Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Did time have a beginning?


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 Quadra

Quadra
  • 439 posts

Posted 11 March 2007 - 09:34 PM

One of those age old questions I often ponder. Can something that is all encompassing have a beginning? In some circles it is thought that time can be measured and hence have started somewhere. Others believe the whole notion of time to be a mental construct; just a convenient way of keeping track of things. I still have not arrived upon any interesting insights so it would be nice to get some opinions.



#2 Cataliste

Cataliste
  • Codex's Right Hand

  • 4662 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 March 2007 - 10:13 PM

I think tim does actually exist, nad it HAD to have a beggining. Everything does. Though when and how it began are a mystery to me and I don't claim to fully understand it.

Nothing has ALWAYS been around.

#3 S3project

S3project
  • 42 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 01:05 AM

dude that was something man was not supposed to know

#4 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:07 AM

I don't believe time did have a beginning*, i've never quite understood why people can't comprehend that everything doesn't NEED to have a beginning, it could just be there...perhaps it's because the human lifespan is so short, so we can't understand fully things which are infinite, perhaps we never will.

* Of course it depends on how you define time. tongue.gif

Edited by Laser Wave, 12 March 2007 - 05:08 AM.


#5 Southrnsweety

Southrnsweety
  • 154 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:29 AM

We may never know when time acutually began... Though it had to begin in order for us to have time now.

#6 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:47 AM

There's an answer to this. biggrin.gif
It doesn't.
Any of you know the theory of relativity?
Time is relative, meaning a day here isn't the same as a day on Mars and so on and so forth.
If time works differently everywhere else, it has to be a mental construct.
It couldn't have an existence if it had no consistency whatsoever.
Well, it could, but that's beside the point.
Time doesn't exist; we just make it seem to be a real thing. smile.gif

#7 Ives

Ives
  • 4320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:37 AM

Time exists. Measurement of time is man made.

I believe time is infinite, its the one thing that is. That would be the only plausible godless version behind the big bang.

#8 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 04:49 PM

Where do you get the idea that time is infinite if it isn't even constant at the same time. blink.gif
Now, that's a definition of what time is at that moment.
Between here and Mars or Venus or Jupiter or any other God forsaken planet in the universe, it's a different time, a different day, a different year, now.
We have time zones...
Men don't have the power to change something that exists into something nice and orderly. Time zones were created to make it easier on us, because the figment of our imagination called time wasn't working to well in it's previous state...
Daylights Savings... the manipulation of time around the world... men don't have the power to do that.
We thought it up; we imagined it.
We imagine monsters, are they real?
We imagine magic, is that real?
We imagine that order exists, but we know it doesn't...
Our imagination constitutes nothing. Sure our imaginations inspire us to manipulate physical objects into doing what we want, but our creating another dimension is out of the question...
:X
Can't believe I brought about dimensions. xD
If you know how to reply to that, please don't. Make another thread if you feel, but this isn't the place. tongue.gif

#9 Nick

Nick
  • <img src="http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg">

  • 6051 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:04 PM

This sort of thing scares me. sad.gif

#10 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:12 PM

QUOTE(ArchAngel. @ Mar 13 2007, 12:49 AM) View Post
Where do you get the idea that time is infinite if it isn't even constant at the same time. blink.gif
Now, that's a definition of what time is at that moment.
Between here and Mars or Venus or Jupiter or any other God forsaken planet in the universe, it's a different time, a different day, a different year, now.
We have time zones...
Men don't have the power to change something that exists into something nice and orderly. Time zones were created to make it easier on us, because the figment of our imagination called time wasn't working to well in it's previous state...
Daylights Savings... the manipulation of time around the world... men don't have the power to do that.
We thought it up; we imagined it.
We imagine monsters, are they real?
We imagine magic, is that real?
We imagine that order exists, but we know it doesn't...
Our imagination constitutes nothing. Sure our imaginations inspire us to manipulate physical objects into doing what we want, but our creating another dimension is out of the question...
:X
Can't believe I brought about dimensions. xD
If you know how to reply to that, please don't. Make another thread if you feel, but this isn't the place. tongue.gif

You are misunderstanding the difference between time and our perception of time.
What you are saying is that because metres are a man-imagined construct, length therefore does not exist.

#11 Jewbert

Jewbert
  • 3387 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:22 PM

Uhhhh I don't even have the logics to try to even make out when TIME started, or began.
Can't think that intelligently. I sux0rz.

#12 ink

ink
  • 2189 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:51 PM

If you believe in the big bang, then you know that from the point at which the big bang happened nothing was in motion then everything contained was constantly set in motion. From which everything started, there was no time since there was nothing to compare to. The fact time must be compared in order to prove its existence proves that it exists but as a non-physical construct. Time isn't what you see when you see a clock. What you see on a clock is the measure in simplified units of a rotation of a planet body which was set in motion by the big bang. We don't measure time as it exists, we measure it from a point entity, but we don't know the exact point so we do not know true time.
Our major problem is that we measure things from a backwards point of view for time. If we say the big bang started motion and the constructs of the universe, then what before it set it in motion and in itself time? We take from our current point from a beginning we do not know, we estimate the beginning of time itself from the start of the big bang. So in essence we are measuring a concept with its own comparative measure. Which would be a question much like the chicken and the egg.
In view: Point A is the motionless construct, not yet a space or universe in which to move, an empty construct. Point B is the current state at which we are in. To move from Point A to B everything was set in motion. Measuring this motion from Point A would require it be a center point. From this center point motion sent things moving from multiple areas to areas known in Point A. As we see time, time is a measure on how this motion effects us from a point of view from a single body of flaming gas, called the sun. We are measuring the distance of our movement from Point A, although we don't know Point A itself, so we start from a distance we defined.
If we found the exact point among where the universe exists and voids to exist, we know the point at which everything was created, thus having a measure. Time is a measure of distance from a point unknown. Time itself is not an entity, but a nameless entity encompasses time at which it created.
This leads to another question, if before time, what was there? The point at which it started was void, but perhaps there were other null voids.
It is much like my parasitic theory: Each part of the entire universe and even time itself is shown as a parasite. They use self and previously defined resources, each taking form from other resources. Each of the parasites has a limit, a pre-defined amount of resources that it takes. Others take upon that resource. We use up energy and space as a concept. The planet in which we live is the same. The galaxy we are in takes space among the universe. Time is a set difference, a point from a defined resource of the universe. Time is parasitic to the universe, but the universe is also parasitic to time. Time and the universe the only true symbiotic entity. As we know the universe to be an entity then the concept of time is as well. If this is true, why is this a symbiotic only between these two? Is it because we are limited to one universe with a limited span of an infinite measure? Or is it because there are things beyond just the construct and structure of the universe and time? Is there a body into which the universe and time is the parasite? If so, then is that body a parasite to another?

#13 jrdc999

jrdc999
  • 155 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:52 PM

i think so


not sure u made me confused

#14 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 06:17 PM

QUOTE(Sunscorch)
You are misunderstanding the difference between time and our perception of time.
What you are saying is that because metres are a man-imagined construct, length therefore does not exist.

Time is a perception...
Let's delve deeper into the theory of relativity. A fruit fly lives what? 24 hours? To that fruit fly we can assume that it feels that time as a lifetime. To us, 80 years is a lifetime. The planet, billions/trillions of years. The universe itself, indefinitely.
Everything has a perception of time. It's measurements, aspects, relative importance and the units used to measure it. Since everything has it's own perception, time isn't a controllable aspect of anything.
Now that we determined time could not be controlled, let's talk about time itself. Time isn't a thing. It is just a set of events, motion. Motion can't be reversed; time can't.
*Continues towards Inks perception*
We can all conclude that time and motion are similar. Time is dependent on the existence of motion. Motion only exists when time does.
But, what is motion?
The expenditure of energy.
No, the change in energy.
Energy is constant. Energy is everything and everything is energy. Energy is the basis of all and everything is the basis of energy's form. Now, time is just a concept of that change in energy. It is a *method* of recording change.
Time couldn't have a beginning, because there is no definite beginning.
Sure, we could say the universe started approximately 25 trillion years ago or whatever the consensus is at the time, but that is merely the beginning of one construct.
Ink, I'm sorry but there is a major contradiction I have to point out... You believe in the Big Bang, therefore you believe in energy and the fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The Big Bang was the expansion of a single indefinite point of extreme (an understatement) energy that expanded and changed form...
Energy is indefinable, but we all know that synonym called motion. It is impossible for an absolute zero to occur on the universe, on everything. A point between A and B doesn't exist. The universe exists because it is a disturbance. Everything is based on a disturbance. Hence chaos theory, which defines a nonlinear dynamical system. An example, our universe. A disturbance had to have occurred to have "nudged" the universe to be formed. It didn't decide to out of it's own volition, therefore, something existed next to that point of energy called the universe, therefore time has to have always existed, therefore motion must have always existed, therefore there is no beginning. smile.gif

#15 Gargar

Gargar
  • 4901 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 06:51 PM

The human mind is so wrapped around the conecept of time ever since as long back to sun dials and all of that it's ,imo, mentaly impossible to think that there was no time at some point.

#16 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 06:53 PM

Um... you do know that the theory of relativity (either of them) has nothing to do with differing perceptions of time, right?
Basically, you're spouting bullshit, my friend. 13.8 billion years is roughly the accepted age of the universe, not 25 trillion.
Just because humans have the need to apply their own constructs to a constant, does not mean that the constant does not exist on a fundamental level.

Oh, and motion is not a change in energy, either. Only acceleration requires a change in energy.

#17 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 08:08 PM

One, I knew I was off on the age.

Second, Wtf are you talking about?
Theory of Relativity uses the concept of the space-time continuum. I'm not talking about that at all though, it's just food for thought. Moving on, a consequence of the Theory of Relativity is called time dilation. Experiments with time dilation and the effects thereof by the theory of relativity offer and pretty much prove the idea that time is relative. BOTH theories of relativity, general AND special incur time dilation.
I take what you said as an insult.
Why don't you stuff that shit back in your ass and read the whole fuckin page on a theory instead of the first God damned sentence. The theory of relativity isn't so amazing because of the first few words associated with it.

All motion starts/ends with the transfer of energy. Motion is existent based upon energy. Whether something is moving because it has energy in it or it isn't moving because there is not enough energy. It is the existence/lack of energy.

#18 hoju

hoju
  • 1831 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 08:33 PM

If it didn't start/have a beginning, then why do we have time and dates?

#19 Aetas

Aetas
  • 507 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:09 PM

HYDRO GET YOUR ASS IN HERE, and explain to these peeps the talk we had about Allah STW making us not able to understand time. You're the only one who explains it well!!!! GET IN HERE DAMNIT! *Me and hydro...we go back. smile.gif )

#20 Lemonblood

Lemonblood
  • 2830 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 09:57 PM

Yes.

#21 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:08 PM

Time dilation is a prediction of the Special & General Theories of Relativity, not the subject of them, and it has nothing to do with perception of time.

Your stipulation that all motion begins and ends with the transfer of energy is correct, but totally irrelevant.

Edited by Sunscorch, 12 March 2007 - 10:19 PM.


#22 Vegas

Vegas
  • Why So Serious?

  • 2323 posts


Users Awards

Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:22 PM

Simple answer-Build a time machine and find out!!!!!! Use the cosmic string theory.

#23 ArchAngel.

ArchAngel.
  • 991 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:45 AM

QUOTE(Sunscorch @ Mar 12 2007, 11:08 PM) View Post
Time dilation is a prediction of the Special & General Theories of Relativity, not the subject of them, and it has nothing to do with perception of time.

Your stipulation that all motion begins and ends with the transfer of energy is correct, but totally irrelevant.

Prediction?
QUOTE(NASA)
Effects of the right magnitude have been measured to be consistent with time dilation to within measurement uncertainty. These are not definitive proofs of the theory but strong indications that the theory is correct. One experiment has been to fly atomic clocks in planes around the Earth in opposite directions. The difference in time between the two clocks after the flights was consistent with those predicted by time dilation. Furthermore muons, sub-atomic particles created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays, are unstable and fall apart after a short period of time. However because they move close to the speed of light, their lifetimes are longer, at least as seen by us on the Earth's surface. This extended life, is also consistent with the prediction of time dilation.

A little more info on the atomic clock experiment, the clocks that flew came back with more time added on, because they were flown at high atmospheres, so gravitational time dilation went into effect. So did special, because the the speeds they went at. Gravitational won out...

Also, my talk about motion was to disprove the nonexistence of the universe.

#24 Wicked

Wicked
  • 2057 posts

Posted 13 March 2007 - 05:54 AM

*sigh* you are getting mixed up between the existence in time and the measurement of time. Like they said before, the measurement of time was human made. Though you are correct that time is different everywhere in the universe, there is time. If there wasn't, then why do we even see the stars in the sky at night? Even tho they are billions of light years away and do have different man measurements of time, if there was not time then the speed of light could not exist. We would not see the stars because the TIME it takes for the speed of light to get here would not exist.

I may be random but I know what I'm talking about.

And yes I do believe time exist.
now I'm going to go warm me up some more water....

Edited by Shadowwolves, 13 March 2007 - 05:55 AM.


#25 travis

travis
  • 5408 posts


Users Awards

Posted 13 March 2007 - 06:50 AM

Time was created with man. Time is nothing more than a simple number system to...errr, gauge how long has passed. Of course time had a creation.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users