beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

Originally posted by black beetle
Right! 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.
😀

Space exists , it moves , one thing happens after another , we measure that movement and create the mental concept called time. I am not separating out time from space , time IS space.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Space exists , it moves , one thing happens after another , we measure that movement and create the mental concept called time. I am not separating out time from space , time IS space.

Time is not Space. Time is Time and Space is Space;

Originally posted by Nemesio
Knightmeister:

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, ...[text shortened]... e-universe's existence. Any such discussion is
entirely speculative, of course.

Nemesio

Nemesio,
I disagree that knightmeister is free to discuss t=-1 at this point.
We are hypothesizing a situation where time starts at t=0 ie there is no t=-1 by definition in our hypothesis. Knightmeister claims that such a hypothesis is illogical as it implies the existence of t=-1 but he is yet to explain his reasoning in something we can understand. It appears that he simply does not understand the concept of dimensions and does not understand what we mean by t=0.

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.

Our hypothesis is that the universe has been around forever, but that forever is finite in at least one direction (the past).

Originally posted by knightmeister
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?-------hammy-------------------


Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something here nor there. Something's going on and it can't happen within the boundaries of time.

…Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something is happening.
..….

Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :

At:

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm

It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:

“something that happens at a given place and time”

-this is what is usually what is meant by the word.

… One could also say that if there is change occurring or a transition of some kind then it could be an event...….

Correct.

…If something is CHANGING or BEGINNING then why can it not be an event???

.….

….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? …

Firstly, t=0 does not “CHANGE” to t=1; t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1 -they are merely statically defined points along the timeline -that is all.

Secondly, there is no transition period from a time when there was no time to a time when there was time because there was no point in time when time didn‘t exist -so the “BEGINNING” of time doesn’t involve “change”

Thus points of time (such as t=0 or t=4.7 etc) cannot be classified as “events”.

-the rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get these points.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something is happening.
..….

Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :

At:

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm

It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:

“something th ...[text shortened]... assified as “events”.

-the rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get these points.[/b]

Firstly, t=0 does not “CHANGE” to t=1; t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1 -they are merely statically defined points along the timeline -that is all.-------------hammy----------------

Give me a break. Time cannot be static because it is linked with the Universe. If the Universe is frozen and not in motion then time doesn't exist. You and I both know that time and motion are intimately linked. As I am typing this time is flowing constantly , why should it not be flowing from the very beginning?

The Universe is constantly changing and evolving.

Anyway , if you say that "t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1" then the word "always" implies an external time reference to t , and that my friend is something you (and particularly whitey) have often told me off about doing , so you cannot invoke this now in your defence , unless you want to play with loaded dice of course.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something is happening.
..….

Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :

At:

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm

It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:

“something th ...[text shortened]... assified as “events”.

-the rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get these points.[/b]

Thus points of time (such as t=0 or t=4.7 etc) cannot be classified as “events”. --------hammy-----------

I'm not saying that t=0 is an event (or any point in time), I am saying that the transition from t=0 to t=1 is an event.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Curious. I would have thought a valid definition of an event would be that something is happening.
..….

Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :

At:

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm

It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:

“something th ...[text shortened]... assified as “events”.

-the rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get these points.[/b]

Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :
At:
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm
It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:
“something that happens at a given place and time”
-this is what is usually what is meant by the word.
================hammy============================

And of course usually physics is in the business of looking at what happens in our Universe so that's hardly surprising is it.

I will admit that the beginning of time cannot be an event like just any other event but it can be said to be something that happens where change occurs. The change that occurs is that time begins. If nothing happens then time is stuck at 0. How does time get from 0 to 1 ? Somethings gotta happen.

Call it an event , call it a pumpkin , it makes no difference , something happens. Time begins. If time doesn't begin then ....well...my guess is we would not be here.

So I will call it an event because I can't think of anything else to call it. Something happens. Time is able to initiate or begin (call it what you will) and it doesn't need time in order for it to happen. Surely it's not that far out to call it a timeless event or a non-time reliant event or an event that requires no time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Our hypothesis is that the universe has been around forever, but that forever is finite in at least one direction (the past).

You will have to explain that one to me because it just sounds perverse to me , straight out of the ministry of double- think.

For a start , I cannot see how you can use the word "forever" without evoking a time reference beyond the finite time dimension you think the Universe is.

You seem to think that the Universe is 12 billion years old but it has been around forever for 12 billion years?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Our hypothesis is that the universe has been around forever, but that forever is finite in at least one direction (the past).

Er. What you mean is the universe is eternal, but it started at t=0. It's like
positive integers; there are an infinite number of them, but they start at 1.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes -“happening” at a point at time and at a position in space.
-have you ever studied basic physics? :
At:
http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/event.htm
It give the definition of an “event” in physics as:
“something that happens at a given place and time”
-this is what is usually what is meant by the word.
================hammy======= ...[text shortened]... to call it a timeless event or a non-time reliant event or an event that requires no time.

This whole discussion is based on our flawed understanding of physics, not that I am any paragon of physics but there is an article in the Oct 2008 issue of Scientific American called 'the big Bounce' or words to that effect (too lazy to go to my bedroom and dig up the copy🙂. Anyway there is this new theory that uses quantum loop gravity I think that does away with the infinities that relativity comes up with at the time of the big bang. They postulate 'atoms' the size of the plank distance where they can take on various configurations and can contain all the mass of the universe in a size that, although unimaginably small, keeps the mass from being infinitely dense, each 'atom' at the time of the most dense part of the big crunch holding about a galaxy's worth of matter so the whole thing I calculated under that rule to be about 4000 cubic plank lengths long. The whole universe fits in that space. The point is that time does not end or begin at that point, just squeezed down to an almost but not quite zero point. The idea there is time never stopped or started when our universe started it just is a continuation of the previous universe which had a big crunch and everything pretty much starts off fresh again with not much 'memory' of the old universe. They are starting to make predictions about the consequences of such a setup and before too long we may have some confirmation of this new theory. It pretty much answers all the conundrums brought up earlier. It just goes to show you how much logical argument can be made over flawed physics.

Originally posted by sonhouse
This whole discussion is based on our flawed understanding of physics, not that I am any paragon of physics but there is an article in the Oct 2008 issue of Scientific American called 'the big Bounce' or words to that effect (too lazy to go to my bedroom and dig up the copy🙂. Anyway there is this new theory that uses quantum loop gravity I think that does ...[text shortened]... er. It just goes to show you how much logical argument can be made over flawed physics.

Doesn't that beg the old chicken and egg question?

Which came first , the crunch or the bounce? Or has the Universe always been bouncing and crunching? Did the Universe "begin" bouncing?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Did the Universe "begin" bouncing?

This universe began by bouncing. The matter/energy that comprises this universe did not.
They could be the remnants of a previous universe. Who knows?

And don't start asking 'where did it come from?' That question is as answerable as 'where did God
come from?'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This universe began by bouncing. The matter/energy that comprises this universe did not.
They could be the remnants of a previous universe. Who knows?

And don't start asking 'where did it come from?' That question is as answerable as 'where did God
come from?'

Nemesio

And don't start asking 'where did it come from?' That question is as answerable as 'where did God
come from?' ===============neme================

But the question is still valid because it defines the nature of reality/existence. If something has a beginning then to ask "why did that happen?" or "where did that come from?" is valid based on the fact it begins. Since God by definiton has no beginning the question is not the same , the question would be "what is God?" - not "where did he come from?"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nemesio,
I disagree that knightmeister is free to discuss t=-1 at this point.
We are hypothesizing a situation where time starts at t=0 ie there is no t=-1 by definition in our hypothesis. Knightmeister claims that such a hypothesis is illogical as it implies the existence of t=-1 but he is yet to explain his reasoning in something we can understand. It ...[text shortened]... imply does not understand the concept of dimensions and does not understand what we mean by t=0.

Talk about misrepresentation! I have never used the phrase t=-1 ! It's entirely your invention , own it for yourself thank you very much.

I do not subscribe to t=-1 nor have I ever said so. I am simply trying to ask how time begins in the first place if there is by definition no time. It must logically be an event that is unlike any other time based event we know of because it cannot occur within the boundaries of time , because.............erhem..............it's the beginning of time itself.

Why is this incredibly simple idea so hard for you to grasp? Could it be that you just don't like the paradox it places in front of you?