Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> schrieb:
> On 1/7/2022 10:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> said:
>>>> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
>>>> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
>>>> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
>>>
>>> So where do you put t=0?
>
> At zero, of course.

Since it is unsigned, it almost _has_ to be the big bang.

If it's seconds, the thornier question is - which reference frame?
Time dilation due to gravitational effect can certainly play a role
which makes this inaccurate...

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb:
> On 07/01/2022 11:39, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>>> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
>>> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
>>> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
>>
>> So where do you put t=0?
>>
>
> 01.01.1970, for backwards compatibility. (I think that's how timestamps
> on ext4 are done.)

An unsigned quantity was specified, so no time existed before that,
obviously.

On 1/7/2022 11:45 AM, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:20:20 PM UTC-6, Ivan Godard wrote:
>> On 1/7/2022 10:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> said:
>>>>> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
>>>>> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
>>>>> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
>>>>
>>>> So where do you put t=0?
>> At zero, of course.
> <
> Creation of Earth zero or Big Bang zero ?

The trouble with recursive jokes is that they give people stack overflow.

On 1/7/2022 1:16 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> schrieb:
>> On 1/7/2022 10:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> It appears that Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> said:
>>>>> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
>>>>> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
>>>>> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
>>>>
>>>> So where do you put t=0?
>>
>> At zero, of course.
>
> Since it is unsigned, it almost _has_ to be the big bang.
>
> If it's seconds, the thornier question is - which reference frame?
> Time dilation due to gravitational effect can certainly play a role
> which makes this inaccurate...

There are cosmological models in which there was a time before the (most
recent) Big Bang, so that cannot be used as a zero point.
But this is a universal timescale, supplanting any mundane scale, so the
zero of the scale is necessarily Zero.

It's the same as the child's question "Who made God?", but with time
substituted. And as with most theology, can be seen as a recursive joke.

Sometimes, anyway; parse that as you will.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 4:42:32 PM UTC-6, Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 1:16 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > Ivan Godard <iv...@millcomputing.com> schrieb:
> >> On 1/7/2022 10:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >>> It appears that Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> said:
> >>>>> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
> >>>>> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
> >>>>> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
> >>>>
> >>>> So where do you put t=0?
> >>
> >> At zero, of course.
> >
> > Since it is unsigned, it almost _has_ to be the big bang.
> >
> > If it's seconds, the thornier question is - which reference frame?
> > Time dilation due to gravitational effect can certainly play a role
> > which makes this inaccurate...
<
> There are cosmological models in which there was a time before the (most
> recent) Big Bang, so that cannot be used as a zero point.
<
Yes, but most of these require that time have an imaginary component.
The most reasonable and the model with the most scientific support,
is the one which denotes time beginning at the instant of the big bang
(or within 10^-32 seconds after the BB).
<
> But this is a universal timescale, supplanting any mundane scale, so the
> zero of the scale is necessarily Zero.
>
> It's the same as the child's question "Who made God?", but with time
> substituted. And as with most theology, can be seen as a recursive joke.
<
"can be seen" ?????
>
> Sometimes, anyway; parse that as you will.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:18:08 AM UTC-8, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> said:
> >> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
> >> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
> >> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.

Please don't blame Thomas for my doofy remark.
I visit here often, but rarely post. I don't quite remember why I felt the
need to offer my $0.02 here ... a cosmic ray must have temporarily
flipped my idiot bit.

Mike B.

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 06:50:28 UTC+2, barry...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:18:08 AM UTC-8, John Levine wrote:
> > It appears that Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> said:
> > >> I didn't actually check, but I'm almost certain that an unsigned
> > >> 128-bit integer can comfortably hold the age of our current era of a
> > >> starry universe in nanoseconds, and that's pretty darned universal.
>
> Please don't blame Thomas for my doofy remark.
> I visit here often, but rarely post. I don't quite remember why I felt the
> need to offer my $0.02 here ... a cosmic ray must have temporarily
> flipped my idiot bit.

But it was funny. And also likely true.
Universe is estimated to be about 4.35e+26 nanoseconds old.
Meanwhile 2^89 is about 6.19e+26.
So it looks like there are plenty of bits to go to reach 128.