost everything breaks down at that point, etc. I was mainly only speaking of theory, but also not by theorizing pushing physical matter or material beyond the speed of light, etc, but was maybe thinking of other ways we might be able to do this or get there eventually, but only strictly "in theory" only, etc. Just kind of saying "If you/me/we could, how old (or young) would the universe be there", etc, and that's all I was trying to postulate, or theorize, or was trying to say, etc. And it was mainly just meant as a mental exercise to try and show (or prove) that the universe is the same age equally everywhere, etc. (13.7-8 billion years old equally everywhere, etc).The travelling observer's clock will agree with the cosmic clock when time dilation is taken into account but this is only possible for speeds less than the speed of light.
At the speed of light time dilation becomes infinitely large while exceeding it the equations (Lorentz transformations) take on complex values which have no physical significance let alone the paradoxes which are created.
Your millisecond of my thinking time allocated to you, expired at the end of my first post.What? You can't answer or think for yourself?
But apparently not yours, etc.The AI answer is sufficient for answering your question.
And just in the case that someone might choose to disagree with me about everything else in the universe not ever being in motion or ever experiencing speeds at close to the speed of light, etc, they might mention something that is near or at, or is close/near to the edge of the observable universe maybe? Moving out away from us at the speed of light with us as the center, and is why we can't see anything beyond that, etc. (46.5 billion light years out away from us in every direction with us as the center, etc).In my opinion, the universe never ages according to the travelers clock, etc. The traveler will age or experience time slower, and so will his clock, but his clock will have to be reset once he slows back down to relatively the same speeds as everything else in the universe again. But the rest of the universe itself didn't ever change, or experience time any differently, but only how he experienced time did when he was in motion at those speeds temporarily, etc.
Yes, I think I understand that. Everything is in motion (probably) and nothing is truly 100% at rest (probably) and therfore experiences some small (but very, very small probably) measure of time dilation, etc. But it is extremely, extremely small until you can reach speeds that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally unless it's somehow created by man trying to push a person or an object at speeds getting closer and closer to the speed of light that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally. Therefore time dilation remains mostly insignificant in most places in the universe, and the flow rate of time is still pretty much normal, or is still pretty much the same, in most places in the universe everywhere, with a few exceptions, etc.
Yes, I know that everything becomes "crazy" and pretty pointless to try and postulate, especially when discussing pushing a person, or a spaceship, or an object, or anything with mass or matter or physical material, at, especially speeds beyond the speed of light, etc. I'm not at all disagreeing with you there, etc, but it's also not at all what I was trying to discuss here either, etc, as I'm already aware that almost everything breaks down at that point, etc. I was mainly only speaking of theory, but also not by theorizing pushing physical matter or material beyond the speed of light, etc, but was maybe thinking of other ways we might be able to do this or get there eventually, but only strictly "in theory" only, etc. Just kind of saying "If you/me/we could, how old (or young) would the universe be there", etc, and that's all I was trying to postulate, or theorize, or was trying to say, etc. And it was mainly just meant as a mental exercise to try and show (or prove) that the universe is the same age equally everywhere, etc. (13.7-8 billion years old equally everywhere, etc).
Take Care/God Bless.
That's nonsense!I was mainly only speaking of theory, but also not by theorizing pushing physical matter or material beyond the speed of light, etc, but was maybe thinking of other ways we might be able to do this or get there eventually, but only strictly "in theory" only, etc. Just kind of saying "If you/me/we could, how old (or young) would the universe be there", etc, and that's all I was trying to postulate, or theorize, or was trying to say, etc. And it was mainly just meant as a mental exercise to try and show (or prove) that the universe is the same age equally everywhere, etc. (13.7-8 billion years old equally everywhere, etc).
Clearly the 5 billion year distance displacement factored into your thinking, which supposedly, according to that same thinking, was asserted by you as being 'a possible answer' and thereby could have led you to entertain a completely different age of the universe at the distant location!Neogaia777 said:.. There are only two possible answers if we use these numbers, etc. It's either 13.7-8 billion years old there, or it is 13.7-8 billion years minus 5 billion, etc. So, which is it?
In physics an observer can be a clock like a particle which decays at a constant and predictable rate. Muons travel through spacetime at near the speed of light, a moving muon will decay at around 29 times longer relative to a stationary muon.In my opinion, the universe never ages according to the travelers clock, etc. The traveler will age or experience time slower, and so will his clock, but his clock will have to be reset once he slows back down to relatively the same speeds as everything else in the universe again. But the rest of the universe itself didn't ever change, or experience time any differently, but only how he experienced time did when he was in motion at those speeds temporarily, etc.
Clearly time dilation can be significant using the muon example.Yes, I think I understand that. Everything is in motion (probably) and nothing is truly 100% at rest (probably) and therfore experiences some small (but very, very small probably) measure of time dilation, etc. But it is extremely, extremely small until you can reach speeds that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally unless it's somehow created by man trying to push a person or an object at speeds getting closer and closer to the speed of light that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally. Therefore time dilation remains mostly insignificant in most places in the universe, and the flow rate of time is still pretty much normal, or is still pretty much the same, in most places in the universe everywhere, with a few exceptions, etc, but exceptions mainly having to do with very strong gravity that you have to be in very close proximity to mainly, etc.
This is supposed to be a science forum not a science fiction forum with your reference to instantaneous speeds.Yes, I know that everything becomes "crazy" and pretty pointless to try and postulate, especially when discussing pushing a person, or a spaceship, or an object, or anything with mass or matter or physical material, at, especially speeds beyond the speed of light, etc. I'm not at all disagreeing with you there, etc, but it's also not at all what I was trying to discuss here either, etc, as I'm already aware that almost everything breaks down at that point, etc. I was mainly only speaking of theory, but also not by theorizing pushing physical matter or material beyond the speed of light, etc, but was maybe thinking of other ways we might be able to do this or get there eventually, but only strictly "in theory" only, etc. Just kind of saying "If you/me/we could, how old (or young) would the universe be there", etc, and that's all I was trying to postulate, or theorize, or was trying to say, etc. And it was mainly just meant as a mental exercise to try and show (or prove) that the universe is the same age equally everywhere, etc. (13.7-8 billion years old equally everywhere, etc).
Take Care/God Bless.
Two possible answers in anyone's thinking period, but with only one right answer, and one wrong answer, etc. Yeah, guess I should have clarified that probably, etc. "Sorry", etc.That's nonsense!
In your post #18, (where you doubled down from previous similar posts) you said:
Clearly the 5 billion year distance displacement factored into your thinking, which supposedly, according to that same thinking, was asserted by you as being 'a possible answer' and thereby could have led you to entertain a completely different age of the universe at the distant location!
How any of that gobbledygook was then going to help you 'prove' the same age everywhere, is just bizarre!
I'll have to respond to the rest of your post/reply later, but a question came up for me though that could greatly alter or change the way that I choose to reply to you later on though, and was wondering if you could maybe just quickly answer it for me maybe?In physics an observer can be a clock like a particle which decays at a constant and predictable rate. Muons travel through spacetime at near the speed of light, a moving muon will decay at around 29 times longer relative to a stationary muon.
Which clock do we use a stationary muon or a muon traveling at near the speed of light to determine how much the universe has aged?
NoDoes the percentage of the time dilation effect(s) change, or is or are they different ever at all ever, depending on what kind of matter or material you use as it approaches c? or you accelerate it up to c? (or close to c, etc?)
My short answer, besides the question I just now asked you (post #55 above) is that you should probably use the one that is co-moving, or that is relatively stationary along with you probably, etc. But if you wanted to use a moun as a clock in it's natural state (always moving at a constant and consistent speed close to c that wasn't ever going to be subject to fluctuate or change, etc) then you'd need to adjust it's internal increments/mechanisms or intervals at which it was measured/measuring, or was taking measurements, or was displayed, etc, so it could always measure or display your time correctly, etc. But if you were going to change or alter it's velocity ever, then you'd always need to adjust it's clock to reflect that change, etc.In physics an observer can be a clock like a particle which decays at a constant and predictable rate. Muons travel through spacetime at near the speed of light, a moving muon will decay at around 29 times longer relative to a stationary muon.
Which clock do we use a stationary muon or a muon traveling at near the speed of light to determine how much the universe has aged?
The answer is in my next response.
Clearly time dilation can be significant using the muon example.
Here is another piece of mathematics which modern cosmology is based on the FLRW metric.
ds² = c²dt² - a²(t)[dr²/1-kr² + r²(dθ² + sin²θdϕ²)]
a²(t) is the scale factor of the universe where a(tₒ) = 1 for the universe as it exists now and k is the curvature parameter and can have the values of 1, 0, -1 corresponding to a closed, flat and open universe respectively.
In this model all observers (people, atomic clocks and muons being examples) are comoving which is another way of stating they are stationary in the universe but are being carried by the expansion or the Hubble flow.
By being comoving observers they all agree on the age of the universe which cannot be achieved if individual observers move in spacetime at different velocities.
Furthermore observers are not in high gravitational fields where their clocks run slower due to gravitational time dilation.
A stationary person, atomic clock and muon in a low gravity potential field qualifies as a comoving observer.
This is supposed to be a science forum not a science fiction forum with your reference to instantaneous speeds.
Timelike and spacelike regions where causality failed were recognized and understood by physicists by the early 20th century at a time when the Milky Way galaxy was still considered to be the universe.
The above assertion, in the OP, requires clarification... even if that could take you somewhere else in the universe near instantly, the universe still always stays the same age/time equally everywhere really, etc.
Using stationary people, atomic clocks and muons involves spacetime locally, the universe is spacetime globally.My short answer, besides the question I just now asked you (post #55 above) is that you should probably use the one that is co-moving, or that is relatively stationary along with you probably, etc. But if you wanted to use a moun as a clock in it's natural state (always moving at a constant and consistent speed close to c that wasn't ever going to be subject to fluctuate or change, etc) then you'd need to adjust it's internal increments/mechanisms or intervals at which it was measured/measuring, or was taking measurements, or was displayed, etc, so it could always measure or display your time correctly, etc. But if you were going to change or alter it's velocity ever, then you'd always need to adjust it's clock to reflect that change, etc.
And different objects could all be moving at different velocities or speeds, and while their clocks would all be flowing each a different rate always, once all of them got back to being co-moving with most of what is in the rest of the universe again, the flow rate of time would have never changed for the rest of the universe ever, but only the flow rate of time "for them and them only" would have changed or been altered temporarily only, etc. And all of their clocks would reflect that, but none of the clocks anywhere else (if they were relatively stationary, etc) never would have ever experienced that time any different, or ever would have changed.
But if they tried to observe the rest of the universe while they were in motion, let's say, they looked out of a window, or something, then from their perspective the rest of the universe would appear to be aging more slowly from their perspective, but it actually doesn't/didn't ever, and never did, but its just that their time or their aging, or the way they were right now experiencing time would have just only slowed down for just them and them only temporarily. Once they re-joined the rest of the universe again, they would notice that nothing ever changed for the rest of the universe actually, but just that they were going slower temporarily. Which allowed them to observe the rest of the universe going slower temporarily, but it really never did actually, but it was just them and them only that did temporarily.
(Having trouble sleeping, but I'm in bed, and everything is shut down for the night now, etc).
Take Care/God Bless.
| Aspect | Muon as a Clock | Galaxy as a Cosmic Chronometer |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Clock | Subatomic particle decay clock | Stellar population aging clock |
| What it measures | Proper time in relativistic contexts | Expansion history of the Universe |
| Time scale | Microseconds (μs) | Billions of years (Gyr) |
| Mechanism | Muon decays with a fixed mean lifetime (~2.2 μs at rest) | Aging of stars within passive galaxies |
| Affected by Time Dilation? | Yes — lifetime increases with velocity due to special relativity | No — used in a cosmological (comoving) frame |
| Typical speed | Relativistic — close to speed of light | Recession velocity can be: Non-relativistic Relativistic Superluminal (due to expansion) |
| Cause of motion | Kinetic energy from particle interactions | Metric expansion of space, not proper motion |
| Special relativity relevance | Central — muon decay shows time dilation effects | Not directly — space itself expands, not motion through space |
| Used to test... | Special relativity | Cosmological models (e.g., H(z), dark energy evolution) |
| Measured quantity | Decay time from lab frame | Differential age of galaxies at different redshifts |
| Frame of reference | Lab frame vs particle’s frame | Comoving cosmological frame (FLRW metric) |
| Precision constraints | Quantum statistics and detector resolution | Stellar population synthesis models and redshift accuracy |
| Recession speed limits | Always < c | Can exceed c due to space expansion (does not violate relativity) |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?