[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 147 KB, 1300x732, obsada_-_the-big-bang-theory[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16150368 No.16150368 [Reply] [Original]

I'm retarded. So it's often said that the big bang was 13.7 billion years ago, but does that make sense under relativity? I mean, doesn't the time since the big bang depend on your frame of reference, due to time dilation? Or am I wrong? Like, saying the universe is x years old seems to imply that every part of the universe is currently that old, but I'm told that kind of simultaneity doesn't exist. So are we just describing how old it is from our frame of reference? Or do most "things" in the universe share that reference frame? This is not a creationism post btw.

>> No.16150605

>>16150368
>13.7 billion years
lolno it started in 2007

>> No.16150642

>>16150368
>So are we just describing how old it is from our frame of reference?
Yes

>> No.16150645

>>16150368
GR has long since been disproved

>> No.16150682

>>16150368
>the big bang was 13.7 billion
By 2 different measurements; the CMB (cosmic background radiation) which is a remnant afterglow of what happened after the big bang. And measurements performed on observations from stellar bodies by looking at the red-shift measurements (Hubble constant).

It should be the same everywhere on average using these 2 methods. We observe it from our frame of reference so it isn't accurately 13.7b.

They currently give a rough estimate of 13,6 ± 0,8 billion years.

>> No.16150689

>>16150682
we popped up pretty soon in the grand scheme of things

>> No.16150695

>>16150689
There likely was stuff before the big bang. We don't know how far back it goes. 400k years after the big bang is just as far as we can probe.

>> No.16150712

>duuudde i totally know everything about the entire universe!!!
why is this grandiose delusion so popular?

>> No.16150732

>>16150368
The age of the universe is defined as one taken from a comoving reference frame - one where the CMB appears almost perfectly isotropic.
The peculiar velocity of the Sun with respect to this is 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06205
Measurements that need relativistic correction - think redshifts - will include this velocity in their correction

>> No.16151074

>>16150712
Its not popular. Because nobody is saying that. Except you. Repeatedly.

>> No.16151095

>>16150368
A few weeks ago they announced that the expansion rate varies depending on where they look and how they measure it. Remember? It got memoryholed. If true, the Big Bang is unironically completely debunked. It was already propped up on nothing with dark energy, dark matter, and the rapid expansion period, all of which are bullshit if Big Bang's out the window.

We're back to square one when it comes to the universe's origin, they just don't want the public to know about it yet.