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

Originally posted by black beetle
Jaywill you are jaywalking.

Please go back to the first page and check the whole conversation out.

You answered a question when which I didn't ask. You did not answer the question what.

I would accept "I don't know" as a legitimate answer.

Then again you could put it this way "Go back and read all the pages." But I think just saying you don't know is more straightforward.

Originally posted by black beetle
Hi jaywill.

It began at the point t=0;

Therefore it began at the point where time doesn't exist , t=0 remember ---- therefore it cannot be a time based or time reliant event.

What exactly is your problem with this? My argument is simple.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Therefore it began at the point where time doesn't exist , t=0 remember ---- therefore it cannot be a time based or time reliant event.

What exactly is your problem with this? My argument is simple.

You cannot claim that time does not exist at the point t=0.

Originally posted by black beetle
There is not paradox. And you cannot be serious. When you say that time began at the point t=0, then the time began at that point. bbarr and the other friends of ours showed to you countless times. What's wrong with it, and what's wrong with you? You never went to school? What they teach you in America?

Of course you know very well that Andrew Hamil ed enough in order to understand the basics. Keep up with your theology though.

Look back your post and ask yourself how much of it actually addresses the arguments and how much is just salad dressing.

You say things like -------------- " There is no paradox. And you cannot be serious. When you say that time began at the point t=0, then the time began at that point. " (Beetle)

..but do you think about what you are saying? You talk about time beginning at the point t=0 as if t=0 is a point in time or a point on a timeline. But t=0 cannot logically be a point in time or be on the timeline itself because that would mean that at point t=0 there would exist a timeline , however, if a timeline existed at t=0 then t could not be equal to 0. I do not see how t=0 can be a point on a timeline if by definition t=0 represents the non-existence of time.

Are you able to contemplate the non-existence of time (nothingness)?

Originally posted by black beetle
You cannot claim that time does not exist at the point t=0.

Why not? If time is continuous, maybe time can be defined in an open interval. The universe would not begin at t=0, although the limit of its beginning could be defined as the "point 0".

Originally posted by black beetle
You cannot claim that time does not exist at the point t=0.

This might be good news. If I represent my money by m=50 as $50, then if m=0 I still have some money ?

Not bad.

Originally posted by Palynka
Why not? If time is continuous, maybe time can be defined in an open interval. The universe would not begin at t=0, although the limit of its beginning could be defined as the "point 0".

Simply there is the existence of a t=0 and a t=1 and a t=2 etc; there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Look back your post and ask yourself how much of it actually addresses the arguments and how much is just salad dressing.

You say things like -------------- " There is no paradox. And you cannot be serious. When you say that time began at the point t=0, then the time began at that point. " (Beetle)

..but do you think about what you are saying? ...[text shortened]... on-existence of time.

Are you able to contemplate the non-existence of time (nothingness)?

bbarr explained this nonsense of yours back at page 6.

Originally posted by black beetle
You cannot claim that time does not exist at the point t=0.

Bizarre! Why call it t=0 then? Usually when we ascribe the value 0 to something it defines non-existence of that value or thing .

If I said that L= lions and then said that "there is a point L=0 " would you expect to find any lions at that point called L=0 ?

What if I said that there was a point where W (WATER) =0 you would not expect to find any water there. If you did find any water at all (however minute) you would tell me to raise the value of W to greater than 0 in order to truely represent the reality of the situation.

I'm afraid for all your talk of science you are missing the most scientific of principles - parsimony- the simplest explanation is the best - I'm saying that at point t=0 there is no time and I have no idea why you would claim otherwise.

Originally posted by black beetle
bbarr explained this nonsense of yours back at page 6.

And did you read my reply? Stop relying on barr and think for yourself. Barr was using an invalid analogy because it was one based in a preexisting timeline. t=0 is different becasue there is no pre-existing timeline.

Originally posted by jaywill
This might be good news. If I represent my money by m=50 as $50, then if m=0 I still have some money ?

Not bad.

Oh. It seems that your arguments they spring from the excellent site http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

Fine!

Originally posted by black beetle
Simply there is the existence of a t=0 and a t=1 and a t=2 etc; there is no “cause” for the existence of t=0 and t=1 etc.

Sure. But that was not what I was addressing.

My point is that if time is defined discretely then there must be a defined point where time began. This point does not exist if you see time as continuous and defined in an open set.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And did you read my reply? Stop relying on barr and think for yourself. Barr was using an invalid analogy because it was one based in a preexisting timeline. t=0 is different becasue there is no pre-existing timeline.

No. You think for yourself. You cannot understand the meaning of t=0 because science is Greek to you. This is your problem, not mine.

Originally posted by knightmeister
And did you read my reply? Stop relying on barr and think for yourself. Barr was using an invalid analogy because it was one based in a preexisting timeline. t=0 is different becasue there is no pre-existing timeline.

Bbarr answered that criticism.

Originally posted by Palynka
Sure. But that was not what I was addressing.

My point is that if time is defined discretely then there must be a defined point where time began. This point does not exist if you see time as continuous and defined in an open set.

But t=0 represents the “beginning of time” and at the same time the first single Planck time; actually the beginning of time is this exact single Planck time, so what Pal dude?