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

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Look it up in the dictionary and then came back to me.

I said what do YOU mean by always? You must have meant something by the term and to me it suggests some external time reference. If you do not know what you meant by the term then why did you use it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…If the Universe doesn't expand space/time cannot be created.. .….

Firstly, time was never “created” because there was never a before t=0 -there merely exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc.

Secondly, yes -the universe expanded then, but what is your premise for believing that that “expansion” is needed to “create time”? -you reasoning makes no se to the time that t itself is referred to.”

-are you just pretending I didn’t explain this?[/b]

are you just pretending I didn’t explain this?--------hammy======

I was absolutely clear about this. I asked you to put it into context. The context is the real universe. That's what I thought we were discussing. If you prefer we could have some abstract discussion about geometric and mathematical terms that don't have any context or relation to the real world.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I said what do YOU mean by always? You must have meant something by the term and to me it suggests some external time reference. If you do not know what you meant by the term then why did you use it?

…You must have meant something by the term and to me it suggests some external time reference. .. .….

You are wrong (as usual). What I mean by “always” is the same as what everybody else means by it -it means at all point of time along the timeline.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Give me a break. Time cannot be static BECAUSE it is linked with the Universe.
..…. (my emphases)

How does one logically follow from the other?

How does it logically follow from:

“ X is “linked” with the Universe “

That:

“X cannot be static”

?
-answer- it doesn’t.

… If the Universe is frozen and not in motion then t ...[text shortened]... -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is refering to.

it is not “time” itself that has motion but rather things that exist in spacetime that have relative motion - there is no “motion“ that causes “time=x” to “change” to “time=x + 4 seconds” -----hammy-------------------------


What is this thing you call "time itself" ? I thought that you had said that space and time are inseparable. To me all that we are really talking about is the Universe in reality. If the Universe is frozen then time is frozen because time IS the Universe. If the Universe is frozen then time is frozen. To me the Universe is the only thing that changes and it has to move (even if only on a sub atomic level) in order to change , and it 's change that gives rise to us measuring time or having a sense of time passing.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…If the Universe doesn't expand space/time cannot be created.. .….

Firstly, time was never “created” because there was never a before t=0 -there merely exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc.

Secondly, yes -the universe expanded then, but what is your premise for believing that that “expansion” is needed to “create time”? -you reasoning makes no se ...[text shortened]... to the time that t itself is referred to.”

-are you just pretending I didn’t explain this?[/b]

Firstly, time was never “created” because there was never a before t=0 -there merely exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc.----hammy--------

Ok , "created" is a loaded theist term I will admit , but I think to say that time "merely exists" is a bit of a cop out.

By admitting the existence of t=0 you are admitting that time has a beginning , so this logically implies time (ie the Universe) doesn't just "exist" but that it BEGINS. And it begins at the meeting point between t=0 and the first moment of time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
it is not “time” itself that has motion but rather things that exist in spacetime that have relative motion - there is no “motion“ that causes “time=x” to “change” to “time=x + 4 seconds” -----hammy-------------------------


What is this thing you call "time itself" ? I thought that you had said that space and time are inseparable. To me all that ...[text shortened]... e , and it 's change that gives rise to us measuring time or having a sense of time passing.

…What is this thing you call "time itself" ? .….

Time.

… I thought that you had said that space and time are inseparable...….

They are. How does referring to “time itself” imply that it is NOT the case that space and time are inseparable?

…If the Universe is frozen then time is frozen because time IS the Universe.…

You have lost me:

1, “If the Universe is frozen”??? -what does that mean? -who said anything about the universe being “frozen”?

2, “time IS the Universe”??? -what does that mean? what is normally meant by
the two words is clearly different -it is rather like your statement that “universe = 0”

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What is this thing you call "time itself" ? .….

Time.

… I thought that you had said that space and time are inseparable...….

They are. How does referring to “time itself” imply that it is NOT the case that space and time are inseparable?

…If the Universe is frozen then time is frozen because time IS the Universe.… ...[text shortened]... t by
the two words is clearly different -it is rather like your statement that “universe = 0”[/b]

They are. How does referring to “time itself” imply that it is NOT the case that space and time are inseparable?-------------hammy--------------------


It's because you refered to things existing "IN" space/time. Things ARE space/time. The Universe is. All other descriptive terms (like space/time) are just concepts , but they are not the reality itself. For example , you can say that fish exist in water , or organic animals live in H20 , but if you say things "exist in" space / time what do you mean. It would be a bit like saying that water exists in H20. Or probably more like saying a piece of land "exists in" a square mile.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What is this thing you call "time itself" ? .….

Time.

… I thought that you had said that space and time are inseparable...….

They are. How does referring to “time itself” imply that it is NOT the case that space and time are inseparable?

…If the Universe is frozen then time is frozen because time IS the Universe.… ...[text shortened]... t by
the two words is clearly different -it is rather like your statement that “universe = 0”[/b]

“time IS the Universe”??? -what does that mean? what is normally meant by
the two words is clearly different
---------------------hammy--------------------

It's because you have reified time from a concept and unconsciously placed it into the catagory of real things. To me time does not exist in the same way as water does.

Do you understand what reification is?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Firstly, time was never “created” because there was never a before t=0 -there merely exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc.----hammy--------

Ok , "created" is a loaded theist term I will admit , but I think to say that time "merely exists" is a bit of a cop out.

By admitting the existence of t=0 you are admitting that time has a beginning , so this logicall t it BEGINS. And it begins at the meeting point between t=0 and the first moment of time.

…Ok , "created" is a loaded theist term I will admit , but I think to say that time "merely exists" is a bit of a cop out. .….

What I am emphasising by saying "merely exists" is that it exists but it exist WITHOUT change.

… By admitting the existence of t=0 you are admitting that time has a beginning...….

“admitting ”? I was saying that there is a t=0 all along -stop pretending I wasn’t.

…so this logically implies time (ie the Universe) doesn't just "exist" but that it BEGINS..…

1, time is NOT “the universe”

2, “BEGINS” for you is apparently a misleading word because it implies an event or process that makes it begin.
If I draw a line on a sheet of paper and then I say “that line BEGINS there” while pointing to the point where it begins, because the line and all the points along it are static, I am not implying that there is a process or event there at the point where it begins.


… And it begins at the meeting point between t=0 and the first moment of time..…

In this case, t=0 represents BOTH the “beginning of time” (NOTE what I just said previously in (2,) above -this does NOT imply a process nor an event) and the first “moment” of time which would consist of a single Planck time:

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

-so because they are the same thing, I don’t know what on earth you mean by “it begins at the MEETING point between t=0 and the first moment of time” -what “MEETING” point? -they are the same thing!

Originally posted by knightmeister
“time IS the Universe”??? -what does that mean? what is normally meant by
the two words is clearly different
---------------------hammy--------------------

It's because you have reified time from a concept and unconsciously placed it into the catagory of real things. To me time does not exist in the same way as water does.

Do you understand what reification is?

…It's because you have reified time from a concept and unconsciously placed it into the category of real things..….

What is the premise for this belief?
Can you know what is going on in your own subconscious let alone mine?
-and I do know what reification is -stop insulting my intelligence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
They are. How does referring to “time itself” imply that it is NOT the case that space and time are inseparable?-------------hammy--------------------


It's because you refered to things existing "IN" space/time. Things ARE space/time. The Universe is. All other descriptive terms (like space/time) are just concepts , but they are not the reality it ...[text shortened]... er exists in H20. Or probably more like saying a piece of land "exists in" a square mile.

…but if you say things "exist in" space / time what do you mean.
..….

That in a given frame of reference the thing can be observed at a point in time and a place in space using the coordinate system of that given frame of reference.

P.S. to say a “point IN time” in everyday English does NOT imply the existence of some other time outside of time as you suppose -it means a point along the timeline -nothing more.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…but if you say things "exist in" space / time what do you mean.
..….

That in a given frame of reference the thing can be observed at a point in time and a place in space using the coordinate system of that given frame of reference.

P.S. to say a “point IN time” in everyday English does NOT imply the existence of some other time outside of time as you suppose -it means a point along the timeline -nothing more.[/b]

When I say that one can ask "what came before the Big Bang?" your objection is that there can be no "before" . But since you seem to be only talking about co-ordinates and such like , is your objection theoretical or substantial?

Whilst one might say that there can be no point beofre t=0 on the t axis , it may or may not mean a thing in the real world because in the real universe there is no axis or co-ordinates , just stuff.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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?"

You have an irritating way of using diminutives for people 'Neme' for 'Nemesio,' 'Hammy' for
'Andrew Hamilton,' 'twitty' for 'twhitehead,' and so on. It's patronizing whether you realize it or not.

I've answered the question where this Universe came from: it came from the matter and energy
that exploded in the Big Bang.

The energy/matter is eternal by definition, just like God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 bas for you to grasp? Could it be that you just don't like the paradox it places in front of you?

First, bbarr already made the correct objection to your initial argument, which doesn't even get off the ground. Second, I think Nemesio already made the correct objection to what has followed (pp. 4 and 11). Consider, for example, this statement from Hawking, where I am hoping you will see the relevance:

"In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang."

Here's my point: I'm not quoting this because I agree with it or think that Hawking's prescription is the fact of the matter; rather, I am simply saying that you cannot use such a view against itself in construction of what you see as your grand argument here because the person who holds such a view will simply reply in the following manner to the A) horn of your dilemma: "Yeah, so what?" That is, your dilemma is no dilemma at all.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You have an irritating way of using diminutives for people 'Neme' for 'Nemesio,' 'Hammy' for
'Andrew Hamilton,' 'twitty' for 'twhitehead,' and so on. It's patronizing whether you realize it or not.

I've answered the question where this Universe came from: it came from the matter and energy
that exploded in the Big Bang.

The energy/matter is eternal by definition, just like God.

Nemesio

Then I have no problem with that. You accept some form of eternity and I'm guessing that it's because you don't find the idea of something coming from nothing very logical.

BTW- I mean nothing by the abbreviations , I prefer informality that's all.

Yours,

Meisty.