07 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat? You just told us that t=0. Therefore there is time. Why are you claiming that there is no time? Or are you thinking that we are dealing with something like mass, where 0kg means no mass?
But the point is that at the point in time t=0 there is no time?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterthe problem with you is that your "logic" sounds very nice in your head. looks nice to you when you type it. looks very nice to you when you see what happened after you pressed Post.
I knew you would try a way to avoid seeing the paradox.
I'm not talking about the South pole . The question should be how did the south pole come about in the first place. Please stay on track and address the issue.
Either the beginning of time is an event or it isn't , if it is an event then it cannot have occurred at a point within time. ...[text shortened]... egan" is meaningless. And if time did not begin then that implies that time has always been.
and because it is so nice and fluffy, you wonder why we don't see it that way as well.
07 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…But the point is that at the point IN time t=0 there is no time …. (my emphasis)
But the point is that at the point in time t=0 there is no time , so how does time begin ? How does the beginning of time occur if there is not time for it to begin in?
Sure , time exists between points t=0 and t=0.00000000000001 but by then time has already begun. My point is - how does t=0 get to t=0.00001 in the first place?
If change can only occur in time then how did that change come about since t=0?
So there was a point of time “IN” some kind of other time when time was t=0? -so what is the premise for the belief that there is some “other” time that the time in our universe existed “IN“?
… Sure , time exists between points t=0 and t=0.00000000000001 but by then time has already begun. My point is - how does t=0 get to t=0.00001 in the first place? …
Why would it not go from t=0 to t=0.00001? I don’t understand your point here -there appears to be no logical “problem” that you are pointing out here.
How does it logically follow from:
1, by t=0.00000000000001 time exists already
That:
2, t=0 cannot get to t=0.00001 in the first place
And what do you mean by “in the first place” in the 2, above?
Please state your argument.
…If change can only occur in time then how did that change come about since t=0?…
Why would no change come about since t=0? How does it logically follow from:
1, change can only occur in time
That:
2, change cannot come about since t=0
?
-unless what you mean by “change” is the “change” of time itself (and NOT things that exist in time) from t=0 to, say, t=1 and what you are saying is that that “change” must occur in some other kind of other time because “change can only occur in time” ? if so, that is just wordplay because time does not “change” in some other kind of time to go from t=0 to t=1 thus the rule that is true by definition “change can only occur in time” does not apply to time itself! If it did, then, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning, that would mean that to go from any point of time t=x to a second later in time t=x+1 that “change” would have to occur “in” some other time and, similarly, that other time in turn would have to exist “in” some other time for the same reason and so on… do you believe that?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is an odd variation on the various paradoxes posed by Zeno.
But the point is that at the point in time t=0 there is no time , so how does time begin ? How does the beginning of time occur if there is not time for it to begin in?
Sure , time exists between points t=0 and t=0.00000000000001 but by then time has already begun. My point is - how does t=0 get to t=0.00001 in the first place?
If change can only occur in time then how did that change come about since t=0?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
If I am taking a journey, what is the first distance that I traverse? A step? Well, a step can be
divided into a half step. 1/2 step then? Well, that, too, can be divided. And so on. Therefore,
I can never take the journey because I can never initiate it. Therefore the journey is illusory.
Before you existed, there existed no 't' for you. As soon as you were conceived (just to avoid
argument), t=0 for you. That is, for your frame of reference, t=0 at conception is a reasonable
assignment. There's no reason to disbelieve the existence of t=-1, or t=-10 or t=-1x10^13857,
but it's all supposition and inference.
If we are taking, as the frame of reference, the Universe, then t=0 at the Big Bang. Doing so
doesn't mean that there isn't t=-1, &c. But because of the event of the Big Bang, we can't but
speculate about what t=-1 might be. There might be no events preceding t=0, but because we
can measure events afterward, we can extrapolate the passage of time before the first event
we decide to assign to t=0.
Nemesio
07 Oct 08
Am I the only one in the whole universe who speculate of a twodimensional timeframe? And that the two are separable only in extreme environments, like in event of the BigBang?
Isn't this a good speculation along with all others? Doesn't it gives answers not possible for a onedimensional timefram only?
We accept stringtheory's 11 dimensional space without a blink, but protect ourselves from the thought of a twodimensional time? What's the scare about that?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasNot ALL of us accept 11 dimensions of string theory....
Am I the only one in the whole universe who speculate of a twodimensional timeframe? And that the two are separable only in extreme environments, like in event of the BigBang?
Isn't this a good speculation along with all others? Doesn't it gives answers not possible for a onedimensional timefram only?
We accept stringtheory's 11 dimensional space with ...[text shortened]... ut protect ourselves from the thought of a twodimensional time? What's the scare about that?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you identify the event B with the beginning of time, then presumably B and the beginning of time occurred simultaneously. So where is the problem?
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.
Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)
Thoughts?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydSome of us don't even accept evolution, and that is religion.
Not ALL of us accept 11 dimensions of string theory....
Most of the string theoreticians accept a 11 dimensional spatial world.
But nowhere I've seen anyone with even a slightest comment of a two dimensional time. Is it really my own invention? May I call it the "Fabian dimension of time"?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by bbarrThere might be no problem if one accepts that time is not neccessary for existence. There is of course the secondary problem of why did time start in the first place.
If you identify the event B with the beginning of time, then presumably B and the beginning of time occurred simultaneously. So where is the problem?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFirstly , try to understand that I am trying to address two propositions that to me are contradictory
[b]…But the point is that at the point IN time t=0 there is no time …. (my emphasis)
So there was a point of time “IN” some kind of other time when time was t=0? -so what is the premise for the belief that there is some “other” time that the time in our universe existed “IN“?
… Sure , time exists between points t=0 and t=0.0000000000000 ...[text shortened]... urn would have to exist “in” some other time for the same reason and so on… do you believe that?
a) nothing can exist/occur without time (or there is no such thing as a timeless state of existence) OR there can be no "before" the Big Bang.
and b) time has a beginning at t=0
I think what you are missing here is that t=0 implies timelessness and if t=0 is timeless then it exists in a timeless state. The event B creates time in which things can exist and happen but in order for that to happen event B has to happen first.
Let me put it another way. Every change , transformation or beginning of something we know of occurs wthin the space/ time of the universe. However , the Universe only exists because of event B (beginning of time).
Therefore the transformation , change that occurs from t=0 to t=1 cannot happen within the confines of time because time doesn't exist. So what we logically have then is a change/transformation of some sort occuring or starting outside the realms of time as we know it.
It's a logical implication of saying that t=0 > t=1 is the start of time and everything.
How does time start? It cannot start itself because t=0. It cannot start "in time" because t=0 , it has to logically start outside the confines of time as we know it . It breaks the rule that says everything must occur within time.
Therefore , the logical implication of saying that time has a beginning must be that there are some things that can be initiated outside the realms of time itself (ie event B) and if this is true it makes a mockery of many your objections about me saying what came "before" the universe.
I can rightly argue that some events can occur with no need of time in timeless states , therefore , there could have been some kind of before the big bang. Time is obviously not a pre-requisite for some events (eg event B).
So come on hammy , think a little harder , think outside the box.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy doesn't 0kg mean no mass?
What? You just told us that t=0. Therefore there is time. Why are you claiming that there is no time? Or are you thinking that we are dealing with something like mass, where 0kg means no mass?
Does t=0 not mean that there is no time?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd yet what you just posted lacks any substance or argument. If you have spotted a flaw in my argument then state it. Otherwise it's you that is being "fluffy".
the problem with you is that your "logic" sounds very nice in your head. looks nice to you when you type it. looks very nice to you when you see what happened after you pressed Post.
and because it is so nice and fluffy, you wonder why we don't see it that way as well.
07 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut all this is merely your attempts at using wordplay to imply that there was a t=-0.0000000000000001.-------------whitey-----------
There you go again, using a word (began in this case) then using the definition of the word to make a claim about something. Sorry, but that is just bad logic.
If 'began' means 'a special type of event' then no, time never 'began'.
From t=0 to t=0.0000000000000001 is a change in time with an accompanying change in energy, so that is an event. t=0 when ...[text shortened]... ing more meaningful than attempting to prove something based on a label you have given it.
I am not implying there is a t= -0.000000000000001 and I have never said so.
Let me put it this way. Ok , so t=0 , if nothing happens or changes then t=0 .If nothing happens then t will just be 0.
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Now obviously for time to begin or get going something's gotta give and happen....
But....it can't happen because there's no time for it to happen in....
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
t=0 (time doesn't exist)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
...but you and others say that t=0 changes to t=1
Does this change happen "IN TIME" of course it can't because t=0.
Therefore , change and transformation can happen without the need of time. Timeless change is possible.
Of course we could say that time has no beginning but many don't like that idea , instead we could invoke strange circles where time has a beginning but also doesn't ...kind of.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeister0kg means no mass.
Why doesn't 0kg mean no mass?
Does t=0 not mean that there is no time?
t=0 does not mean no time. t=0 is merely a marker on the timeline. We only chose to call it 0 as it happens to be the initial point on the timeline. Next you will tell me that in Cartesian co-ordinates there is no x-axis at x=0. Did you miss your maths classes at school?
To give you another analogy to think about, in the polar co-ordinate system, every point on a two dimensional plane can be identified using two co-ordinates. One, r, is bounded at Zero and infinite in the other direction. The other Theta, is finite, from Zero to 2Pi.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.
Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)
Thoughts?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that "event B" and "the beginning of time" represent the same thing (and are in that respect identic)? If so, then your argument that follows seems clearly flawed.