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

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"

What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that "event B" and "the beginning of time" represent the same thing (and are in that respect identic)? If so, then your argument that follows seems clearly flawed.[/b]

he starts flawed:

Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"

The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.

if b is an event, it IS in time because it is an event, something happened.

the next sentence is where his logic really starts to get sour. how did he come to that conclusion? because prior to b must have been a timeless state he concludes that b is also timeless. then everything after B is also timeless because B is timeless 🙄 and of course from this comes the matrix kind of philosophy that there is no time, its just an illusion which only knightmeister was able to figure out.

maybe i will explain more about it yesterday. right after i die.

PS its not nice to make fun of speshul people but i cant help it. i deeply and sincerely apologise

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why doesn't 0kg mean no mass?

Just to clarify a bit more.
At 0kg, there is no mass. However the dimension, ie the scale used to measure mass, still exists. Look at any bathroom scale and you will see that even without anything on it, the display shows a Zero and the scales do not disappear into nothingness.
The absence of something to measure, does not equate to the absence of a ruler. In theory, if it wasn't for quantum uncertainty, empty space would be possible ie a set of four spacetime rulers with nothing to measure at that point.

I also notice that you are confusing the movement of time with time the ruler. You are thinking velocity when you should be thinking location.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But all this is merely your attempts at using wordplay to imply that there was a t=-0.0000000000000001.-------------whitey-----------


I am not implying there is a t= -0.000000000000001 and I have never said so.

Let me put it this way. Ok , so t=0 , if nothing happens or changes then t=0 .If nothing happens then t will just be 0.

t=0 (time ...[text shortened]... d invoke strange circles where time has a beginning but also doesn't ...kind of.

no, change cannot happen without time. you keep making premises and then jumping at the conclusion through some insane dimension where logic is a bowl of cereals and cereals are pigs.

t=0 time EXISTS. you assigned a T to an event (beginning of time) and something happened, time started. then another thing happened and another. but then again it has already been explained to you. you just choose to ignore it.


"time has a beginning but also doesn't ...kind of." and you keep saying that you make logic here instead of stressing us out.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Firstly , try to understand that I am trying to address two propositions that to me are contradictory


a) nothing can exist/occur without time (or there is no such thing as a timeless state of existence) OR there can be no "before" the Big Bang.

and b) time has a beginning at t=0


I think what you are missing here is that t=0 implies t ents (eg event B).

So come on hammy , think a little harder , think outside the box.

…t=0 implies timelessness ….

Nope -and you haven't explained why.

… The event B creates time in which things can exist …

There was no such “event B” because nothing “caused” time to exist -it just exists and there is a t=0 and a t=1 etc.

-the rest of your “argument” is flawed because it is based on the two flawed premises above.

Can anyone tell me into what the universe is expanding ?

Originally posted by jaywill
Can anyone tell me into what the universe is expanding ?

The universe is not expanding 'into' anything. It is the spacial dimensions that are stretching. The cool thing about it is that they are not stretching in relation to some fixed spatial dimension.
It is more a case of an expansion in the fourth dimension rather like a balloon being blown up is an expansion of a two dimensional space expanding in the third dimension. Within the surface of the balloon, there is no expansion 'into' more 'balloon surface'.
It must be noted that in the fourth dimension (spacial dimension not time), the universe is a nearly flat surface.

It must be noted that the only real way we have of measuring distance is physical properties that depend on distance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The universe is not expanding 'into' anything. It is the spacial dimensions that are stretching. The cool thing about it is that they are not stretching in relation to some fixed spatial dimension.
It is more a case of an expansion in the fourth dimension rather like a balloon being blown up is an expansion of a two dimensional space expanding in the thi ly real way we have of measuring distance is physical properties that depend on distance.

===================================
The universe is not expanding 'into' anything.
====================================

Is there much difference over the difficulty in imagining that before time God caused creation and conceptualizing the universe expanding into nothing ?

Both concepts are hard for me to imagine.

=============================
It is the spacial dimensions that are stretching.
================================

I don't think we human beings are capable of imagining something stretching into nothing at all.

If the edge of space is further away then it was yesterday, what was traversed to add to the distance ? Even if it is a different dimension that is as to imagine as before time causes.

My only point is that it is no less an difficult to imagine then a "before time" supernatural event causing creation of time and space.

==============================
The cool thing about it is that they are not stretching in relation to some fixed spatial dimension.
It is more a case of an expansion in the fourth dimension rather like a balloon being blown up is an expansion of a two dimensional space expanding in the third dimension.
=======================================

I read something like that decades ago when George Gamow's books were popular. That was about 46 years ago.

"The Creation of the Universe", "One Two Three ... Infinity" by George Gamow.

I still see that as no easier to conceptualize then a "before time" Cause of creation.

Beyond the boundary of space, space is expanding ?


=======================================
Within the surface of the balloon, there is no expansion 'into' more 'balloon surface'.
===================================

That example does not help too much. The ballon is definitely expanding INTO space.

===========================================
It must be noted that in the fourth dimension (spacial dimension not time), the universe is a nearly flat surface.
====================================

Maybe.

But I see none of this as necessarily EASIER to conceptualize than a "before time" Cause of the creation of the universe.

================================
It must be noted that the only real way we have of measuring distance is physical properties that depend on distance.
====================================

Fascinating.

I have read things like this for YEARS.

I still believe that God is the Creator. Your concepts are no slam dunk for greater rationality, true as they may be.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
The universe is not expanding 'into' anything.
====================================

Is there much difference over the difficulty in imagining that before time God caused creation and conceptualizing the universe expanding into nothing ?

Both concepts are hard for me to imagine.

=================== concepts are no slam dunk for greater rationality, true as they [b]may be.[/b]

…I don't think we human beings are capable of imagining something stretching into nothing at all. ….[/b]

I think you have the assumption here and in the rest of your post that if something is difficult/impossible for a human to imagine that that means it cannot be true or at least is less “likely” to be true? -if so, what is the premise for this assumption?

-When I play chess, I am painfully aware that I cannot imagine 30 goes ahead to the end-game -does that mean there will be no end game?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…I don't think we human beings are capable of imagining something stretching into nothing at all. ….

I think you have the assumption here and in the rest of your post that if something is difficult/impossible for a human to imagine that that means it cannot be true or at least is less “likely” to be true? -if so, what is the premise for this ...[text shortened]... that I cannot imagine 30 goes ahead to the end-game -does that mean there will be no end game?[/b]

=========================================
I think you have the assumption here and in the rest of your post that if something is difficult/impossible for a human to imagine that that means it cannot be true or at least is less “likely” to be true? -if so, what is the premise for this assumption?
====================================

Read my post again. Did I state that what twhitehead said was not true? I left room open with a "maybe".


Now, contemplate your complaint just a little bit as regards to your dismisal of the Bible.

"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech12:1)

By and large I believe that, regardless of Big Bang, Quantum mechanics, expanding universe, time / space, etc.

I am genuinely fascinated by what cosmologists are able to figure out. But I still believe " ... Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
I think you have the assumption here and in the rest of your post that if something is difficult/impossible for a human to imagine that that means it cannot be true or at least is less “likely” to be true? -if so, what is the premise for this assumption?
====================================

Read my pos heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." [/b][/b]

…Did I state that what twhitehead said was not true? I left room open with a "maybe". .….

Ok, I apologise -you did leave a “maybe”.

From your previous post:

…My only point is that it is no less an difficult to imagine then a "before time" supernatural event causing creation of time and space.
.….

Does this mean that you think the reason why atheists don’t believe that “supernatural event causing creation” is because they “find it difficult to imagine”? -if so, you are incorrect and it wouldn’t make much sense to think this because most atheists would believe that the big bang /evolution etc all happened even though that these things are also “difficult to imagine”. The reason why atheists don’t believe there is a god is usually because of the absence of evidence for a god and the reason why atheists normally believe the scientific facts is because of the presence of evidence supporting those scientific facts -how “difficult to imagine” each one is has nothing to do with it.

…By and large I believe that, REGARDLESS of Big Bang, Quantum mechanics, expanding universe, time / space, etc. .…. (my emphasis)

Does this mean you think that the Big Bang, Quantum mechanics, etc is in conflict with your religious beliefs? -don’t get me wrong -I am not saying it IS -I am just asking you do you believe that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Did I state that what twhitehead said was not true? I left room open with a "maybe". .….

Ok, I apologise -you did leave a “maybe”.

From your previous post:

…My only point is that it is no less an difficult to imagine then a "before time" supernatural event causing creation of time and space.
.….

Does this mean that you ...[text shortened]... liefs? -don’t get me wrong -I am not saying it IS -I am just asking you do you believe that.[/b]

====================================
Does this mean you think that the Big Bang, Quantum mechanics, etc is in conflict with your religious beliefs? -don’t get me wrong -I am not saying it IS -I am just asking you do you believe that.
=========================================

No. I think that the more we learn the more we realize how much we do not know.

If the Lord Jesus should not physically return in another 800 years and man encreases his knowledge many fold ... I think at that time some of us will still realize God's divine characteristics and eternal power through all the things which are made.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Some of us don't even accept evolution, and that is religion.

Most of the string theoreticians accept a 11 dimensional spatial world.
But nowhere I've seen anyone with even a slightest comment of a two dimensional time. Is it really my own invention? May I call it the "Fabian dimension of time"?

You may indeed 😀

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Does this mean you think that the Big Bang, Quantum mechanics, etc is in conflict with your religious beliefs? -don’t get me wrong -I am not saying it IS -I am just asking you do you believe that.
=========================================

No. I think that the more we learn the more we realize how much we d ...[text shortened]... ze God's divine characteristics and eternal power through all the things which are made.[/b]

…No. I think that the more we learn the more we realize how much we do not know. .….

I don’t understand -how does this relate to my question?
Suppose you are right and “the more we learn the more we realize how much we do not know” then how does this relate to your religious beliefs and whether or not you think the big bang etc is in conflict with them?

I already accept that there is a vast amount of stuff I do not understand/know -now suppose I learn something that make me realise that there is EVEN MORE I don’t understand/know than I thought! -so what? -I mean, what difference would that make to anything?

In any case, I would never discover that how “much” I thought I did not know was even more than I “thought” because I have absolutely no idea or clue to how “much” I “do not know” now! -I mean, I haven’t even got a rough “estimate” of how “much” I “do not know” -all I know is that it is, vaguely put, a “vast” (possibly infinite?) amount -that is all.

Originally posted by jaywill
Can anyone tell me into what the universe is expanding ?

No. but I can tell you that many scientists believe that "almost" all galaxies (they never discuss the ones that aren't) are red-shifted--running away from "us". I have a different theory.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…t=0 implies timelessness ….

Nope -and you haven't explained why.

… The event B creates time in which things can exist …

There was no such “event B” because nothing “caused” time to exist -it just exists and there is a t=0 and a t=1 etc.

-the rest of your “argument” is flawed because it is based on the two flawed premises above.[/b]

There was no such “event B” because nothing “caused” time to exist -it just exists and there is a t=0 and a t=1 etc. ----------hammy---------

Whether event B is caused or uncaused is not the issue here.

What is clear is that from t=0 to t=1 movement has occurred , an event or progression or change is occuring.

So let's forget about whther that event B is caused or not for a minute and think about the fact that event B is a change that happens (to me this is an event)

Event B cannot occur within the time that it creates because event B gives rise to time itself. It has to occur or begin outside of time. If it cannot do this then event B can never happen and time will never exist.