Originally posted by black beetlePlanck time is just a particular normalization. It is not about claiming time is discrete or continuous.
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?
Originally posted by PalynkaI fully agree that your scenario is a possible one. However, in the current discussion we are suggesting a hypothesis in which time is a closed set and t=0 is part of time.
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 jaywillYou will not have any money, but your money 'dimension' will still exist. If your money was in the bank then your account will still exist with a zero balance, if you measure your money by writing your current total in a pocket book, the pocket book will still exist.
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.
Time is a dimension not a substance so your money analogy is a poor analogy.
A far better analogy is the x-axis in Cartesian co-ordinates. Knightmeister has already conceded that the origin does exist.
Originally posted by PalynkaIlja Progozin has a very interesting theory that is based on the Aristotle's opinion ("there is not Time without Change and Motion"😉 and on the idea that the Time itself becomes an agent of the proccess through which we enter an infinite world of possibilities. So your hypothesis is possible.
Planck time is just a particular normalization. It is not about claiming time is discrete or continuous.
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnce again you show that without a doubt you have no understanding of the concept of dimensions and don't seem to want to understand them. Its quite sad really that you look down on creationists but act exactly the same way yourself.
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 fi ...[text shortened]... saying that at point t=0 there is no time and I have no idea why you would claim otherwise.
You have been told time and again that t=0 is nothing more than a label and that the zero does not in any way amount to a claim of non-existence.
What you need to understand also is that definitions are never ever false. They are true by definition. They may be self contradictory, or they may contradict the real world, but they are never false. If I define t=0 as being the first point of the timeline then it is the first point of the timeline. No argument can change that. You could however suggest that time does not have a first point (there are two scenarios where this happens) and that t=0 does not exist, but you cannot, I repeat cannot say that t=0 exists and is not on the timeline.
Originally posted by PalynkaNot a problem. It is an interesting scenario, and one that allows (if time is infinitely divisible) for infinite causal chains within a finite time dimension. Not that I think that infinite causal chains are a necessity of the universe, but knightmeister does.
Apologies for the intrusion then.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadChange it to money in the whole world by m=0. That's not simply my personal supply of it.
You will not have any money, but your money 'dimension' will still exist. If your money was in the bank then your account will still exist with a zero balance, if you measure your money by writing your current total in a pocket book, the pocket book will still exist.
Time is a dimension not a substance so your money analogy is a poor analogy.
A far bett ...[text shortened]... axis in Cartesian co-ordinates. Knightmeister has already conceded that the origin does exist.
Then money is none existent.
Of course a concept of money may still be in people's minds.
So with t=0 a concept of Time may be in the Creator's mind. But that Mind is outside of Time, Energy, Space, and Matter. And that Mind is All Powerful.
5 edits
Look, the evidence is that time began along with the Big Bang.
No one, no one, knows how this happened exactly, scientifically.
The Bible says that it is by faith we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God. That statement is as true today as it was 2,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago.
"By FAITH we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Heb. 1:3, my emphasis )
No, I nor you have a scientific formula to prove how the universe and time began. "By faith ... we understand that the universe was framed by the word of God"
And if you have no faith, you in fact do not understand how the universe and time began.
Time, the thing we perceive as Time is something created for OUR existence by the God who loves us. God arrange a dwelling habitat for man and part of the needed environment for our existence is TIME.
Yes, God's love and provision has brought about a realm, a dimension that human beings may exist. The dimension is TIME.
We need it. God does not need it to exist. He can freely enter into it. But we need it more than God needs it.
Yes, that's theology. If you'll notice this is a Spirituality Forum.
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[ Robert Jastrow, confessed agnostic, Founder of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, from "God and the Astronomers"]
Yep, it bears repeating.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I define t=0 as being the first point of the timeline then it is the first point of the timeline. No argument can change that. You could however suggest that time does not have a first point (there are two scenarios where this happens) and that t=0 does not exist, but you cannot, I repeat cannot say that t=0 exists and is not on the timeline.
Once again you show that without a doubt you have no understanding of the concept of dimensions and don't seem to want to understand them. Its quite sad really that you look down on creationists but act exactly the same way yourself.
You have been told time and again that t=0 is nothing more than a label and that the zero does not in any way amount to a ...[text shortened]... t exist, but you cannot, I repeat [b]cannot say that t=0 exists and is not on the timeline.[/b]
-----------------------whitey-------------------
I agree , if I define a pumpkin as a quarg then no argument can stop me from doing so , but one can still question the definition.
Ok , I will give this a chance then. What's your understanding of the beginning of time. Do you understand why I have a problem with this? My difficulty is that when someone says time has a beginning it directly implies some point of non-existence of time. It's the initiation of time that's problematic to me. How does time get started and why? It's not enough to just say "it's just where it begins and that 's it".
To me the idea that time has a beginning but tie also cannot be said to not exist is just as paradoxical as saying that the Universe has both been around forever but is finite in it's time dimension.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong again , if you want to know what I actually think just ask.
Not a problem. It is an interesting scenario, and one that allows (if time is infinitely divisible) for infinite causal chains within a finite time dimension. Not that I think that infinite causal chains are a necessity of the universe, but knightmeister does.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillRobert Jastrow and anyone else that either says or implying we
[b] "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
[ Robert Jastrow, confessed agnost rd Institute of Space Studies, from "God and the Astronomers"]
Yep, it bears repeating.[/b]
should not use reason is a moron for doing so. -and reason is not faith.