Notices
Results 1 to 95 of 95

Thread: Did Time exist before Big Bang?

  1. #1 Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2
    Ok. This question has always bothered me. According to all the theories, Big Bang happened in a millionth of a second and all the matter was created thereafter. But if you focus your attention before the Big Bang happened, what was there??? Did time exist? Were there any laws that constituted physics/maths/chemistry? I wouldn't ask if matter existed because again, the matter only came into existence after the Big Bang.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Nothing existed as we know it, including time


    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Matter, as we know it didn't exist, or so said. Plasma the given name for what matter was formed from, cooled over time, not seconds. There are a variety of theory, saying matter formed 300,000 to millions of years after BB. They feel this plasma cooled from 20 plus billion kelvin to around 10 billion, where hydrogen could then form. Our sun for instance is about 10-15 million kelvin, which the fusion of hydrogen can easily happen.

    As stated, BBT suggest nothing outside the singularity, however conceived, existed. This would include any laws of science, nature or human understanding. Your next question would be, where did the singularity come from, which no one has given an acceptable explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Actually, matter formed because of nucleosynthesis, which started 3 minutes after the big bang.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    Actually, matter formed because of nucleosynthesis, which started 3 minutes after the big bang.
    Just googled 'BB Temperature', thinking my billions above were trillions, which they were. I also found three new theory on times, none of which 3 minutes. IMO; Those that are trying to explain the origin are coming unglued. It was from 'nucleosynthesis' that I got the above figures, some months back, so assume there is a conflict there as well.


    I see Wikipedia makes what you say correct.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Two things are for certain. Well...actually three. And the other two are based upon the first.

    Time is finite.

    That said, time has a beginning and time has an end.

    According to the "big bang theory," the age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

    Before that, time did not exist. In fact, in the absence of time, nothing existed...not even matter.

    Eventually, time will come that time no longer exists...neither will matter.

    Human language does not permit one to explain this in discernable terms. Human comprehension may not even allow for such a concept.

    That which goes beyond time is difficult to explain. Mostly because there are not words to explain it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Sohail
    Ok. This question has always bothered me. According to all the theories, Big Bang happened in a millionth of a second and all the matter was created thereafter. But if you focus your attention before the Big Bang happened, what was there??? Did time exist? Were there any laws that constituted physics/maths/chemistry? I wouldn't ask if matter existed because again, the matter only came into existence after the Big Bang.
    Why is your post size 18?

    Anyway, "time" is an abstract concept that doesn't physically exist. Therefore, its "existence" is only relative to that which is being observed. So, yes, you can have time before the big-bang.

    For example: 3 seconds before the big-bang.

    The only question is whether or not it is valid to conceptualize anything before the big-bang. While it is commonly viewed that the big-bang is an ultimate originator of everything (ie - nothing existed before it) that is something that is being debated.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    uncommon; Not being argumentative, where did time begin with in BBT or why would time ever end.

    BBT only suggest to our understanding of things. The singularity didn't just pop up and must have been there from some other source. IF everything ends, what ever it ends into, will still exist in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    uncommon; Not being argumentative, where did time begin with in BBT or why would time ever end.

    BBT only suggest to our understanding of things. The singularity didn't just pop up and must have been there from some other source. IF everything ends, what ever it ends into, will still exist in time.

    It is quite natural to be "argumentative" and I take no offense by your doing so.

    These are not concepts that are easy for one to understand. Surely as time began, so too it will end.

    We take time for granted. It is probably the only way that most of us can understand the universe. The universe, however, is actually quite small when you are able to understand what is not rather than what is. Time is not immune to that.

    Without the use of visual aids, it is kind of hard to explain this. I can assure that I could explain this to you in 5 minutes if we had that luxury. If you would be willing to keep an open mind, I may be able to do that here...if you are interested.

    Gazing outside of the universe is a splendid thing. It requires a bit of effort and also requires that you strip yourself of most of what you know to be true. It can, however, be accomplished. I must warn you that, if you do, you will not see this world in the same light. It is a bit like a roller coaster ride where you ride it at your own risk.

    If you wish, I can start you on such a ride but it will require your full participation. Your experience will be unique unto yourself. No one can ride it for you. No one can fully explain what your experince will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    It would be hard for me to keep an open mind, as I assume something has always existed, when cosmology is the subject. All other things, or everything in he Universe, does have limited (finite) time. What makes up these things, is not (infinite) limited and must by meaning have or will always exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Time is an illusion!

    Did i just say that?

    Ad vitam aeternam
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Understanding information in finite terms is easier than assumming information we do not understand to be infinite.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Understanding information in finite terms is easier than assumming information we do not understand to be infinite.

    Oh i totally agree

    It's infinitely better to understand the finite in infinite terms and the infinite in finite terms.

    Ad infinitum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    I found this about time...

    Time has two distinct viewpoints. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, holds that time is not itself some thing and therefore is not to be measured
    To believe time is finite, one must subscribe to the first viewpoint.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    You should believe in the finality of time. You should also come to understand the infiniteness of timelessness. There is a world which extends beyond our finite universe which is, indeed, infinite. There, nothing exists...not even time...but it is really, really, big. It cannot be contained by a hundred million galaxies ever expanding. Non-space drawfs that which we know as space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    As I said above, time is not a particle or physical object...it's a relational quantifier of change. It's a concept. In that regard, time can be, or not be, infinite. There's no correct answer on either. It only depends on your frame of reference.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    If, as you say of time, "it's a relational quantifier of change," then what was there before change started and what will be when change ceases to happen? Was there a time when time did not exist? Will there be a time when time ceases? In either case, in the absense of time, what is there to replace it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    If, as you say of time, "it's a relational quantifier of change," then what was there before change started and what will be when change ceases to happen? Was there a time when time did not exist?
    Uh...time isn't an object. It doesn't "exist." It's only relevance to anything is as a way of quantifying the differences (the change) between one frame of reference or state, and another. If you want to have T = BB - 60s, you can. If you set your ruler strictly to T = BB+, it's no different.

    If in your observation you assume that everything started at the BB, then there is nothing to have a relationship with before the BB, except the BB itself. In that even, the BB becomes nothing more than the moment of T = 0, used in relation to events happening after T = 0.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Will there be a time when time ceases?
    Uh, I don't know. Is there a point at which distance ceases?

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    In either case, in the absense of time, what is there to replace it?
    The only way you could remove the concept of time is to effectively remove all frames beyond the singular state. Even then, you can't actually get rid of "time" because it could just as easily be said that although there was no change in the state, it remained unchanged for X amount of time (even though that time would be T=0 and remain so until there is another frame to relate to).
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    to only think of time as a sensible and external measure of duration, for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year, means neither space nor time is conceived as a substance.

    there is no denying it; time is closely releated to space. spacetime is not a clock but rather a snapshot of an event and spacetime is used to locate these events in the universe. These are events we observe.

    The concept of spacetime combines space and time within a single coordinate system, typically with 4 dimensions: length, width, height, and time. Dimensions are components of a coordinate grid typically used to locate a point in space, or on the globe, such as by latitude, longitude and planet (Earth). However, with spacetime, the coordinate grid is used to locate "events" (rather than just points in space), so time is added as another dimension to the grid.

    Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place — an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place. The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time. Examples of events include the explosion of a star or the single beat of a drum
    .
    the absense of events points to a finite spacetime

    in another thread on this forum, "Direction" in space is discussed. This is remediated using spacetime.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Wolf, you say that time does not exist, yet you acknowledge its existence. You could have just as easily said that distance does not exist.

    There was a time before, or at, the Monumental Poof (aka the BBT) when neither time, nor space, nor distance existed.

    The only question left is that will that time come again? The logical conclusion to that is, yes it will.

    The universe can either collapse upon itself or expand to the point where it no longer affects that which is non-space. Either way, it is doomed to insignificance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Wolf, you say that time does not exist, yet you acknowledge its existence. You could have just as easily said that distance does not exist.
    No, I meant time does not "exist" like some kind of object. It's not an atom or a particle. It's not matter. It's a concept. "Time" is only a word. We use the concept of "time" to describe things.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    There was a time before, or at, the Monumental Poof (aka the BBT) when neither time, nor space, nor distance existed.
    If you describe a point or instance and say "when" you implement time. A point without "time" is a single instance in which, in that frame of reference, there are no continuing points. In that instance, time can be said not to exist, but such a statement only holds within the reference of the instance itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    The only question left is that will that time come again? The logical conclusion to that is, yes it will.
    Only if we define our time reference as being capable of circular (or redundant) incrementation. If I, for example, say that time increases infinitely from T=0, it doesn't come back to T=0

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    The universe can either collapse upon itself or expand to the point where it no longer affects that which is non-space. Either way, it is doomed to insignificance.
    If we assume that space is infinite, then it follows that it will never be filled except by an infinite filler, and that if we describe the beginning of the universe as T=0, then time in relation to an infinite universe becomes an infinite as well. Of course, in that reference the "infinite time" only exists as a concept in relation to a T=0 with the assumption of infinite increments.


    Further, you can have a realm where it is said "time doesn't exist" but such a label is relative. If anything inside that realm changes, then that change can be described with the temporal equation. Even if anything inside the realm doesn't change, if the realm is held in reference to any other period of time, then time still gets applied. (The object remained unchanged for 60 seconds.)


    It's the same thing as the concept of "distance" (which I pointed out). "Distance" doesn't exist. It's not a particle or whatnot. It's a relational concept used to describe the relationship between other particles/objects.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    I'd guess that the only way an area of zero time can exist is of this area is smaller than the Planck length (called Planck time I think). Even if a system is completely isolated from the outside world time would still exist for it. I guess what I am trying to say is that for time to exist, only movement on larger than Planck lengths need occur. So it might be interesting to think about at what scale time would become perceivable. If movement where restricted to an upper limit molecule sized objects, you might be able to be concious and think and see the straight ahead, but be unable to move. I wonder if it might be possible to create an inertial frame where any object beyond a certain near-rest mass would be unable to move? This might have some interesting effects on forces!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sohail
    Did time exist?
    Time is a mathematical construct. Time has no effect on any physical process whatsoever. You can create time by simply tapping a pen rhythmically. It's simply a tool for measuring.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Time is a mathematical construct. Time has no effect on any physical process whatsoever. You can create time by simply tapping a pen rhythmically. It's simply a tool for measuring.
    I wouldn't even say you are 'creating' time by tapping the pen. :? Creating kind of implies it's something more than a concept, right? (Not arguing with you.)

    I'd say that you are simply providing a series of points of reference that can be described by the concept of time. Those points are as arbitrary as the allocation and incrementation of the labels of time, too.


    Perhaps people get hung up on the "time" issue because they think of "space-time" as being the combination of two physical features. In fact it's just a convenient grouping of the "space" and the descriptor: "time."
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    I wouldn't even say you are 'creating' time by tapping the pen. :? Creating kind of implies it's something more than a concept, right? (Not arguing with you.)
    Yet, that's the simplicity of time.

    Perhaps people get hung up on the "time" issue because they think of "space-time" as being the combination of two physical features. In fact it's just a convenient grouping of the "space" and the descriptor: "time."
    Most people don't understand time, made evident by the ongoing new threads on the topic.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    The problem with time, Q, is that because of our inability to think outside of words (which are all too constraining), the concept can only be explained by using time as a description of time. It's like saying that a dog is doglike to describe a dog.

    There is more than just time that exists that has no substantial proof to its existence but it is hardly an illusion. It is real. It began. It will end. I know of only two (actually three) things that are able to transcend time. All other things have a beginning, a present, and a future that is terminal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    time is relative to space and both are relative to information. time cannot exist without space nor can space exist without time. time and space are both derivitives of information. in the absense of information, time and space do not exist.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    There is more than just time that exists that has no substantial proof to its existence but it is hardly an illusion. It is real. It began. It will end. I know of only two (actually three) things that are able to transcend time. All other things have a beginning, a present, and a future that is terminal.
    Last time, dude....time is just a descriptor. That's it. We could call it "widgeting" if you want. Doesn't matter. It's nothing more than a name we give to the observation of one instance to the next. We mathematically describe the differences between one state and the next, and we give that mathematical description a name so we can distinguish it from the other mathematical descriptions we make.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Ruro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Last time, dude....time is just a descriptor. That's it. We could call it "widgeting" if you want. Doesn't matter. It's nothing more than a name we give to the observation of one instance to the next.
    What gives the power of change, resulting in multiple instances to compare?

    We are here, created possibly from the Big Bang. Time is just used to measure. The moment the Universe appeared the concept of time could appear (When Intelligence arose to observe change), as stuff could move about.

    The Universe emerged from the Big Bang? That must be wrong, something must have come before it.

    Somewhere in the past 10 minutes I concluded "There was never Nothing", but I have no idea how now.

    Anyway, christ, it's almost 5am, WHAT! I'm outta here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    There is more than just time that exists that has no substantial proof to its existence but it is hardly an illusion. It is real. It began. It will end. I know of only two (actually three) things that are able to transcend time. All other things have a beginning, a present, and a future that is terminal.
    Last time, dude....time is just a descriptor. That's it. We could call it "widgeting" if you want. Doesn't matter. It's nothing more than a name we give to the observation of one instance to the next. We mathematically describe the differences between one state and the next, and we give that mathematical description a name so we can distinguish it from the other mathematical descriptions we make.
    So you are basically saying that time does not exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    The problem with time, Q, is that because of our inability to think outside of words (which are all too constraining), the concept can only be explained by using time as a description of time. It's like saying that a dog is doglike to describe a dog.
    Time is well defined and understood, with words.

    There is more than just time that exists that has no substantial proof to its existence but it is hardly an illusion. It is real. It began. It will end. I know of only two (actually three) things that are able to transcend time. All other things have a beginning, a present, and a future that is terminal.
    Gibberish.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    One liners mean nothing Q. If you do not wish to debate then just not post at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    One liners mean nothing Q. If you do not wish to debate then just not post at all.
    So, you want me to debate gibberish with more gibberish?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Did Time exist before Big Bang? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Uncommon; My preferred explanation of time is; All things go in cycles, which mankind has given meaning with figures. When talking cosmology or in fact many issues those times are probably neither correct or meaningful. If you can understand that, my explanation for eternal, infinite or never ending/beginning of time is implied...

    Q did explain time in his/her way. Its rather basic but none the less true..

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Time is a mathematical construct. Time has no effect on any physical process whatsoever. You can create time by simply tapping a pen rhythmically. It's simply a tool for measuring.
    On your, all things will end, meaning to me all that makes up matter or what is in the universe will some how disappear (atoms/elements), please explain how this could be possible. I can figure a beginning then, from that. No ride through theology or philosophy, just some explanation on how that could happen...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Did time exist before the big bang? In other words, can we measure time outside a 4. dimensional construct which already has time within it? You can measure something before the big bang, but time started with the big bang, so measuring time before time is meaningless. There was no time before time.

    Am I making any sense here? Or am I confusing myself again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Two things are for certain. Well...actually three. And the other two are based upon the first.

    Time is finite.

    That said, time has a beginning and time has an end.

    According to the "big bang theory," the age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

    Before that, time did not exist. In fact, in the absence of time, nothing existed...not even matter.

    Eventually, time will come that time no longer exists...neither will matter.

    Human language does not permit one to explain this in discernable terms. Human comprehension may not even allow for such a concept.

    That which goes beyond time is difficult to explain. Mostly because there are not words to explain it.
    So kid i like yor style ...
    i wold like to know more about this explain me more , and i wold like to know how did u learn about Etra ? what did you know about Deltar?
    Do you know Fred Froid ?
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    There are three possiblities when you adhere to the BBT (I still prefer to call it the Monumental Poof).

    1. We will reach stagnation. The universe will stop expanding. It will have reached its limit. That seems to me to be the least likely. It would be like cardiac arrest on a cosmic level.

    2. The universe will expand infinitely. The problem with this is that its "ripples" will become so diluted as to have no effect. It will become meaningless. It will die a slow, lingering death.

    3. In opposition to the Monumental Poof, there will be a Catostrophic Suck. The universe will collapse upon itself. Perfection shall have been reached and all time will end. Will it once again emerge with another great poof? That is something that we cannot know. Perhaps this isn't the "first" universe.

    Perhaps one could propose a fourth possibility. That the universe regularly expands and contracts and we are merely in a cycle of expansion. The trouble with that is that we would have to be on the verge of the next contraction or else mankind will be extinct before we could ever measure it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    There are three possiblities when you adhere to the BBT (I still prefer to call it the Monumental Poof).

    1. We will reach stagnation. The universe will stop expanding. It will have reached its limit. That seems to me to be the least likely. It would be like cardiac arrest on a cosmic level.

    2. The universe will expand infinitely. The problem with this is that its "ripples" will become so diluted as to have no effect. It will become meaningless. It will die a slow, lingering death.

    3. In opposition to the Monumental Poof, there will be a Catostrophic Suck. The universe will collapse upon itself. Perfection shall have been reached and all time will end. Will it once again emerge with another great poof? That is something that we cannot know. Perhaps this isn't the "first" universe.

    Perhaps one could propose a fourth possibility. That the universe regularly expands and contracts and we are merely in a cycle of expansion. The trouble with that is that we would have to be on the verge of the next contraction or else mankind will be extinct before we could ever measure it.
    Ok what is there outside our unvierse in your opinion ... and you didn not answer my questions!
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Imagine an infinite pond. Drop a pebble into that pond (ie... the Big Bang). Ripples from your doing so would radiate from that drop infinitely. There are no ripples outside of the furthest ripple. The pond still exists outside of that ripple but it cannot be observed. The same can be said of the universe. Unless something acts upon the pond outside of the furthest ripple, you can have no knowledge of existence beyond the known universe. We can only observe what is detectable. So even if it exists, we cannot know that it does. I hope that answers your question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    uncommon;

    Your trying to explain BBT. All your explanations have at some point BEEN, BBT. When you go into historic viewpoints, many include some form of expansions, then contraction and suggest numerous times. The first recorded such theory, came from Hindu Mythology dating back to near 2500 BC.

    1- The current BBT, suggest, expansion will simply go on forever, into eternity. No doubt this could change, and a chronological list of changes in the theory would drive any person crazy. In short revisions have been made to justify or comply with new information. IMO...

    2-This would be a logical conclusion, since matter at some point should be so spread out, regeneration then not possible. The problem is, even a galaxy has enough material to regenerate itself losing very little each time or in the process.

    In a hypothetical 'Universe Formation', I suggested the beginning could have come from what would exist, in a dead universe where matter began to reform from displaced and sparse matter (atoms/elements).

    3- Kind of a duplication; A 'catastrophic suck' could only happen in areas. Many are mis-understanding 'Black Holes', thinking they could eat there own galaxy. The problem is under the BHT, they do not last very long, eventually dissolving back to materials which then become new stars and what have you. Since we could never know that a galaxy could not become one or more BH, even then that unit would dissolve, to a tremendous 'Giant Molecular Cloud' (nebula) which we should be able to see someplace.

    BBT, which cannot explain pre-BB, has left open to many possibilities. As for a number -4-, in the hypothetical mentioned above is one. However the often mentioned Steady States Universe, offers IMO, the one Universe that conforms to all mans understanding of science, physics and conceptions of possibilities.

    Mankind??? We haven't existed for a small fraction of anything and we will no doubt be long gone in another fraction. Time or those cycles will go on and maybe other intelligent societies will give meanings to what they think.
    Basically our are based on our planet rotation, 'sun dials' being used even before times were offered....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Did time exist before the big bang? In other words, can we measure time outside a 4. dimensional construct which already has time within it? You can measure something before the big bang, but time started with the big bang, so measuring time before time is meaningless. There was no time before time.

    Am I making any sense here? Or am I confusing myself again?
    If one is seeking the beginning of "time" in the strictest form of the definition, one simply has to know who the first person was that used a reference to measure change, however crude a method.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    time is very real. without time everything would occur simultaneously.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    46
    My view is that we are currently in a trajectory from one stable attractor prior to the Big Bang to a final state sometime in the future. Like a vase falling from a table, it's path to the floor the entire history of our universe. Time is an unfolding of that trajectory: When the universe reaches its's final stable point as I suspect it will, time as we know it stops: no change, no time until some catastrophe occurs, pushing the system past another critical point if that happens, and causing a whole new trajectory to begin and a likewise new Universe.

    Don't know how that sits with Quantum Cosmologist though. They're stirring a revolution you know with Loop Quantum Gravity. Book's coming out, something like "Before the Big Bang" however I think it's kinda' tough. Not sure though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    If one is seeking the beginning of "time" in the strictest form of the definition, one simply has to know who the first person was that used a reference to measure change, however crude a method.
    Not exacly what I meant. You can still measure time before time as a concept existed. My point was that since spacetime had a beginning it is meaningless to measure the time before spacetime, it would be like measuring time before time. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly :?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    time is very real. without time everything would occur simultaneously.
    No, time does not affect anything. It is nothing more than a concept used to measure rate of change, it does not exist as a physical thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    No, time does not affect anything. It is nothing more than a concept used to measure rate of change, it does not exist as a physical thing.

    Time has two distinct viewpoints. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Although extremely difficult to comprehend without a strong knowledge of applying it through mathematical expressions, this view is widely accepted by the scientific community.

    The opposing view (your view) is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, holds that time is not itself some thing and therefore is not to be measured. Although this simplistic view of time is very easy to understand, it does not fit into most widely accepted theories that attempt to explain the behavior of the universe.
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    My point was that time alone is a concept used as tool of measurement. Time, used as a fundamental structure of the universe only works with the 3 dimensions of space. Time, when not applied to the 3 dimensions becomes a constant or a measurement of change. Both viewpoints are correct. The idea of time as a part of space is used in relativistic contexts and depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light, and also the strength of intense gravitational fields which can slow the passage of time. This is of course spacetime, and not time separate from space.

    That's how I've understood it, but I'm still not sure if I'm right :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    My point was that time alone is a concept used as tool of measurement. Time, used as a fundamental structure of the universe only works with the 3 dimensions of space. Time, when not applied to the 3 dimensions becomes a constant or a measurement of change. Both viewpoints are correct. The idea of time as a part of space is used in relativistic contexts and depends on an object's velocity relative to the speed of light, and also the strength of intense gravitational fields which can slow the passage of time. This is of course spacetime, and not time separate from space.

    That's how I've understood it, but I'm still not sure if I'm right :?
    Then there is no debate. Maybe spacetime was labeled incorrectly causing too much confusion. Calling it the fluxcompassituum may be the ticket?
    .................................................. ...............
    The truth is difficult to obtain.
    They conceal it in books.
    *************************************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Would one deny the existence of distance? If you do, and if you are right, it would be awfully crowded in my chair here. I don't think it can hold over 6 billion people.

    I keep hearing the argument that time is merely a measurement. Our measurement of time is a measurement. Time is real. We measure distance. Distance exists also.

    From our frame of reference, it is hard to imagine the non-existence of time. Just as it is hard to imagine the non-existence of distance (or space). Heck, we can barely imagine the finiteness of each of our own existences. Physically, there was a time when we did not exist and there will come a time that it will be true again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Time isn't the same as distance...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    So you are basically saying that time does not exist?
    If you are asking if "time" exists like a particle or atom, then no. Does it exist as a word? Yes. Like I've been saying, it is only a word...a word we use to describe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Did time exist before the big bang? In other words, can we measure time outside a 4. dimensional construct which already has time within it? You can measure something before the big bang, but time started with the big bang, so measuring time before time is meaningless. There was no time before time.
    It's kinda like saying "it has no width until it is wide." It's obvious, and yet true.

    Oddly enough, it may be intrinsically impossible to escape from time. When you say "before time" that is still a point in the dimension of time. So in essence, there is no such thing as "before time."


    Quote Originally Posted by ajg624
    Then there is no debate. Maybe spacetime was labeled incorrectly causing too much confusion. Calling it the fluxcompassituum may be the ticket?
    It's more of a disparity in the concept derived from the usage of the word. When someone says "the -fabric- of spacetime" it has a certain quality that makes it sound like it's something physical, verses just a concept. Spacetime is nothing more than the bringing together of two common factors in physics. In a physics experiment, if we stay at T = 0, we have space...but is it physics? It's just a snapshot of what is, at T = 0. Everything comes into play when the clock ticks forward (or backwards) from T = 0. It's kinda like sheet-music. There are notes and there are beats. Without beats there is no music because there is no progression from one note to the next, and yet there is no such thing as a beat. Beats aren't lying around. They are simply a way of describing the flow from one note to the next.


    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Would one deny the existence of distance? If you do, and if you are right, it would be awfully crowded in my chair here. I don't think it can hold over 6 billion people.
    It is very possible that the idea of "distance" is an illusory concept generated by our minds as a way of dealing with the separation of objects. In reality, we may very well be on removed from one another by this congnitive illusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    I keep hearing the argument that time is merely a measurement. Our measurement of time is a measurement. Time is real. We measure distance. Distance exists also.
    If you are saying that something exists if it is a word or a label, then yes, it exists. But attempting to say that something exists because it has a name is a bit brash. These sorts of things exist only as concepts of observational relation, and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    From our frame of reference, it is hard to imagine the non-existence of time.
    Depends on how you look at it. The order of change is devoid of the label "time" until someone observes it across the spread of each instance in that order.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Just as it is hard to imagine the non-existence of distance (or space).
    Well, it may be true that it is hard (if not impossible) to avoid the concept of distance, since that is how our minds associate with our surroundings, the properties and functions of the distances we deal with are not always static. For instance, it is quite possible for there to be more than one distance between two points, yet each distance is only a measurement between the particular displacement of points in a given instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    Physically, there was a time when we did not exist and there will come a time that it will be true again.
    Now we jump into the realm of philosophy. If we did not exist before, but exist now, will we not exist still even after we are dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Time isn't the same as distance...
    In concept it is. Just like the other dimensions (such as length, width, height) it is a descriptor for the property between one point and the next. With time, you are incrementing the progression of change. With distance, you are incrementing the displacement of one point from another. By themselves, the words "time" and "distance" are not real, they are only words.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    [quote="(Q)"][quote="uncommonman"]The problem with time, Q, is that because of our inability to think outside of words (which are all too constraining), the concept can only be explained by using time as a
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by uncommonman
    The problem with time, Q, is that because of our inability to think outside of words (which are all too constraining), the concept can only be explained by using time as a description of time. It's like saying that a dog is doglike to describe a dog.
    Time is well defined and understood, with words.

    There is more than just time that exists that has no substantial proof to its existence but it is hardly an illusion. It is real. It began. It will end. I know of only two (actually three) things that are able to transcend time. All other things have a beginning, a present, and a future that is terminal.
    Gibberish.
    Suppose we throw out the concept of "time". We still need a concept of sequence in order to say that x happened "before" y.

    I mean, we still have to keep the concept of "before" and "after" in order to say that the Big Bang happened, and that time didn't exist "before" it happened.

    What meaning does time have that goes beyond sequence? Whatever it means beyond sequence is what must have started at some point. Sequence had to exist already.

    So, how does sequence fail some test that time satisfies? We know that, in the course of 24 hours on a clock, the Earth always does a complete revolution. We don't need time for that. We know that the clock always goes through its process exactly when the sun does its process. Not "before". Not "after".

    Or.... does someone have a compelling argument for how it's possible that the very concept of sequence started at the Big Bang?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Suppose we throw out the concept of "time".
    We can't. Well, actually, we can, but that would destroy any concept of change. The only way we could get rid of "time" (except for the conscious sense) would be to relegate ourselves the single period of T = now and that would be it. Essentially, we'd cease to exist as anything more than a snapshot.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I mean, we still have to keep the concept of "before" and "after" in order to say that the Big Bang happened, and that time didn't exist "before" it happened.
    Using terms like "before" and "after" implies a temporal property, so if you remove "time" and then say "before" or "after," then time is still in the mix. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What meaning does time have that goes beyond sequence?
    Well, since "time" is the word we use to describe particular instances of "sequence," I would say none. Sort of like asking "what meaning does width have beyond width."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Sequence had to exist already.
    Did it? If there was nothing to make the distinction from, could there be a sequence? Further, although it may very well be possible that the concept of "time" began at T=0 + 1, the fact that it can be retro-conceived to T = -0, adds a perspective "before the before." But, as you may see, that is the joy of dealing with a concept such as "time" or "distance."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, how does sequence fail some test that time satisfies?
    Two different definitions, really. The "sequence" of events, vs the description of that sequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We know that, in the course of 24 hours on a clock, the Earth always does a complete revolution.
    Does it? It was my understanding that the forces acting on the Earth's rotation are actually gradually slowing its rotation. So, although that change might be undetectable, is each rotation the same as the next?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We don't need time for that.
    You do if you want to say things like "in the course of 24 hours" :P

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Or.... does someone have a compelling argument for how it's possible that the very concept of sequence started at the Big Bang?
    Compelling? No. Mundane maybe. Given the definition of "sequence," as soon as one event occurred after another, there could be said to be a sequence of events.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Not exacly what I meant. You can still measure time before time as a concept existed. My point was that since spacetime had a beginning it is meaningless to measure the time before spacetime, it would be like measuring time before time. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly :? .
    If there existed "something" prior to the BB, and we were able to observe phyical changes, then yes, we should be able to measure those changes with a form of time.

    But, I think this is just one of the reasons why most scientists consider that which occured prior to the BB as somewhat meaningless, since we have no idea what existed, if anything.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Time and space are aspects of the same thing.

    Therefore it didn't exist before the big bang

    Did it?

    This seems like wild speculation to me. Something that could be impossible to know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously

    Not exacly what I meant. You can still measure time before time as a concept existed. My point was that since spacetime had a beginning it is meaningless to measure the time before spacetime, it would be like measuring time before time. Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly :? .
    If there existed "something" prior to the BB, and we were able to observe phyical changes, then yes, we should be able to measure those changes with a form of time.

    But, I think this is just one of the reasons why most scientists consider that which occured prior to the BB as somewhat meaningless, since we have no idea what existed, if anything.
    It doesn't bother you to believe in a theory that creates unanswerable questions? Sure, it answers some questions too, but I doubt those questions would be entirely un-answerable without it.

    Most of my objections to the BBT are philosophical. It screams too much of the Adam and Eve, six day creation type logic, where a question needs an answer so we just jump to the most credible one that emerges right away, then close the door on whatever other theories might have emerged if we gave it more time.

    At least we agree that some notion of time (or at least something like it) would have to have existed if events of any kind were taking place prior to the Big Bang. The nature of those events is, of course, unknown and unknowable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Seems to me the biggest problem with BBT, aside from working out the mechanics, is the idea of a beginning.

    The mere existence of a beginning has huge implications, and not just that it may demand an end.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Time and space are aspects of the same thing.

    Therefore it didn't exist before the big bang

    Did it?

    This seems like wild speculation to me. Something that could be impossible to know

    You are right. However, this assumes that there is but one universe.

    I am of the belief that there is the possibility of other universes. People, mistakenly, often assume that the only possibility is a "parallel universe." I would not be so ready to assume such a possibility. I am of the mind that tangental universes could exist. Disection of our own universe holds infinite possibilities.

    Imagine another universe intersecting with our own...if only for a brief moment. It could make it "findable" and, therefore, not "impossible to know." If you imagine that our universe, or any universe for that matter, does not "travel" linearly. Then there could be multiple intersections. Grow the number of "other universes" to a great number, perhaps an infinite number. The occurence of intersections could be quite common and easily detectible...if we can find the means to detect them.

    If we are able to detect those intersections, possibilities are almost limitless. Time travel itself could suddenly become possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    4,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Time and space are aspects of the same thing.

    Therefore it didn't exist before the big bang

    Did it?

    This seems like wild speculation to me. Something that could be impossible to know
    If time did not exist before the big bang, space didn't. And matter is space, so yes logically it did. I quoted Minxy here because she makes a good point.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan.
    "I'm always relieved when someone is delivering a eulogy and I realize I'm listening to it". - George Carlin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It doesn't bother you to believe in a theory that creates unanswerable questions? Sure, it answers some questions too, but I doubt those questions would be entirely un-answerable without it.

    Most of my objections to the BBT are philosophical. It screams too much of the Adam and Eve, six day creation type logic, where a question needs an answer so we just jump to the most credible one that emerges right away, then close the door on whatever other theories might have emerged if we gave it more time.

    At least we agree that some notion of time (or at least something like it) would have to have existed if events of any kind were taking place prior to the Big Bang. The nature of those events is, of course, unknown and unknowable.
    I think the problem starts when we assume time is eternal, but I keep an open mind for other possible theories like the multiverse theory and such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    I think that you could possibly be right, that there is more than one universe.

    Most natural phenomena seem to have duality not singularity, or even possibly plurality.

    One of my private leaps of 'what if's' (with an often over-active imagination!) is the possibility that the universe, or even that which contains our universe is a spiral and this is what might make the force of gravity, black holes and curved space. It might be difficult to perceive the spiral because we are in it, for example, if i can't see no further than the merry go round i am on then everything on the merry go round will look relatively static to me, but i will still feel a mysterious centrifugal force that i can't explain, and that force might create effects on the other objects on the merry-go round that i can't explain without realising there is something else beyond my perception. The same could be possible for our universe. And if it is a spiral then there is probably a good chance it's a double spiral or even a multitude of...........?

    Please feel free to tell me if i am talking shit :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    You can be told what existed before you were born, but if you have the audacity to explain sexual encounters, you may as well erase everything before the sexual event that made you happen OR, ideally, explain how you saved everything from a certain destruction while explaining sexual mechanics: you would have to be a jesus porn star without seeming corrupt. Thats why the big bang is a completely bogas concept. It's thoroughly illogical on the religious front, and without faith there is no such a thing as hypothesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    huh, Why did the big ban occur again?

    If all that matter was in such a tight space how could it escape, wouldnt that have been the mother of all supermassive blackholes?

    was the universe made of an elemental energy that was not generating or affected by gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    The "big bang" is a theory that best explains phenomena observed by physicists according to their thorough and unrelenting use of "linear time" as their tool of cause and effect inquiry. Using time in a more complex manner reveals a different theory to it's (time's) own origin. But it fascinates me, namely that scientists even in this forum argue that time is a way we measure events, before and after, cause and effect, and then they ask "when did time begin", when even they themselves say time is simply a theoretical measurement construct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Answer 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    41
    Check out my previous forum

    I CAN PROVE HEAVEN AND HELL EXISTS...AND YOULL GET YOUR ANSWER....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    24
    hmmm... :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Does not anyone find that interesting though, namely that many in this forum steadfastly argue that time is a measurement device, a theoretical thing, and then they also ask "when did time begin" (big bang), like when did a theoretical thing, a measurement construct, begin? Does not anyone find that mildly "psuedo"? I know this is a "broken glass" topic, as many have suffered by their opinions, but surely there is someone brave enough to clarify the definition of time, and how a theoretical measurement entity such as time can have a "real" beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    ...and then they ask "when did time begin", when even they themselves say time is simply a theoretical measurement construct.
    I like that. We're asking when did a concept we created in our own mind begin?

    I guess whenever we say the concept began is when it began. It's our imagination that's creating it. I guess it can create a starting point if it wants to. The question is: is there a reason why the concept *shouldn't* extend to the pre-big bang era?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    I think the idea of time being a concept V time being a real starting point should be a little more serious to those who argue time is a measurement while also being a physical reality that had a starting point. Exactly what are they saying?

    If anyone is going to say that time can be found as an origin, they may as well suggest it is as close to a real thing as possible. What real thing though? Well, what is a constant, what represents a constant value, a limit, beyond which things cannot pass in time? The speed of light. So, why not model a theory of time on the properties of the manifestation of light, namely a binary wave (perpedicular to itself) propagating radially on a spherical energy front? I guess though that's a little too abstract for the science community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    ...but surely there is someone brave enough to clarify the definition of time, and how a theoretical measurement entity such as time can have a "real" beginning.
    We've done that already. Time is just a term for the description of change.

    Where that comes into play with the BB is that if we assume that there was nothing before the BB, then you can place a time point at the start of the BB ( T = 0 ).

    Without any reference points before the BB, it's difficult (but not impossible) to apply a change description (ie time) to before the BB (without the "before" being inclusive).

    "Time" itself isn't real. Like we've discussed before, "time" is like "distance." It's just a descriptor. It's a name we give to a measurement so as to differentiate it from other measurements. You could just as easily say that "distance started at the BB event."
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    ...but surely there is someone brave enough to clarify the definition of time, and how a theoretical measurement entity such as time can have a "real" beginning.
    We've done that already. Time is just a term for the description of change.

    Where that comes into play with the BB is that if we assume that there was nothing before the BB, then you can place a time point at the start of the BB ( T = 0 ).

    Without any reference points before the BB, it's difficult (but not impossible) to apply a change description (ie time) to before the BB (without the "before" being inclusive).

    "Time" itself isn't real. Like we've discussed before, "time" is like "distance." It's just a descriptor. It's a name we give to a measurement so as to differentiate it from other measurements. You could just as easily say that "distance started at the BB event."

    So, if anyone is going to say that time can be found as a point, they may as well suggest it is as close to a real thing as possible. What real thing though? Well, what is a constant, what represents a constant value, a limit, beyond which things cannot pass in time? The speed of light. So, why not model a theory of time on the properties of the manifestation of light, namely a binary wave (perpedicular to itself) propagating radially on a spherical energy front? Too abstract? We give distance dimensions as close as possible to the real thing, so why not for time as well? Why not apply time to a known "constant", like the mechanics of light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    In effect we actually use time as a measurement for time accuracy. Ironic, huh?

    We take something that is extremely precise, and measure it, and calculate off of that measurement. A cesium clock doesn't contain time, or better time, but we use it as a more accurate "ruler" to measure against our notion of time. Remember that "time" is merely a description of the change from one point to the next. What exists at each point isn't time, nor even relevant. The "point" is simply one mark to measure change from. This is the same as measuring a distance. The points A and B are meaningless, because it's the measurement between them that is the distance. There doesn't have to be anything at point A or B (well...there does if you want to measure something meaningful...but still...)
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    I wonder if we would suggest that distance itself started with the Big Bang? If understand right, the current theory is that basically the universe starts over again if you go far enough to reach the edge? (I mean in a similar sense to how the Earth seems to start over again if you fully circumnavigate it)


    So, would we argue that, prior to the Big Bang, there was no distance, or would we suggest that the universe was infintisimally small. IE. the distance across it was not zero, but pretty darn close to zero.


    Would we argue, then, that time gets infinitely fast as we approach the Big Bang, or infinitely slow? (Like if we could time travel to see it, or something) Or would it always go the same speed, but just suddenly stop at that moment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    In effect we actually use time as a measurement for time accuracy. Ironic, huh?

    We take something that is extremely precise, and measure it, and calculate off of that measurement. A cesium clock doesn't contain time, or better time, but we use it as a more accurate "ruler" to measure against our notion of time. Remember that "time" is merely a description of the change from one point to the next. What exists at each point isn't time, nor even relevant. The "point" is simply one mark to measure change from. This is the same as measuring a distance. The points A and B are meaningless, because it's the measurement between them that is the distance. There doesn't have to be anything at point A or B (well...there does if you want to measure something meaningful...but still...)


    So, essentially, we aim to use time to be as precise with the greatest distinctions of change in space as possible. Once again I could suggest the plausibility of using time like the footprint of quanta itself. But no one is interested. But on a more interesting front aside from clearly the absurd suggestion of constructing the ruler of time as a footprint of quanta, going back as far as possible with our ability to measure, well, it would create a type of error of calculation the closer you would get to a situation that presumably had no definable change to measure, the presumed pre-big bang state, a state that essentially represents, presumably if indeed energy dissipated uniformaly from the so-called big-bang, a spherical front of complete nothingness, as though the infinite extension of space represents a "0" concept of time. How strange. Interesting to maybe theorise a potential model of space-time that accommodates for such a concept, no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I wonder if we would suggest that distance itself started with the Big Bang?
    We kinda did already, but anyway...

    If we define "distance" as the separation measurement between two points, and we don't consider perpetual 0 as distance, then distance could only come into use from the dawn of the BB, onward, since before the BB there were no two points to measure from.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

    So, essentially, we aim to use time to be as precise with the greatest distinctions of change in space as possible.
    What do mean by 'changes in space?'

    Once again I could suggest the plausibility of using time like the footprint of quanta itself. But no one is interested.
    Why would anyone be interested in the nonsensical?

    How strange. Interesting to maybe theorise a potential model of space-time that accommodates for such a concept, no?
    No. What you are proposing is an 'absolute' time, which does not exist.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

    So, essentially, we aim to use time to be as precise with the greatest distinctions of change in space as possible.
    What do mean by 'changes in space?'

    Once again I could suggest the plausibility of using time like the footprint of quanta itself. But no one is interested.
    Why would anyone be interested in the nonsensical?

    How strange. Interesting to maybe theorise a potential model of space-time that accommodates for such a concept, no?
    No. What you are proposing is an 'absolute' time, which does not exist.

    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation. In being as nice as possible with the way you have jumped in on this conversation, essentially we have been discussing how "time" is essentially a measurement of "change" (oh, I hear the criticism coming), a measurment if you will (O), and yet we argue that this "merasurement", this virtual thing, has a beginning with the "big bang": do you find that nonsensical, namely a "measurement" construct such as time could have a "beginning, like it is a real thing. The argument then swung to "time" being a measurement that tries to be as definitive with change as possible, like with atomic clocks. I then suggested the idea of not just an atomic clock, but a quantum footprint. Then I proposed "absolute time" as a model for the big bang, which you then accused me of not existing (like I was explaining how to accommodate for the big bang, if you could read). What do you think Q, now that you have been briefed on the actual train of thought going on recently in this post? Please don't jump in and criticise the way you do. You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation.
    Would that be the train of logic you've managed to derail?

    You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    I am as free to identify your nonsense as you are to spout it.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation.
    Would that be the train of logic you've managed to derail?

    You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    I am as free to identify your nonsense as you are to spout it.

    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation.
    Would that be the train of logic you've managed to derail?

    You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    I am as free to identify your nonsense as you are to spout it.

    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    It isn't real.

    It's a relative construct of the mind.

    Therefore the mind constructs a beginning and an end.

    You do talk nonsense, frequently, on this thread as well as others.

    How can you be so insultingly serious about a subject which is obviously impossible to get to the bottom of.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    The thing time measures had a beginning, ok theQuestIsNotOver?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation.
    Would that be the train of logic you've managed to derail?

    You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    I am as free to identify your nonsense as you are to spout it.

    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    It isn't real.

    It's a relative construct of the mind.

    Therefore the mind constructs a beginning and an end.

    You do talk nonsense, frequently, on this thread as well as others.

    How can you be so insultingly serious about a subject which is obviously impossible to get to the bottom of.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad

    What's sad?

    That we can't get to the bottom of explaining the big bang?

    Did time exist before the big bang?

    Ever heard that one?

    What even ask the question, Selene?

    Stephen Hawking prefers to mock the Papacy in favor of his big bang theory: that's sad.

    And I really need to remind you, I haven't presented a case on anything: everything I have presented is a question leading to a new question. Oh, but that's sad, right? Ever seen a "hypothetical" presented by Geoffery Robertson?


    And Kalster, so what exactly is that thing that time measures that had a beginning, if I can continue with my questions (and please don't say "space-time", for obvious reasons)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    There you go again Q, off on your tangents of criticism, never following the general train of conversation.
    Would that be the train of logic you've managed to derail?

    You are an argumentative sock-puppet who pays no attention to the evolution of a discussion. This is the second time, Q, who have made nonsensical and disruptive comments aimed to derail discussions. I alert the attention once again of Moderators to your antics. Be off.
    I am as free to identify your nonsense as you are to spout it.

    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    It isn't real.

    It's a relative construct of the mind.

    Therefore the mind constructs a beginning and an end.

    You do talk nonsense, frequently, on this thread as well as others.

    How can you be so insultingly serious about a subject which is obviously impossible to get to the bottom of.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad

    What's sad?

    That we can't get to the bottom of explaining the big bang?

    Did time exist before the big bang?

    Ever heard that one?

    What even ask the question, Selene?

    Stephen Hawking prefers to mock the Papacy in favor of his big bang theory: that's sad.

    And I really need to remind you, I haven't presented a case on anything: everything I have presented is a question leading to a new question. Oh, but that's sad, right?
    Questions never answered and going on and leading nowhere except back to start with no money for passing GO.

    Stephen Hawking? Mock the Papacy?

    I don't think Hawking was mocking anyone.

    You obviously mock science with your theist taint

    I smell a zealot......yeah well......now where did i put my coat.......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Thank God for that.

    So......


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The thing time measures had a beginning, ok theQuestIsNotOver?
    Kalster, if the thing time measures had a beginning, what does time measure that had a beginning. And, yes, try not to say "space-time", for obvious reasons, unless of course you are suggesting time wants to measure itself and thus perhaps be self-aware (another discussion entirely).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The thing time measures had a beginning, ok theQuestIsNotOver?
    How can you be sure? Maybe time always was. Everything that says where time came from or if time had a beginning or will have an end is merely a guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The thing time measures had a beginning, ok theQuestIsNotOver?
    If time is defined as simply a measurement of change, then maybe that could have a beginning. Are we to imagine that all change began at the moment of the Big Bang, then?


    Time as a concept, of course extends forever in all directions, just as distance as a concept extends infinitely far in all directions. But, just because distance extends infinitely far doesn't mean the universe extends that far, I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    If I were to say time existed "before" the big bang, would you insult me?

    "Before" is a concept of "time"......and time is relevant to "after" the Big Bang (also).

    So, the "Big Bang" would be a concept surrounded by both "before" and "after", right?

    Or, is that too transcendental?

    Maybe a theory of time that incorporates time as "before" and "after" could help our inability to speak in chorus about "time"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    I know where Quest is leading this discussion to.....

    It's obvious
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    A physics shit-fight never witnessed on the face of this planet?

    A physicist "survival of the fittest" "thunderdome"?

    "two man enter, one man leave"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.
    There's nothing sinister about a BS meter going off with your posts all the time.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    Sorry, I'm unable to sync up to your overactive imagination.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    84
    Hello guys,

    I spent a day discussing time with a friend with much more intelligence than me. We were able to draw a few conclusions.

    Time is indeed a measurement of process, that’s all. We live in the, “Now.” The past is an accumulation of, Nows.”

    The Big Bang is a gross over simplification. The Big Bounce maybe.

    To ask was there something before the big bang the answer is a simple, yes. If there was nothing before the BB then there could be nothing after or during.

    Vincent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver


    Q, when you jump into a post and discard previous conversations only to call someone nonsensical, you are not going to be liked. On the surface, it may appear as though you are just causing trouble, but I suspect something more sinister that only your twisted repetitive trait of trying to win an argument espouses.
    There's nothing sinister about a BS meter going off with your posts all the time.

    In getting back to the point of topic (namely the big bang and time), an important distinction we are trying to make is that in agreeing time is a "virtual measurement construct", nothing real, then how can we suggest that the "nothing real" thing (time) has a beginning?

    Any insights Q?
    Sorry, I'm unable to sync up to your overactive imagination.


    Finally, someone has has an excuse for the lack of imaginative development of theoretical physics: me.


    Oh, Vincent:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent
    Hello guys,

    I spent a day discussing time with a friend with much more intelligence than me. We were able to draw a few conclusions.

    Time is indeed a measurement of process, that’s all. We live in the, “Now.” The past is an accumulation of, Nows.”

    The Big Bang is a gross over simplification. The Big Bounce maybe.

    To ask was there something before the big bang the answer is a simple, yes. If there was nothing before the BB then there could be nothing after or during.

    Vincent
    I'm thinking of contacting "Rupert Murdoch" about opening a new newspaper, "Now News", that depends only on the here and now.

    (if you want to understand truth, I am lying about that one)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    84
    What I was trying to say is people think of time as a continuum and there is a theoretic way to possibly go back in time or forward.

    Time is a measurement of process that is all. Time is a point with a tail, not a line. Some tails are longer because of the length of process that would represent age.

    We can look back in time relative to light speed travel. All we are seeing is a reflection of light the way it was years ago. The further we look the more noise and distortion and guesswork.

    I jumped into this conversation because it ask was there anything before the BB. To say all of a sudden an area of energy the size of my hand expanded and formed the entire universe with no reason for the existence of this ball of energy is suspect.

    If I said it you would search my room for rolling papers and roach clips.

    Vincent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    If I said it you would search my room for rolling papers and roach clips.
    Kafka, is that you?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    84
    KALSTER,

    I do not know this Kafka, sorry. Must have been a great guy.

    Vincent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Good answer
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •