01 Dec 09
Originally posted by knightmeisterOnce again, it is not an assumption it is by definition. I define time as a dimension and if anything can be placed in relation to anything else within that dimension then that object exists within the time dimension - not outside of it. But I don't know why I bother with this as you refuse to read up on dimensions and understand what they are all about.
All that is being suggested is an object outside "our" time not ALL time.
The problem is you talk about the space/time we live in as if you already know for sure it is "TIME" rather than time (note the lower case letter). Since we have no idea whether the space/time "bubble" ( big bang or whatever) represents everything or just a small part of eve ...[text shortened]... somehow be "all TIME"? If so then that's fine , but it's still just an assumption.
For example , why couldn't the "time" in our universe just be surrounded by a larger reality of some sort with it's own "time". All that would be needed would be for our big bang to exist within a larger big bang of some sort. Or even several small big bangs (each with their own "time" ) encased within a large super bang.
Because it wouldn't be separate 'times' it would all be one large time. If they were separate, then once again, you could not place things relative to each other.
Afterall , all that we really know is that the time we experience in this universe started 12 billions years ago.
How many times must I correct you on that? We do not know that. Not in the slightest. We can only speculate. Not even the Bible has anything to say on the matter, so unless you got it as direct inspiration from God, it is mere speculation on your part.
So , I ask again - why are you so catagorical about this when there is no logical reason to be so?
And I will answer again - by definition. If something happened before the big bang then it was within time. It is not some separate TIME. Further, in the hypothesis that I have proposed in the past in which time starts at the big bang, it is again, by definition ie I am proposing that no time exists before that point. You on the other hand claim that it is impossible for such a scenario to exist, but it seems your only argument is to claim knowledge of this bigger TIME that you refer to. So no it is up to you to explain why you are so categorical about the bigger TIME.
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am perfectly aware that observable time may be limited - I don't know if it is or not, I don't think we know enough to make that call.
Observable space-time is limited. There's a big difference.
However, I am proposing a hypothesis in which time itself is finite ie it started at the singularity of the big bang. It is only a hypothesis and is not supported by any evidence, but neither is it ruled out by any evidence. Knightmeister claims it is illogical, but has not been able to explain why in a clear enough way for any of us to understand.
01 Dec 09
I'm about to put a question. Space and time seems to be a definition, but I see this definition is limited of our experience. A better definition would be a universal one, not constrained empiricly of what we know, what seems to be logical, or otherwise.
The question is: In our universe, from the time of BigBang (t=0) to now and further, time seems to be one dimentional, and space, according to our perception, seems to be three dimenstional. However, according to string theory but outside our perception and experience, there are more dimensions than these three. I say that there might be more than one time dimension as well. What reason is there that I am wrong?
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is illogical, because then you get that silly question again: "What came before time"? Dimensions are endless. When scientists refer to "the beginning of time" they mean the beginning of observable time.
I am perfectly aware that observable time may be limited - I don't know if it is or not, I don't think we know enough to make that call.
However, I am proposing a hypothesis in which time itself is finite ie it started at the singularity of the big bang. It is only a hypothesis and is not supported by any evidence, but neither is it ruled out by any evid ...[text shortened]... gical, but has not been able to explain why in a clear enough way for any of us to understand.
01 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat is endless is the discussions I have had with knightmeister on the topic and I have proved countless times that there are many dimensions that are not endless ie they are finite. There is no rule which says that dimensions must be endless and the majority of scientists believe that the spacial dimensions are finite - in fact I believe the big bang theory relies on that claim.
It is illogical, because then you get that silly question again: "What came before time"? Dimensions are endless. When scientists refer to "the beginning of time" they mean the beginning of observable time.
Yes the question "what came before time" is silly, but nevertheless people keep asking it. It does not however in any way, shape or form prove that time is infinite or make a finite time illogical.
In case you have missed my favorite example: what is further South than the South pole? The answer: a vast nothingness as non-existent as the one before time. Yet there it sits beyond the South pole just laughing at us.
If time must logically be infinite based on the 'something from nothing' argument, then the surface of the earth must also logically be infinite.
If you want an example that has a specific direction like time, then I might as what has a mass that is less than zero grams? Or, what has a negative volume?
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettPeople who talk about the singularity are making it up too.
There is something about the Jewish relationship with god that strikes me as being far more 'mature' than that of most Christians. Maybe because they don't feel the need to make up answers for everything they don't understand. Or maybe its just because I'm not exposed to Judaism all that much. Not sure which.
Kelly
01 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou assert a number of "facts" which I find very unlikely.
What is endless is the discussions I have had with knightmeister on the topic and I have proved countless times that there are many dimensions that are not endless ie they are finite. There is no rule which says that dimensions must be endless and the majority of scientists believe that the spacial dimensions are finite - in fact I believe the big bang th hen I might as what has a mass that is less than zero grams? Or, what has a negative volume?
"Southness" is not a dimension. It is a description of how close one is to a point on the planet. Saying "what is more south than the South Pole" is equivalent to saying "what is closer to 3 than 3 on the number line."
Mass is not a dimension either. For either southness or mass to be a dimension you need to be able to mathematically show that all other dimensions are orthogonal to these. There is no such thing as a velocity along mass or along southness. They are not dimensions.
If you wanted to treat "southness" as a direction in a particular dimension, then you need to be willing to accept that you're still going "south" even as you pass the south pole and begin going north again. That's not how north and south are defined though so they are not dimensions, they are references to one's position or velocity along the surface of the planet in relation to a point.
Please provide some references supporting your claim that the Big Bang is dependent on finite dimensions and your other facts which seem to contradict my position.
01 Dec 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePlease elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "non-existence of time"? Do you mean that there is no shorter interval of time which physics can reason about in a meaningful way as wiki puts it?
Would the non-existence of time at the sub Planck level affect this discussion in any way?
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadStephen Hawking is quite clear that there is a time before "time". This is because the "beginning of time" means the beginning of observable time.
What is endless is the discussions I have had with knightmeister on the topic and I have proved countless times that there are many dimensions that are not endless ie they are finite. There is no rule which says that dimensions must be endless and the majority of scientists believe that the spacial dimensions are finite - in fact I believe the big bang th ...[text shortened]... hen I might as what has a mass that is less than zero grams? Or, what has a negative volume?
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=66
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFrom Chambers dictionary:
You assert a number of "facts" which I find very unlikely.
dimension noun 2 any directly measurable physical quantity, eg mass, length, time, charge.
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
"A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude)."
Please provide some references supporting your claim that the Big Bang is dependent on finite dimensions and your other facts which seem to contradict my position.
I could be wrong about that. I haven't yet found any references.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFrom the same article:
Stephen Hawking is quite clear that there is a time before "time". This is because the "beginning of time" means the beginning of observable time.
"In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary."
02 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead"Space and imaginary time together". That's not a dimension; that's three dimensions and "a genuine scientific concept" all together describe some sort of finite combination when all graphed together or something.
From the same article:
"In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary."
EDIT - I've seen the "finite but unbounded" comment explained as the observable universe being finite but there are no boundaries at the end of our ability to observe - we just can't see infinitely far.
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are committing the Fallacy of Equivocation. That is not the same definition of "dimension" used in the sense of "third dimensional". That is a casual definition, not a technical one.
From Chambers dictionary:
dimension noun 2 any directly measurable physical quantity, eg mass, length, time, charge.
Also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension
"A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on t ...[text shortened]... contradict my position.
I could be wrong about that. I haven't yet found any references.[/b]
02 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis type of stuff:
Please elaborate. What exactly do you mean by "non-existence of time"? Do you mean that there is no shorter interval of time which physics can reason about in a meaningful way as wiki puts it?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
Obviously, too, there is no such thing as time, but let that be.