Originally posted by twhiteheadSo time cannot be a strait line in your opinion but a circle?
Does the South Pole exist?
In the dimension consisting of the lines of longitude, does it have a beginning?
What is further south than the South Pole?
How would you apply your thoughts on time to prove that the surface of the Earth is infinite?
Kelly
Originally posted by knightmeister…It cannot be a point "in" time because that would place it within the boundaries of space/time itself. .….
It 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
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 p be like saying that the point of my non-existence (KM=0) exists within my lifetime.
Ok, so I made the slight error of words saying it is a “point IN time” rather a than saying it correctly as it is a “point OF time” (i.e that point of time is a PART of the time line itself) -no problem -I stand corrected.
-Obviously I am not trying to suggest that time exists IN time!
For now on I will try and remember to use the words “point OF time” rather than “point IN time” even although, in everyday English, what is really meant by “point IN time” is “point OF time”.
… But by definition at t=0 time itself does not exist.
.….
How so? Explain your reasoning please. If I arbitrary assign a value of a point of time as t=0 then how is it that t=0 “by definition” does not exist!? -explain.
…Time has not begun at t=0 otherwise it would be t=0.00000001
.….
How so? Explain how it is that “IF time begins at t=0 THEN it must be t=0.00000001” -how does one logically follow from the other -please explain your argument.
Originally posted by KellyJayObviously that is not what he is suggesting and you know it.
So time cannot be a strait line in your opinion but a circle?
Kelly
Imagine a line going through the Earth from its centre to the south pole
-there is solid matter of the Earth all along that line
-so what solid matter of the Earth exists further than the South pole?
=========================================
Odd 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.
========================================
It is not used out of context. And it is odd how with you if it is not one excuse it is another.
==================================
Why would you give us a quote relating to evolution when the discussion is cosmology?
==============================
Evolution was a side point. The main thing is the "scientist's" agenda. It seems only reasonable to say a little something about why he has one.
If I say something about the Bible many skeptics give the old "ho hum - I already heard that." In my own way I let them taste some of your own medicine.
I heard about the inflated balloon a long time ago. You know you guys like to dish it out to others. Often you don't like it dished back to you.
==============================
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.
========================================
I'm refering to a beginning of creation.
Not all scientists seem not to want to accept a beginning to the universe. I highlighted an example of one who didn't because of his metaphisical / religious / philosophical agenda.
For some people things don't change for them since Eddington said that.
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't say that this time. I was demonstrating to knightmeister that finite dimensions exist. Knightmeister believes he has found a proof that finite dimensions do not exist and one example is sufficient to prove him wrong.
So time cannot be a strait line in your opinion but a circle?
Kelly
I have used the analogy in the past to show that there are possible topologies for time that do not require discontinuity, and in that case, yes, it is possible that time is circle not a straight line (though you need to add a few dimensions), and consider the possibility of an ellipse(or cone).
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo actually that was not my intention.
Obviously that is not what he is suggesting and you know it.
Imagine a line going through the Earth from its centre to the south pole
-there is solid matter of the Earth all along that line
-so what solid matter of the Earth exists further than the South pole?
What I am saying is that the lines of longitude and latitude provide two dimensions on the two dimensional surface of the earth. They are both finite dimensions therefore finite dimensions exist implying knightmeister is proven wrong.
Further, on one of the dimensions - the lines of longitude, there is an initial point (the south pole), beyond which you cannot go further south. Any argument Knightmeister uses for time, must either use a property of time that lines of longitude do not have, or must equally apply to lines of longitude.
Knightmeister prefers to avoid anything to do with it.
Originally posted by jaywillIt is quite clearly out of context. You quoted someone who would like to have an infinite amount of time for evolution to take place. Nobody disputes that the age of the earth is finite - even the person you quoted.
It is not used out of context. And it is odd how with you if it is not one excuse it is another.
Evolution was a side point. The main thing is the "scientist's" agenda. It seems only reasonable to say a little something about why he has one.
If I say something about the Bible many skeptics give the old "ho hum - I already heard that." In my own way I let them taste some of your own medicine.
I heard about the inflated balloon a long time ago. You know you guys like to dish it out to others. Often you don't like it dished back to you.
If you were trying to show that "scientists" have an agenda then you did a remarkably poor job of it. When one has to go back over 50 years to find a quote, and then uses the quote out of context, and when the quote is about something not even in the field of expertise of the person being quoted, then it shows that there is precious little evidence for an 'agenda' amongst scientists in general.
I'm refering to a beginning of creation.
Not all scientists seem [b]not to want to accept a beginning to the universe. I highlighted an example of one who didn't because of his metaphisical / religious / philosophical agenda.
For some people things don't change for them since Eddington said that.[/b]
I am not sure if I understand what you are saying, but I maintain my point that knightmeister is arguing for an infinite time line and the scientists here are saying it is not necessarily so, and then you step in and claim that scientists have a hidden agenda to claim an infinite time line.
I find that odd.
Originally posted by jaywillnothing twhite said obliterates god. he simply offers a good enough and quite logical explanation without using "God did it, i don't need to know how he did it"
[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]
many people fail to realize that even god is almost omnipotent, he is allowed make creation according to some rules, not just the "Let there be X" command that christians are so fond off.
to make you understand how can twhite's "It is the spacial dimensions that are stretching." be true, here is an example. car goes from A to B. what if you fill the car with beer, pizza, and 3-4 fat guys. it will take longer to reach B with the same amount of power even if the road is the same.
(correct this example if you find one better)
Originally posted by ZahlanziIn fact my claims in this thread regarding time-lines are even less damaging to Christian theology than that. I have at no point claimed that time is finite or that the universe was not created by God. I have only claimed that knightmeisters attempt to prove the time-line infinite is fundamentally flawed, as are his is claims regarding the necessity of the existence of a creator. I have also suggested various scenarios with finite time-lines which knightmeister has not been able to rule out as being possible.
nothing twhite said obliterates god. he simply offers a good enough and quite logical explanation without using "God did it, i don't need to know how he did it"
Most importantly I maintain that without referring to the Good Book or receiving other communications from God, there has been no valid reason put forward to suggest that a creator of the universe exists, or that the universe implies a 'prior cause'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy apologies -I misunderstood your point 🙂
No actually that was not my intention.
What I am saying is that the lines of longitude and latitude provide two dimensions on the two dimensional surface of the earth. They are both finite dimensions therefore finite dimensions exist implying knightmeister is proven wrong.
Further, on one of the dimensions - the lines of longitude, there is an initial p ...[text shortened]... ust equally apply to lines of longitude.
Knightmeister prefers to avoid anything to do with it.
-although you are still obviously NOT saying time is circular!
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat I am saying is that the lines of longitude and latitude provide two dimensions on the two dimensional surface of the earth.---whitey-----------------
No actually that was not my intention.
What I am saying is that the lines of longitude and latitude provide two dimensions on the two dimensional surface of the earth. They are both finite dimensions therefore finite dimensions exist implying knightmeister is proven wrong.
Further, on one of the dimensions - the lines of longitude, there is an initial p ...[text shortened]... ust equally apply to lines of longitude.
Knightmeister prefers to avoid anything to do with it.
Is the surface of the earth 2 dimensional?? , I thought that would make the earth a circle rather than a sphere......
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow so? Explain your reasoning please. If I arbitrary assign a value of a point of time as t=0 then how is it that t=0 “by definition” does not exist!? -explain. ----------hammy--------------
[b]…It cannot be a point "in" time because that would place it within the boundaries of space/time itself. .….
Ok, so I made the slight error of words saying it is a “point IN time” rather a than saying it correctly as it is a “point OF time” (i.e that point of time is a PART of the time line itself) -no problem -I stand corrected.
-Obvious ...[text shortened]... be t=0.00000001” -how does one logically follow from the other -please explain your argument.[/b]
Because t=0 is not any old point of time , it is the non existence of time. If time existed at that point it could not be t=0. Any more than if a scale has any weight on it it could be w=0.
I find it almost ridiculous that you think that at t=0 time exists.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOk, so I made the slight error of words saying it is a “point IN time” rather a than saying it correctly as it is a “point OF time” (i.e that point of time is a PART of the time line itself) -no problem -I stand corrected.
[b]…It cannot be a point "in" time because that would place it within the boundaries of space/time itself. .….
Ok, so I made the slight error of words saying it is a “point IN time” rather a than saying it correctly as it is a “point OF time” (i.e that point of time is a PART of the time line itself) -no problem -I stand corrected.
-Obvious ...[text shortened]... be t=0.00000001” -how does one logically follow from the other -please explain your argument.[/b]
-Obviously I am not trying to suggest that time exists IN time!
----------hammy---------------------
First of all thank you for your honesty and integrity - it's not always easy to stand corrected arouind here.
It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed. You admit that time itself cannot exist in time so therefore the begininng of time cannot be an event that occurs "in" time because if it did then it would be taking place in a pre-existing time and would not be the beginning.
So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so what does it begin in. It must begin or proceed from a timeless state or timelessness. It cannot proceed from time.
t=0 , if it exists , cannot exist in time , therefore it must exist somewhere else. I would say that even saying it exists as a point of time might be too much as well because at t=0 time doesn't exist.
====================================
It is quite clearly out of context. You quoted someone who would like to have an infinite amount of time for evolution to take place. Nobody disputes that the age of the earth is finite - even the person you quoted.
=====================================
The quote was concerning the beginning of "the present order of Nature" not simply the planet earth. And the man would "like to find a loophole" to a beginning.
At least he was honest about it.
=============================
If you were trying to show that "scientists" have an agenda then you did a remarkably poor job of it.
=================================
Some do. That was an example. At least he was honest about it. He wanted to find a loophole - a way out. That is a way out of where the scientific evidence points - a beginning to the creation.
===============================
When one has to go back over 50 years to find a quote, and then uses the quote out of context, and when the quote is about something not even in the field of expertise of the person being quoted, then it shows that there is precious little evidence for an 'agenda' amongst scientists in general.
========================================
I think that is nonsense. I'll get you some more recent quotes to show the game of looking for loopholes to a beginning is STILL being played out, even here on this board today. I mean today.
The age of the quote has little significance except we are talking about the days of the genesis of such discoveries - the formative years.
If the age of the quote is your strongest complaint, I'm not too concerned. People still have such a desire for a loophole. A recent thread was started on "The Big Bounce" - a loophole for a universee with a beginning. And one that has been pretty much discarded with other "Steady State" alternatives to the Big Bang.
=======================================
I am not sure if I understand what you are saying, but I maintain my point that knightmeister is arguing for an infinite time line and the scientists here are saying it is not necessarily so, and then you step in and claim that scientists have a hidden agenda to claim an infinite time line.
=======================================
Some scientists look for a loophole because the evidence points where they find a repugnant suggestion - that is a Cause outside of space / time /matter / energy brought about the creation of the universe.
I have not followed knightmeister's all that closely. But I have read enough of his late comments to persuade me that he also is talking about time beginning, this the universe beginning.
If somewhere along the line he contradicted himself, I have confidence that he will acknowledge that. If he has not and if he really did.
==============================
I find that odd.
===============================
I find it odd that athiest's can point out all the errors they want to of the statements of Theist's going back 2000 years but cry fowl when we do likewise with Atheists / Agnostic / Skeptics of the Christian faith.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo at t=0 there was no time line but only a time point. That still does not remove the fact that there was time.-------whitey-----------
I think I can now see where you are coming from. You have been rather terrible at explaining it though.
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 ...[text shortened]... eving that time is a universal property and that the universe is being created as we go along.
I fail to see how a time point such as t=0 can possibly be time. Time by definition requires a transition from one state to another. There has to be something like motion , change or something like an event happening.
Yourself and hammy and others have claimed that "if something is happening then there must be time" however , this must logically work in reverse too. If nothing's happening then there can be no time.
And at t=0 nothing's going on , there is no transition or event. Therefore , it's seriously flawed to say "there was time".
Imagine you are at an orchestral performance and the concerto is at point M(music)= 0 , is there any music -- of course not --- why?----because at M=0 there can be no music because music only happens when there is some movement from one point to the next.
What is patently clear is that t=0 at the very least cannot be talked about in the same terms as if it were just any liddle ol' point "in" time. As hammy has already admitted , it's not valid to say it's a point IN time. It's also clear to me that to say "there was time" might well be flawed.
The question still remains - how did t=0 get to t=1? It cannot have happened "IN" time because the process of moving to t=1 is the creation/beginning of time itself.
The fact that I have reduced you to going as far as saying that at the point where time=0 "there is time" shows how far you are willing to go to preserve your position. It reminds me of the ministry of doublethink in 1984 where WAR= PEACE etc etc.
I put it to you that it's far simpler and parsimonious to say that at time=0 there is no time because if there was time then it doesn't make sense to call it time=0. I think a 6 year old could see this.