Originally posted by knightmeister…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
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?------hammy------
No , at t=0 U is also 0 and AE=0 if we say that we can extrapolate the univer ...[text shortened]... time cannot equal 0 then it must be infinite. You would be saying that time cannot not exist.
..….
How does it logically follow from:
“we can extrapolate the universe (space/time) back to the point t=0 “
That:
“space/time doesn't exist at t=0 ”
?
… Maybe t=0 doesn't exist but what are the implications of that ?
.….
But it DOES exist! t=0 exists.
Originally posted by knightmeister…Therefore , the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not rely on time.
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.
..….
What do you mean by that?
It is a strange choice of words - “the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not RELY on time”
“RELY” - t=0 and t=1 are point of time on the timeline so they are PART of that timeline -it would be a strange choice of words to say that a point on a pencil line on a sheet of paper “relies” on the pencil line -yes?
… Since you cannot state authoritatively that nothing can exist without time to exist in , then I CAN ask what came BEFORE the Big Bang..….
There was no “BEFORE” the Big Bang.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere was no “BEFORE” the Big Bang.
[b]…Therefore , the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not rely on time.
..….
What do you mean by that?
It is a strange choice of words - “the existence of t=0 and t=1 does not RELY on time”
“RELY” - t=0 and t=1 are point of time on the timeline so they are PART of that timeline -it would be a strange choice of words to say that a point on a ...[text shortened]... n , then I CAN ask what came BEFORE the Big Bang..….[/b]
There was no “BEFORE” the Big Bang.[/b]
---------hammy---------------
Why?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut it DOES exist! t=0 exists.
[b]…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
..….
How does it logically follow from:
“we can extrapolate the universe (space/time) back to the point t=0 “
That:
“space/time doesn't exist at t=0 ”
?
… Maybe t=0 doesn't exist but what are the implications of that ?
.….
But it DOES exist! t=0 exists.[/b]
------hammy--------------------------------
How can it exist...? , if t=0 then U=0 and AE =0 , the Universe itself does not exist at t=0 , therefore nothing exists.
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have already told you why a few weeks ago but I found that old post so I have copied and pasted it here so that you can read it again:
There was no “BEFORE” the Big Bang.
---------hammy---------------
Why?
Relativity tells us that both space and time are relative (to frames of reference) and speed is absolute (in terms of the speed of light). One of the really subtle consequences of this (and which Einstein realised) is that time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. This is why physicist sometimes refer space and time not as separate things but as “spacetime” and treat it as a singe entirety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Now, the current universe is expanding -we know this from the Doppler shift:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html
Obviously, if the universe is expanding now, it must have been much smaller in the past. If you keep going back in time you will reach the big-bang where the universe was tiny which means it has virtually no space in it at all. But if you make an (unsafe) extrapolation from that by keep going back in time, logically you would reach a stage when there was no space because the universe will have zero size!
But, as I have already explained, time cannot exist without space and thus, if it had zero size, it would not only have no space in it but no time! But not having no time at that stage, -and this is the critical point, would logically mean that at NO POINT in TIME would that stage exist! Therefore, logic dictates that at no point in time could the universe have zero size and, at the beginning of the universe, the universe was extremely tiny but of a finite non-zero size and, also, logic dictates that the start of the universe was the start of time because there couldn’t be a “before” the start because a “before” would mean the universe having zero size for a point in time because it would have still been expanding (-there would be nothing stopping it!).
Now, you might think “ hang on, if as you go back in time it gets smaller and smaller, what determines at what point time begins before it becomes zero size? I mean, exactly what is stopping it going all the way to zero size?“
Well, fortunately there is at least one thing known in science that would stop it going to zero size and that thing comes from quantum mechanics and is called “Planck length”:
Modern science tells us that it is impossible to have a size less than a certain distance across and that distance across is what is called “Planck length”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! So as you go back in time and the universe gets smaller and smaller, if nothing else stops it getting even smaller until it is zero size, when it reaches one Planck length across it stops becoming smaller and at that stage would be time zero -the beginning of both time and space. To become smaller than one Planck length across would to cease to exist! Having said that, I think (if I remember correctly) the modern theory is it actually started a bit larger than that but I don’t know why.
P.S. note that when we say "a point IN time" in every day English AND in the above, that this really means a point somewhere along the timeline and NOT a point in time in some other kind of time which seems to be what you have been recently suggesting -this is just wordplay.
Originally posted by knightmeister…if t=0 then U=0 and AE =0 ..….
But it DOES exist! t=0 exists.
------hammy--------------------------------
How can it exist...? , if t=0 then U=0 and AE =0 , the Universe itself does not exist at t=0 , therefore nothing exists.
“U=0” and “AE =0” has no meaning and is just gobbledygook.
You cannot meaningfully mathematically assign literally anything with a numerical value
“Universe=0” is no more meaningful than “Universe=-1” or “Universe=1/2” or “Universe=8.32” or “existence = 4.3” etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut, as I have already explained, time cannot exist without space and thus, if it had zero size, it would not only have no space in it but no time! But not having no time at that stage, -and this is the critical point, would logically mean that at NO POINT in TIME would that stage exist! --------hammy-----------------------------------------
I have already told you why a few weeks ago but I found that old post so I have copied and pasted it here so that you can read it again:
Relativity tells us that both space and time are relative (to frames of reference) and speed is absolute (in terms of the speed of light). One of the really subtle consequences of this (and which Einstein reali kind of time which seems to be what you have been recently suggesting -this is just wordplay.
You used the "in time" phrase again. Tsk! I thought you had understood.
Since I have already proved to you that there is at least one event in existence that cannot occur "in time" (namely the beginning of time itself) - Event B- then the mere fact that there's no time at that stage does not mean that things can't exist.
Also , since space/time is inseparable from the the Universe , you are bascially saying that " at no point in the Universe can the Universe not exist. "
You either believe that t=0 exists or you don't , if you do believe it exists then the event that begins time must logically NOT occur in time (because t=0) , you seem to think that everything must exist "in time" - which is an obvious fallacy because the beginning of time itself cannot occur in time because that's a logical paradox like saying the Universe created itself.
The way out of this is to just say that time has no beginning and t can never be 0 , or maybe existence has no beginning. But this is dangerously close to the eternity you abhor.
With eternity , existence =0 is not on the table then and you have no logical problems with trying to explain how things happen out of nothing for no reason.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe point is that you either think that the Universe has been around forever or you think that at some point it began. AE=0 , U=0 etc just expresses the idea of nothingness.
[b]…if t=0 then U=0 and AE =0 ..….
“U=0” and “AE =0” has no meaning and is just gobbledygook.
You cannot meaningfully mathematically assign literally anything with a numerical value
“Universe=0” is no more meaningful than “Universe=-1” or “Universe=1/2” or “Universe=8.32” or “existence = 4.3” etc.[/b]
I for one cannot believe that there ever was "nothing" because it's parsimonious to think that if nothing ever "was" a reality then nothing would "still" be a reality. (time based terms used advisedly)
Or to simplify....
Nothing begets nothing
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterKnightmeister:
The point is that you either think that the Universe has been around forever or you think that at some point it began. AE=0 , U=0 etc just expresses the idea of nothingness.
I for one cannot believe that there ever was "nothing" because it's parsimonious to think that if nothing ever "was" a reality then nothing would "still" be a reality. (time based terms used advisedly)
Or to simplify....
Nothing begets nothing
You've been flopping around for a bit and it's not even entirely clear
what you are arguing any more.
The universe begins to come into existence at a point that we define as
t=0. Because on the limitations of physics and the way in which the
universe came into existence at this arbitrary point, we cannot fathom
what, if anything, existed before that point.
If you want to define time as some sort of physical constant, like the
vibration of cesium atoms, then you can deduce t=-1 or t=-10 or whatever
in order to discuss the pre-universe's existence. Any such discussion is
entirely speculative, of course.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FabianFnasRight! But KM separates Time from Space and he claims that the time and the dimension of the length do not exist, which is a false approach, so in order to show that this approach is definatel wrong I said that if we act this way then we cannot have Motion.
Who says a Universe need mothon?
Motion is perhaps necessary to have life in Universe, but in order to exist, no life is necessary.
😀
Originally posted by knightmeister…You used the "in time" phrase again. Tsk! I thought you had understood. ..….
But, as I have already explained, time cannot exist without space and thus, if it had zero size, it would not only have no space in it but no time! But not having no time at that stage, -and this is the critical point, would logically mean that at NO POINT in TIME would that stage exist! --------hammy-----------------------------------------
You use ...[text shortened]... ical problems with trying to explain how things happen out of nothing for no reason.
didn’t you read all of my post? I draw your attention to the P.S. at the bottom of my last post which clearly explains why I used the “in” word. Reminder:
“P.S. note that when we say "a point IN time" in every day English AND in the above, that this really means a point somewhere along the timeline and NOT a point in time in some other kind of time which seems to be what you have been recently suggesting -this is just wordplay.”
… Since I have already proved to you that there is at least one event in existence that cannot occur "in time" (namely the beginning of time itself) - Event B-..….
As I am sure everyone else would also say so; you haven’t “proved” anything
-it is only you that apparently thinks you have “proved” something using “arguments” that apparently only you understand.
And ,as I and several other people keep on repeatedly telling you; there is NO “Event B” because the beginning of time is, by definition of “event”, NOT an “event”. For something to be an “event” it must occur at a point in time and at a place -are you unable to comprehend this very simple concept?
The rest of your post is flawed for the two above reasons apart from:
…Also , since space/time is inseparable from the Universe , you are basically saying that " at no point in the Universe can the Universe not exist. "
.….
Which is correct. -for this is what I have been saying all the long.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…The point is that you either think that the Universe has been around forever or you think that at some point it began. AE=0 , U=0 etc just expresses the idea of nothingness. ..….
The point is that you either think that the Universe has been around forever or you think that at some point it began. AE=0 , U=0 etc just expresses the idea of nothingness.
I for one cannot believe that there ever was "nothing" because it's parsimonious to think that if nothing ever "was" a reality then nothing would "still" be a reality. (time based terms used advisedly)
Or to simplify....
Nothing begets nothing
That is just gobbledygook -how does “U=0” or "AE=0" “expresses the idea of nothingness” ?
-in absolutely no recognised discipline does some term “X=0” “expresses the idea of nothingness”.
In the discipline of mathematics X=0 means that some variable has the numerical value of 0.
-is the “U” in “U=0” (U = “the universe&rdquo😉 a mathematical variable? -answer; NO.
In mathematics, it is just gobbledygook to say “Universe = 0” or “Universe = 5.2”.
Question: in your vocabulary that you are using, can you say “U=5.2” and, if so, what does that mean?
In the discipline of boolean logic X=0 is sometimes used to represent “X=False” where X is a boolean variable (although, in some fields of logic that I have studied, X=1 means X=False ! or even X=-1 means false!).
-is the “U” in “U=0” (U = “the universe&rdquo😉 a boolean variable? -answer; NO.
In boolean logic, it is just gobbledygook to say “Universe = false” or “Universe = true” because the word “Universe” is not a proposition that can be either true or false.
Question: in your vocabulary that you are using, can you say “U=1” or "U=true" and, if so, what does that mean?
So, to sum up, “Universe = 0” is just nonsense both in the field of mathematics and in the field of logic and in neither those two recognised disciplines or in any other discipline does is or even can it “expresses the idea of nothingness” -that is only something apparently only you think so.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthere is NO “Event B” because the beginning of time is, by definition of “event”, NOT an “event”. For something to be an “event” it must occur at a point in time and at a place -are you unable to comprehend this very simple concept?-------hammy-------------------
[b]…You used the "in time" phrase again. Tsk! I thought you had understood. ..….
didn’t you read all of my post? I draw your attention to the P.S. at the bottom of my last post which clearly explains why I used the “in” word. Reminder:
“P.S. note that when we say "a point IN time" in every day English AND in the above, that this really me ...[text shortened]... st. "
.….[/b]
Which is correct. -for this is what I have been saying all the long.[/b]
Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something is happening. One could also say that if there is change occuring or a transition of some kind then it could be an event. If something is changing or beginning then why can it not be an event??? I see no reason to logically define an event purely by the context in which it takes place.
The beginning of time obviously must be a transition or change of some kind. t=0 becomes t=1 and so forth , so it seems logical to say that it's an event. In any case , something is going on in the transition from t=0 to t=1 and if it's not an event then what is it?
Is it a plarb? Maybe it's a comistout , perhaps a goadlifich?
I mean come on , it's an event , time is beginning. t=0 becomes t=1. You may say that it can't be an evemnt because all events must occur within time or something but that's just circular reasoning based on your pre-assumption that there is nothing else other than time.
If the transition from t=0 to t=1 is not an event where something is beginning and changing then tell me what it is then clever clogs.
Whether one can call it an event or not is hardly here nor there. Something's going on and it can't happen within the boundaries of time.