How Old is our Universe?

On 18 Jun, 19:26, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Scott and Zan Light speed is always constant.

Why don't you read the links I give you? Go and read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

On Jun 18, 6:43 pm, wrote:
On 18 Jun, 19:26, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Scott and Zan Light speed is always constant.

Why don't you read the links I give you? Go and read!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay


One does not read sources contradicting one's most deeply held
religous tenats.

Double-A

Rather, the issue is that supermassive black holes must be extremely
young locally, if they have any age at all.

Even your sun must be much younger than your planet locally, due to
the increased gravity.

Jupiter must be the youngest planet in your solar system locally, as
it is the largest planet within your solar system.

On Jun 18, 6:39 pm, wrote:
Frames of referance, AA, as mentioned before. You're looking into a
region deep within a black hole's gravity well wherein time would be
*nearly* standing still relative to us 'out here'. But in its own
referance frame, its clock would be running at the normal rate.

Everybody here knows this, but that is not the issue here.

Rather, the issue is that supermassive black holes must be extremely
young locally, if they have any age at all.


Certainly too young to have collapsed into a singularity.

Double-A

On Jun 18, 9:05 pm, wrote:
Rather, the issue is that supermassive black holes must be extremely
young locally, if they have any age at all.

Even your sun must be much younger than your planet locally, due to
the increased gravity.

Jupiter must be the youngest planet in your solar system locally, as
it is the largest planet within your solar system.


Yes, clocks will run at different speeds on different planets.

Even the interior of the Earth must be slightly younger than the
surface. It is not the force of gravity at your location that counts.
It is how deep in the gravitational well you are that counts.

Double-A

Certainly too young to have collapsed into a singularity.

If a supermassive black hole has billons of solar masses, would time
flow billions of times slower than in the sun there?

On Jun 18, 10:12 pm, wrote:
Certainly too young to have collapsed into a singularity.

If a supermassive black hole has billons of solar masses, would time
flow billions of times slower than in the sun there?


My understanding is that compared to our clocks here on Earth, time in
a black hole becomes infinitely slow at the event horizon. So
essentially, nothing has happened beneath the event horizon since it
formed. So the formation of a central singularity is always in the
future. But Hawking said that black holes evaporate in real time. So
he finally had to conclude recently that black holes evaporate from
Hawking radiation before the singularity can ever form, and everything
that went in must come out. So in the long run there really is no
black hole.

Double-A

My understanding is that compared to our clocks here on Earth, time in
a black hole becomes infinitely slow at the event horizon.

So it doesn't matter if it is a stellar sized black hole, or a
supermassive black hole with billions of solar masses?

Even if a supermassive black hole has a much larger gravity well?

Time is infinitely slow at both?

When your species calculates the lifespan of different types of stars,
are you using local time, or earth time?

If hypergiants have extremely short lives, lasting approximately 1 to
3 million years, is that local time?

You know, if hypergiants have 100 solar masses, time must be
proceeding quite slow there.

Also, a hypergiant star, should have a larger gravity well, than a
little black hole.

Zan Shapiro thinking and my thinking clash. Why do I have to
believe stuff that's in print. I don't believe stuff that's carved in
stone. "Light speed is a constant. It can take 100,000 years to reach
Earth from the Sun's core,but it never slowed down to get here in such a
long time period. It did cover a much greater distance bert