08 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…t=0 implies timelessness ….
[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]
Nope -and you haven't explained why.
----------hammy---------------
so you think at t=0 there is some time there? How can this be? Surely that would be t=0.000000001.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt's just a simple abreviation to avoid having to type out "the beginning of time" over and over again. I thought that was fairly clear , like saying let X = the number of people on this forum.
[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]
08 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloyd…No. but I can tell you that many scientists believe that "almost" all galaxies .….
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.
Virtually all scientist believe that the vast majority of galaxies ( ~99.9999...% ) are moving away from us BECAUSE of the EVIDENCE of their red-shift. The few that are moving towards us are all among those few galaxies that are closes to our own due to local variations in relative motion of the galaxies -all the one that are farther away are moving away from us.
…(they never discuss the ones that aren't).….
That is simply not true. For example, they often talk about the Andromeda galaxy and the fact it is moving towards us.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"if b is an event, it IS in time because it is an event, something happened." -----------------zahlanzi-----------------------
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 so ...[text shortened]... not nice to make fun of speshul people but i cant help it. i deeply and sincerely apologise
Before you lay into my logic you should analyse your own. Are you saying that the beginning of time happened in time?
Think about it. Think MUCH harder about it. MUCH MUCH harder.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeister…Whether event B is caused or uncaused is not the issue here. .….
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 th ...[text shortened]... outside of time. If it cannot do this then event B can never happen and time will never exist.
What IS the issue is the fact that there is NO event B!
Time beginning is NOT an “event” -for something to be an “event” it must be IN time and space but time doesn’t need some other kind of time to exist “IN” and thus time beginning is not an “event”
The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get this point.
08 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…so you think at t=0 there is some time there? .….
…t=0 implies timelessness ….
Nope -and you haven't explained why.
----------hammy---------------
so you think at t=0 there is some time there? How can this be? Surely that would be t=0.000000001.
By definition this must be true -yes? -I mean as it is called t=0 then it is a point in time assigned with the value of t=0 -that point in time exists thus time "exists at t=0".
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSuppose B refers to the event of my alarm clock beginning to ring. If so, then the point in time where B occurs is the same point in time where my alarm clock begins to ring. So, B does not occur at a time prior to my alarm clock beginning to ring, or in an alarm-clock-ringingless state. Rather, B is simultaneous to (because identical to) the beginning of the ringing of the alarm. No problem.
It's just a simple abreviation to avoid having to type out "the beginning of time" over and over again. I thought that was fairly clear , like saying let X = the number of people on this forum.
08 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut then your argument that follows makes no sense. See bbarr's post above.
It's just a simple abreviation to avoid having to type out "the beginning of time" over and over again. I thought that was fairly clear , like saying let X = the number of people on this forum.
08 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrOne crucial difference though. The event of your alarm clock beginning to ring occurs within the context of an already existing spacetime. How would your alarm clock begin to ring if there was no alarm clock and no universe?
Suppose B refers to the event of my alarm clock beginning to ring. If so, then the point in time where B occurs is the same point in time where my alarm clock begins to ring. So, B does not occur at a time prior to my alarm clock beginning to ring, or in an alarm-clock-ringingless state. Rather, B is simultaneous to (because identical to) the beginning of the ringing of the alarm. No problem.
Or to put it another way , your alarm has to exist in order for it to begin ringing , so your argument depends first on the existence of an alarm clock , Event B (the beginning of time itself) implies not only that there is no time but no anything. t=0 is the same as saying alarm clock =0 and if alarm clock =0 then it can't ring.
08 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt cannot be a point "in" time because that would place it within the boundaries of space/time itself. But by definition at t=0 time itself does not exist. Time has not begun at t=0 otherwise it would be t=0.00000001
[b]…so you think at t=0 there is some time there? .….
By definition this must be true -yes? -I mean as it is called t=0 then it is a point in time assigned with the value of t=0 -that point in time exists thus time "exists at t=0".[/b]
You might just get away with saying it's a point "at the very start of" time , but "in time" - I think not.
t=0.000000001 is a point within time because it is boundaried by time. It is preceeded by t=0 and after it comes t=1 , so it is "in time" , it exists in space/time , t=0 cannot exist "in" time in anything like the same way. It would be like saying that the point of my non-existence (KM=0) exists within my lifetime.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat putatively crucial difference is actually irrelevant. You can suppose that the alarm clock comes into existence ringing, if you prefer. The conclusion still stands that you have not presented a paradox, or even a problem.
One crucial difference though. The event of your alarm clock beginning to ring occurs within the context of an already existing spacetime. How would your alarm clock begin to ring if there was no alarm clock and no universe?
Or to put it another way , your alarm has to exist in order for it to begin ringing , so your argument depends first on the ex ...[text shortened]... o anything. t=0 is the same as saying alarm clock =0 and if alarm clock =0 then it can't ring.
If B is identical to the beginning of time, then, if B occurs at t0, the beginning of time occurs at t0. So what?
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadt=0 does not mean no time. t=0 is merely a marker on the timeline. We only chose to call it 0 as it happens to be the initial point on the timeline. Next you will tell me that in Cartesian co-ordinates there is no x-axis at x=0. Did you miss your maths classes at school?
0kg means no mass.
t=0 does not mean no time. t=0 is merely a marker on the timeline. We only chose to call it 0 as it happens to be the initial point on the timeline. Next you will tell me that in Cartesian co-ordinates there is no x-axis at x=0. Did you miss your maths classes at school?
To give you another analogy to think about, in the polar co-or ...[text shortened]... unded at Zero and infinite in the other direction. The other Theta, is finite, from Zero to 2Pi.
-------whitey-------------------------------------
Oh come on , you are simply not thinking hard enough about it.
How can t=0 be a "marker" on a timeline that doesn't exist? It may exist now but at t=0 the timeline is non existent!!!!!
There is a point x=0 on the x=axis , of course there is , but this is where the comparison breaks down. You are talking about an existing x-axis and then looking at the x-axis to see the point x=0 on that axis.
Try imagining an x axis that is moving or growing as it goes so that at x=126 you see the x axis as 126 units long. What would you see as the x-axis began to grow or unfold? At x=0.00001 you would see a very small x=axis , at x=0 you would see nothing at all because x=0 is the same as the x axis not existing.
At t=0 there would be no timeline on which to place t=0 , don't you see this. You are looking at it from t= 12 billion years but you need to try imagining what reality is at t=0 , and at t=0 there is no t-axis.
Ged it?
08 Oct 08
2 edits
Hugh Ross, Phd. discusses in his book The Creator and the Cosmos the reluctance of some scientists to accept a beginning to the universe:
" The desire to keep God out of the picture was no hidden agenda but a clearly expressed one. British cosmologist Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 - 1944) expressed his feeling clearly: 'Philosophy, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant ... I should like to find a genuine loophole' ... 'We [must] allow evolution an infinite time get started.'"
[Hugh Ross, Phd. quoting Arthur S. Eddington, "The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics," in Nature 127 (1931), page 450.)
[Hugh Ross, Phd. quoting Arthur Eddington, "On the Instability of Einstien's Spherical World," Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society 90 (1930), page 672]
09 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think I can now see where you are coming from. You have been rather terrible at explaining it though.
Ged it?
You basically do not think the future exists.
So at t=0 there was no time line but only a time point. That still does not remove the fact that there was time.
A dimension that is compressed to zero length is rather difficult to deal with which is why it is called a 'singularity'. But it is the spacial dimensions and not the time dimension that creates the real problem.
At no point does any of this show that there was time prior to t=0 which was what you were arguing previously.
Now to dispute your non-existent future:
Time is relative - Einstein showed us that. The immediate implication is that the future exists, or something far more complicated is going on. I personally am leaning towards the idea that all possible pasts and futures exist.
You on the other hand are still stuck in the dark ages believing that time is a universal property and that the universe is being created as we go along.
09 Oct 08
Originally posted by jaywillOdd how you always seem to have to go back 50 - 100 years to find your quotes, odd also that the quote itself betrays the fact that it is being used out of context. Why would you give us a quote relating to evolution when the discussion is cosmology?
Hugh Ross, Phd. discusses in his book [b]The Creator and the Cosmos the reluctance of some scientists to accept a beginning to the universe:
" The desire to keep God out of the picture was no hidden agenda but a clearly expressed one. British cosmologist Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 - 1944) expressed his feeling clearly: 'Philosophy, the notion of a ...[text shortened]... 's Spherical World," Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society 90 (1930), page 672]
What is also interesting, is here we have Knightmeister (a theist) refusing to accept a finite time line, and there you are claiming that it is the scientists who historically didn't want to accept it.