10 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…So you agree that time is not necessary for some THINGS to begin then?
It doesn’t begin “IN” anything.
-----hammy-------------------
So you agree that time is not neccessary for some things to begin then?
So why all your fuss about time and timebased phrases when I was speculating about the Big Bang?
. ..…. (my emphases)
-only spacetime itself (so NOT ALL “THINGS&ldquo😉 -for everything else -to say it “began” is meaningless unless there is spacetime.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…Well it certainly didn't begin FROM "timefullness" did it?!
KM… It must begin or proceed from a timeless state or timelessness.…
HAMMY- No -and you keep saying this but you give no argument to justify this proposition -WHY must it begin from a “timeless state” or “timelessness”?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it certainly didn't begin from "timeful ...[text shortened]... 0000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000001 if you think there is some time there?
. ..…. (my emphases)
No -it didn’t come “FROM” either "timefullness" nor "timelessness" -it didn’t “come from” -there simply exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc and there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.
-The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…The problem really arises at t=0 , because at t=0 , the U(universe) is also 0 because they are inseparable. So t=0 is also AE(all existence) =0.
Why does spacetime itself (space and time are inseparable) have to exist “somewhere” other than within the universe it is in?
-----------------hammy-----------------------------
Firstly , would you agree that the universe , space and time are all inseparable? Ok , assuming so.
It doesn't have to exist somewhere other than within itself as it st ys as nothing because there's nothing and no reason for nothing to stop being nothing.
. ..….
What on earth does “U(universe) is also 0” mean? your “logic” is twisted to the extreme here for are you implying that to say “(existence of something)=0” is not only mathematically meaningful but it also means it doesn’t exist! Does the number zero exist? Let me put is another way:
If I measure time since I was born so that the value of “t” is simply a function of my age, is it logical to say that: “if t=0 then (the existence of Andrew Hamilton)=0 and that means Andrew Hamilton doesn’t exist at t=0”? -if so, then, using your own “logic“, that means I was never born!
-so can you see the problem of saying that if something has a beginning then it doesn’t exist at that beginning?
… You claim that t=0 exists and is a "point" (ie not nothing) , but at t=0 there can be no time by DEFINITION and no Universe either.
.…. (my emphases)
How so “by DEFINITION”? t=0 does exists -it is a point on the start of the time line.
If I draw a straight line on a sheet of paper, there exists a point where the line starts -so what is the problem here? -there is nothing in the definition of “line” (whether it is a “time-line” or some other kind of line) that says it cannot have a beginning.
The rest of your post is flawed because it is based on this flawed premise.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat on earth does “U(universe) is also 0” mean? your “logic” is twisted to the extreme here for are you implying that to say “(existence of something)=0” is not only mathematically meaningful but it also means it doesn’t exist! Does the number zero exist?------hammy------
[b]…The problem really arises at t=0 , because at t=0 , the U(universe) is also 0 because they are inseparable. So t=0 is also AE(all existence) =0.
. ..….
What on earth does “U(universe) is also 0” mean? your “logic” is twisted to the extreme here for are you implying that to say “(existence of something)=0” is not only mathematically mean ...[text shortened]... ave a beginning.
The rest of your post is flawed because it is based on this flawed premise.[/b]
No , at t=0 U is also 0 and AE=0 if we say that we can extrapolate the universe (space/time) back to the point t=0 , which means that space/time doesn't exist at t=0
Maybe t=0 doesn't exist but what are the implications of that ? If time cannot equal 0 then it must be infinite. You would be saying that time cannot not exist.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf I draw a straight line on a sheet of paper, there exists a point where the line starts -so what is the problem here? -there is nothing in the definition of “line” (whether it is a “time-line” or some other kind of line) that says it cannot have a beginning.
[b]…The problem really arises at t=0 , because at t=0 , the U(universe) is also 0 because they are inseparable. So t=0 is also AE(all existence) =0.
. ..….
What on earth does “U(universe) is also 0” mean? your “logic” is twisted to the extreme here for are you implying that to say “(existence of something)=0” is not only mathematically mean ...[text shortened]... ave a beginning.
The rest of your post is flawed because it is based on this flawed premise.[/b]
----------hammy----------------
But a timeline that begins cannot begin in time so where and how does it begin?
You see in order to define where the beginning of your imaginary line is you HAVE to draw it on a blank piece of paper. There HAS to exist a space next to the line where there is no line. The beginning of your line can only be defined in relationship to an area on the sheet of paper where there is no line. It makes no sense to say the line has a beginning if you cannot say where that point is , and you cannot define that point unless you can describe something other than the line itself. This is why in your model time must have begun from nothing or adjacent to nothing.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI wonder who teached you all that jazz, and where; if they really teach this ...theory in your country then something is rather wrong with the American education.
If I draw a straight line on a sheet of paper, there exists a point where the line starts -so what is the problem here? -there is nothing in the definition of “line” (whether it is a “time-line” or some other kind of line) that says it cannot have a beginning.
----------hammy----------------
But a timeline that begins cannot begin in time so wher ...[text shortened]... line itself. This is why in your model time must have begun from nothing or adjacent to nothing.
You really don't know that it all evolved from a mere point??
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo -it didn’t come “FROM” either "timefullness" nor "timelessness" -it didn’t “come from” -there simply exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc and there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.
[b]…Well it certainly didn't begin FROM "timefullness" did it?!
. ..…. (my emphases)
No -it didn’t come “FROM” either "timefullness" nor "timelessness" -it didn’t “come from” -there simply exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc and there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.
-The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.[/b]
----------hammy----------------
Therefore , the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not rely on time.
How can you say that it didn't "come from" timelessness?
Can you state that there can be no "before" the Big Bang?
Since you cannot state authoritatively that nothing can exist without time to exist in , then I CAN ask what came before the Big Bang. It is a valid question because you cannot prove that everything that exists relies upon time. By implication the Universe must have begun without the need of time.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo Time means no Space!
No -it didn’t come “FROM” either "timefullness" nor "timelessness" -it didn’t “come from” -there simply exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc and there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.
----------hammy----------------
Therefore , the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not rely on time.
How can you say that it didn't "come from" timelessness ...[text shortened]... relies upon time. By implication the Universe must have begun without the need of time.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by black beetleI'm not sure about that.
No Time means no Space!
In our minds one of them need the other in order to get an universe that we are accustomed with. But isn't a Universe without possibility of life such a difficult thought?
Was it really impossible to have an Universe with a such a hige gravitational constant that it almost immediately became a giant black hole? Or is it just impossible to think of a such Universe?
Bottom line - think of a Universe without life... Meaningless Universe?
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasJust think about Motion, FF dude; impossible to have Motion without Time/ Space;
I'm not sure about that.
In our minds one of them need the other in order to get an universe that we are accustomed with. But isn't a Universe without possibility of life such a difficult thought?
Was it really impossible to have an Universe with a such a hige gravitational constant that it almost immediately became a giant black hole? Or is it just ...[text shortened]... of a such Universe?
Bottom line - think of a Universe without life... Meaningless Universe?
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes my friend KM.
Are you going to substantiate your criticisms at all? It's all a bit woolly so far.
Your theological thesis is false and illogical as hummie, Nemesio, bbar and twhitehead have shown you countless times here and at other threads. You just do not want to see it, which of course is a problem that you have to fix it on your own.